Posted on 12/13/2013 7:03:36 AM PST by Thidwick
SAN DIEGO -- After two decades of legal and political wrangling, a federal judge Thursday ordered the cross atop Mt. Soledad removed within 90 days as a violation of the separation of church and state. But U.S. District Judge Larry Burns stayed the removal order so that those defending the cross have time to appeal. Built in 1954, the 43-foot cross is one of the most visible landmarks in San Diego. Starting in the early 1990s, plaques honoring military veterans have been placed on walls surrounding the base of the cross.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I did a search and hope this is not a duplicate.
The first time it was ordered removed it what the Atheist’s that sued.
This time it is the jewish vet’s.
No.
The true test will be who will stand to defend the cross when they come to take it down.
Can we put to rest this ‘separation of church and state’ bullsheet?
The Constitution calls for the prohibition of the establishment of religion by the Federal Gov’t. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this ‘separation’ concept came from one letter Jefferson wrote - ONE, and it was not meant to be part of our founding principles.
I would love to see ‘cross-huggers’ refusing to come down from the top of the monument until it is spared.
Is this “Judge” guilty of Religious Intolerance?
“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to obtain or preserve their liberty deserve the tyrants that rule.” me
See tag line too.
Libs always shortcut things to achieve their goals. Jefferson was talking about 'Separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and the POWERS of STATE. For Example: The Pope cannot also be elected as President.
The left’s attack on Christianity will never stop. It is a historical fact of life. It is fundamental to their doctrine of the State being everything and the individual being nothing.
I don’t know about that but I do know he errs by publishing the Cross violates the Establishment Clause. The true meaning of the terms adopted by Congress Sept.25,1789 and by the States Dec.1791 -is found in the record of the debates in Congress June-Sept.1789—as compared to Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1833—1859-Compared to the Reports of committees Judiciary Committee Report US Senate 19,Jan.1853-Mr.Badger;corresponding US House Report 27 March ,1854,Mr.Meacham on the Meaning” of the Establishment Clause. These historical precedent cannot be reconciled to whatever metaphysical refinement this Federal Judge relied upon for his unconstitutional opinion.
Yes.
And he is enforcing the desires of a minority of the population of this country.
I find no argument with that!
So would I, but maybe not for the same reason as you.
There is one axiom to politics.
If you bring something up year after year after year eventually it will pass.
This has been brought up before and atheists, and liberal Jews, and other who hate Christianity will continue to bring it up until the Cross is gone.
I no longer trust the Supreme Court to do what is right.
Chief Justice Roberts robbed the court of it’s credibility in one fell swoop when he ruled on Obamacare.
It could be that, since they didn’t get to tear down the cross based on the atheist lawsuit, they now come back with a different lawsuit, with different plaintiffs who are “offended” by the sight of a cross.
Since these plaintiffs are Jewish veterans, can’t we stick a Star of David up there, and make them happy that way? Why do we have to tear down a cross because liberals are offended?
Is there any law which requires crosses to be torn down because someone is offended? Is there any law which bans religious symbols from public property? Is there any law which bans religious symbols from war memorials?
This business about the “establishment” clause doesn’t make sense to me in this case. The Founding Fathers were talking about an establishment of religion, or a religious denomination, and that the federal government was not to be involved with same. The Founding Fathers never intended that the mere sight of a cross was somehow a violation of the constitution.
It hasn’t been 20 years, it’s been 30 years and just as many lawsuits and at least one SCOTUS visit already.
Problem is that the City has a law on the books that makes the City responsible for the fees charged by the suing attorney. They don’t really care if they win or lose, they get paid either way.
The Official, Government managed, State Church of England was what our Founding Fathers were trying not to duplicate in America.
England’s King/Queen was also the Head of the Official Church.
Our Founding Fathers did not want the POTUS to be the Head of any Church.
Thomas Jefferson had a burr on his butt about Religion and wrote his non-Government opinion on the Separation of Church and State after he had retired from being POTUS. Jefferson even had a reference to his private opinion Religion put on his tombstone.
Most present-day, anti-Christan advocates trace their philosophical basis back to this same opinion written by Jefferson, but publicly claim that their philosophical basis is the US Constitution.
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.