OMG..Federal Judge Rules that displaying the HOLY CROSS is Unconstitutional!.

What has gotten in to U.S. Federal Judges this year? First they make it illegal for the U.S. government to properly screen for incoming terrorists, and now one says that displaying the Holy Cross is against the United States Constitution!

A federal judge has ruled that a cross in Pensacola’s Bayview Park violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and must be removed within 30 days.

“I am aware that there is a lot of support in Pensacola to keep the cross as is, and I understand and I understand and respect that point of view,” U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling. “But, the law is the law.”

Source Article: www.northescambia.com...

What's next? No audible prayers allowed in public? It seems that the U.S. is heading down that slippery slope doesn't it?

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

Maybe because the state isn't supposed to favor any religion, nor establish a national religion ..maybe???

and posting one single religions iconography would be favoring a religion??

a reply to: carewemust

If you are a Catholic or identify as 'Christian', then you should rejoice at this news, for it compliments the words written in the Apocalypse of John approx 1700 years ago.

Impressive accuracy.

a reply to: carewemust

Is the park owned by the Government and paid for by tax dollars including the cross???

I don't see the connection where the Federal Government and the park are combined.

a reply to: carewemust

What are they going to do about the Capital Building which is powerloaded with religious symbols & symbolisms. Perhaps more than any other place on earth, sick diversity at that (everyone in history could be offended).

Riddles in Stone - The Secret Architecture of Washington D.C.

a reply to: carewemust

Aren't all these Religious Monuments in places just "Idol Worship" anyway???? I didn't think that was even allowed.

a reply to: carewemust

Since this is a public park, owned by the city, which is a state government entity, it must adhere to the U.S. Constitution restrictions. By having this on public land, it can be viewed as the city establishing a religious statement for one religion in particular (i.e. Christianity). That is prohibited. However, if it was on private land, it does not have that restriction and would not need to be removed.

Imagine if the city sold that one small parcel of land where the cross is standing to a local church? Problem solved, it can stay.

Naaaahhhh.... that makes too much sense

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

Aren't all these Religious Monuments in places just "Idol Worship" anyway???? I didn't think that was even allowed.

It's what is in your heart - adoring a piece of wood or plastic because it evokes worship of flying spagetti monster is not a sin - disrespecting and being violent towards said worshiper is indeed the sin. Worshiping the piece of wood or plastic deceptively is sin.

^^That is the meaning behind that biblical passage, imo.

Look at all the crosses on the tombstones at the national veteran cemeteries. I suppose they have to remove all those headstones from public land.

This idiotic racy is going to make a lot of people cross.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Look at all the crosses on the tombstones at the national veteran cemeteries. I suppose they have to remove all those headstones from public land.

This idiotic racy is going to make a lot of people cross.

I believe that is different since for other denominations, a different headstone is used. It is a headstone commemorating the person laid to rest there, not a generic public statement.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I always thought it meant not to use any kind of idols, graven images, statues, etc. to worship God because those start taking the place of what it means to worship God in the first place.

It takes away from God to worship some Idol and gives way to worshiping all manner of earthly things as well.

That's how I always understood it.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

But why NOW? It's not like the cross was put there last week. Certainly the US Constitution wasn't recently modified.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Washington DC is very much designed with ancient shapes and symbols, none of it actually Christian. I guess that is why it attracts the biggest deceivers in the world to it.

a reply to: carewemust

Who brought this action into the court system? I could guess, but I won't....

a reply to: carewemust

With the separation of church and state, I don't really see an issue with this. There's thousands of places people can go to worship a symbol.

As long as it's consistent and decisions like this aren't put into action as a result of whoever cries the loudest.

Stupid whiny religious people, always gotta make a big deal about something.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Imagine if the city sold that one small parcel of land where the cross is standing to a local church? Problem solved, it can stay.

I was thinking the same thing. Or perhaps it could be moved to an adjacent lot that local citizens could form an NGO or 501 to raise funds and support??

Law is the law. Its a shame too, because this likely stems from some cranky bitchy whiny spineless Atheist that just wants to stink on everybody that wants to make themselves feel good. It seemed that most of the community including the city council and such had no problem with it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

Aren't all these Religious Monuments in places just "Idol Worship" anyway???? I didn't think that was even allowed.

The majority of the people who pay taxes in Pensacola are all for the cross, and don't mind that .03% of the city's maintenance budget ($233 annually) is used for keeping the cross painted.

A Federal Judge should focus on bigger, more important items. No wonder they have such a large caseload!

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I always thought it meant not to use any kind of idols, graven images, statues, etc. to worship God because those start taking the place of what it means to worship God in the first place.

It takes away from God to worship some Idol and gives way to worshiping all manner of earthly things as well.

That's how I always understood it.

As a child, I asked that as an honest question in church. I was then unceremoniously escorted out and branded a "distraction". That was my first open eyed view of who were the "shepherds" and who were the "sheep".....since sheep do not question the shepherd.

I never looked back.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I always thought it meant not to use any kind of idols, graven images, statues, etc. to worship God because those start taking the place of what it means to worship God in the first place.

It takes away from God to worship some Idol and gives way to worshiping all manner of earthly things as well.

That's how I always understood it.

Understood, however for me, if "every one of your hairs on your head are already numbered since before you were born".

Commandment #1 - I am the Lord your God, thou shall no other gods before me.

^^ This signifies that this 'God' demanded all humans only acknowledge this 'God' as 'God', and no other entities that showed the same abilities.