• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A massive cross that serves as part of a war memorial on a San Diego hilltop must be dismantled because it has been found to violate a constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion, a federal judge grudgingly ruled on Thursday.

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.
 
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.

I personally believe that if there is a cross and someone wants another religious icon put up it would have to be allowed. I also feel no government money should be spent on the putting it up or the up keep.
 
The vestiges of as once Great Nation are being dismantled one by one before our very eyes.
 
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.


I have been hearing about this case for years. Basically some piece of **** die hard atheists are doing any everything they can to remove this cross,even going as far as blocking the sale of the land that the cross sits on so that the cross can remain.
 
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.
 
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.

Back again?
 
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.
:doh
It does no injustice. Whether when it was erected, or now.
Most of those folks who it represents were Christians.
 
As a Christian I would perfer it stay. But I do realize that opens the door for all other religions to erect their symbols on government property.
 
:doh
It does no injustice. Whether when it was erected, or now.
Most of those folks who it represents were Christians.

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.
 
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.
And?
It should continue to stand, for what it represented then.
 
And?
It should continue to stand, for what it represented then.

One thing it represented was repression of atheist thought. It's also a huge violation of the separation of church and state. It's got to go. There is a Constitution you know.
 
One thing it represented was repression of atheist thought.
No it didn't.
It was absent any such representation.

It's also a huge violation of the separation of church and state. It's got to go. There is a Constitution you know.
Actually it isn't. Not by the intent of the wording.
So no, it doesn't need to go, but needs to stay.
 
I'm an atheist and I have no beef with it being there. It should stay, it will keep Vampires away.
 
The vestiges of as once Great Nation are being dismantled one by one before our very eyes.

Really? Of everything going on the world you see doom in the removal of a structure?
 
Really? Of everything going on the world you see doom in the removal of a structure?
I see doom in the piecemeal dismantlement of this Great Nation and what it stood for.
It is going to hell in a hand basket with all of the liberal influence.
They could choose to ignore it yet don't.

This downward spiral is not going to stop.
 
I see doom in the piecemeal dismantlement of this Great Nation and what it stood for.
It is going to hell in a hand basket with all of the liberal influence.
They could choose to ignore it yet don't.

This downward spiral is not going to stop.

What exactly do you believe we once stood for that we no longer stand for, or are quickly coming to the point that we will no longer stand for it? If you say some kind of religion I'm going let out a very long sigh.
 
What exactly do you believe we once stood for that we no longer stand for, or are quickly coming to the point that we will no longer stand for it? If you say some kind of religion I'm going let out a very long sigh.
As I am not a believe of religion that isn't to what I speak.


I have stated my opinion. That will have to be sufficient as no amount of discourse will change what is happening, and therefore any discussion is rendered moot.
 
As I am not a believe of religion that isn't to what I speak.


I have stated my opinion. That will have to be sufficient as no amount of discourse will change what is happening, and therefore any discussion is rendered moot.

I'm just curious what you think we used to stand for and what you feel we don't stand for anymore, that seems like an important and fair question to ask someone complaining that we don't stand for what we used to anymore.

What is it exactly?
 
I'm just curious what you think we used to stand for and what you feel we don't stand for anymore, that seems like an important and fair question to ask someone complaining that we don't stand for what we used to anymore.

What is it exactly?
Wonder all you want. I gave you the only answer you are going to get.
No amount of discourse will change what is happening, and therefore any discussion is rendered moot.
 
Wonder all you want. I gave you the only answer you are going to get.
No amount of discourse will change what is happening, and therefore any discussion is rendered moot.

Translation: "I have no real basis for this non-point so I don't want to be forced to defend it."

Look, Christians, you don't have the right to government sponsorship of your religion. Get over it.
 
Translation: "I have no real basis for this non-point so I don't want to be forced to defend it."

Look, Christians, you don't have the right to government sponsorship of your religion. Get over it.
Your response in nonsensical to what was said. On both counts.
 
Your response in nonsensical to what was said. On both counts.

Why do you think the government should promote Christianity and not Islam?
 
Why do you think the government should promote Christianity and not Islam?

As I said. Nonsensical on both counts.

What the hell do you think the following words in the quote mean?

As I am not a believe of religion that isn't to what I speak.
And in case you have trouble when someone makes a typo, the word is believer.
 
What is so difficult to understand about the government being neutral on religious matters? Why is it so difficult for religious neutrality to be enforced?

In this case, finally, it seems government neutrality has been enforced by this court, so I applaud the decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom