In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Take down that cross
scottm21166
Member Posts: 20,723
San Diego has been court ordered to take down a 29 foot cross that watches over the Korean war memorial in that city. After loosing a law suit originaly filed by an athiest. the courts gave that order with a sanction of a $5000 a day penalty to the city untill they comply. Apparently the city voted and 76% were in favor of having the cross. the Mayor vows to fight on thru the appeals process.
WTH is wrong with people? Crosses adorn cemetaries and war memorials all over the world. I undertand separation of church and state but that isn't what the constitution says...or ment
WTH is wrong with people? Crosses adorn cemetaries and war memorials all over the world. I undertand separation of church and state but that isn't what the constitution says...or ment
Comments
So you would be cool with a Buddha in a war memorial?
if a soldier died as a buddah defending America, let him choose his own adornments..
I guess this numb-testes hasn't thought about where the city's name comes from or he'd have sued over that, too.
Lets file law suits to officially remove the names of such cities as san fransico. san Antonio. San Angelo san marco. san fernando...san clemente san loius abispo saint louis st croix st james. san juan ...you get it.... san tefey[:D]
Actually, that's not as far fetched as it sounds. All you're going to need in one 'budget conscience' politician who would want them swapped out for the flat plaques ... since they need no time to trim around and can be overridden by mowers in an instant.
Betcha.
... remember, many of you laughed when I mentioned $3.00 gas 6 months ago and $5 gas in 6 months from now.
It's a different and sick world out there. Americans refuse to vote so everything's being done for/to them, no matter how ridiculous!
Just heard a mother in Zonnieland who has started Mothers Against Illegal Aliens! She is going to lead a fight to get the 14th Amendment changed (I think it's too late) ... not a politician, or a 'leader' of the people ... a mom.
This is crazy!
They don't put them up any more, but it is because they are too hard to mow around. My dad got a little square stone set ground level.
See another job Americans dont wanna do... upkeep their fellow dead country man..
Maybe GWB was right...
VIVA LA RAZA
They don't put them up any more, but it is because they are too hard to mow around. My dad got a little square stone set ground level.
Well, what do you know ... there you go! Anything's game!
Time for another Boston Tea Party! Toss the politicians into the bay!!
To make matters worse...this memorial and the cross are on PRIVATE PROPERTY...and has been there for over 100 years, from what I heard on the radio today.
If this is true, that's almost enough to make me go..POSTAL!!!! The fact that they can make someone remove a cross from private property is beyond maddening.
If it were me, the cross would come down only if done by them, after detaining me, and likely losing several people first.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
So you would be cool with a Buddha in a war memorial?
Yes, if any of the people being memorialized are Buddhist. I think the Cross "equivalent" in Buddhism is the swastika.
I think the way we did things back then were a little extreme, and needed to be lightened up a bit, but I don't think going to the other extreme is the answer.
Federal judge orders San Diego cross removed from city land
ALLISON HOFFMAN Associated Press
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered cash-strapped San Diego to remove a 29-foot cross from city-owned property within 90 days or face $5,000 in daily fines.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. marked the latest twist in a 17-year legal battle waged by a San Diego atheist against the hilltop cross that towers above tony beachside La Jolla.
"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," Thompson wrote, for the court to enforce his 1991 injunction that forbid the cross to stand on public property because it violated the constitutional separation of church and state. End of C&P
Not on private land; has been going on for 17 years and it's an issue today? Hmmmmm.[}:)][}:)]
I can vaguly recall seeing other tombstones for fallen soldiers who are not christian.
If each one of those crosses marks the grave of a christian.... that is not government endorsment of religion, that is individual enorsement of it by the deceased.
I do think in principle it is wrong to put a single large cross up there... but it doesnt hurt me any, and i wonder how this guy even has standing to sue.
Now many jewish soldiers fought for the US in WWII and korea. It would be wrong to honor only the christian fallen, to support that religion over the others.
A memorial in some other form would be more appropriate.
However.... due to the extreme prevalence of christianity here.... I am quite used to crosses as memorials.... when I see a cross marking a grave, I think about the unfortunate person that died, not jesus the bible etc.... When I see a cross as a memorial, I often dont even think about the religous aspect of it, I would not mind my grave being marked with a cross(as an atheist), just because Im so used to seeing crosses I assosciate them with memorials of dead and not religion.
If i were some devout jew... I probably would have a problem, just something to think about, wouldnt a statue be better (something memorable from the war, analogous to the statue of raising the flag on iwo jima?) Of course a cross is alot cheaper than a statue, or adding a really large star of David etc
did congress pass a law that said the cross had to be there ? NO. is this lawsuit prohibiting "the free exercise thereof?" YES
I guess this numb-testes hasn't thought about where the city's name comes from or he'd have sued over that, too.
You're right! A lot of numbnuts haven't thought about the Mexicans and Spanish missions that dotted the Southwest. In fact, lots of numbnuts been raisin' hell about the Mexicans lately.[:p]
What Would Jesus Christo Say?
