Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. gov't gets giant cross in San Diego

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:19 PM
Original message
U.S. gov't gets giant cross in San Diego
WASHINGTON - A giant cross in San Diego that's been contested for 17 years by an atheist became the property of the federal government Monday with President Bush's signature.

Supporters hope the legislation transferring the 29-foot cross and war memorial it's a part of to the federal government will protect it for good. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

"Just because something may have a religious connotation doesn't mean you destroy it and tear it down," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., after an Oval Office signing ceremony attended by other cross supporters and Republican House members from San Diego who sponsored the bill.

"It's a great victory for our veterans," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cros...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh good. One more cross. Because there aren't enough all over the place.
I'm a Christian. I don't need to see a cross 24/7 so I can feel validated. That's insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Why is the President involved in this local issue?
Edited on Mon Aug-14-06 09:33 PM by MadMaddie
This is why he and his cabal are pathetic failures.....they are so busy trying to micromanage all of the small issues that impact a few neocon supporters instead of what is important for the greater good of the nation.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Greater good of the nation... now that's funny.
I don't think he ever gave one whit about the greater good of the nation. These people are unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yea...I know.....sometimes you have to say it out loud....
to remember there were times when "The greater good of the nation" was important. Sigh....not until we have cleaned the Repugs out of DC will there be a chance to get to normal again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Tear the fucker down
EXACTLY why it should be torn down - because it has religious connotations! Figures BushCo would stick his nose in this. After all, he's been acting as if he's above the law, why not trash the first amendment while he's at it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. What about the Jesus statue in Rio?
If you apply the reasoning of some of my fellow atheists the Rio Jesus would have to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Rio is not in this country....
they can do what they want. We, however have a Constitution that doesn't establish religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
56. What is wrong with holding on to relics of our past history. You don't
tear down Monasteries that have been donated to the public. You are advocating removing the flavor of this land . I say let it continue to stand. It is an historic symbol and should be saved to remember and inspire us to be tolerant and respectful of those who came before. Nothing in our past has been pure because we are human and we have differences that this cross will attest to. Should Stone Hendge be dismantled???
Find another cause. * has given us many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. Is the statue in Rio on public property
in a country whose constitution mandates separation of church and state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. where in the Constitution does it mandate separation of
church and state?

and yes, the Corcovado with its statue of Jesus is a National Park. However, being in Brazil it has no bearing whatsoever on the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonDem Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Its in the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 11:19 AM by OregonDem
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

By making a permanent religious symbol to be public property the state is creating a law which respects an established (or organized) religion, namely Christianity.
While it is true that this amendment says that Congress is the only one who cannot do it, later amendments (the 14th I think) to the Constitution stated that local and state governments had to abide by the Bill of Rights also. The president also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution which he is violating by doing this.
Although the Constitution doesn't specifically say "seperation of church and state" it is just easier to say than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
62. the establishment clause does not mandate separation of
church and state.

I do not interpret the establishment clause to be equivalent to separation of church and state either.

If I am not mistaken, national cemeteries also use religious symbols and they are permanent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Madison and Jefferson would disagree
Just because YOU do not interpret the establishment clause as the "wall of separation" (as Jefferson deemed it in his address to the Danbury Baptists, as he was the author of the Statute of Religious Freedom in Virginia, the antecedent for Madison's draft of the First Amendment), does not make it so. 200+ years of jurisprudential precedent trump your 'interpretation'.

The crosses you refer to at national cemeteries are grave markers for individual soldiers, which is fine, because those soldiers were christian. Stars of David mark Jewish soldiers' resting places. And so on... These markers would be expressions of their guaranteed individual religious liberty.

The cross in San Diego isn't a grave marker for ONE soldier, it is a marker for ALL of them, and that crosses (no pun intended) the line from individual religious liberty into breaching the establishment clause. It's a fine line, albeit strong. It is doubtful that the cross represents the religious sympathies of every soldier commemorated there. One size does not fit all. The cross's reach exceeds its Constitutional grasp.

It is a typical conservative talking point to say "the Constitution doesn't say anything about separation of church and state!". Well, it doesn't say anything about the "separation of powers" either, but could you argue that we don't actually have checks and balances? Does conceptual interpretation mean anything to you? Does context?

