Separation of chuch/state? Not really it seems - fed court orders cross down - Bush signs law transferring cross to DOD

[glenn1]

And I suppose that putting a cross on top of an 800 foot mountain is trying to keep religion private. My father was a WW2 veteran, and an atheist, and this cross is offensive to me.

So what that you're offended - I don't give a crap and that's not an argument for your position. It's your burden that you're offended by something like this, not ours.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm not an atheist and therefore not offended by the cross ... however it seems there are far better and more principled reasons for bringing this case other than "I'm offended by it."

 

[glenn1]

I'm not an atheist and therefore not offended by the cross ... however it seems there are far better and more principled reasons for bringing this case other than "I'm offended by it."

Bravo, well said and I agree 100%.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari
It only implies any of that if you're a paranoid radical atheist.

Glad to see you can discuss the issue rationally. :roll:

There's very little rationality in filing a lawsuit to tear down a 50 year war memorial in the first place.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: zendari
Now the question is how you make the ridiculous jump from cross = establishment of religion.

Quite simple. The cross is on government land giving the appearance that the government lends its support to Christianity and only to Christianity. There are no other religious symbols present.

But that does not establish a religion. If Christians began putting up crosses in combination with some other religious ornament would it then be okay in your view? Or would the government then be establishing two religions?

You don't understand the establishment clause either.

Sure I do. The clause is there to make sure Congress makes no laws having to do with religion. Putting a cross up in a yard, whether it be public or private, is not a law made by Congress. To me, the clause simply says that the people will determine things for themselves and that the government will stay out of it when it comes to religion. But then again I am actually reading the clause and trying to come up with my own conclusion.

Putting up a symbol of a particular religion on government property implies government sponsorship, approval and even financial favoritism for that particular religion at the expense of every other religion not equally represented.

Go do some research on the establishment clause as you clearly don't understand how it's applied.

Ah no. Anyone who reads a paper knows how it is APPLIED. I am simply talking about what the clause STATES. Congress shall make no law... Putting a cross up on government property does not equate to Congress shall make no law.

I'm not arguing application. Application is based on opinion. The application is simply an example of law making from the bench that is pretty much required when trying to apply opinion against a document filled with ambiguity. I do not have a need to do research because I fully understand the entire scope of the argument and am comfortable in knowing that, as a moderate, I can see all sides of the argument and am not blinded by a particular talking point.

In other words, how about having a friendly debate instead of falling back on the tried and true P&N 'Go do some research... you are dumb' argument.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

So it's PC nonsense to ignore the wishes of those who do not believe in mythical religions like yourself and others? Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it. If you choose to believe in fairytale religions, keep the symbols in your homes and don't force them on the rest of us.

Amen Brother!!!

 

[michaels]

Atheists are such big babies..I don't believe in the easter bunny but if a religion sprung up around it and they wanted to erect a statue I wouldn't get my undies in a wad over it.

 

[jackschmittusa]

michaels

People like you still miss the point entirely. How is it a recognized function of the government to construct and maintain religious symbols? Your tax dollars at work advertising a specific religion. Would not common sense construe that as endorsement? And every time the government does something like this, it is the same religion that they favor. Notice the pattern?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Does McDonalds have a 43 foot cross on top of a govt owned 800 foot tall mountain,
visible from I-5? I didn't think so.
Just because San Diego is filled with right-wing christians does not make this cross legal or right.

Again, I could be wrong, but all land is owned by the government.

Plus, it only shows a preference to anything if they refuse to allow anyone of any other group or religion to put their own symbol up. You can't say it's showing preference to Christianity if no one else has ever attempted to put something there.

If, however, you prohibit all groups or religions from placing anything there, you are showing preference to atheist. Let everyone put whatever they want to put there, be they Christians, Muslim, Buddist, atheist, or whatever. It's not Christians fault atheist don't have a sign or something else they want to put up.

The symbols represent the people, not the government, regardless of who owns the land. It a war memorial and should therefore represent all individuals, regardless of religious affiliation.

Like I said before though, I don't like the cross and it will not be on my gravesite, but that doesn't mean others can use it.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

There is no seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. Why do you anti religion people keep mentioning this? Show me where in the Constitution that this is mentioned?

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

Who could possibly give a sh*t? What are you, a fvcking vampire? The cross is not going to hurt you, Mary.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

What church/state clause? It doesn't exist. You anti religion people like to make things up.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Ah no. Anyone who reads a paper knows how it is APPLIED. I am simply talking about what the clause STATES. Congress shall make no law... Putting a cross up on government property does not equate to Congress shall make no law.

I'm not arguing application. Application is based on opinion. The application is simply an example of law making from the bench that is pretty much required when trying to apply opinion against a document filled with ambiguity. I do not have a need to do research because I fully understand the entire scope of the argument and am comfortable in knowing that, as a moderate, I can see all sides of the argument and am not blinded by a particular talking point.

In other words, how about having a friendly debate instead of falling back on the tried and true P&N 'Go do some research... you are dumb' argument.

In recent history, 'establishment' has been ruled to connote sponsorship, financial support and active involvement in religious activity. Placing a giant, several-story tall cross on state (or I guess now, federal) land definitely connotes sponsorship of a particular religion. It's quite clear. One could even argue financial sponsorship as I demonstrated earlier by bringing up the potential advertising value of the location and it being in direct sight of millions of freeway commuters.

It is logical to believe that a government-neutral stance regarding all things religious is the best defense for a vibrant and diverse religious community to develop. By having the government not show favoritism for a particular faith, all faiths have an equal chance to flourish.

And that is what free exercise of religion is all about.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

If some Veterans wanted a buddha or whatever why couldn't they put it up? By not allowing any religion to put up memorials or whatnot it inherently favors atheism which is in a way a religion of no religion. Should the government say thou shalt be a Christian, no, but it should also let groups be able to put whatever they want up no matter what their religion is. Hell, if the Muslims wanted to put a crescent up there, or the buddhists a buddha let them do it, I think that would be the fairest.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87

I didnt realize christianity was a religion, i'd say more a basis for religions.
Christianity is a broad term and a cross in no way establishes a state religion.

I know you don't believe the crap you just said, you would have to be a complete idiot.

The cross is a symbol that represents Christianity, which is a religion. It's not complicated, don't play dumb.

Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion.

I suppose Islam isn't a religion, just a basis for one...

If you haven't noticed there are different brands of Christianity. Just as different brands of Islam or Judaism...

I shall quote Lincoln "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
daniel49

Haven't you learned yet that " the communities will" is a lousy argument? All you need do is carry it to an extreme to show that. What if the community wanted to ignore child labor laws, or allow slavery, polygimy, etc..

State and federal constitutions define a minimum set of standards and boundries that everybody must follow.

And tyranny of the minority is as equally a lousy argument.

What exactly does this mean?

That you think Christians can't practice their religion without government support?

Kind of a strange arguement......

It means a well organized vocal minority can force the majority to their will.

They can and should be able to if that majority oversteps its rights and bounds.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
What is next if you can't put religious signs on governmental property? Next, you won't be able to talk about them, look at schools. No matter my religious belfiefs, it is ridiculous that a teacher can get fired for speaking his or her mind on the topic of religion. They can on any other topic. And as stated before, putting a cross on a memorial doesn't establish a state religion. Ever been to Arlington NATIONAL Cemetary? Oh, btw, did u know that there is a picture of the 10 commandments above the heads of the supreme court justices?

EDIT: and how could we foregt that "in God we trust" is on your money? look at how long that has survived, not because the gov forces religion down anybody's throats, if u think that, then get a life. it is meant to show our heritage, and we can all agree that many of the pilgrims, founding fathers, etc. were christians, and that was a good thing, since they obviously created the foundation for the freest and most stabe country ever.

a large number of the founding fathers would not be considered christians by modern standards. Did many of them believe in god? Of course, but often that god was a personal god and distinctly NOT the christian god. You have to realize that these were men of the enlightenment and they existed at its peak.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: themusgrat
What is next if you can't put religious signs on governmental property? Next, you won't be able to talk about them, look at schools. No matter my religious belfiefs, it is ridiculous that a teacher can get fired for speaking his or her mind on the topic of religion. They can on any other topic. And as stated before, putting a cross on a memorial doesn't establish a state religion. Ever been to Arlington NATIONAL Cemetary? Oh, btw, did u know that there is a picture of the 10 commandments above the heads of the supreme court justices?

