Loss for the anti-tolerance crowd...

let us all celebrate the christians who have died for this country. the others don't count though..... i mean they're gonna burn in hell for eternity anyways

 

You mean the city named after a freaking Saint?

 

*Ahem* You mean, "Whale Vagina?"

 

German...Spanish...who cares?

 

"In 1989, atheist Philip Paulson filed suit against the City of San Diego, claiming that the presence of the cross on city property violated the provision on separation of church and state in the California Constitution."

What a fooking tool.

 

I swear, you get more dense by the day. The Supremes shouldn't even have to waste their time with this case. They just set the precedent. When they decided the 10 Commandments cases, they ruled that one display, that was part of a diverse collection of judicial artifacts, was fine, while the other, which was placed there in blatant support of one religion (Christianity) was not. This is a big freaking cross (a symbol of just one religion, again Christianity) on public ground. It is NOT part of a diversified collection of memorial artifacts. Just like the 10 Commandments display the SC ordered removed, these tools have attempted to "make it okay" by tossing a few plaques around over the last few years. When a judge correctly identified that the big freaking cross violated both the state and federal Constitutions, the supporters (nut jobs who claim that removal of the cross as a symbol of the Christian god would dishonor the memory of veterans, even though not all of those veterans were even Christian) decided to put it to a vote (after some nifty setup work from religious loon-in-chief himself). Unfortunately, in their fervor to impose their religion on everyone else, they didn't seem to realize that they should have been attempting to change the state and federal Constitutions to eliminate references, both implied and literal, to the seperation of church and state. You can't vote to keep something that is unconstitutional without first changing the constitution.

Think on this for a minute, Ian. If you had relatives that died in a specific war, how would you, as a Christian, feel if there was a big freaking Star of David at the memorial? How about a 30 foot statue of Mohammed? You'd be a tad offended, no? That's how others feel when they don't share the beliefs you and these folks from San Diego constantly try to ram down their throats.

 

I wouldn't mind the Star of David, but a fricking statue of Mohammed, are you kidding me? I'd be offended because the guy was a false prophet and a thug to boot. Read up on Mohammed's history. Ain't no sane people gonna erect a statue of Mohammed and I wouldn't live anyplace that did. You think the little, petty athiest who objected here would've raised the issue if he lived in a country that erected a statue of Mohammed? They would've cut his penis off and smited his neck bone. The cross was erected in 1954. What about the families of all the soldiers who the memorial is supposed to honor? The athiest is a little prick, as most athiests are want to be in this day and age. Does this cross look offensive to anyone?

 

false prophet....... hehehehhehe. they all are. they have been around since we started to stand on two feet.

 

[sigh] Yes actually-- imperial Christianity is about as ugly as anything gets... I don't live in San Diego, and even if I did, I've learned to live with such things-- but don't kid yourself. To me it stands for "women shouldn't talk in church" and "tithe or God will smite you with lightning" and all that Pauline fascism... and of course, Crusades and Inquisitions and the death/slaughter of American civilizations...

 

What? Women can't talk in church? You must be confusing the smiting of lightning with the smiting of necks, performed by the Islamofascists. Nobody is forced to tithe. And, please, the Crusades and Inquisitions? Got anything from the last 500 years? That's a tired mantra.

 

The South reminds me of a tough and ugly time in the US. Should the North just cut ties with anything below Maryland and Delaware?

The cross was erected in 1954. It's a historical landmark. Because of a handful, they need to tear it down? Sorry, but there's more important things to worry about.

 

He asked if I found it ugly-- I do. I wasn't commenting on the suit.

The fish doesn't bother me at all. There's a beauty in the "dragged cross" that symbolizes Simon Cyrene too...

 

Again, I was commenting on the aesthetic charge of the symbol, not the suit... I don't usually sigh when I'm ranting... Something about my style clearly irritates the crap out of you and I'm sorry for that because the converse is not true...

The will-to-power that brought the flu with it was the real killer to me; I suppose the arrival of the flu was inevitable, but the circumstances of its arrival seem vicious and imbalanced to me... cross-threaded, maybe...

 

"IMAGINE"
John Lenon.

 

So the Gospels are history but not the rest of the New Testament?

The Crusades and Inquisitions are, you know, far more recent than the events the cross originally referred to...

 

Why does Christianity need government support? Why can't they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, instead of depending on government handouts?

I don't mind religious people - some of my best friends are religious. And they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, I don't care. But I don't need to see their propaganda on the TV and media, and I don't need to have my kids recruited by them.

 

Stuff like this,below; you seem to have taken me to be talking about the lib'ral myth of the smallpox blanket when I had nothing of the sort in mind... I was referring to what Firesign Theater parodied with the "Domine domine domine, you're all Catholics" bit... "We're here to get you into heaven and take what you have on earth to help you get on along the way" is really not a myth and not too serious a distortion. I suppose it was an evolutionary phase, but its uglier than an orangutang...

And of course on another thread today you took a reference to something I participate in from time to time as "stereotyping..." I'll get over it, but it kinda took my breath away... Makes me think I'm pushing your buttons before I(or you) get to the end of the sentence.

I dunno; a few tribes sided with the colonists too. And later on the Cherokee, the Nez Perce, and the Pueblos all tried pretty hard to find a common ground, and they all got dumped on just as bad as anybody else...

