"Christianity is under attack in this country. Most people just haven't noticed."
It's a shame that isn't true...because if it is, it'd make far more sense than how things currently are, seeing as you just recently went to war to get religious fundamentals out of power in another country (Afghanistan). If that is an American goal for other countries in the overall scheme if improving democratic government around the world, shouldn't it be implemented domestically too?
^_^
Musuko.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Thanks ACLU: War Memorial To Be Torn Down |
|
|
Musuko Massiel
Registered User
Join date: 4 Nov 2005
Posts: 435
|
07-10-2006 15:07
|
|
Jopsy Pendragon
Perpetual Outsider
Join date: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,906
|
07-10-2006 18:11
Christianity is under attack in this country. Most people just haven't noticed. Nor will they. The attackers are safely dismissed as misguided non-believers. Of course, there are probably a few Christians out there that want the infidels to resort to violence. Martyrdom and persecution only strengthen religious convictions. Any majority ideology worth it's salt is going to have to deal with the protests of the people it marginalizes. Tell me about Christianity being attacked when it loses it's majority voice in the U.S.  |
|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
07-10-2006 18:28
Sorry, but you're wrong. First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't say "Congress shall not establish a religion," it expressly forbids any law that touches upon establishing a religion. Notice? It says "shall make no law respecting..." and not "shall not establish...." The wording of the First Amendment is very broad. It doesn't simply stop Congress from naming a certain sect of Christianity as the official religion of the USA, it clearly and expressly forbids Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." That is, if you actually care enough to go by the constitution. Which hasn't been the case recently in the USA. None of which really touches on the post of mine that you quote. _____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Michael Seraph
Second Life Resident
Join date: 9 Nov 2004
Posts: 849
|
07-10-2006 20:28
None of which really touches on the post of mine that you quote. It does. You said: The government is only prevented from making a law that establishes one religion in a position of dominence over another, if you actually care enough to go by the constiution, or from using legal methods to silence an opposing religion. ...it expressly forbids any law that touches upon establishing a religion. Your interpretation of the First Amendment is too narrow. It does not just forbid the establishment of a religion, it forbids any law that gives or appears to give government approval or support of any religion. I am always amazed at Social Conservatives who try to give the government more power and restrict the rights of the people by gutting the Bill of Rights. Our system has worked amazingly well over the centuries. By keeping government out of religion, the US has kept the people in religion. We have one of the highest church (temple, synagogue, mosque) attendance rates of any industrialized democracy. Preserving our tradition of the liberty ensured by the Bill of Rights should be a Conservative principle. Why isn't it? |
|
Alex Fitzsimmons
Resu Deretsiger
Join date: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,605
|
07-10-2006 20:33
Sorry, but you're wrong. First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't say "Congress shall not establish a religion," it expressly forbids any law that touches upon establishing a religion. Notice? It says "shall make no law respecting..." and not "shall not establish...." The wording of the First Amendment is very broad. It doesn't simply stop Congress from naming a certain sect of Christianity as the official religion of the USA, it clearly and expressly forbids Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." That is, if you actually care enough to go by the constitution. Which hasn't been the case recently in the USA. The Constitution? Hasn't that already been repealed? After all, it also says that Congress is the branch of the government that declares war, and Congress hasn't been allowed to do that since WWII, but we've certainly been at war repeatedly in everything but name (and lately we even openly call it war). It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of expression, and Congress can't seem to make enough laws doing that. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which obviously means the people and not the police, as the founders knew well that government police and soldiers didn't need any legal protection for that right -- Jefferson specifically remarked that the principle reason for Second Amendment was to enable the people to fight back if/when the government turned to tyranny. Yet we've seen how that's gone, haven't we? The list goes on, but really, I think the case is already made. |
|
Dr Tardis
Registered User
Join date: 3 Nov 2005
Posts: 426
|
07-10-2006 23:03
I just don't get it.
A cross is a traditional grave marker. It's been in use for that purpose for a long time. And what about the rights of the people who paid for and built that memorial in the first place? What about the implied (or real) contract with them? Do we have the right to default on that? Incidentally, the universal Federally required symbol for EMS and ambulances is known as the "Star of Life". It's derived from a story in the book of Exodus, where the Israelites get sick and Moses erects a staff with a snake at the top. People were healed when they simply looked at the snake. Yet, I don't see people out there running around trying to have that symbol removed from the sides of ambulances. Also, the RED CROSS is... A CROSS! This is one of the world's largest charity and aid organizations. I don't see the Cross at the top of that hill as a statement of faith on the part of the City of San Diego, but as an honoring of tradition in the use of the Cross as a symbol of honor, sacrifice, and service that is recognized all around the world. Anywhere you go, if you see a cross sticking out of the ground, you know that it's a grave site or a place where someone died. It's just part of our language. Maybe I'm alone, but I think it's silly to spend the time, money, and effort that has been expended on this issue. Millions of dollars have been spent in both attacking and defending the cross on the top of that hill. To me, that particular cross no longer symbolizes religion, but rather reminds me of the fact that there are poeple who have so much hate in them that they attack anything that remotely reminds them of church or God. I hope that the Supreme Court does hear this case. No matter how it ends, it will at least end. Like it or not, the Cross is part of our history. Pulling it down won't change that, and it won't make anybody's life better in the long run. It won't end the significance of the cross in our culture or our heritage. Mr Paulson's life isn't going to get better, and I'm sure his name will be in the news again, when he goes after the San Diego Musem of Art for having Reinnasance paintings portraying God and Jesus hanging out in public. After all, that's publicly owned land that the building is sitting on. |
|
Joy Honey
Not just another dumass
Join date: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 3,751
|
07-10-2006 23:07
Also, the RED CROSS is... A CROSS! This is one of the world's largest charity and aid organizations. "The Red Cross emblem was officially approved in Geneva in 1864, a year after the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded. The emblem, endorsed by the 16 signatories of the Geneva Conventions on international humanitarian law, is based on the Swiss flag with colours reversed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_%28symbol%29 _____________________
Reality continues to ruin my life. - Calvin
You have delighted us long enough. - Jane Austen Sometimes I need what only you can provide: your absence. - Ashleigh Brilliant |
|
Dr Tardis
Registered User
Join date: 3 Nov 2005
Posts: 426
|
07-10-2006 23:13
"The Red Cross emblem was officially approved in Geneva in 1864, a year after the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded. The emblem, endorsed by the 16 signatories of the Geneva Conventions on international humanitarian law, is based on the Swiss flag with colours reversed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_%28symbol%29 It's still a Cross. My point is that you can see this symbol everywhere you look. In fact, the Swiss Flag is based on the Christian Cross: http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/geninf/flag.html |
|
Jopsy Pendragon
Perpetual Outsider
Join date: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,906
|
07-11-2006 01:06
Ah the drama that ensues when one forgets to set a state-owned parcel's auto-return period.
|
|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
07-11-2006 06:28
It does. You said: Your interpretation of the First Amendment is too narrow. It does not just forbid the establishment of a religion, it forbids any law that gives or appears to give government approval or support of any religion. Likewise, I would say yours is too broad. "make no law" = "recognising a thing exists". I am always amazed at Social Conservatives who try to give the government more power and restrict the rights of the people by gutting the Bill of Rights. Our system has worked amazingly well over the centuries. By keeping government out of religion, the US has kept the people in religion. We have one of the highest church (temple, synagogue, mosque) attendance rates of any industrialized democracy. Preserving our tradition of the liberty ensured by the Bill of Rights should be a Conservative principle. Why isn't it? You must be thinking of someone else, since 2/3rds of this paragraph doesn't apply to me. Really only the first half of the first sentance, and the second to last sentance. But, if we're going to be complete jackasses and attack each other and a whole group of people we know jack-all about as a whole, with pointed questions based on things the other never said or hinted at, based completely on stupid assumptions, then I wonder why social liberals, who are all about freedom, keep consistantly ignoring the 2nd Ammendment... Oooops, but we aren't jackasses, right? _____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Billybob Goodliffe
NINJA WIZARDS!
Join date: 22 Dec 2005
Posts: 4,036
|
07-11-2006 07:02
I wonder why social liberals, who are all about freedom, keep consistantly ignoring the 2nd Ammendment... Oooops, but we aren't jackasses, right? God created man, Sam Colt made him equal. _____________________
If life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade and try and find someone who's life has given them vodka and have a party!
I asked God directly, and he says you're a douchebag.  Commander of the Militant Wing of the Salvation Army http://e-pec.info/forum/blog/billybob_goodliffe |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-11-2006 09:09
A cross is a traditional grave marker. It's been in use for that purpose for a long time. And what about the rights of the people who paid for and built that memorial in the first place? What about the implied (or real) contract with them? Do we have the right to default on that? Yes, we have the right to default because it was illegal the moment it was first erected. The agreement was never valid in the first place. It also was never intended to be a memorial or grave marker. It wasn't dedicated as a war memorial until years after it was constructed. It was placed there as a symbol of religious worship, and as a Christian territorial marker. It's offensive. Had it been on private land that would have been fine. Instead it's on government land and is subsidized by tax dollars. I don't pay taxes to subsidize religious evangelism. _____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Dr Tardis
Registered User
Join date: 3 Nov 2005
Posts: 426
|
07-11-2006 11:32
Yes, we have the right to default because it was illegal the moment it was first erected. The agreement was never valid in the first place. It also was never intended to be a memorial or grave marker. It wasn't dedicated as a war memorial until years after it was constructed. It was placed there as a symbol of religious worship, and as a Christian territorial marker. It's offensive. Had it been on private land that would have been fine. Instead it's on government land and is subsidized by tax dollars. I don't pay taxes to subsidize religious evangelism. No, what that means is that ownership of the land should revert back to the people who paid for it and donated it to the city in the first place. If the city should not have accepted the property, which had a cross on it when it was donated to the city, then the transfer itself should be invalid. When someone donates land to the city, the city has an obligation to use the land for the purpose for which it was dedicated. If that is not possible, then the donation shouldn't be allowed to happen. Where were the lawsuits back in 1914 when the cross was donated? For that matter, why is the San Diego Mission still around, again on city property? Why do public art museums, on property and in buildings owned by the city or state, have religious exhibits? If the government can't have a Christian exhibit on public land, then that's fine. But to now allow the property to be transferred to private hands, even though the people of the city voted to do just that, seems less like a separation of church and state thing and more like a personal crusade by one person with money to burn and a personal vendetta. |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-11-2006 11:48
If the government can't have a Christian exhibit on public land, then that's fine. But to now allow the property to be transferred to private hands, even though the people of the city voted to do just that, seems less like a separation of church and state thing and more like a personal crusade by one person with money to burn and a personal vendetta. The land hasn't been transferred because it's illegal for the city to exclude offers from anyone who wants the land but doesn't intend to keep the cross, which is what they've been trying to do. The courts ruled that was also illegal. Also (I don't know this for certain) but I believe the land was already owned by the state when the cross was first built. That one man crusade is being waged by a veteran of the Vietnam war who happens to be an atheist and understandably finds it offensive (not to mention illegal) and an affront to non-Christian veterans. The wikipedia entry on the Mt. Soledad cross is excellent, especially this bit (apologies if this has already been posted in this thread)... The issue that the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was a "War Memorial" or the unmistakable symbol of the Christian Religion is a subject of legal debate for the following reasons:
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Dr Tardis
Registered User
Join date: 3 Nov 2005
Posts: 426
|
07-11-2006 12:47
The land hasn't been transferred because it's illegal for the city to exclude offers from anyone who wants the land but doesn't intend to keep the cross, which is what they've been trying to do. The courts ruled that was also illegal. Also (I don't know this for certain) but I believe the land was already owned by the state when the cross was first built. As far as I've been able to tell from my research, the cross was built in 1913, and the land was donated to the city in 1914. Incidentally, the judgement pointed to in that Wikipedia article does not specify how the Cross situation should be remedied. In fact, some of the wording implies that there IS a legal way out. The only objection the judge found was that when the land was sold, allowances weren't made in the bidding process to account for the cost of removing the cross. So if two people had similar amounts of money, and one person intended to remove the cross, then naturally the group who did NOT intend to remove the cross could make a higher bid. |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-11-2006 14:12