EDIT: and how could we foregt that "in God we trust" is on your money? look at how long that has survived, not because the gov forces religion down anybody's throats, if u think that, then get a life. it is meant to show our heritage, and we can all agree that many of the pilgrims, founding fathers, etc. were christians, and that was a good thing, since they obviously created the foundation for the freest and most stabe country ever.

a large number of the founding fathers would not be considered christians by modern standards. Did many of them believe in god? Of course, but often that god was a personal god and distinctly NOT the christian god. You have to realize that these were men of the enlightenment and they existed at its peak.

Not to flame you, but I think a lot of people would disagree and say the Christian God is more personal whereas those who are Deist's believe in a creator, but one who is sort of benevolent and detached.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

What church/state clause? It doesn't exist. You anti religion people like to make things up.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

[DealMonkey]

And the saga drags ever-onward:

ACLU Represents Jewish War Veterans and San Diego Residents in Effort to Relocate Mt. Soledad Memorial

Lawsuit Seeks Transfer of Latin Cross to Non-Governmental Site

SAN DIEGO ? The American Civil Liberties Union, the Jewish War Veterans and local residents announced today that they are suing the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion.

?The ACLU believes that religious symbols, even prominently displayed, are an important and constitutionally protected form of religious expression in the public sphere,? said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. ?There is a huge difference between families and religious communities expressing their religious beliefs and the U.S. government?using all of its power, authority, financing, and property?to promote the beliefs of one faith over all others.?

The ACLU filed the lawsuit, Jewish War Veterans et al. v. Rumsfeld, after the federal government, through an Act of Congress, recently obtained title to the Mt. Soledad memorial and its surrounding property by eminent domain. The ACLU asserts that this is part of a transparent effort to evade a long series of unfavorable state and federal court decisions declaring the placement of the cross on government property unconstitutional.

In legal papers, the ACLU noted that the cross on Mt. Soledad is a Latin cross that originated with the Roman Catholic Church and it does not represent all Christian denominations, let alone other religions or non-believers. Therefore, the government is not only favoring a particular religion but a sect within that denomination.

?The federal acquisition of the Latin cross does nothing to cure the ongoing constitutional violation,? said Daniel Mach, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU?s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. ?When any government entity?federal, state, or local?uses taxpayer funds to acquire and prominently display a religious symbol that is sacred to some, but not all religious believers, it disregards the rich religious diversity in our society.?

The ACLU is representing three local individuals and the Washington, D.C. ?based Jewish War Veterans, the oldest active national veterans service organization in the country. Part of the organization?s stated mission is to ?encourage the doctrine of universal liberty, equal rights, and full justice to all men and women and to combat the powers of bigotry and darkness wherever originating and whatever the target.?

Many of JWV?s members oppose government funding that promotes religion, including the funding of the federal taking and continued display of the Latin cross on Mt. Soledad as the JWV did in similar prior legislation against the government in the 1980?s.

?Veterans of all faiths have served and died, and continue to serve and die in the war against terrorism, to uphold the tenets of our Constitution and keep our communities of faith safe from government interference. It is an affront to non-Christian veterans for their service to be commemorated by a cross,? said Norman Rosenshein, National Commander of the JWV. ?We condemn this property transfer as an election-year attempt to circumvent previous rulings and feel confident that future judicial rulings will deem the cross to be unconstitutional.?

The group?s members include individuals based in the San Diego area who regularly view the Latin cross on Mt. Soledad and who are offended by the government's communication of favoritism and endorsement of the majority faith at the expense of citizens and veterans of other faiths who died in the service of their country.

Dr. Richard Smith, a named plaintiff in the case, is a San Diego physician who has lived near Mt. Soledad for nearly 40 years. Having served as a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy from 1969 ? 1971, he said he welcomes the idea of a war memorial, but added: ?I feel that the government?s use of a single religious symbol devalues the service and sacrifices of Americans of all religious backgrounds.?

Dr. Smith is joined in the case by his wife, Mina Sagheb. Smith is Jewish and Sagheb is Muslim. Both object to the presence of the cross on public ground because they believe it undermines the contributions and sacrifices of non-Christians, especially soldiers. Also represented in the case is Judith M. Copeland, another San Diego resident concerned that the cross alienates Americans of diverse faiths.

The lawsuit notes that there is an entirely satisfactory constitutional remedy that had been agreed to by all parties in 2004 ? to move the cross to a non-governmental site. A Presbyterian church several hundred feet from the current site had agreed to place the cross on their property, but the San Diego mayor and city council scuttled the settlement at the last minute.

The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances. When the current cross was formally installed on Easter Sunday, 1954, it was dedicated to ?Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.? No plaques recognizing veterans were installed until decades later, in 1992, several years after a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the cross was filed. Subsequent granite walls with individual veterans? plaques, and an American flag, were not added until the year 2000.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In addition to Blair-Loy and Mach, the plaintiffs were represented by Dr. T. Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU?s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. A Stephen Hut, Jr.; Jonathan H. Siegelbaum and Ryan P. Phair of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP are co-counsel in the case.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: wiin
What church/state clause? It doesn't exist. You anti religion people like to make things up.

Google 'establishment clause' and cure your ignorance. Go research every SC ruling on these issues for the past 60 years. Stop living in your deluded fantasy world where the federal government can promote a single religion over all others.

 

[DealMonkey]

I found this part interesting:

The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances. When the current cross was formally installed on Easter Sunday, 1954, it was dedicated to ?Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.? No plaques recognizing veterans were installed until decades later, in 1992, several years after a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the cross was filed. Subsequent granite walls with individual veterans? plaques, and an American flag, were not added until the year 2000.

So for anyone who mistakenly believes the Mt. Soledad cross was *always* a war memorial, you are very, very wrong.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: extra
I found this hilarious, props to the gov. on this one. The gov did a great job of wasting the complaining idiots' time!

The people in the area wanted it to stay up as it is a historical site. Stuff like this, and stuff like the "in god we trust" on our money...maybe it shouldn't be there, but who cares. There are so many things in this country that need accomplished that are actually important that I just can't find myself respecting the people who waste the time of the courts, etc, for trying to get this kind of stuff removed.

The "fanatical" athiests (who are exactly like the religious fundies) should just go build a monument to athiesm somewhere. Make it artful, make it beautiful. Get it put up somewhere. And watch as no one cares. There would be a few fundies who would complain maybe, but the rest of the christians would be like "whatever, if it looks cool it can stay".

There are buddhas and crap some places in the country as well. Why have the christians not sued to get them taken down? Why haven't most athiests tried to get them taken down? Maybe because most of both groups have lives and want to accomplish something meaninful and realize that THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT ENDORSING RELIGION.

Imagine your life accomplishment including: "yeah, i sucessful got a historical monument that was a cross taken down!"
People would be like wow what a tool.

If you'd like to legitimately get government out of religion, you could do a few things besides trying to alter our history.

1. Get the drug war stopped.
2. Get "in god we trust" removed from NEW bill designs, don't waste everyone's time suing to try to get it taken off the old money--no one cares.
3. Look into abuses of the tax code by churches.
4. This has nothing to do with anything else--but get a scientoligist hunting season started! Then try to bag as many as you can!

the question is not about whether or not it exists but whether it exists on government property. so stfu with your busshist analogy

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

There is no seperation of church and state mentioned in the constitution. Why do you anti religion people keep mentioning this? Show me where in the Constitution that this is mentioned?

Where? In the writings of the founding fathers of their intentions when creating this country and in legal precedent over the last 100 years. Looks like you need to retake poli sci 101.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Christians have crosses at their places of worship, why do they feel the need to impose their symbols on non-christians as they move about San Diego?
I don't see other religions erecting gigantic symbols of their religions.

Just think of it as a giant lower case "t" and get over it.

ya, and also, remember that Christianity is the largest religion in America... so you might see more Christian stuff than anything else. And lol, I live in Memphis, there is this guy with a huge, i mean huge statue of buddah in his front yard. so there, you just havent been around much i guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Mongo

??