Court Rules Mount Soledad Cross Unconstitutional

[Falvlun]

I don't think those violate the Constitution's 1st Amendment....especially since they're in Egypt.

Hence the "pretending" bit.

The history of this particular cross was originally to promote Xtianity.
Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So? I mean, really. Do you expect to find many religiously themed monuments that weren't meant to promote that particular religion?

My town's historic train station, which is much older than this cross and arguably has much more historical value, was picked up and moved to make room for more parking at the new train station. It's now an art gallery.

Apparently, one of the suggestions from the ACLU to deal with the situation was to have it removed and relocated to private property somewhere. A local church has offered to take it.

Yeah. In this particular case, I don't see why you wouldn't simply move it. That church is only a couple hundred feet away from it's present location.

And what is the historical value of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross (as Revoltingest's link explains it's original religious function)

See my response to Revoltingest. Historical value? People came here, believed this, did that on these days. The general reasons for historical sites

Although, I'll readily admit, this isn't a site that I'd fight all that hard for. This thread just got me thinking along these lines.

Pretending that the great pyramids were in America, I would say keep them because, 1) Their removal would be far too costly, and more importantly 2) they no longer represent a present-day religion---the possible few pretenders not withstanding.

Ha! Tell that to Senedjem. He'd probably sic Anubis on you.

The Pyramids really weren't a great example as there is an obvious archeological treasure trove of information tucked inside them, as well as their religious connotations, but I was being lazy. The Buddhas of Bamiyan are perhaps a better example. The point being that some religious monuments should be protected for future generations.

I agree, and as for blind rage, this is obviously not a factor here. The objection to its presence is firmly based on the law of the land, which is why the court ruled as it did. Both the objection and the ruling were very sober and considered decisions.

In addition to blind rage, we should also protect certain things against the broad strokes of an indifferent law.

 

[Skwim]

That what I say. Don't bother going retro-active and expensively fight over what has been around for years without a hitch or murmur. Just refrain from using religious symbolism in future endeavors.

But there have been "hitches or murmurs." Ever since 1989 it's been embroiled lawsuits. See HERE

As for simply leaving such symbols, the problem is that unlike a gasoline engine that's left without fuel and therefore no longer serves its purpose, a symbol is always serving those to whom it has meaning. And when it comes to religious symbols, constructed on public land such a service is prohibited by law.

 

[uu_sage]

Praise the Lord! This is a victory for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

 

[Falvlun]

Praise the Lord! This is a victory for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

How exactly is your ability to worship in the way you wish to worship different today than it was yesterday?

I seriously want to know.

Sure, I understand why it would be oppressive for the gov to specifically, and exclusively, endorse one religion over others, but how exactly was this cross, which has been there since 1913, repressing you?

 

[Revoltingest]

So? I mean, really. Do you expect to find many religiously themed monuments that weren't meant to promote that particular religion?

Grave markers have religious meaning, but I don't see that they proclaim a public support for religion to the extent that a huge cross on a hill would.
The USSC would look at grave markers as de minimis. Btw, I disagree with their taking that same view with "In God We Trust" on money.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well kiss my grits

 

[Revoltingest]

Well kiss my grits

Are they Xtian, Muslim or agnostic grits?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are they Xtian, Muslim or agnostic grits?

Daddy grits, obviously.

 

[Falvlun]

Grave markers have religious meaning, but I don't see that they proclaim a public support for religion to the extent that a huge cross on a hill would.
The USSC would look at grave markers as de minimis. Btw, I disagree with their taking that same view with "In God We Trust" on money.

Funny you bring up grave markers, because I was thinking about Arlington Nat'l Cemetary, where you can choose b/w a cross and a Jewish star. Are the rights of non-Christian, non-Jewish soldiers being infringed upon? Undoubtably. But taken in an historical perspective, it is a pretty inspiring, beautiful site.

I agree about the money. The slogan should be phased out.

