McBell
Unbound
Hmm..
Oh.
lol
Sorry about that that.
I understand now.
Now all you needs do is show how that law favours one religion over the rest.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Court Rules Mount Soledad Cross Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Hmm..
Oh.
lol
Sorry about that that.
I understand now.
Now all you needs do is show how that law favours one religion over the rest.
McBell
Unbound
Ah, tricky your wordings, so rephrase it I must.
It favors a group of monotheistic religions over non-religions & non-monotheistic religions.
McBell
Unbound
And?
You forgot to show where it sanctions one religion over the rest.
I mean that is exactly what the amendment you cited said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
You'll note that the 1st Amendment doesn't say "establishment of a religion", but rather the non-quantitative "establishment of religion".
So if the federal gov't enacts legislation favoring some religions over others, then it sure looks unconstitutional.
Ok, I give up. I can't find out who owns the pyramids. But how could they not be gov property?
Yup. Both acceptable alternatives, and actually, pretty easily done in this particular instance.Mestermia said:
See a couple posts up: Apparently, there are a multitude of different religious headstones authorized for use. I couldn't find any pictures of them in use, though.Mestemia said:
I see you and Revoltingest are hashing this out. Honestly, I thought it a pretty blatant violation of the establishment clause, much worse than this here cross that I never even heard of until today.Mestemia said:
I own them. Revoltistan appropriated them this year.
Egypt thinks Revoltistan is cute, but will crush it nonetheless. I suggest you return them.
I store them in Egypt. They're so clueless, they didn't even notice the change in ownership.
Besides there's a lot of upkeep, & they're better able to manage them. I think of it as a
partnership....I'm the silent partner.
Ah, very smooth. I have much to learn.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Here's a more well rounded account of this story from CNN... I used it to start a thread on another forum.
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a cross displayed on public property for nearly a century is unconstitutional.
Three versions of the Christian symbol have been erected atop 822-foot Mount Soledad in the posh La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California, since 1913.
The current 43-foot cross was erected in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans and has been the subject of near constant judicial back and forth since 1989, when two Vietnam War veterans filed suit against the city, saying it violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that the cross -- since the late 1990s surrounded by plaques and paving stones honoring veterans and war dead -- was solely a memorial.
"The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion," the court said in its ruling. "It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal. To many non-Christian veterans, this claim of universality is alienating."
The court also noted that the site had, for most of history, been used for Easter services -- marked on maps until the late 1980s as the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross" -- and was designated a war memorial with a plaque "only after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s."
"It was not until the late 1990s that veterans' organizations began holding regular memorial services at the site," the court said.
And the court rejected arguments that the cross at a war memorial was no different than any other memorial that includes a cross.
"This war memorial -- with its imposing Cross -- stands as an outlier among war memorials, even those incorporating crosses," the ruling says. "Contrary to any popular notion, war memorials in the United States have not traditionally included or centered on the cross and, according to the parties' evidence, there is no comparable memorial on public land in which the cross holds such a pivotal and imposing stature, dwarfing by every measure the secular plaques and other symbols commemorating veterans."
All the bickering about the first amendment to the US constitution can stop... it's a violation of the Constitution of the State of California. I suppose I can try to pinpoint the relevant passage.... if you really want me to.
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a cross displayed on public property for nearly a century is unconstitutional.
Three versions of the Christian symbol have been erected atop 822-foot Mount Soledad in the posh La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California, since 1913.
The current 43-foot cross was erected in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans and has been the subject of near constant judicial back and forth since 1989, when two Vietnam War veterans filed suit against the city, saying it violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that the cross -- since the late 1990s surrounded by plaques and paving stones honoring veterans and war dead -- was solely a memorial.
"The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion," the court said in its ruling. "It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal. To many non-Christian veterans, this claim of universality is alienating."
The court also noted that the site had, for most of history, been used for Easter services -- marked on maps until the late 1980s as the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross" -- and was designated a war memorial with a plaque "only after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s."
"It was not until the late 1990s that veterans' organizations began holding regular memorial services at the site," the court said.
And the court rejected arguments that the cross at a war memorial was no different than any other memorial that includes a cross.
"This war memorial -- with its imposing Cross -- stands as an outlier among war memorials, even those incorporating crosses," the ruling says. "Contrary to any popular notion, war memorials in the United States have not traditionally included or centered on the cross and, according to the parties' evidence, there is no comparable memorial on public land in which the cross holds such a pivotal and imposing stature, dwarfing by every measure the secular plaques and other symbols commemorating veterans."
All the bickering about the first amendment to the US constitution can stop... it's a violation of the Constitution of the State of California. I suppose I can try to pinpoint the relevant passage.... if you really want me to.
The US Constitution holds sway now, since it appears the fed has owned it since 2007.
Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
uu_sage
Active Member
The cross is my symbol. Display of a cross would be fine in a church, a monastery, on private property or some other place that is not on government land. The Mt. Soledad Cross makes me uneasy because it is a Veteran's Memorial that claims to honor the sacrifice of all soldiers regardless of their faith tradition or lack thereof and it's on government land. Government cannot endorse one faith tradition above others. We have a separation of church and state in this country and it needs to be upheld. Government should not be in the business of endorsing religious practice or religious tradition. They are public servants and not national theologians. This particular cross is Protestant in nature so it excludes those of my brothers and sisters in Christ who aren't Protestant and also excluding those of God's children of other faith traditions and those with no faith tradition. The only ones who seem to be upset by the removal of the cross is the Religious Right.