U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down


#1

news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-landmark-california-cross-taken-down-012849685.html

Ughhhh why can't they just put up whatever they want too? Just put up an atheist, secular momento to the troops and let the Christians have their cross too. This is so stupid.

In an interesting side note, the Obama Administration is intensely fighting on our side to have the right to have the cross there. For people who asked what good works he's ever done as President, here is one right here.


#2

I wonder, will they cover up all the crosses and Stars of David on tombstones at Arlington Cemetery? How stupid.


#3

[quote="lutheran_farmer, post:2, topic:347999"]
I wonder, will they cover up all the crosses and Stars of David on tombstones at Arlington Cemetery? How stupid.

[/quote]

I was actually just in Arlington, and that same question occurred to me also. My guess is that such a suit involving Arlington and all government cemeteries is just a matter of time, as is challenging chaplains in the military when they are paid with public funds.


#4

This is idiotic. There is NO constitutional requirement for sepatation of church and state. It simply says that govetnment cannot ESTABLISH a religion. This is a result of liberal judges interprrting the constitution to conform with their own agenda.


#5

This is idiotic. There is NO constitutional requirement for sepatation of church and state. It simply says that govetnment cannot ESTABLISH a religion. This is a result of liberal judges interpreting the constitution to conform with their own agenda.


#6

[quote="SMGS127, post:1, topic:347999"]
news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-landmark-california-cross-taken-down-012849685.html

Ughhhh why can't they just put up whatever they want too? Just put up an atheist, secular momento to the troops and let the Christians have their cross too. This is so stupid.

In an interesting side note, the Obama Administration is intensely fighting on our side to have the right to have the cross there. For people who asked what good works he's ever done as President, here is one right here.

[/quote]

I know atheists will say they are very "tolerant". Here's an example of how "tolerant" they are!


#7

I believe I heard on TV that this suit was intiated by a Jewish group, which is going to be very difficult for me to forget or forgive. I wonder if this is true, and hope it is not--does anyone know?


#8

According to Reuters, the plaintiffs included the "Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America."

Personally I have never known any Jews who are offended by Christian symbols.


#9

Your sitting in front of that insidious talking box and you shake your head and mumble WHY? Your hands ball up into fists and your ready to scream, WHY? Then the next horror comes your way, then the next, and the next, before you know it your in your bedroom on your knees begging for forgiveness for the feelings of anger, desolation and hopelessness invading your soul, until finally a quiet calm overwhelms you and that gentle soothing voice from within whispers "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".


#10

Wait until this judge finds out that California has a lot of cities named after Catholic saints and the capital city is named after a Catholic sacrament. Should they all be renamed with numbers so as not to offend anyone? Would that be an endorsement of numerology? Maybe zip codes are illegal.

This ruling is too stupid to stand.


#11

[quote="captainrick, post:5, topic:347999"]
This is idiotic. There is NO constitutional requirement for sepatation of church and state. It simply says that govetnment cannot ESTABLISH a religion. This is a result of liberal judges interpreting the constitution to conform with their own agenda.

[/quote]

Well stated.:thumbsup:


#12

[quote="captainrick, post:8, topic:347999"]
According to Reuters, the plaintiffs included the "Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America."

Personally I have never known any Jews who are offended by Christian symbols.

[/quote]

My Jewish neighbor sent a "letter to the editor" saying how offended she was with Merry Christmas signs. I still put mine up every year and we are still neighborly.


#13

[quote="captainrick, post:5, topic:347999"]
This is idiotic. There is NO constitutional requirement for sepatation of church and state. It simply says that govetnment cannot ESTABLISH a religion..

[/quote]

I haven't been closely following this long-running (more than 20 years of litigation) controversy. My understanding is that the original ruling was that the cross constituted government endorsement of a particular religion. The preferential treatment of Christianity is what violated the California constitution.

I can't evaluate that, but I do know the Mt. Soledad case is complex. How the various facts are interpreted, and weighed against one another, is what makes it issue so difficult.


#14

[quote="Coatimundi, post:13, topic:347999"]
I haven't been closely following this long-running (more than 20 years of litigation) controversy. My understanding is that the original ruling was that the cross constituted government endorsement of a particular religion. The preferential treatment of Christianity is what violated the California constitution.

I can't evaluate that, but I do know the Mt. Soledad case is complex. How the various facts are interpreted, and weighed against one another, is what makes it issue so difficult.

[/quote]

You have a point - but in my view (I'm an attorney) the constitution should be interpreted as the framers intended. They didn't want the government establishing a religion, as the Moslem states and Israel do today, and as many European states did in the days when our constitution was written.

The job of the Justices is to interpret our constitution, but many of them have taken this much too far. If the founders of our nation wanted a complete separation of church and state, they would have stated just that. :)


#15

From the article: Burns stayed his order to give the Obama administration and the association that erected the cross, which have fought its removal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a chance to file another appeal.

Right on, Mr. President! :thumbsup:


#16

The Obama administration and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, supported by 20 U.S. states and various veterans groups in arguing the cross should be allowed as part of the memorial.


#17

[quote="ReConverted, post:15, topic:347999"]
From the article: Burns stayed his order to give the Obama administration and the association that erected the cross, which have fought its removal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a chance to file another appeal.

Right on, Mr. President! 'Nuff said. :thumbsup:

[/quote]

Good! I do hope they appeal! Presidents and congress are elected, and so hopefully support the will of the people - but Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and unfortunately only answer to their own agenda.


#18

It's easy to be offended by this if one remembers the U.S. as it was before "political correctness" became the state religion, in which all beliefs other than Christianity are honored.

But the day is not far off when Saudi Arabia will be wanting to finance massive Islamic displays and monuments, and will we then feel differently about all of this?

Same thing with prayer in school. I was in public school back when mainline protestantism was practically the state religion, with readings from the King James in home room, and assemblies at which preachers preached. Though I was Catholic, I took no offense at it. Would I feel the same if kids in home room were all obliged to bow to Mecca, or perhaps say some devotional thing to a Wiccan "Moon goddess"?

This is not the end of what we're going to see. Not by a long way. Time--honored monuments are one thing, but on an ongoing basis, are we perhaps someday going to look back and think maybe banning of religion-specific public monuments was not such a bad idea?


#19

This makes me think of the fictional story of Dracula and how he couldn't stand the sight of a cross or crucifix.


#20

Surely there must be some private property nearby. If so, someone should buy it and erect the cross. I think that should end it....but I'm probably wrong.

As stated earlier, the case of the cross, where it is currently, is very complicated and needs to be resolved.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.