Keep in mind who wrote the US constituion, and you'll know who creator is meant to be. Unless your A simple numbtestes, or blind one.
You're absolutely correct. Those guys knew what they were doing and the importance of what they were creating.
They knew fully well that their words would carry through the generations for all Americans.
Now, you tell us who they meant it to be, because they sure didn't.
quote:Originally posted by KYfatboy
Keep in mind who wrote the US constituion, and you'll know who creator is meant to be. Unless your A simple numbtestes, or blind one.
Thomas Jefferson, and he was not a Christian. Jefferson was a Deist. Just the facts, here, and my eyes are wide open to them.
When I was in boot camp we had a guy who claimed to be a Buddhist. I don't think he really was (he was just a regular old redneck white guy from Maryland).
Didn't know you could find any rednecks in Maryland?
Getcher facts here, getcher facts here:
Federal judge orders San Diego cross removed from city land
ALLISON HOFFMAN Associated Press
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered cash-strapped San Diego to remove a 29-foot cross from city-owned property within 90 days or face $5,000 in daily fines.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. marked the latest twist in a 17-year legal battle waged by a San Diego atheist against the hilltop cross that towers above tony beachside La Jolla.
"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," Thompson wrote, for the court to enforce his 1991 injunction that forbid the cross to stand on public property because it violated the constitutional separation of church and state. End of C&P
Not on private land; has been going on for 17 years and it's an issue today? Hmmmmm.[}:)][}:)]
You are MISTAKEN Hairy. This land was sold to a private organization years ago. Do some digging and get your facts straight.[;)]
Associated Press - Federal Judge Orders San Diego to Remove Cross
May 4, 2006
By ALLISON HOFFMAN
The Associated Press
SAN DIEGO -- After a 17-year legal battle between the city and a self-described atheist, a judge has ordered San Diego officials to remove a giant cross from a hilltop park or start paying $5,000 a day in fines.
Defying the order is something cash-strapped San Diego can ill afford. Its pension fund is more than $1 billion in debt, the federal government is investigating, and there's been talk of bankruptcy.
Still, Mayor Jerry Sanders said he would ask the city attorney to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. on Wednesday gave the city 90 days to comply with a 1991 injunction forbidding the cross on public property.
"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," the judge wrote.
The 29-foot-high cross was dedicated as a memorial to Korean War veterans in 1954 on a hilltop that towers over seaside La Jolla.
Philip Paulson, an atheist and Vietnam veteran, has been challenging its placement on city-owned parkland since 1989. He declined comment on the ruling Wednesday, but his attorney, James McElroy, said he hoped city officials would finally back down.
The city has tried to sell the half-acre beneath the cross to a nonprofit association that maintains the surrounding memorial walls. But federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross in place. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal in 2003.
A city-sponsored referendum asking permission from residents to sell the property failed in 2004. The next year, 75 percent of the voters approved a referendum to transfer the land to the federal government, but a Superior Court judge ruled that measure to be an "unconstitutional aid to religion." The ruling has been appealed.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre acknowledged Wednesday that continuing the court battle would likely be futile, but Mayor Jerry Sanders said he would ask the city attorney to aggressively pursue a stay of the injunction.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Jay_Sekulow_Live/archives.asp?bcd=2006-5-5
https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?SC=3163&AC=1
Please take a moment to sign it. Thanks!
Would someone please tell me if my information comes up when you click on that link. It does for me, but I'm not sure if that's just b/c it recognizes my IP #.?.? Thanks
quote:Originally posted by KYfatboy
They were freemasons. TO them to be A "deist" is to believe in the GOD of Abram, Issac, and Jacob. The God of Israel. If your eyes are wide open, does the other apply.[;)]quote:Originally posted by badwrench
quote:Originally posted by KYfatboy
Keep in mind who wrote the US constituion, and you'll know who creator is meant to be. Unless your A simple numbtestes, or blind one.
Thomas Jefferson, and he was not a Christian. Jefferson was a Deist. Just the facts, here, and my eyes are wide open to them.
In the context of the Constitution, all definitions of "creator" certainly apply, especially when viewed along with the First Amendemnt. I am merely stating that "creator" in the context of the Constitution does not apply only to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic (there are many, many references to Islam in Freemasonry, especially with the Shriners) "God", as some contend.
Deists beleive that the Creator did just that, created the Universe and set it in motion. Nothing more. No influence or judgement over mankind, no personification of the Creator, created-in-his/her/it's-image kind of thing, no prophets or saviours or texts or ritual or ceremony. This is in direct opposition to even the most basic Christian doctrines.
AlbertLum said...."no where in the constitution do the words "seperation of church and state" appear. however, there is a little thing about....."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If congress is not allowed to prohibit us from free exercise of our religious beliefs and we are prohibited from exercising our beliefs on goverment peoperty then the goverment must turn over title of a portion equal to the percentage of people who have religious beliefs so the people with religious beliefs may exercise them. Otherwise it would be prohibiting us from free exercise of our religious beliefs!