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are among the biggest proponents of the lie that there is no wall of separation. That is because the wall is the barrier preventing them from achieving what they desire: The establishment of ultraconservative fundamentalist jihad-style christianity as THE state religion. I have followed Pat Robertson's career for years, (which was aided greatly by being his neighbor in Virginia Beach for a very long time - we even voted in the same precinct). I know what a dangerous sonofabitch he is, and I view ANYONE who denies the wall of separation between church and state with more than casual suspicion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
67. exactly
It's surprising you would have to educate someone about the First Amendment on DU, but DU is full of surprises.

Welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
28. I oppose spending money to tear it down
Or to keep it up. With the fiscal mess faced by the city and the state, surely we have more pressing issues to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. Christo Fascists
Taliban Christian Fundamentalists

what's the diff?

God's on our side?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. vice and virtue is not
going to cut off a part of your body or put an ar round behind your ear for posting your opinion.

That is the primary difference. They have a side, you have a side, I have a side, and we are not killing one another over it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist.
And maybe you haven't been paying attention, but when pushed, and out of earshot, they are talking about killing those who don't "believe."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
31. As a matter of fact there is a rather large segment of the "christian"
right that DOES advocate for a return to biblical stoning (death penalty by torture) for the heinous crimes of adultery, arguing with one's parents, failing to practice the "correct" religion and such.

Just thought you might want to know, in case you had some notion of moral superiority of Christianity over Islam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. It wasn't placed as a war memorial. It became a war memorial.
I'm glad you won't mind the other religious symbols when they come to be placed there as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
25. Go read the Constitution.
Then come back and we'll talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
42. So because we want to prevent the government from endorsing religion...
..WE'RE like the Taliban? What kind of pretzel logic is that?

I find it extremely offensive that you would make such a bigoted remark about all atheists. I'm not like the Taliban.

By the way, it was NOT originally a war memorial. You might want to learn more before assuming who's wrong here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's not the cross itself that bugs me (I know I may be alone here,) but
the argument made that the cross represents the Veterans. Really? So, there have been no Jewish, no Muslim, no Atheist soldiers? Please.

If they were to perhaps place some other representations of other religions the way they do the cross, I would have a different opinion.

Of course, that doesn't represent Agnostic or Atheist people. I would be very open to ways of representing them, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Busholini Regime is promoting Christianity
all the time. This is only one more example. It has been said by many Christians that a person has to believe certain things in order to be a Christian. Millions of Americans don't believe in those certain things. Uh..What are "those certain things'? I am not a Christian so maybe some Christians here could enlighten me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. Those certain things depends on what "Christian" you ask.
My fundy fruitcake in-laws have a pretty bigoted and narrow definition. I, on the other hand, don't believe there is one certain thing. I think the choices we make in life, like how we treat people and the good that we do, determines what kind of afterlife/next life we have. I also do not presume to know what the next stage after death is.

You are correct. By the * administration getting involved, this is but one more example of the federal government forcing their version of Christianity is all our faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
43. This atheist thanks you for thinking of us.
Threads like this tend to get ugly, with more Christians than I'd hope not seeing why this is wrong. Thank you for remembering that we taxpaying nonbelievers also matter in this country (or should).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. I always try to put myself in someone else's place.
How would I like it is a rule was made that all representation of Irish people was against this country. That we could only have symbols of the English. There have been plenty of Irish-Americas who have contributed and deserve recognition.

Ok, bad example, but you get my idea!

Anytime you need a Christian backer, you come let me know! If you're not free to believe, then neither am I!





kt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. I don't approve of Bush getting involved, but I approve of retaining
the cross. It's a historical landmark for the area, proselytizing to no one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Then why are so many upset by it if it is not offensive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. It must be very hard for the people who are honestly offended by it
I can't imagine being surrounded by symbols that caused me enough mental anguish to be motivated to try to make them go away. I seem to be able to pick and choose what to allow myself to find offensive, but it seems for some people it may not be a matter of choice.

The state of California has an amazingly large number of place names associated with Catholicism. If I was bothered by the sight of a cross on a hill I don't think I could stomach living in a city named after a saint, in a state with a capitol called Sacramento.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. It's not the symbol. It's the violation of the 1st Amendment.
If the government can violate it in one city's dispute, who's to say it won't violate it across the nation?

I don't have a problem with religious symbolism in its place - which is NOT on taxpayer-funded public land. I get a say, too, even though I don't believe in gods. It's my country, too. Saying we should just let this slide (not saying you are making that statement) is telling us our citizenship isn't worth a believer's - that we're not truly full citizens of the United States.

It's wrong of them to violate the Constitution and make anyone feel that way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
58. can you pick and choose which constitutional violations you find irksome?
It isn't that people are offended by a symbol and cannot get past that. Rather, they are offended that the government, in violation of the first ammendment, is endorsing this religious symbol and housing it on public property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. I do it every day
All the time. There is no shortage of things to be irked about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerceptionManagement Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. The bill signing "smacks of election-year politics,"
Edited on Mon Aug-14-06 10:30 PM by PerceptionManagement
"I don't think anybody really thinks the cross is going to remain on Mt. Soledad. It's been 17 years of litigation, and every court, every judge who's ever looked at it has ruled it's unconstitutional," McElroy said.


You know, the corrupt, incompetent republicans that surround Chimpy the War Criminal may be the most selfish, thoughtless regimes the planet has ever seen. This isn't about veterans. It's about a wedge issue at Diebold time. It's about imposing the conservative religious agenda.

What if instead of a cross, there was a statue of L. Ron Hubbard. Does any freeper on the planet think we would be having this discussion? No. I don't think so. They'ed throw the "veterans" under the bus faster than pervert Bill O'Luffah wanks to racist Michelle Malkin (and her Ghost Writing Husband).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
59. let's hope it doesn't end up like the Tower of Babel?
what would happen if someone knocked it down? That would be FOX headline news for weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
17. We must federalize and protect crosses and crucifixes
against flag-burning godless gay abortion doers. It's a grave threat to God and Country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-14-06 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. Separation of Church and State
protects religious freedom for all. This simple concept seems lost on this current administration and all those that continue to fight to ensure the cross remains on public, now federal property.

Public funding for any religious institution or memorial runs counter to one of the fundamental principles in the Constitution, and is IMHO an anti-American act.

From a Christian POV, I say this cross is a graven image, and those that proclaim theirselves as Christians should not be lying and dissembling about the cross as a "War Memorial" and not a religious symbol. The history of the "memorial" is that it was created after the fact to provide a covering excuse for the cross to remain on public property.

As a veteran, I think the cross could/should be demolished and a more appropriate non-religious symbol be put in its place.

Too many wingnuts think that removing the cross is an attack on Christianity. Frankly, I am quite tired of government policies being perverted by ignorant loudmouths with persecution complexes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
45. Terrific post, thanks for saying that.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grilled onions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
19. This Will Solve All Our Problems
They spend far too much time on crosses,dragging rocks around with the "Big Ten" on it,stumping bible facts to even those who don't want to listen but they turn a deaf ear on those in medical pain,mental anguish,the rumbles of war,unemployment and the homeless. It's much easier to deal with build symbols then to do with the real issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
manhunter2006 Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
20. Whats the beef...
Makes you wonder what kind of life the "atheist" had for him to spend 17 years
contesting a war memorial cross. That guy had waayyyy too much time on his hands.
Seems like a pretty vindictive and shitty way to spend your time.
Im an agnostic at best and a cross on a hillside doesnt bother me at all.
then again I have a life and a clue..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. I can't find any public record of him owning property in San Diego
He does own a house in another county.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
46. You may have a life, but not a clue on this case.
Wasn't started as a war memorial. Strictly religious at first. The "memorial" came later.

Every court has found the cross on taxpayer-funded public land violates the 1st Amendment.

There's nothing petty or vindictive about protecting the 1st Amendment, which includes freedom from religion as well as of religion. What many fail to realize is that if this government gets away with endorsing Christian symbols this way, there's nothing to prevent a later administration from doing the same with other symbols, some of them very objectionable to many.

Government intertwined with religion always spells disaster. Secularism works, and retains the rights of both the nonbeliever and the believer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
57. You have a point there. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
66. So you have no problem with the Gov. illegally supporting one religion?
I think you need to get a different clue.