Do I think every religious monument on public land be preserved? No. But I do think we should be open to the possibility that there is something worth saving in some of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny you bring up grave markers, because I was thinking about Arlington Nat'l Cemetary, where you can choose b/w a cross and a Jewish star. Are the rights of non-Christian, non-Jewish soldiers being infringed upon? Undoubtably. But taken in an historical perspective, it is a pretty inspiring, beautiful site.

I'm just happy that I'm not buried there.
But if I were, I'd pick a green planet with a tongue sticking out of its smile.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm just happy that I'm not buried there.
But if I were, I'd pick a green planet with a tongue sticking out of its smile.

Well, I be darned. There are 39 authorized headstones. See wiki links: Arlington Nat'l Cemetery, and Authorized Faith Emblems.

I couldn't find a good pic of a non-Christian/Jewish headstone though.

Now we just need to petition them to add the ridiculously sarcastic/happy galaxy.

 

[McBell]

(Pretending the great pyramids were in America): Should we tear down the pyramids because they are symbols of the religion of the ancient Egyptians? Or should we demand that Giza be cluttered by 4,199 other religious symbols?

I don't know.
Are they are government property?

Now, I don't think this particular cross has that much value, but I do think we should keep in mind the historical value to certain things before we tear them down in a blind rage against inequality.

I agree.
The government should sell the land and build a new structure on land that does not have any religious history.

Or perhaps they can move the "offending" peice(s) to a non-governmental property.

 

[McBell]

Funny you bring up grave markers, because I was thinking about Arlington Nat'l Cemetary, where you can choose b/w a cross and a Jewish star. Are the rights of non-Christian, non-Jewish soldiers being infringed upon? Undoubtably. But taken in an historical perspective, it is a pretty inspiring, beautiful site.

Are those of non-Christian and non-Jewis faith denied having their religious symbol on their gravestone?
If so, then it is a blatant violation.
If not, there is no violation.

I agree about the money. The slogan should be phased out.

Based upon what legal grounds?

Do I think every religious monument on public land be preserved? No. But I do think we should be open to the possibility that there is something worth saving in some of them.

I tend to agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Based upon what legal grounds?

The motto "In God We Trust" was adopted by federal legislation.
And from Wiki...
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Some seek to justify the motto by saying it establishes no specific religion. But to atheists, agnostics
& those who believe in multiple gods it certainly establishes something they don't believe in.

 

[McBell]

The motto "In God We Trust" was adopted by federal legislation.
And from Wiki...
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Now you needs to show that the words in question constitute a law.
THEN you needs show that the words in question favour one religion over another.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you needs to show that the words in question constitute a law.
THEN you needs show that the words in question favour one religion over another.

From Wiki....
On July 11, 1955 it became required on all coins and currency by Act of Congress,[7] (a year after the phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance),[8] and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.[1]

Belief in God requires religion. Note that it doesn't allow for belief in "gods" or "Allah".
Whatever very general religion is represented by this motto, it certainly doesn't represent a great many beliefs.

 

[truseeker]

Some of the ancient pagans had a statue to "the unknown god" just in case they were wrong in their beliefs. Maybe we need some way to allow for all religions to be covered just in case the non believers are wrong.

 

[McBell]

From Wiki....
On July 11, 1955 it became required on all coins and currency by Act of Congress,[7] (a year after the phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance),[8] and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.[1]

Belief in God requires religion. Note that it doesn't allow for belief in "gods" or "Allah".
Whatever very general religion is represented by this motto, it certainly doesn't represent a great many beliefs.

And what law do the words on the US currency make?


So now the word god means YWHW?
Seems to me that to use a generic word like god to mean exclusively one specific deity is the very pinnacle of arrogance.

 

[McBell]

Some of the ancient pagans had a statue to "the unknown god" just in case they were wrong in their beliefs. Maybe we need some way to allow for all religions to be covered just in case the non believers are wrong.

I never thought Pascal's Wager was anything more than an attempt to fool god.

 

[Revoltingest]

And what law do the words on the US currency make?

The words of the motto are the effect of the law, rather than the law itself.
I prefer the motto go back to the secular "E Pluribus Unum".