Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 237

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

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    I agree removal is stupid, it should just be grandfathered in. I would not put up any more religious symbols on public lands.

    I persoanlly have no problems wth a Xtian cross, even though I do not believe in any Gods/gods. As a "revelation" type god, anyways.

    It's all rather a silly issue to litigate - I don't see any harm in leaving an existing landmark; but don't institutionalize anymore please.
    But you don't have to be a Christian to accept a cross that honors our war dead. That makes the argument about your briefs rather than their deaths.

  2. #42
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But you don't have to be a Christian to accept a cross that honors our war dead. That makes the argument about your briefs rather than their deaths.
    makes absolutely no differene to me, they are are all SYMBOLIC, have no intrinsict meaning as a living religion, at least to me.

    But if I was a Muslim or a Jew, and had a cross over top my dead body, might make a difference then..just saying
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    makes absolutely no differene to me, they are are all SYMBOLIC, have no intrinsict meaning as a living religion, at least to me.

    But if I was a Muslim or a Jew, and had a cross over top my dead body, might make a difference then..just saying
    Yes, I agree. It's just a way of honoring our war dead. I don't think this particular cross was over anyone's dead body but of course the family of any dead soldier could change a cross to whatever symbol they felt was more appropriate, as has been done many times in the past. The Jews use the Star Of David.

  4. #44
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

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

    The Feds to posession of the property in 2006. The cross was put there while it was private property and paid for with private money. It should be left as is. If the cross is that big-a-deal, it was illegal for the government to take ownership, to begin with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #45
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

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

    Usually in a situation like this I would side with the fact that this is the government endorsing a single religion over another, but in this instance it seems like a memorial instead of an endorsement of religion.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The only question I have is whether the land the cross is on is owned by the government or a private individual. It does not say in the article. If owned by the government, I can see the decision.... maybe. Was this really an endorsement of religion, or is it similar to a tombstone, which would be a memorial, as opposed to a religious symbol. Of course if the land is owned by a private individual, then what is erected up there is none of the government's damn business.

    Your thoughts on this?

    EDIT: My bad. The land IS owned by the government, so the first question remains. Is the cross there really an endorsement of a religion or not? I believe it's not, and therefore disagree with the decision.

    NOTE: I need to learn to read my own damn links. LOL.
    This particular cross was erected in 1954 and replaced the cross which stood their since 1913. It sounds like a local landmark to me. A historical landmark at that. Rather if one is religious or not, crosses has marked graves for hundreds if not thousands of years. Stuff like this I think is stupid, especially when this country and constitution give the free exercise of religion, not freedom from religion. But it sure looks like that is where this country is headed.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Usually in a situation like this I would side with the fact that this is the government endorsing a single religion over another, but in this instance it seems like a memorial instead of an endorsement of religion.
    That is the way I see it too, especially since a cross has stood there since 1913. I would call it either a memorial or a local landmark.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  8. #48
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    That is the way I see it too, especially since a cross has stood there since 1913. I would call it either a memorial or a local landmark.
    Eventually we need to draw a line, this is one instance where a line needs to be drawn.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  9. #49
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Eventually we need to draw a line, this is one instance where a line needs to be drawn.
    I think so too. It does seems we have come or gone full cycle. From a time in history where religion was being forced on people to a time now where non-religion is being forced on people.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The only question I have is whether the land the cross is on is owned by the government or a private individual. It does not say in the article. If owned by the government, I can see the decision.... maybe. Was this really an endorsement of religion, or is it similar to a tombstone, which would be a memorial, as opposed to a religious symbol. Of course if the land is owned by a private individual, then what is erected up there is none of the government's damn business.

    Your thoughts on this?

    EDIT: My bad. The land IS owned by the government, so the first question remains. Is the cross there really an endorsement of a religion or not? I believe it's not, and therefore disagree with the decision.

    NOTE: I need to learn to read my own damn links. LOL.
    Put the Star of David up right next to the cross....

    The First Amendment does not protect people from "freedom from religion" - The First Amendment is in place to prevent a Theocracy..

    What I also don't understand is that if an atheist doesn't believe in religion, than why the hell would an atheist care? - the symbols are meaningless to them - they may as well be trees..

    Oh yeah, because the hardcore atheists love a legal battle and suffer from Munchausen Syndrome.

    Also, I don't know if these radicals understand, but our government does not endorse anything religious...... We have 535 people representing us and they couldn't agree on soup or egg rolls, yet they're capable of endorsing religion?

    Those who defy, contradict, circumvent or ban civil liberties should be put in prison on charges of treason - they're the real criminals - the tyrants - not the pot heads. I suppose we can be lenient and let them off with a warning of "ignorance of the law" and let them off like the illiterates they are, because apparently the First Amendment is too complex for them to digest despite the fact it's written like Dr.Seuss.
    Last edited by Mr.Nick; 12-14-13 at 04:06 AM.

Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •