Supreme Court to Hear Mojave Cross Case

Rose wrote:

<quoted text>
...You Christians foam at the mouth about "family values", but Jesus didn't have one.

Well, at least not one that anyone on the right is admitting to....

Mary Magdalene, where are you?

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there a statute of limitations on constitutional violations?
I don't think so.

It was NOT a constitutional violation. A cross does not constitute the federal goverment establishing a church. Sheesh...you guys want to read things that are not there every time you get a chance to slam anything connected to Christianity. No wonder this country is on a downhill slide.

Libtard wrote:

<quoted text>WTF kind of logic is this? I have a problem with this even being an issue. It is the Men and Soldiers that erected that cross in 1934, that gave your pathetic arss your freedom to be a complete idiot on this subject. Leave it there and leave this monument to our soldiers entact you whinny POS. Would rather spend a penny or a million dollars in their honor than sponsor another date night for the squatters in the white house.

While you may be willing to, I'm not. And that's the issue. You can voluntarily send money, but I will fight to the end when money is taken from me by force for something I believe in unconstitutional.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, for those of you who are kinda slow.
The right to privacy and ALL other rights are a given under the constitution UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by said constitution.
That was the entire reason for having a constitution in the first place, to limit what the govt could do- NOT limit the rights of the people to only specific items.
If it's your contention that unless something is specifically spelled out in the constitution or a subsequent amendment it's not a right, then there are hundreds of thousands of things people are doing every day that they have no constitutional right to do- lefties voting, blondes driving cars, catholics buying furniture, blacks using cellphones, etc etc etc etc.
Unless you can show me where those items all are specifically spelled out in the constitution, then you might want to rethink your logic.

Rights not specifically set out in the constitution should be left to the individual states. Simple concept.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
While you may be willing to, I'm not. And that's the issue. You can voluntarily send money, but I will fight to the end when money is taken from me by force for something I believe in unconstitutional.

We should all fight what we believe is unconstitutional. That's why I fight against abortion.

FilmProf wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you unfamiliar with history of this issue? Your comment would indicate that.
The ‘fuss,’ as you put it, started when the NPS, an agency of the U.S. Government, denied a 1996 application by Buddhists to put their own memorial at the site. That denial, coupled to the ongoing permission for the cross to remain, was challenged under the First Amendment.
What transpired after that has been amply documented on this thread, to where the case now stands before the Supreme Court.
Maybe the reason that the issue has taken on such importance today as opposed to the 1930s, 40s, etc., is because in those times, there was no demand by religious zealots to meet their insufferable demands that ‘God’ be emblazoned everywhere, as well as the fact that the country today is much more diverse in its religious—as well as its non-religious demographic.
Whether you like it or not, America is (thankfully) no longer the exclusive domain of white, Christian men.

Seems we were a lot better off when it was.

Dismayed wrote:

<quoted text>
It was NOT a constitutional violation. A cross does not constitute the federal goverment establishing a church. Sheesh...you guys want to read things that are not there every time you get a chance to slam anything connected to Christianity. No wonder this country is on a downhill slide.

Well, so far,‘you guys’ consists of a Federal District Court and a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme may yet overrule them, but as it stands presently, it is very much a ‘constitutional violation.’

And I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that anyone is trying to slam anything connected to Christianity. In fact it’s the Christians who do the most of the slamming. They need to back off with their relentless attempts to control everything from a woman’s right to choose, to gay rights, to television programming content.
Neither Christians, nor any other religious adherents, are the arbiters of social morality.
Stay in your tax-exempt places of worship and out of everyone else’s business and we’ll all be better off.

Dismayed wrote:

<quoted text>
It was NOT a constitutional violation. A cross does not constitute the federal goverment establishing a church. Sheesh...you guys want to read things that are not there every time you get a chance to slam anything connected to Christianity. No wonder this country is on a downhill slide.

Excellent. Then you talibangelical liars will have no problem with someone putting big Pentagrams on public property, either.

Praiz jeebus!

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Christmas is a bs holiday that uses His name to make corporate America rich off idiots like you, zippy. Many atheists, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and Buddhists died defending our freedom. putting a cross to honor ALL Veterans is dishonorable to those fallen soldiers and their families who are not Christians. it represents intolerance and exclusion, not Christianity

I will agree that fumdamentalists are obnoxious to the extreme. In fact, they are exceeded in that trait only by yourself, and no. You really don't get it, because you've grown up in this age of moral fright where virtue can only ever be disclosed when one is willing to self chastise and appologize perpetually for bearing some relation to what traditionally was the so-called culture at large. Everyone knows that myriad peoples reside amongst the dead, and all (most especially we lot which sours you so till you cringe) honor their sacrifice. The cross is a symbol and a heirloom from a time past. It is precedent and should stand for posterity. It was not erected to sour YOU and is built upon an altar of sacrifice. Imagine a time when many might reside without rebellion even under a symbol which might not draw all the human lines well. Imagine such an innocence before your bully wit and whip. Hey Pal? Guess what? While you ply your multicultural theme as though you believe in it beyond its proficiency as a club with which to beat your wearied brother? Guess what proposition is truly on the rise and which will doubtless subdue you without any even feign of appology? That's right! The rising 100 million hispanics who are? That's right! Primarily Christian. Get use to it all over again, and don't expect any appology this time. You can hide those little tears for another half century or so. This is why I for one am glad for these new benefactors of our American proposition. Glad for those who will inherit the winds of that power and pride which will again and undoubtedly tell you in no uncertain terms to "$hut the #uck up for once and for all time. Try selling it to the new boss you pretend to so adore and who's smart enough to know he don't adore you no matter how thick you apply that polish to boot and knob alike (whatever is required to show how solemnly you regard your regrettable responsible priviledge). Happy channakah, and you let me know if I mispelled anything while I'll be sure not to give a #uck in any case. And by the way, I really do mean "happy Channakah," because though Judaism is a minority theme, I don't disregard it for that fact while you disregard the Christian theme merely because it represents (has represented) a majority. And yes, we all know what you're gonna say next, and no. You are not correct when you assume that a majority must represent oppression. Believe it or not? Most really do wish to belong and even partake of the more common fruits. I am surrounded by Muslims among all other sorts, and they are warm and kind and do not begrudge our national character, but rather many know too well what sweet offerings our proposition brings to those who have known TRUE oppression. It is a minority who are so poorly encourage by you and your lot to thumb their nose contentiously at the culture at large, and some do this for a perceived advantage. but I know you'll abandon them when heat is applied as though you never knew them. You're the sort that hangs them out after all when the winds you drive turn the fire too hot and too close. You don't drive these divisions for anyone but yourselves.

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
Seems we were a lot better off when it was.

Listen to what he's saying really, and I think you'll be much encouraged. The last peoples that would endure his grief upon themselves are those he pretends to both adore and represent. True, America is no longer the exclusive domain of the Christian and White, but it is emerging as the primary domain of the brown and Christian, and these of this new emergence share very, very little of his sentiment and have infinitely less patience for him than we so-called White Christians. One day (and fairly soon) there's going to come a grand recognition that all we seeming disperate peoples and cultures share a good deal more with eachother than we do with these Cosmopolitan elite who calculate those among us who are useful enough for their worthy praise. Don't be so discourage that they hate you, because take a good look at what becomes of those who are so lucky to come under their better gaze.

Supreme Court to Hear Mojave Cross Case

The Cross Stays ..Period

If those atheist liberals dont want it there

TUFF SH*T!!!!!!!!!

God Guns and Guts......Built this Country.
Not UnHolly Cissy Un American Libtards!!!!!

It didn't bother anyone for 70 years..

I am with Scalia on this. The cross honors all fallen, not just Christians, which is what the prosecutors are trying to pull.

This whole issue is bullshit. They were selling the land back to rectify the problem. But this warrior against Christianity decided to block the sale.

Hyrax wrote:

It didn't bother anyone for 70 years..
I am with Scalia on this. The cross honors all fallen, not just Christians, which is what the prosecutors are trying to pull.
This whole issue is bullshit.

Fine, you liar, then take the cross down and honor all the fallen by putting up a Star of David or a Pentagram.

You crazy, cretin, fundie, xstain talibangelicals are so damn stooopit and disingenuous that it's a marvel. Praiz!

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Fine, you liar, then take the cross down and honor all the fallen by putting up a Star of David or a Pentagram.
You crazy, cretin, fundie, xstain talibangelicals are so damn stooopit and disingenuous that it's a marvel. Praiz!

Example of liberal education. You did not address any points I made in my post. A fine example indeed.

Hyrax wrote:

It didn't bother anyone for 70 years..
I am with Scalia on this. The cross honors all fallen, not just Christians, which is what the prosecutors are trying to pull.
This whole issue is bullshit. They were selling the land back to rectify the problem. But this warrior against Christianity decided to block the sale.

The 'warrior against Christianity' to whom you refer is Frank Buono, a devout, practicing catholic.
And he wasn't blocking the sale of anything. Do some research.

Hyrax wrote:

<quoted text>
Example of liberal education. You did not address any points I made in my post. A fine example indeed.

Yes cretin, I did address the fallacy of your post.(That means you're a liar - ask ur hom skool teechur to splain it to u.)

Here's your BS: "The cross honors all fallen, not just Christians, which is what the prosecutors are trying to pull. "

If you claim the cross is not xstain and honors all the fallen, THEN you xstain, talibangelical ignoramuses would have no objection were the cross to be replaced by a giant Star of David or Pentagram.

But you would object to such replacements, because you're a lying, xstain kook who cannot abide a secular society or the Establishment Clause. You think your brand of "Christianity" trumps all.

It doesn't, you loon. Praiz!

This counter factual obliterates your main argument/lie. Your other blatherings are irrelevant and secondary.

I think perhaps a repost of my original comments (slightly edited) will help to clarify exactly what the issue is here.

The reason this became an issue at all is because the original plaintiff wished to erect a shrine to Buddha next to the Christian cross. The exact wording of the constitution as it pertains to this case is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or <strong>prohibiting the free exercise thereof</strong>... ". By disallowing the shrine, the government was prohibiting the free exercise of one religion (Buddhism) in a place where such free exercise is obviously allowed (Christianity).

Another way to look at it: "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or <strong>the preference of one religion over another</strong>, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion." (from Wikipedia) By allowing the Christian cross to be displayed while preventing a Buddhist shrine from being displayed, the government was demonstrating a clear preference for Christianity over Buddhism.

There are two alternatives given this situation. One: allow the Buddhist symbol, as well as a symbol for any other religious group that wishes to be represented. Two: don't allow any religious symbols to be placed at all. There is actually a third option, but it is explicitly prohibited by the constitution: allow the Christian cross to remain but do not allow any other religious symbols to be added.

Option one (allowing all religious symbols) is perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned, but I suspect that things would get crowded and expensive once we've added a Buddhist shrine, a Jewish Star of David, an Islamic Crescent and Star, a Taoist Yin Yang, a Wiccan Pentagram, a Bahá'í Ringstone, a Pastafarian fish, an Ásatrú Horn of Odin, etc... to the monument. In reality if even the tiniest fraction of the non-christian population wanted representation it would cause serious logistical problems that the government would be REQUIRED to resolve if it was to remain true to the constitution.

Option two on the other hand requires only the removal of a single symbol and the difficulties are over. This is why this is the option being pursued. It's not an attack on Christianity. It is not an attempt to rid the U.S. of religion. It's not an atheist plot to take over the world. It's only the simplest solution to a problem created by an obvious constitutional violation.

Think of it this way. What if it were a Buddhist shrine up there instead of a cross? Of course there’s nothing wrong with that. You’re not a Buddhist, but you realize that others are, so it’s no big deal. However, you would like to get a cross put up there because it's a war memorial and you’re a veteran too, so a cross would more closely represent your own religion. But when you ask to do so, the government says “Nope, only Buddhist shrines are allowed on government property.” Would you simply accept that buddhists have a right to religious expression that is denied to you? Or would you fight to have the same rights as the buddhists? If you were then told that fighting for those rights would probably just end with the removal of the shrine, would you say "Oh, well in that case nevermind. Since the cross won't be shown anyway I'm okay with letting the buddhists have rights that I am denied."?

Doh! No html to emphasis, eh? Imagine that the places surrounded by the <strong></strong> tags are in bold.

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
It's been there a long time. That is a factor the courts have considered. Evidently that does not make up for denying other faiths memorials of their own - an issue you just keep right on ignoring.
By the way, I'm a United Methodist. you anti-Semitic asshat.

Sorry your methodist, your mistake.