And BTW, it DOESN'T "make me wonder" at all.
Some people actually CARE when the law is broken;
it seems clear that he's one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
21. I am an atheist and I could care less about this cross.
I don't live in San Diego and don't have to look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Agnostic San Diegan here
The sight of that cross reminds me that I am home. I used to be an active Christian, at least I tried to be. The cross and its surroundings are deeply associated with memories of my youth. I have lived in several places from which I could see the cross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordLovesAWorkingMan Donating Member (272 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. good point
The cross is now a local landmark and part of the local public domain, not a religious symbol per se. I hope this ends the argument once and for all...certainly better things to break your pick over in SD county.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. a cross is a cross is a cross
it is a religious symbol whether you want it to be or not, though quotidian familiarity drains it of much of its meaning.

the maneuvering of the pro-cross groups is pitiful - first you turn it into a war memorial so you can claim that the horrid atheists (who are JUST LIKE the TALIBAN :eyes:) are trying to unsupport the troops.

why can't V just blow it up with some fireworks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. so much to moderate
so many silly people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Heh, true.
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 03:38 PM by Zhade
The sad thing is, there may be very few people alerting on what is obvious bigotry, which saddens me - don't atheists count as human beings too?

Sigh.

EDIT: looks like the mods managed to get to it. THANK YOU, mods. It is appreciated that bigotry is disallowed here!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. and you got popped too!
bad zhade
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
23. That's the one with the rocket launchers right? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonDem Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
32. Its the federal government endorsing a particular faith,
I don't mind crosses on the side of the road, as long as they were put there by the victims family. I don't mind crosses on the gravestones of our soldiers because that is a representation of that individual's faith and as long as Arlington allows other symbols of different religions including atheism (which they do) then I don't have a problem with it. I also wouldn't have had a problem if they sold the land to private landowners who wanted to keep the cross. But as long as the government is using public property to basically say this is a christian nation then I am against it. It will be used in the future as evidence that church and state were never separated, and that it is acceptable to legislate the enforcement of religious laws and more endorsements of Christianity. Don't believe me?, well look at how the religious right uses "In God We Trust" (an obvious violation of the establishment clause) to further their agenda in putting the ten commandments everywhere on public property. The religious right continues to deny that we were established to allow for freedom of religion by the government remaining neutral on the issue of faith and they have also forgotten that this nation was founded by people escaping theocratic nations. They will continually strive to make sure that the state uses its authority to make right wing Christianity the religious monopoly in the US. The best way for people to retain there freedom of religion is to diligently strive to make sure the government stays out of religious matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. Great post, with one caveat...
Selling the land to private owners to specifically preserve the cross was rejected by the courts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
35. It's only right that the cabal endorses the cross.
The cross is an instrument of torture,
and much more recognisable than the waterboard.

As such, the cross has always been a symbol
of terrible suffering, so the sight of crosses everywhere
is an apt reminder of the terrible suffering and death
this cabal has callously inflicted on so many,
both in America and overseas.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. I hope you realize the "cabal" now includes every Democratic Senator
They all voted in favor of the federal government taking possession of the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. You mean there is still a Democratic Party?
That's good news, it seemed to me the cabal had taken over both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Voting with the cabal doesn't necessarily make you of the cabal.
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 03:19 PM by Zhade
It does, however, make you craven and wrong, to aid in the violation of the Constitution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
39. I'm an athiest, not a vampire
crosses don't bother me much.

Yes, I understand all the arguments against government endorsement of a religious symbol, but considering all the dysfunction here in the Golden State, it isn't something that I'll get all worked up over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. It IS just one more in a long line of violations of American rights.
Still wrong, though.

(Good opening line, I grinned.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
40. So the Wiccan war widow will be getting her plaque any day now, right?
"A victory for all veterans," it will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
41. Total violation. The government cannot accept land...
...in order to retain religious symbols. It's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittPoliSci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
53. why do people erect stuff they know people are going to complain about?
why erect a gigantic cross when you know it is going to piss somebody off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. I wasn't even born in 1954 when the present cross was put up
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:49 PM by slackmaster
But I do know enough about local history to find it believable that others being offended by it never entered the minds of the people who put it up. The local realtors didn't let Jews buy property in La Jolla until the early 1960s when the founders of UC San Diego made it clear that Jewish faculty and staff would be needed to build a great university, and back then anyone being an avowed atheist was considered by most to be a pariah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. the CCRs in many western neighborhoods are appalling
in my neighborhood in seattle, asians & blacks weren't allowed in. jews were.

now anyone who can afford a 700k tear down is allowed in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 22nd 2019, 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC