Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 237

Thread: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

  1. #161
    American
    cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakewood,WA
    Last Seen
    10-18-17 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,388
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Why does a cross represent such a memorial? What's the origin of using a crucifix in memory of something?
    A cross is not a crucifix.

  2. #162
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You've got to do better than that - what provision of the constitution is specifically violated and how/why?
    Why? Do you think the US government is allowed by the constitution to coerce US citizens into serving a particular church under penalty of law?

  3. #163
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    Why? Do you think the US government is allowed by the constitution to coerce US citizens into serving a particular church under penalty of law?
    I'm not the one who claimed the cross was clearly unconstitutional - you did - I was simply giving you the opportunity to make your case by pointing out the specific provisions of the constitution you believe are/were violated. The fact you failed to do so leaves me with the conclusion that you were unable to do so.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #164
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I'm not the one who claimed the cross was clearly unconstitutional - you did - I was simply giving you the opportunity to make your case by pointing out the specific provisions of the constitution you believe are/were violated. The fact you failed to do so leaves me with the conclusion that you were unable to do so.
    I did? I think you may have missed something in translation from American to Canadian...suggest a review:

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I'm not a religious person, so it matters not to me one way or another.

    That said, it never ceases to amaze me the level of offense some people take against the stupidest minor things. This cross is neither a promotion of one particular religion or any religion at all nor does it in any way impinge on any person's personal expression of religion as associated with death.

    There was a time when people lived their own lives, minded their own damn business and let others live as they pleased. Some people need to get a life and stop finding drama and insult behind every door.
    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    You must have missed the sign at the bottom that says "All who see this monument must say 5 Hail Mary's. Failure to comply is punishible by $50 fine and 100 hours community service at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church."
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    And if it does, that affects negatively on your life in what way?
    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    If it does, that actually would be in violation of the constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You've got to
    do better than that - what provision of the constitution is specifically violated and how/why?

    Where did I say that the cross was clearly unconstitutional? I didn't need an opportunity to make that case. I gave you a specific, hyperbolic example of what would be unconstitutional (forcing support of a particular religion under penalty of law), but do I really need to make that case to you? I think I can do it, just didn't think it was necessary...

  5. #165
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    And I would agree with those atheists. A monument has to be as inclusive as possible and as freely accessible as humanly possible and as long as it is owned by the government this will be guaranteed. Also, private groups can have points of view which may not be agreed with by the government or the people who visit the monument. How would it look if it becomes possible for extreme groups to own such a monument (like for example the KKK) or the socialist party of American/Tea party, scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
    Your initial premise is flawed, A monument doesn't have to be inclusive at all. Yes, a PUBLIC monument probably should be, but a privately owned one does not suffer under that requirement at all. Once again, it was an easy solution that would have satisfied those reasonable on both sides of the issue. But the frothing at the mouth atheists blocked the sale so they could "win". Silly.

  6. #166
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    I don't, but why risk it. The government can maintain the monument and there is no need to have private organizations to take it from their hands.
    Then you can't proclaim it as though it has happened.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #167
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Your initial premise is flawed, A monument doesn't have to be inclusive at all. Yes, a PUBLIC monument probably should be, but a privately owned one does not suffer under that requirement at all. Once again, it was an easy solution that would have satisfied those reasonable on both sides of the issue. But the frothing at the mouth atheists blocked the sale so they could "win". Silly.
    But a war memorial should be a public monument and should not be given to private organizations.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  8. #168
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Then you can't proclaim it as though it has happened.
    I proclaimed nothing, you started with the "Do you have proof that other symbols have been denied?" stuff. All I said was that a monument celebrating war heroes should be as inclusive as possible (so that as many people feel at home there to honor their fallen loved ones) and as accessible as possible and I still stand by that.

    I did not proclaim that other symbols were denied, heck, I didn't even bring up other symbols (you did) and I already said that I have not problem with a cross on the monument to begin with. All I am saying is that a public monument should not be handed over to a private organization if there is no need to do so.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  9. #169
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    But a war memorial should be a public monument and should not be given to private organizations.
    what's the big deal? It becomes a private entity and people get to maintain it in it's current state? Seems like a win, win

  10. #170
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    what's the big deal? It becomes a private entity and people get to maintain it in it's current state? Seems like a win, win
    No, that is evading the issue. The USA should stop judges like this from doing stuff like this. The cross should have never been removed and that is the issue. Turning it over to a private entity just evades the issue instead of solving it.

    And this is a very different thing than the ten commandments issue, that is a truly christian kind of a thing and is much more religious than the humble grave cross ever was.

    The words "religion" in the constitution were meant for all religions but a simple cross should not be seen as a representation or a favoring of one religion over the others.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •