• 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

http://files.schuminweb.com/journal/2009/full-size/arlington-cemetery-03.jpg
http://image.shutterstock.com/displ...e-at-arlington-national-cemetery-69019126.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff347/b0ttl3s/muslimamericangrave.jpg
http://www.pagancentric.org/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/arlingtonpagans.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YsI8u.jpg


Not quite the same, those were chosen by the indivdiual (or in the absence of a directive, by their next of kin ) to represent the faith of the fallen warriors interned there. The government didn't impose them on the families.

From the links above you can view not only Christian symbols, but Jewish, Wican, and Atheist symbology.


>>>>

Yes, I checked it all out before I made the claim and also noted that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier has no religious symbols at all, at least as far as I could tell. It seems that the government is trying to be sensitive about all religions.
 
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.

that's idiotic.
 
I just don't get how all religious symbols came to be viewed as oppressive......I don't get it. Just because a religious symbol is present, doesn't mean that anyone is saying that religion is better than all others. The majority of people, at the time, felt this best presented an appropriate memorial. Just because the world around the memorial has changed, doesn't mean what the symbol was meant for and whom it stood for has. That is what a memorial is for. A memory. Not to be changed and altered with the times around it. Next thing you know people will say that the crosses over graves in Arlington National Cemetery should be removed as well. It is government property after all.
The fact of the matter is, the majority of people in this country still subscribe to some sort of Christian religion or belief system and used to be even more predominantly Christian. That means you're going to find a few memorials and landmarks that represent that. Should we change the history of our country just to appease to people today or should we remember that time period in our country's history for what it was, a more Christian time? Shouldn't we remember future moments of our country for what they are going to be? A more progressive and neutral time? I see no issue with that. The automatic belief that any religion presenting a symbol of their beliefs as oppressive and offensive to everyone else is paranoid and delusional IMO.

People who despise America or hate that America is essentially a free and capitalist society try to destroy all of the foundations of this Nation in order to try to fashion America into something it isnt'
 
I just don't get how all religious symbols came to be viewed as oppressive......

Take a history course in religious oppression not just of each other but of atheists too. Wait, I already know you won't so I'll lay out your 4 future posts on the matter:

1. Let's not blame the religions! Let's blame the believers. Hm, I'm not sure why we should do that. The believers act in the name of the religion and the oppression they bring to other is usually based on scripture.
2. Yeah! But some Atheists oppressed people too!Sure they did. Just not in the "name" of atheism. They did it in the name of Communism, Corporatism, Fascism etc. Atheism was an afterthought and not a driving force.
3. You're a bigot! How? Because I don't want the road for government based religious oppression to be opened? Let it be erected on private land. The government has no business endorsing religions.
4. It's just a cross! What harm could it do? Christians seem to have taken a page from Saul Alinsky's manual on this:

If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you're 30 per cent ahead.

The Constitution gives you nothing in the form religion. You want that 30% badly.
 
Last edited:
For purposes of this discussion and your definition, I am an atheist.

I do not mind people promoting religion at all. When individuals are out proselytizing on the street, I can walk right by and my feelings are not hurt. When they do it on television, I change the channels.

My objection comes, and the law is broken, when GOVERNMENT promotes religion. The Constitution demands neutrality from the government on religious subjects and themes, and especially actions.

Why that is so difficult for some people to understand is beyond me. :peace

I'm an agnostic, Henry David, and respond the same way you do with the exception of seeing seeing a cross on a hill, or on a highway roadside to mark where a pedestrian has been killed. It's government land there also but what pettiness would be required for anyone to ask that the cross be moved because its the government promoting religion?

I really don't care about seeing a cross and feel it might make a nice break in the landscape and could wonder at the strong feeling of anyone who put it there.. A tree might have the same effect. A billboard would not.

I don't know how the government is promoting religion in this instance. A cross has meaning to some and not to others. I don't know why people would spend all their time and money on a threat that isn't there. It seems like a live and let live situation and these people attacking a cross put up by their fellow Americans should be putting their time and energy to better use elsewhere.
 
People who despise America or hate that America is essentially a free and capitalist society try to destroy all of the foundations of this Nation in order to try to fashion America into something it isnt'

Fighting crosses while promoting drugs and food stamps. Seems like a strange new country is evolving in the former
Superpower..
 
Fighting crosses while promoting drugs and food stamps. Seems like a strange new country is evolving in the former
Superpower..

almost everyone who gets their panties in a knot over Crosses on public property are far lefties who want people to stop worshipping God and start bowing to big brother instead. THe far left has something in common with the Laws of Moses

THOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE BIG BROTHER
 
I'm an agnostic, Henry David, and respond the same way you do with the exception of seeing seeing a cross on a hill, or on a highway roadside to mark where a pedestrian has been killed. It's government land there also but what pettiness would be required for anyone to ask that the cross be moved because its the government promoting religion?

