Judges rule cross at Calif. park unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Wolfram, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. Wolfram

    Wolfram New Member

    530
    1
    0
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/04/judges-rule-cross-calif-park-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews

    This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.
     
  2. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    The pastor is missing the point. Are there mosques or synagogues built in public parks?
     

  3. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    And how many non-Christians would have objected to having their name on that memorial?
     
  4. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,585
    7
    38
    Most overturned circuit in the country.
     
  5. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    The people objecting to this are saying that this is a 35 foot cross that thousands of people see from the freeway everyday. Just looking at it from the freeway it looks like a big cross, not a war memorial. Since that cross sits on federal land, it acts as an endorsement of Christianity.
     
  6. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    Possibly some of the same ones who are buried at Arlington and other sites with either the Star of David, or Muslim Crescent Moon on their markers.
     
  7. OverTork

    OverTork New Member

    113
    0
    0
    Honoring a god (Christian or any other) and honoring veterans are two different things, and neither one requires the other. There's no excuse for this cross to have even been put up in the first place.
     
  8. Puffyfish

    Puffyfish New Member

    1,182
    0
    0
    Fixed! [​IMG]
     
  9. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    Ever wondered what happened to "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."?

    If the Congress of the United States can employ an official clergyman, why can not states and cities express a belief in a divine being?


    Allow me to append this if you would - -
    I'm agnostic, I believe there are far, far too many religions in the world for just one to be the right and only one; there are too many creation myths for me to believe that the only truth is that the world was created in six days or that it is only 5,000 years old. The fact that someone else is devoutly religious does not bother me in the least and I applaud their decision.

    There is a difference between recognizing a religion and establishing one, which is what the First Amendment prohibits.
     
  10. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
    Who said the congress can employ an official clergyman? Or that they should? They may do it, but that doesn't make it right.

    I would argue that governments at all levels can do whatever they want regarding religion as long as it uses no tax dollars.
     
  11. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    It may be interesting to note that between when the Constitution was created in September of 1787 and ratified in June of 1788 there were indeed state religions.

    Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818

    Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provides, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily..."

    The First Amendment was written to prohibit a National religion, such as existed in the Church of England at the time.
     
  12. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Back to this cross. It wasn't a war memorial until 1989 when it was first challenged. To prevent it from being taken down they put up a plaque and said this isn't a cross it's a war memorial. Then, we it looked like they'd lose under California law, San Diego County deeded the land to the federal government who had a more relaxed view on the subject.

    So originally it was owned by San Diego County as a large 35 foot cross near the freeway for all the commuters to see. Then, when challenged, it became a war memorial.
     
  13. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    On another thought you could say that you were being inclusive to the atheists. There is already a 35 foot statue next to it celebrating what they believe in. Because you can't see it, it makes it that much more representative of their belief system.
     
  14. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    Where is it written that they may not? Is it any more illogical to believe one may wish to nourish the soul as one may wish to nourish the body? To me, (again, an agnostic) it is the free expression thereof. Recognizing that others have religious beliefs is not the same as endorsing or establishing a religious belief.

    I do agree that it should not use the People's money, however. If Congress or any other body wishes to employ clergy then the members themselves should appropriate monies from their own pockets. (It's the very same money that comes from our taxes, of course, but it's the principal of the thing.)
     
  15. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    The Burger court said that it was OK. They based it on the fact that it is "tradition", which I think is not a valid test of the law. I personally believe the practice to be unconstitutional.
     
  16. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    To me, the litmus test is this...

    Does the court's ruling protect the "free exercise of religion" (which is what the First Amendment supposedly protects) or does it in actuality prohibit the free exercise of religion?
     
  17. OverTork

    OverTork New Member

    113
    0
    0
    It's taxpayer land. It's undeniably wrong to utilize taxpayer money or resources on a religious symbol. Showing preference towards a particular religion IS "respecting an establishment of religion."

    The right answer is for the government to just stay the hell out of religion. Government and public agencies should show no preference. They shouldn't care one way or the other what/if people chose to worship. It's not the governments job to promote or honor any particular religion, and there is absolutely no reason they should be.

    Now, on the other hand, if Wal-Mart or some other PRIVATE entity wants to promote their religious preference, they have every damn right to!


    Does removing the cross prohibit anyone from being Christian? Is it not possible to be Christian without that cross there?

    Your logic would demand that the government build a 500 ft golden chicken in the middle of a government owned plaza using taxpayer money because NOT having it there "prohibits" their ability to exercise their chicken-worshipping religion.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,417
    113
    Two decisions overturned recently were interstate commerce clause cases. One declared that Congress did not have the power to regulate purely intrastate homegrown marijuana for home medical use not intended to be sold. Another declared that Congress did not have the power to regulate homemade machine guns made from in-state materials.

    Both decisions were reversed.

    Which court was wrong? The Ninth or the Supremes that reversed them?
     
  19. Hack Causality

    Hack Causality New Member

    865
    0
    0
    Speaking as one, I wouldn't have. This is just idiotic. It's an old memorial, not a giant stone Quran in front of a courthouse. Leave it be.
     
  20. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    Don't read RESPECTING as HONORING. Read it as REGARDING. It sure reads differently. There should be no congressional action on anything regarding religion, even placing it on our currency.