Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Mister Agenda]

No, it's religious symbols on public land, not just the Christian cross. If it had been an Islamic symbol, the Star of David, a statue of a Hindu god, etc, we'd be wanting it removed, too. As would, likely, those Christians defending this cross.

The crosses in military cemeteries are on government property, tax payers money keeps them up and pay for those crosses.

GC

Military cemetaries typically have headstones, not crosses (most of the exceptions date back over a century), and dead non-Christian soldiers aren't marginalized by having a giant cross built over them on military cemetaries (Mt. Soledad was an exception to that rule until recently). The markers are meant to honor each individual soldier, not as an opportunity to paint them all with the same religious brush. There's no issue with a cross on one soldier's grave in a military cemetary if another soldier can have their grave marked as they would have wished in a different way.

Again, this isn't rocket science. There's a difference between putting a cross on a Christian soldier's grave and mounting a 40' cross over a cemetary that includes non-Christian soldiers.

---

Generally, I agree. Now extend that logic to political displays and monuments.

Officials are under no obligation to allow such displays.

Free expression is free expression regardless of content. The point of "make no law establishing" was not to exclude religion from policy making and public discourse. It was to prevent the state from stifling such discourse by establishing a single approved point of view.

It is disingenuous to say that one type of opinion is allowed because it is partisan (but secular) one but another is not allowed because it is religious.

Can you give an example of a monument on government property that is allowed because it is partisan?

Maybe you think we should tear down all the statues of Dr. King. He was a Christian preacher and having monuments to him is promoting his religious vision for a fair and just society.

Clearly a monument to Dr. King fails the Lemon test of not having any secular purpos...oh, wait, he's an American icon with an impact the course of American history, not just a Christian one. Try another example. We'll wait. And maybe muse about A. Philip Randolp, the atheist whose idea it was to have the March on Washington in 1963 and who was at Dr. King's side as he delivered his I Have a Dream Speech, while you figuratively piss all around the Civil Rights movement to mark it as uniquely religious territory.

In 20 years, your lot will be taking credit for gay marriage.

---

No it's not. It's fairly plain. One opinion is allowed because it doesn't further a single religion...

Please explain how making provision for multiple points of view and various religious traditions is furthering a single religion.

Please explain how multiple points of view have been made provision for in this case.

Your position is absurd. It is also bigoted because clearly you have a problem with only one particular religion: Christianity. Haters just gotta hate.

You might have a case if only you could find an example where we support non-Christian religious symbols on government property. There are two reasons why you can't: One, we are against mixing government and religion regardless of the religion involved; and two, it is extremely rare for anyone but Christians in the USA to attempt to get their monuments on government property. It is sort of a hobby of Christianists to test the law to see if it has stopped applying to them yet...or more likely, to generate controversy so they can cry about being persecuted when they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

---

No one should have to pay to put up a religious symbol when they don't support that religion.

I do not support nor like all your secular views but, I have to pay to make them part of this government.
GC

Sadly for you, until you can muster sufficient votes to amend the first amendment to suit your views instead of the views of the framers, you're stuck with a government that can't favor your religion over all others or over none. You're free to work on changing that.

I'm glad you see it that way, but I'm afraid not all do and those headstones will come into play by when someone becomes mad over some religious event. I knew about other religious symbols that are put onto the crosses, however many do not take the time to find out things about our fallen defenders.
GC

Why don't you go find a forum where they want to get rid of the crosses on the graves of soldiers and direct them here instead of arguing against a position that no one here holds? You'd be in the right for a change, and we'd be happy to back you up.

---

Just echoing a point of both rational atheists and the Moslem spiritual leaders who lambasted the Taliban.

The rational atheist view is "it's been here for many years and atheists for decades did not have a problem with it, so I won't be a dick and take issue but I will push that they won't erect new religious monuments on tax dollars hence forth." For all the talk about people saying these momuments waste tax dollars, how many have they wasted debating it just like the Republican Congress with their anti-Obamcare attempts...

You're right, the cross should have been taken down immediately when it was pointed out that it was in violation of state and federal law, but Christianists just couldn't let it go.

The spiritual leaders likewise held the same point that "yes, even though these Buddhist movements were not of the Book, that since believers centuries before them had not destroyed them, what gave these Taliban extremists the right to destroy them?"

Too bad the Taliban religious extremists didn't listen to the counsel of the spiritual leaders you'd have had them listen to instead of their own spiritual leaders.

The Mt. Soledad Cross was illegal from day one and violated not only the Constitution of the United States but the Constitution of California as well. It's not an ancient cross that was erected before the laws against doing so were present, as is the case with Spanish mission ruins on government land. No doubt the people who put it up weren't aware they were doing something illegal, but that isn't an argument for allowing them to continue to break the law. Plus, no one is destroying the cross, it's being moved to a location where it will be legal for it to be displayed.

---

Well when you can actually prove that this violated the Establishment Cause, come back to me. If a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, etc. monument is erected on public lands, the Establishment clause would still not be violated.

Now when religious law supplants secular law or interferes with the worship of others, then that would be violating the Establishment Clause. And yes, many would want such a society. Many would also want a society that prevents people from worshiping as they see fit from a secular perspective.

It's been proven in court (repeatedly), but I guess it will never be proven to you.