I really don't care about seeing a cross and feel it might make a nice break in the landscape and could wonder at the strong feeling of anyone who put it there.. A tree might have the same effect. A billboard would not.

I don't know how the government is promoting religion in this instance. A cross has meaning to some and not to others. I don't know why people would spend all their time and money on a threat that isn't there. It seems like a live and let live situation and these people attacking a cross put up by their fellow Americans should be putting their time and energy to better use elsewhere.

I do understand your point, and it's a good point.

I object to the cross on the hill in California ONLY because of how it plays versus the rule of law. Because I support Americans United for Separation of Church & State, I've been reading about the legal battle over that symbol for years. I thought some private entity was going to buy either the real estate or the cross itself, but have not been keeping up with the case.

IF it is government property that the cross is on, it should be removed. I don't object to the cross itself, I object to the cross being on government property.
 
I do understand your point, and it's a good point.

I object to the cross on the hill in California ONLY because of how it plays versus the rule of law. Because I support Americans United for Separation of Church & State, I've been reading about the legal battle over that symbol for years. I thought some private entity was going to buy either the real estate or the cross itself, but have not been keeping up with the case.

IF it is government property that the cross is on, it should be removed. I don't object to the cross itself, I object to the cross being on government property.

Ever been to Arlington Cemetery?
 
I'm an agnostic, Henry David, and respond the same way you do with the exception of seeing seeing a cross on a hill, or on a highway roadside to mark where a pedestrian has been killed. It's government land there also but what pettiness would be required for anyone to ask that the cross be moved because its the government promoting religion?

I really don't care about seeing a cross and feel it might make a nice break in the landscape and could wonder at the strong feeling of anyone who put it there.. A tree might have the same effect. A billboard would not.

I don't know how the government is promoting religion in this instance. A cross has meaning to some and not to others. I don't know why people would spend all their time and money on a threat that isn't there. It seems like a live and let live situation and these people attacking a cross put up by their fellow Americans should be putting their time and energy to better use elsewhere.

You'll have strong feelings when it's Islamic symbols instead of yours.
 
No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night! ;)

How does the Arlington cemetery compare to the hill in CA?

government property with crosses on it
 
You'll have strong feelings when it's Islamic symbols instead of yours.

this country was founded by Islamists?
 
One a cemetery, the other not. More importantly, the cemetery includes the symbols of other religions.

its a much ado about nothing. The people whining have stupid grievances that extend far past faux indignation over a cross
 
its a much ado about nothing. The people whining have stupid grievances that extend far past faux indignation over a cross

I agree that it's much ado about nothing.

But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.

As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.
 
I agree that it's much ado about nothing.

But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.

As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.

I don't think there is any 'marriage' here and certainly no government promotion. Sometimes a cross is just a cross.
 
I don't think there is any 'marriage' here and certainly no government promotion. Sometimes a cross is just a cross.

Strict neutrality. :peace
 
I agree that it's much ado about nothing.

But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.

As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.

In that case, the government should have never taken possession of the property, since the cross was already there at the time.
 
In that case, the government should have never taken possession of the property, since the cross was already there at the time.


Technically speaking it was "a cross" at the time, not "the cross". IIRC there was a wooden cross erected in 1913 (which is one of the reasons why the cross being there as a memorial to WWI, WWII, and Korean War seems odd). Originally the property was private property and deaded to the city when the owner passed. The current cross replaced the original (or a wooden) cross after it fell down in a storm.


>>>>
 
Technically speaking it was "a cross" at the time, not "the cross". IIRC there was a wooden cross erected in 1913 (which is one of the reasons why the cross being there as a memorial to WWI, WWII, and Korean War seems odd). Originally the property was private property and deaded to the city when the owner passed. The current cross replaced the original (or a wooden) cross after it fell down in a storm.


>>>>

The property was seized through eminent domain and the cross was already there at that time.
 
I agree that it's much ado about nothing.

But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.

As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.

Actually, the marriage of church and state is mentioned in the Bible too. It's called "The Beast". Read the book of Revelations.
 
The property was seized through eminent domain and the cross was already there at that time.

I know the first cross was erected in 1913 and the City took over the property in 1916, however I could have confused it with the Mt. Helix case where Cyrus Yawkey deeded the property to San Diego County in 1925 before his passing.

Been a number of years since I've looked into the matter so I just reviewed the decision in Murphy v. Bilbray (which I had in a old folder where I keep reference documents sometimes when involved with debates). The history reviewed in the court documents clearly indicate Mr. Yawkey deeded the property to the county however doesn't say one way or the other for the Mt. Soledad property - only that the city acquired it in 1916.

So we'll go with the city using eminent domain.


>>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom