Posted on 12/12/2013 7:04:32 PM PST by annalex
Well, the Jews have a different religion than us; I cannot blame them for wanting the Cross to go. However, supposedly we live in a free nation and they are, or rather, should be, free to erect symbols they hold dear on a mountain top that is unoccupied.
But I am not sure the controversy had been spurred by a specifically Jewish complaint. What do you know about it? The original plaintiff is a self-described atheist and nothing suggests Jewish ethnic origin either: Philip K. Paulson
I think you jumped to a stereotype.
Yes, we should probably blame the system rather than that particular judge.
I am sure enough will show up trying to block the bulldozers when it comes to that.
When it comes to the physical demolition, a crew will be found, and a SWAT team will be formed to disperse the protesters. Yes, there will be protesters.
The effective way to resist this is for everyone with a hilltop property to erect a cross on it, as big as he can afford.
That is what started this kangaroo-court persecution of Christianity. So based on that precedent, no cross can be erected on public land unless it is immersed in some larger secular display. This is as good as banning it.
I wish we could just appoint Clarence Thomas clones. We’ve gotten too many stinkers. How come no liberals go conservative while on the federal bench?
When it comes to the physical demolition, a crew will be found, and a SWAT team will be formed to disperse the protesters. Yes, there will be protesters.
The right must use the tactics of the left and defy immoral and unconstitutional rulings like this. Make the government fire into the protesters. Make them sick their dogs and firehoses on us! We will win in the court of public opinion. We must not consent to giving our Rights away!
James R. McClure Jr.
Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN9
Because the system is rigged to favor the left.
Build your private crosses, people.
Yes, and note that it was the SCOTUS “conservatives” who constituted the majority on that case and rendered that opinion. The “liberals” (Blackmun, Marshall, etc.) would have banned any religious expression outright.
That is the story of conservatism in the fast few decades: we start by already fashioning a compromise in our own head, then either lose altogether or move left from the initial, already compromised negotiating position.
Besides, like in this case, the compromise is sometime worse than a total loss, because undiluted religion expression is already banned and that is considered the “conservative” goalpost.
The left simply plows through till they cannot go any further, like Stalin though Eastern Europe.
Maybe if it were a statue of two men screwing up the rear, it would be celebrated as diversity and a hate crime to take it down. USA has become a trash heep thanks to the drug addicted left and their mental illness.
How come no liberals go conservative while on the federal bench?
/
Because the system is rigged to favor the left
..
Yep. The system is a leftwing monster, and once people are in it, and benefitting from it, nobody fights it.
This is just wrong on so many levels. I hope the judge chokes on a chicken bone, and has to retire immediately. This is what you get when the court decided in the Madeline Murray case that atheism is basically the same as a religion. This was predicted then. No one really believed it though.
The majority in that decision was simply incorrect. All this suppression of religion is just wrong and it’s not constitutional either. We go to ridiculous lengths to protect the rights of the majority.
Now, we find ourselves with the majority being forced to live according to the ideas of the minority. That’s just rotten. I am totally sick of it. These judges legislating from the bench need to be retired/fired where they can’t make such ignorant rulings.
I don't see how the question whether atheism is a religion impacts this case. We already have religions other than Christianity that would object to a cross in the public space on the grounds that it is not their symbol; the obvious response to their concern is that they are free to erect their own monuments on other public hills.
The question is logically impacted by the very flawed Lynch v. Donnelly decision (131). I speak not as a lawyer but as a reasoning human being. That decision, unfortunately, was at the time seen as a victory for the freedom of religion. But it was not that: it established a standard according by which a religious symbol must be watered down by secular themes and embedded in them: the Ten Commandments must be put in the context of justice in general, perhaps with a Greek goddess present blindfolded and holding scales; a creche must be surrounded by elves, flying deer and Santas; a cross must by buried in some, perhaps, patriotic symbols (it is after all honoring the veterans -- the American eagle, maybe). This silliness, of course, destroys the Christian symbol almost entirely, and opens the secular symbol to ridicule.
The unfortunate fact is also that so many Freepers, I'm sure with the best of intentions, responded with suggestions to somehow bury the cross in something else: put a Hanukkah candles next to it, or the Koran, or the Muslim crescent; others pointed out to other embedded symbols in secular context, like "God" on the currency or "San" as part of city names. That is fine as humor, but in seriousness we should fight for the inalienable right to erect any religious symbol on public land so long as the well-defined process of obtaining a permit based on aesthetic, engineering and safety consideration, but not on ideological or sectarian considerations, has been followed. We should not be deterred by the fact that the vast majority of these symbols will end up Christian, reflecting the religious makeup of our country. We should not yield to those who would want us to dilute these symbols by secular aesthetics.
It is, of course, especially insulting to Americans that this cross is also the cenotaph for the fallen for our freedom. However, we should take back the Constitutional freedom as it is, whole: the freedom to erect a cross on a public land for no other reason but of worshiping Jesus Christ.
Direct civil disobedience is of course impossible short of setting up a permanent vigil around the Mt. Soledad Cross. However there is something many property owners in America should be able to do: erect a cross on your property and make it as tall and visible as possible. It may be the most important patriotic act in your life.
Judge needs to get over being a slave. This is simply ridiculous, and who cares what the ninth circuit thinks-they obviously don’t understand the religious freedom we are supposed to have.
The Madelian Murray case was a big infringement on our rights, and marked a big turn toward secularization, and is just a tiny piece of a larger picture, where they continue to chisel away a piece at a time the religious freedom of the majority.
Step by step. Piece by piece. Prayer in school, nativity scenes, ten commandments, etc. Once they get the courts to usurp the legislature and constitution on one issue, they turn to another in a neverending stream of lawsuits designed to infringe on our rights.
Citizens and legislatures/congresscritters should have stopped this long ago, but I don’t believe they understood the threat-it’s the frog in water thing-do it slow with small steps, by the time people wake up - too late.
The judge’s hands weren’t tied except in his own mind. He could have ruled for the principles that were intended by the founders, and stood up to tyranny. Reminds me of Pontius Pilot a bit.
IIRC, the ninth circuit is one of the most reversed courts in the nation. They should have been removed a long time ago. And that’s really all I have to say on the subject.JMHO
This is an absolutely superior idea. Hang this around the rat’s neck like an albatross in “Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner”.
That’s a beautiful area! Every time I visit San Diego, I visit Rosecrans National Cemetery. You pass through it to get to the Mt. Soledad monument.
The first time I visited the cemetery was in June, 2008. As I was driving through, I noticed a fresh grave. The funeral must have taken place with a day or two. I stopped and arranged the fresh flowers and the little statues of angels that had fallen over. I placed the small tilted American flags upright into the ground. And then I cried. I didn’t know this soldier, but my heart broke for him and for his family. He was only 23. When I’m in San Diego, I still visit his grave.
I googled and just found this:
His photo:
http://www.iraqwarheroes.org/legg.htm
His grave. Cool that the fighter jets just happened to fly in the background....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3nWOKiDeBo
LA Times article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/29/local/me-legg29
When the liberal side wins, silly.
What we can expect is that the today's judicial sabotage: chipping away at a cross here and a prayer there, -- will be replaced by a systematic and thorough removal of all things Christian anywhere in public view. Not on public property, just in public view.
Yes, recognition of various superstitions such as atheism or witchcraft as religion is a step in that direction as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.