| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: IF A CROSS FELL IN THE DESERT, WOULD ANYONE HEAR IT? |
 |
|
Another secular-minded moonbat court just ruled against the Christian heritage of America, only this time the issue involves both private and public property:
| Quote: |
Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park
The U.S. government cannot trade a parcel of land to private hands to allow a Christian cross to remain in the middle of a vast federal preserve, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.
At issue is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from favoring any one religion, as it applies to a lone white metal Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.
People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.
"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.
"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement." |
I love the way the judge describes this as a "grave" concern, as if the balance of civilization hinged on her decision. Aside from the probability that the Deistic Founding Fathers did not have this situation in mind when they drafted the separation of church and state clause, her decision begs the question: if this is indeed a very serious matter, what would she say to the stamping of "In God We Trust" on our coins, or the opening of congressional sessions with a prayer?
A while back a similar thing played out in Hawaii on the island of O'ahu. A tall white cross over a mountain pass (the very same through which Japanese planes flew on their way to Pearl Harbor) was forced to be removed because it was on government land--a naval base to be precise.
So where should common sense, decency, and national heritage come into consideration in these supposedly dire deliberations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: IF A CROSS FELL IN THE DESERT, WOULD ANYONE HEAR IT? |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Another secular-minded moonbat court just ruled against the Christian heritage of America, only this time the issue involves both private and public property:
| Quote: |
Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park
The U.S. government cannot trade a parcel of land to private hands to allow a Christian cross to remain in the middle of a vast federal preserve, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.
At issue is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from favoring any one religion, as it applies to a lone white metal Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.
People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.
"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.
"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement." |
I love the way the judge describes this as a "grave" concern, as if the balance of civilization hinged on her decision. Aside from the probability that the Deistic Founding Fathers did not have this situation in mind when they drafted the separation of church and state clause, her decision begs the question: if this is indeed a very serious matter, what would she say to the stamping of "In God We Trust" on our coins, or the opening of congressional sessions with a prayer?
A while back a similar thing played out in Hawaii on the island of O'ahu. A tall white cross over a mountain pass (the very same through which Japanese planes flew on their way to Pearl Harbor) was forced to be removed because it was on government land--a naval base to be precise.
So where should common sense, decency, and national heritage come into consideration in these supposedly dire deliberations? |
Well, no in answer to the title of your thread.
I wonder how you think America has a Christian heritage when you also admit that a significant number of the founding founders were Deistic?
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Constitution is pretty clear on the issue of SOCAS. Also very clear is the stunt the government was trying to pull with the land transfer. The court wasn't impressed and ruled in agreement with the Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems fair, ths government was trying to pull a fast one and the court sorted it.
| Quote: |
A while back a similar thing played out in Hawaii on the island of O'ahu. A tall white cross over a mountain pass (the very same through which Japanese planes flew on their way to Pearl Harbor) was forced to be removed because it was on government land--a naval base to be precise.
|
seems fair also, unless the one time prescence of Japanese planes has some kind of constitutional significance.
I don't see the problem. The government should stop trying to put a cross in the park. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think there is nothing wrong with a cross in the park. I do think in the interest of fairness occasionly there also ought to be muslim, hindu , Buddist and jewish symbols in other public places . People who don' t have any religon also should have a chance for their views to be aired too.
That is what American ought be about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think there is nothing wrong with a cross in the park. I do think in the interest of fairness occasionly there also ought to be muslim, hindu , Buddist and jewish symbols in other public places . People who don' t have any religon also should have a chance for their views to be aired too.
That is what American ought be about. |
There are alot of religions in this world. I think it would be simpler just to keep religion away from public property. Personally I wouldn't want my parks cluttered up with shrines to Jesus, Jupiter, etc etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knobs
[img]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg
[/img]
Ya know, I'm getting really tired of America. America can kiss off. Esp Clinton appointed San Francisco judges. I'm also tired of atheists pushing their religious beliefs on me. You think Muslims want to control the planet and universe you ought see what the atheists have in store.
Thou shalt have no god before the nonGod. That was funny when South Park showed the intellectual Atheist god denying college professor having sex with Mr. Garrison because he couldn't tell the difference between a real woman and a woman under the eyes of ACLU inspired law. Then when he found out he threw up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think there is nothing wrong with a cross in the park. I do think in the interest of fairness occasionly there also ought to be muslim, hindu , Buddist and jewish symbols in other public places . People who don' t have any religon also should have a chance for their views to be aired too.
That is what American ought be about. |
There are alot of religions in this world. I think it would be simpler just to keep religion away from public property. Personally I wouldn't want my parks cluttered up with shrines to Jesus, Jupiter, etc etc. |
That is another solution . One or the other is ok with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Aside from the probability that the Deistic Founding Fathers did not have this situation in mind when they drafted the separation of church and state clause |
WELL, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT LETTING PEOPLE DRILL CROSSES INTO ROCKS BUT REFUSING TO ALLOW A BUDDHIST SHRINE AT THE SAME PLACE IS THE KIND OF THING THEY WANTED TO AVOID.
I think an argument could be made for some sites with religious imagery being historical (WHICH I BELIEVE IS STEVIE'S SUBTLE IMPLICATION). That doesn't appear to apply here.
Would it be OK if someone was allowed to have private land in the middle of a public park to drill a giant steel sign in place that had GOD written on it and a giant X through it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: Re: IF A CROSS FELL IN THE DESERT, WOULD ANYONE HEAR IT? |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| So where should common sense, decency, and national heritage come into consideration in these supposedly dire deliberations? |
It was there all along, Dorothy. That's why they want it removed.
| Tony_Baloney wrote: |
| I'm also tired of atheists pushing their religious beliefs on me. |
Someone please tell me this guy is just a brilliant satirist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the key clause in the document involves this:
| Quote: |
| which bars the government from favoring any one religion, |
I do not believe it was fair to ban the Buddhist shrine. I have no qualms even about a hedonistic tribute in the vicinity.
But given that this site has been something of a pilgrimage for many for the better part of a century, it seems to me that at least the less conspicuous crosses planted by individuals should be kept as symbols of individual expression or an integral part of the history of the region. Government sanction on the site to a particular faith, however, is a legitimate concern for the courts to address.
twg snapped:
| Quote: |
| It was there all along, Dorothy. That's why they want it removed. |
What was there all along, Toto? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony_Balony wrote: |
| Ya know, I'm getting really tired of America. America can kiss off. Esp Clinton appointed San Francisco judges. |
You know, I'm getting tired of people calling them San Francisco judges as though it's California's fault. They're federal judges and come from a large part of the country, not just San Francisco.
And the court ruled wisely in this case, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