As far as I've been able to tell from my research, the cross was built in 1913, and the land was donated to the city in 1914. Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. The state should have made it clear that in order to accept the land they'd have to remove the cross. I really don't have a problem with it being there if the land is privately owned and is sold without preferential treatment to those who want to keep the cross on the land. I do have a big problem with it being passed off as a war memorial, which is not only offensive to non-Christian veterans, but was very obviously an attempt to circumvent the illegality of the monument after the fact. _____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
07-11-2006 19:25
I just don't get it. A cross is a traditional grave marker. It's been in use for that purpose for a long time. And what about the rights of the people who paid for and built that memorial in the first place? What about the implied (or real) contract with them? Do we have the right to default on that? Incidentally, the universal Federally required symbol for EMS and ambulances is known as the "Star of Life". It's derived from a story in the book of Exodus, where the Israelites get sick and Moses erects a staff with a snake at the top. People were healed when they simply looked at the snake. Yet, I don't see people out there running around trying to have that symbol removed from the sides of ambulances. Also, the RED CROSS is... A CROSS! This is one of the world's largest charity and aid organizations. I don't see the Cross at the top of that hill as a statement of faith on the part of the City of San Diego, but as an honoring of tradition in the use of the Cross as a symbol of honor, sacrifice, and service that is recognized all around the world. Anywhere you go, if you see a cross sticking out of the ground, you know that it's a grave site or a place where someone died. It's just part of our language. Maybe I'm alone, but I think it's silly to spend the time, money, and effort that has been expended on this issue. Millions of dollars have been spent in both attacking and defending the cross on the top of that hill. To me, that particular cross no longer symbolizes religion, but rather reminds me of the fact that there are poeple who have so much hate in them that they attack anything that remotely reminds them of church or God. I hope that the Supreme Court does hear this case. No matter how it ends, it will at least end. Like it or not, the Cross is part of our history. Pulling it down won't change that, and it won't make anybody's life better in the long run. It won't end the significance of the cross in our culture or our heritage. Mr Paulson's life isn't going to get better, and I'm sure his name will be in the news again, when he goes after the San Diego Musem of Art for having Reinnasance paintings portraying God and Jesus hanging out in public. After all, that's publicly owned land that the building is sitting on. You're not alone. |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-11-2006 20:12
You're not alone. I'll give you the cliff notes, Champie. If you want to honor veterans by insulting all non-Christian vets, do it on private property and don't expect non-Christians to subsidize it with their tax dollars. Seems pretty simple to me. _____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
07-11-2006 20:38
I'll give you the cliff notes, Champie. If you want to honor veterans by insulting all non-Christian vets, do it on private property and don't expect non-Christians to subsidize it with their tax dollars. Seems pretty simple to me. No thanks Chip... I was in this thread long before you, I live in San Diego and I've been to the memorial. I feel strongly about the Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded. I have no problem discussing the legality of the cross on public land. Only an idiot would agree that it should stand in defiance of the law. This whole issue is about bringing the cross into compliance with the law. Simply removing it is only one option. Apparently it is the option you wish to see exercised. Others feel differently, and the possibility for other compromises is very real and legitimate. So, shove your cliffs notes up your ass. |
|
Joannah Cramer
Registered User
Join date: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,539
|
07-11-2006 20:43
I'll give you the cliff notes, Champie. If you want to honor veterans by insulting all non-Christian vets, do it on private property and don't expect non-Christians to subsidize it with their tax dollars. Seems pretty simple to me. I don't think anyone can really feel entitled to speak in the name of "all non-Christian vets" in regards to what insults them or not... if it was for that matter such insult for them, you'd probably see many more complaints about this particular matter, rather than single guy with a grudge. Furthermore, i don't quite get the whole religion obsession in this case. Cross is first and foremost a widely recognized symbol of _painful death_, because it used to be popular device to make people die in such prolonged and painful manner long before it was adopted as emblem by some religion. So omg, some particular religious organization happened to pick it as their symbol, because they happened to be on receiving end of that particular death device en masse... but this is secondary association _in this context of monument to acknowledge soldiers' death_. Just like swastika --primarily a holy symbol in some religions-- can have secondary association thanks to WW2. Yet it's been suggested anyone who cannot look past this WW2 association of swastika would be narrow-minded, while at the same time it's apparently perfectly fine and acceptable to focus on secondary meaning of the cross and raise heck about it. Double standards? Go figure. If the symbol used instead was say, an automatic rifle (quite common as far as soldier graves go because note, just like cross this is also _tool to kill people_ so it carries very similar meaning) ... would people also be complaining this is "insulting all vets that were against war or 'right' for everyone to run around with automatic weapons?" o.O; |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
07-11-2006 20:47
I was in this thread long before you, I live in San Diego and I've been to the memorial. I feel strongly about the Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded. Surely you mean the secular humanist values on which this nation was founded (with a pinch of deism thrown in for good measure), eh? As I stated in an earlier post which you obviously didn't bother to read I have no problem with the cross if it were on private land. It wasn't turned into a war memorial until they were already being sued in a pathetic (and insulting) attempt to pretend that calling it a war memorial suddenly makes it legal. That must be why it had already been there for three decades with the name "Mt. Soledad Easter Cross" and was dedicated to "our lord and savior Jesus Christ" by the president of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association at the time of it's being declared a Korean war monument (just in case it wasn't already a big enough "fuck you" to non-Christian vets of that war). Kindly shove it up your own ass, Champie. _____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
07-11-2006 21:02
Surely you mean the secular humanist values on which this nation was founded (with a pinch of deism thrown in for good measure), eh? As I stated in an earlier post which you obviously didn't bother to read I have no problem with the cross if it were on private land. It wasn't turned into a war memorial until they were already being sued in a pathetic (and insulting) attempt to pretend that calling it a war memorial suddenly makes it legal. That must be why it had already been there for three decades with the name "Mt. Soledad Easter Cross" and was dedicated to "our lord and savior Jesus Christ" by the president of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association at the time of it's being declared a Korean war monument (just in case it wasn't already a big enough "fuck you" to non-Christian vets of that war). Kindly shove it up your own ass, Champie. I'd prefer if you'd drop the nicities like "kindly." It makes you look insincere. As for your other remarks, I think you're full of shit. You had your mind made up about this issue long before you found out the "name" of the memorial. Anybody can go through this thread and see that. And no, I don't mean secular Humanist values. No doubt they are a part of this nations founding, but Secular Humanist values do not hold the honor exclusively. Judeo-Christian values are prominent in our law and ideas of social justice. Judeo-Christian Traditions and ceremonies are prevelent and prominent in this nation, and have been since the first european settlers landed here. |
|
Elinea Richard
Owner of 7th Heaven
Join date: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 123
|
07-11-2006 22:32
What are you people getting so greedy that you want me to write to posts about my views on Atheists in one hour
 Fine then just to spite you all im gonna make a few funnies..or are they really funnies...perhaps they have some hidden truth to them...*wink wink**knudge knudge* *poke poke* *tap tap* ... 1. Yeah I expect this stuff from the Atheist Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 2. Whats up with all these people calling it the American Civil Liberties Union? Im an American and all they ever seem to do is take away my rights. 3. You ever notice that if you rearrange ACLU you get UCLA 4. hmm...if the ACLU and the UCLA played football who would win? _____________________
Im bored. Im ready to quit doing whatever it is im pretending to do.
 |
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
07-11-2006 22:34
Fine then just to spite you all im gonna make a few funnies ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Joy Honey
Not just another dumass
Join date: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 3,751
|
07-11-2006 22:35
What are you people getting so greedy that you want me to write to posts about my views on Atheists in one hour Fine then just to spite you all im gonna make a few funnies..or are they really funnies...perhaps they have some hidden truth to them...*wink wink**knudge knudge* *poke poke* *tap tap* ... 1. Yeah I expect this stuff from the Atheist Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 2. Whats up with all these people calling it the American Civil Liberties Union? Im an American and all they ever seem to do is take away my rights. 3. You ever notice that if you rearrange ACLU you get UCLA 4. hmm...if the ACLU and the UCLA played football who would win? I guess you missed THIS POST _____________________
Reality continues to ruin my life. - Calvin
You have delighted us long enough. - Jane Austen Sometimes I need what only you can provide: your absence. - Ashleigh Brilliant |