• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

If someone wants to erect a cross of private land I would obviously support their right to do so. However, this clearly violates the Constitution when government erects it or it is on government land.
 
Here's my 2 cents. I believe strongly in separation of church and state. However, I believe the cross represents a memorial to those who died, rather than a religious symbol. To take it down, IMHO, would be a disservice to all who died for their country, that this memorial represents.
 
As long as it's just symbolism, let the cross stay.

So long as laws are not favouring one religion over another, I don't really care what dumbass religious symbol the government puts up.

BTW - for the record - I believe all major religions are a complete and total waste of time.
 
Thinking tactically here: In order to promote atheism one must strike at the symbols of religion wherever they are and argue for their removal. That's what happening here - this isn't about a separation of church and state, it's not about the people who died (though it should be) which inspired the cross to be erected, it's about dismantling a belief system and the power that system has over people. Let people believe what they want - in Mother Earth, God, Allah, the Sun god Ra --- who cares? The cross on that piece of ground does no harm to anyone yet it now under court order must be removed. Stupid.
 
It appears that this action (removal of a symbol) does more to explicitly demonstrate that the government is supportive of non-religion than to demonstrate that it is simply neutral or removed on religious matters. That would seem to be counter to what protections were intended for religions from government and vice-versa.
 
fallujah_baby said:
As a die-hard atheist, I believe the cross should go. The cross does an injustice to all atheists and to peoples of other religions who died in the American wars that this cross was meant to memorialize.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, frankly, (And I'm not even remotely religious) these religions (Although I never really see atheists go after muslims or Jews with such veracity) they should start fighting back, placing as much religion in front of an around these atheist groups as possible. Picketing outside their headquarters and just overall being a huge glaring pain in the arse of these retard atheists that think they can remove everything religious from anything public. It pisses me off.


Tim-
 
fallujah_baby said:
Most were Christians for sure. Some were atheists though and those folks haven't had a memorial put up for them. America didn't take kindly to atheists back then. Those days are over.
Click to expand...

The cross is there to honor everyone, Christian, Jew, Hindu and atheist alike who died in war. It is not endorsing any religion whatsoever. or establishing a religion either. It is a way many Americans have of honoring ALL Americans who died in battle.

I'll be curious to what the atheists come up with to honor those who fought and died for human rights and freedoms, freedom of religion being among them. A big zero perhaps?
 
Hicup said:
Yeah well, frankly, (And I'm not even remotely religious) these religions (Although I never really see atheists go after muslims or Jews with such veracity) they should start fighting back, placing as much religion in front of an around these atheist groups as possible. Picketing outside their headquarters and just overall being a huge glaring pain in the arse of these retard atheists that think they can remove everything religious from anything public. It pisses me off.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I'm not religious either but these jerks just get too tiresome and, as you mentioned, only go after the easy targets. Others don't turn their cheeks so easily when their religion is attacked but these same cowards would never go after them.
 
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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you just insult me?......Wait, wrong door. Never mind. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Here's my 2 cents. I believe strongly in separation of church and state. However, I believe the cross represents a memorial to those who died, rather than a religious symbol. To take it down, IMHO, would be a disservice to all who died for their country, that this memorial represents.
Click to expand...

Why does a cross represent such a memorial? What's the origin of using a crucifix in memory of something?
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Name additional beliefs that use a crucifix.
 
Ockham said:
Thinking tactically here: In order to promote atheism one must strike at the symbols of religion wherever they are and argue for their removal. That's what happening here - this isn't about a separation of church and state, it's not about the people who died (though it should be) which inspired the cross to be erected, it's about dismantling a belief system and the power that system has over people. Let people believe what they want - in Mother Earth, God, Allah, the Sun god Ra --- who cares? The cross on that piece of ground does no harm to anyone yet it now under court order must be removed. Stupid.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Deuce said:
Why does a cross represent such a memorial? What's the origin of using a crucifix in memory of something?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter? The fact is that it is used now in western cultures to honor our war dead.

If the the atheists can come up with something better than they should do it.
 
annata said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
annata said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
iacardsfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

Eventually we need to draw a line, this is one instance where a line needs to be drawn.
 
iacardsfan said:
Eventually we need to draw a line, this is one instance where a line needs to be drawn.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom