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

a reply to: mOjOm


I was watching the MOSES movie over Easter. He got really P.O.'d over people riding and grinding on a calf made out of gold.

a reply to: carewemust

For the most part I don't see the big deal with leaving it actually. I'm big on the separation of church and state and stuff but it's a big white T for the most part.

I could understand if they were wanting to put it up now, but it's been there for a while and I don't see what the big deal is.

At least it doesn't also have a dying Jesus hanging on it like some others do.

I find it funny that the four people who complained got 1 dollar to split between them in damages.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah. That story reminds me of the Bull Statue on Wall St.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.

Every headstone in the national cemetaries I have been to have a cross at the top. I suppose if you weren't a christian you couldn't get buried in one of the Veteran spots. I have been to only about five big cemetaries and maybe twenty smaller ones, but I never saw a non christian headstone. I suppose there are some in areas where Christianity is not so profound. Just because I have never seen one of those older veteran headstones without a cross does not mean they don't exist. I think those veterans units were built around the time of WW11 and up to the korean and Vietnam war they were still planting people in those areas.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

For the most part I don't see the big deal with leaving it actually. I'm big on the separation of church and state and stuff but it's a big white T for the most part.

I could understand if they were wanting to put it up now, but it's been there for a while and I don't see what the big deal is.

At least it doesn't also have a dying Jesus hanging on it like some others do.

I find it funny that the four people who complained got 1 dollar to split between them in damages.

I would imagine it also has to do with the city tax budget used for its maintenance as well. If I were to take up that fight, that is the angle I would use to oppose it being there. As a resident that may not have that same religious belief, why should their taxes be spent to care for a religious symbol that is not in line with your belief?

I say, privatize it, and the land it sits upon. Let the sheep take care of it, on their own dollar.

originally posted by: Kostafa
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.

I wonder how many city properties in America have a Holy Cross, or a Jesus in the manger at Christmas? Now, every nutjob who eschews productive activities in life, can cite this Pensacola example as a precedent for their city park cleared of any religious items or images.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah, they didn't like me asking questions either. I guess I started too late so when they started in with the lessons questioning stuff seemed normal to me. But they were expecting me to just accept it and move on.

I decided I didn't like that very much and would learn stuff on my own.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Kostafa
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.

I wonder how many city properties in America have a Holy Cross, or a Jesus in the manger at Christmas? Now, every nutjob who eschews productive activities in life, can cite this Pensacola example as a precedent for their city park cleared of any religious items or images.

That has already happened all over the country, and has been happening for years. Again, why should taxpayer owned land be used for a religious display when it is public land, owned by all the public....everyone regardless of religious belief (or non-belief)?

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

Some cities are pretty homogenous in their beliefs. Crosses don't offend christians in a nearly all christian city

a reply to: Krakatoa

That would seem fair.

Otherwise you have to allow every other Religion to have a statue that tax payers also have to pay for too in order to be fair to everyone. That could get expensive and be pointless. More so than it already is.

Why not just turn it into a outdoor theater or something where people can come and do something together???

They could always turn it into a swing set???

a reply to: mOjOm


Maybe they could weld another vertical pole 3 inches over from the original and say it's a goal post for mini football or something.

a reply to: carewemust

There ya go.

Or put a basket ball hoop on the front of it???

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

Some cities are pretty homogenous in their beliefs. Crosses don't offend christians in a nearly all christian city

True. However, if the city collect taxes and other state and federal funds, the United States Constitution applies....all of it. Even if nobody in the city is of a different religious belief. Local laws cannot overrule the supreme law of this land.... The U.S. Constitution.

a reply to: Krakatoa


Couldn't Pensacola say that the Cross is a shared responsibility, just like childless adults paying for neighbors children to go to school?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

There ya go.

Or put a basket ball hoop on the front of it???

Or find out who filed the suit and put their favorite religious symbol next to it. That would shut em up.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

There ya go.

Or put a basket ball hoop on the front of it???

Better yet, simply run lines of rigging from it since it does look like a ships mas with a single yard-arm. Make it a memorial for those lost at sea, regardless of their religious beliefs

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

Some cities are pretty homogenous in their beliefs. Crosses don't offend christians in a nearly all christian city

True. However, if the city collect taxes and other state and federal funds, the United States Constitution applies....all of it. Even if nobody in the city is of a different religious belief. Local laws cannot overrule the supreme law of this land.... The U.S. Constitution.

Yea. Def. it needs to come down along with all the rest.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krakatoa


Couldn't Pensacola say that the Cross is a shared responsibility, just like childless adults paying for neighbors children to go to school?

Not if it is a religious symbol. Nope. Not on publicly owned land.