 

People worship the word of Mohammed, so why not throw a statue up on federal ground? Oh, that would piss you off? Now you know why non-Christians get pissed off when people like you try and throw Jesus in their face on public property. What about all the families of all the soldiers the cross was erected to honor? I'm sure some of the Jewish and Muslim soldiers families are pissed that a symbol of some other religion was used to "honor" their relatives, to say nothing of those who are atheistic or agnostic. That cross is offensive to anyone who isn't Christian, just as a statue of Mohammed would be offensive to you. If you want to create a memorial to fallen soldiers, why not do something non-religious? In my view, the most moving monument is the statue of Iwo Jima. That monument is completely secular. It focuses on what those soldiers actually did rather than what some of them may have believed. What you fail to realize in your search to force Christianity down everyone else's throat is that YOU are the one disrespecting those fallen soldiers. Rather than honoring their sacrifice, you are using that sacrifice to further your own religious purpose.

Beyond that, as I said in my first post, it's clearly unconstitutional (both state and federal), as the Supreme Court clearly showed with their 10 commandment decisions earlier this year. Though I noticed you glossed over that part of my argument in your rush to talk about how bad Mohammed was and how atheists are "little pricks." Bravo, jackass.

 

I think the age of the monument was only a minor consideration in the split decision. Breyer was the only justice to vote differently in the two Commandment cases, and his reasoning was...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.ten.commandments/index.html

Rehnquist pointed out that the Texas display had been around for over 40 years, which helped its case, but he voted for the Kentucky display as well, so that obviously wasn't the dealmaker.

 

I think you inadvertantly answered your own question. There are more atheist/agnostic/non-Christians around now than there were 40 years ago. Plus, 40 years ago puts us right in the heyday of the cold war, a time period in which "Patriotism" and "Christian" were practically identical. Just look at some of the actions of the time. Many of the institutionalized, state-backed religious gestures came from this time period. Since the end of the Cold War, it's become more publicly acceptible to be non-Christian (not that there's anything wrong with being Christian).

As Skipshady pointed out, I was aware of the split decision. They allowed the one display to stand, not because it was old, but because it was merely part of a larger display that included numerous artifacts that conveyed judicial history. The other display was not allowed because it was clearly an attempt to push Christian imagery. The cross in San Diego is clearly an example of the latter. There is no balance to the monument (and even if they did try to add some in a cheap attempt at balance, the cross would still come down due to original intent, just like the 10 commandments display). It was a weak attempt to exploit the memory of fallen soldiers in a callous desire to push one religion. That violates both the federal (per recent precedent) and state (through direct language) constitutions.

 

While I'm squarely on the side of keeping new religious symbols off public property, I'm okay with this. The cross has been there long enough to acquire historic and civic value beyond its original religious meaning.

The Taliban? I see what you mean, but I doubt they were reading up on Jefferson when they destroyed all those Buddha statues.

 

Oh come on, Mike. Comparing this lawsuit to the Taliban is more than a bit of a stretch. You're correct. The culture has changed. People aren't paranoid about publicly expressing their Christianity so as to appear different from "the Godless Communists." We should leave up a monument that was erected out of irrational fear because it's been there for a while? We should leave up a monument that violates 2 constitutions because the atmosphere was too oppressive to challenge it until 15 years ago? And again, that monument wasn't erected to honor fallen soldiers. This nation has come up with genuine monuments to honor fallen soldiers. The Iwo Jima memorial, the Vietnam Memorial and the new WW2 memorial are all superb examples. If you truly want to honor fallen soldiers, you honor what they did. If you want to government to back one religion, you design a monument that represents what some of them believed.

 

So when you quote me and respond, I should figure I was just sorta standing there when it happened but its really about something else entirely? Okay.

Actually I can do that-- I just have no idea whether its true or possible or means what its purported to mean. Hypothetically the blankets were collected from a hospital or infirmary after an epidemic subsided and the patients either died or recovered. Whether the contagion is durable enough to survive the trip, and whether the principle was understood well enough for such a thing to be intentional would both seem debatable even if it could be established that blankets actually were donated...

So if I run into Sonny Spruce at the bar tomorrow, I should pretend it was a coffee shop?

Yeah I suppose you are right and I suppose knew that...

And I didn't do it and I wasn't there then, and I'm not going to get neurotic about it, but its still a creepy feeling.

 

No argument from me on Newdow. I don't like the way he used his daughter at all.

As to the O'Hare case, opposing Christianity in schools and opposing Christianity in the military are two different things. For starters, while O'Hare may have happened in the 60's (15-20 years before I was born), there was still prayer in my public high school 8 years ago. The lawsuits on individual violations really became common in the last 15 to 20 years.

As to this lawsuit, it didn't take 40 years. It took 30. The suit was originally filed in 1989. Do you honestly think it's just a coincidence that someone filed suit right after the end of the cold war? I don't. Seperation of Church and State in the US and the California constitutions has been in place for quite awhile. People fighting for the enforcement of that concept is a relatively new thing.

And again, I don't buy that, even in the 50's, that monument was constructed just to pay homage to fallen soldiers. You don't build a big freaking religious symbol to honor fallen soldiers without at least a degree of a desire to spread a religious view.