• 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!

14 states file brief siding with Pensacola in Bayview Park cross lawsuit

Angelus

Angelus

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
625
Reaction score
382
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
14 states file brief siding with Pensacola in Bayview Park cross lawsuit

Fourteen states have filed a friend of the court brief siding with the city of Pensacola in its appeal to keep the Bayview Park cross. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined 13 other states' attorneys general in signing on to a brief written by Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall's office. The brief supports the city of Pensacola's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that the cross in the city-owned park violated the separation of church and state. In addition to Florida and Alabama, other states joining the friend of the court brief are Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah.

Specifically, they are arguing that the Giant Christian Cross shouldn’t automatically be considered a religious symbol - and that the Mayor’s comments (that there will “always [be] a place for religion in the public square”) shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that the cross is religious.

So, how do Christians feel when it is argued that the cross is meaningless? This rationale seems more anti-christian than taking down the cross. I don't mind if they fill the park with every religious symbol there is. I do mind that the taxpayers of Pensacola are spending over $130,000 to appeal the last verdict which said the cross was a religious symbol. And while I have respect for a lot of Christians, I don't see why one religion should be favored over others. The last time this was decided in favor of religion, there were Satanist coloring books handed out in a public school. Maybe there will be voodoo dolls hung from the tree brainches...
 
Well, it depends on what one's definition of 'is' is.
 
Angelus said:
14 states file brief siding with Pensacola in Bayview Park cross lawsuit

Fourteen states have filed a friend of the court brief siding with the city of Pensacola in its appeal to keep the Bayview Park cross. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined 13 other states' attorneys general in signing on to a brief written by Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall's office. The brief supports the city of Pensacola's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that the cross in the city-owned park violated the separation of church and state. In addition to Florida and Alabama, other states joining the friend of the court brief are Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah.

Specifically, they are arguing that the Giant Christian Cross shouldn’t automatically be considered a religious symbol - and that the Mayor’s comments (that there will “always [be] a place for religion in the public square”) shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that the cross is religious.

So, how do Christians feel when it is argued that the cross is meaningless? This rationale seems more anti-christian than taking down the cross. I don't mind if they fill the park with every religious symbol there is. I do mind that the taxpayers of Pensacola are spending over $130,000 to appeal the last verdict which said the cross was a religious symbol. And while I have respect for a lot of Christians, I don't see why one religion should be favored over others. The last time this was decided in favor of religion, there were Satanist coloring books handed out in a public school. Maybe there will be voodoo dolls hung from the tree brainches...
Click to expand...

I'm no Christian but I have no problem with it. There's no harm done, and I don't believe religious symbols have any power, so what the hell.
 
My first thought was sooner or later someone will douse it in gas and take a match to it. Whether it be just for the sake of vandalism or message one way or the other it just seems like a target.
 
If the Floridians lose the case, ex Judge, soon to be Senator Roy Moore has a home for it!
 
Angelus said:
14 states file brief siding with Pensacola in Bayview Park cross lawsuit

Fourteen states have filed a friend of the court brief siding with the city of Pensacola in its appeal to keep the Bayview Park cross. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined 13 other states' attorneys general in signing on to a brief written by Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall's office. The brief supports the city of Pensacola's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that the cross in the city-owned park violated the separation of church and state. In addition to Florida and Alabama, other states joining the friend of the court brief are Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah.

Specifically, they are arguing that the Giant Christian Cross shouldn’t automatically be considered a religious symbol - and that the Mayor’s comments (that there will “always [be] a place for religion in the public square”) shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that the cross is religious.

So, how do Christians feel when it is argued that the cross is meaningless? This rationale seems more anti-christian than taking down the cross. I don't mind if they fill the park with every religious symbol there is. I do mind that the taxpayers of Pensacola are spending over $130,000 to appeal the last verdict which said the cross was a religious symbol. And while I have respect for a lot of Christians, I don't see why one religion should be favored over others. The last time this was decided in favor of religion, there were Satanist coloring books handed out in a public school. Maybe there will be voodoo dolls hung from the tree brainches...
Click to expand...


This might take a few years to resolve. The cross, as it stands, is in violation of the Constitution. However, there are ways of preserving the cross. It may take a few years. Until then, it stands, like it or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy
 
bluesmoke said:
This might take a few years to resolve. The cross, as it stands, is in violation of the Constitution. However, there are ways of preserving the cross. It may take a few years. Until then, it stands, like it or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy
Click to expand...

Do you think this is the case that will end up being decided by SCOTUS? It doesn't look like Pensacola is willing to budge. Also, governments seem to be moving away from any neutrality as we dissolve into a more tribal society.
 
Well, it is the southern extremity of the Bible Belt, what's new?
 
Renae said:
Can you show us where Congress passed the law making that Cross a part of the park?

Oh wait, you can't...
Click to expand...

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

Being that SCOTUSt is coequal with congress and the president - and that their job is to interpret the Constitution - here is a listing of some of their interpretations on the subject from 1879 to overturning the Santeria regulations.

This is probably what they have gone one as a precedent:
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

There more recent opinions have been to allow state resources to be used by religious institutions. But the last times this problem came up SCOTUS kicked it back. Should be interesting.
 
In California, the California Constitution was relevant to this issue.

The Florida Constitution

No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.
Click to expand...

Sounds like that might relate to the case.
 
Renae said:
Can you show us where Congress passed the law making that Cross a part of the park?

Oh wait, you can't...
Click to expand...

No. I can't and never said so. It was an entirely local decision. Oh, wait, you can't show an overriding decision otherwise. Can you?
 
Angelus said:
14 states file brief siding with Pensacola in Bayview Park cross lawsuit

Fourteen states have filed a friend of the court brief siding with the city of Pensacola in its appeal to keep the Bayview Park cross. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined 13 other states' attorneys general in signing on to a brief written by Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall's office. The brief supports the city of Pensacola's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that the cross in the city-owned park violated the separation of church and state. In addition to Florida and Alabama, other states joining the friend of the court brief are Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah.

Specifically, they are arguing that the Giant Christian Cross shouldn’t automatically be considered a religious symbol - and that the Mayor’s comments (that there will “always [be] a place for religion in the public square”) shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that the cross is religious.

So, how do Christians feel when it is argued that the cross is meaningless? This rationale seems more anti-christian than taking down the cross. I don't mind if they fill the park with every religious symbol there is. I do mind that the taxpayers of Pensacola are spending over $130,000 to appeal the last verdict which said the cross was a religious symbol. And while I have respect for a lot of Christians, I don't see why one religion should be favored over others. The last time this was decided in favor of religion, there were Satanist coloring books handed out in a public school. Maybe there will be voodoo dolls hung from the tree brainches...
Click to expand...

I think they’ll lose.
 
Angelus said:
Do you think this is the case that will end up being decided by SCOTUS? It doesn't look like Pensacola is willing to budge. Also, governments seem to be moving away from any neutrality as we dissolve into a more tribal society.
Click to expand...


We invade tribal countries thinking each is one of a kind. As we become Balkanized. Go figure.
 
Angelus said:
Do you think this is the case that will end up being decided by SCOTUS? It doesn't look like Pensacola is willing to budge. Also, governments seem to be moving away from any neutrality as we dissolve into a more tribal society.
Click to expand...


Most likely decided by the Supreme Court. Whatever the decision, an overriding amendment to the Constitution is historically unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom