(December 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: I personally don't object to a cross being erected at a memorial. I see where they are coming from, but taking it down seems a bit silly.

Marx, the cross is HUGE at 43 feet tall. It's on federal property, and the Episcopal church, literally, right next door has agreed to take it.

It's not silly to take it down at all. If we don't stand up to public funds going towards religious symbolism right now, where will the slippery slope lead?

Quote:

(December 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: As I recall neon Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie IL a mostly Jewish community.

Neon Nazis? Like this?

Hahaha! I had a similar thought when I read Chad's post.

(December 13, 2013 at 6:21 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(December 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: I personally don't object to a cross being erected at a memorial. I see where they are coming from, but taking it down seems a bit silly.

Marx, the cross is HUGE at 43 feet tall. It's on federal property, and the Episcopal church, literally, right next door has agreed to take it.

It's not silly to take it down at all. If we don't stand up to public funds going towards religious symbolism right now, where will the slippery slope lead?

This was built with public funds? I don't support that.

I'm not sure it was built with public funds (I'm pretty sure it was), but it is on federal land. It originally belonged to the city of San Diego, then a not-for-profit bought it, and then they transferred it over to the federal government.

Just as an aside, my niece's now ex-boyfriend did the tile work on the ground around the cross. I saw the pictures of his work and remember them talking about how "those people who don't go to church" were trying to take the cross down.

Glad to see it's finally going to be removed from federal property.

DT, do you live in San Diego?

(December 13, 2013 at 1:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 13, 2013 at 1:52 pm)Godschild Wrote: Okay you guys want to eliminate religion from government, petition the courts to take down all the crosses in the military cemeteries. Bet the vets will find their way into the courts on this. These guys have no problem with crosses being on the graves of their fallen comrades, these guys put their lives on the line for you, don't you think they have the right to have markers over their graves that suit them. Of coarse not, it violates your interpretation of the constitution. You all couldn't care less about those who died for your freedom, the only appreciation you have for then is the freedom to violate their rights, sorry, just really sorry attitudes for people who gave their lives for you.

GC

It's really weird watching you form a premise, and then spin off in condemnation of us atheists before we've even responded to it.

Do you often have conversations with yourse- oh right, christian. You call those prayers.

The atheist here have made it quite clear how they feel about the Christian symbol of the cross on government property, so I did not have to use much though to know how you felt, you've made it quite clear numerous times.

GC

(December 13, 2013 at 9:44 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(December 13, 2013 at 1:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's really weird watching you form a premise, and then spin off in condemnation of us atheists before we've even responded to it.

Do you often have conversations with yourse- oh right, christian. You call those prayers.

The atheist here have made it quite clear how they feel about the Christian symbol of the cross on government property, so I did not have to use much though to know how you felt, you've made it quite clear numerous times.

GC

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.

Can you imagine how much the right-wingers (the same ones that support the cross) would flip out if it was an Islamic crescent that was erected?

(December 13, 2013 at 6:27 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote:

(December 13, 2013 at 6:21 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Marx, the cross is HUGE at 43 feet tall. It's on federal property, and the Episcopal church, literally, right next door has agreed to take it.

It's not silly to take it down at all. If we don't stand up to public funds going towards religious symbolism right now, where will the slippery slope lead?

This was built with public funds? I don't support that.

For Pete's sake! Read the article. It was built with private funds. Even I would oppose taxpayer funding. The issue is that of the free exercise of the people's religious beliefs on property owned by the people. The government of the people owns the sidewalk too. Are you going to ban people from wearing religious symbols on the publicly owned streets or in publicly owned buildings too? Religious groups have just as much right as any other group to use public property on which displays of conscience are displayed. Go get you secular humanist manifesto, or whatever floats your boat, carve it on a monument and place it next to the cross. Issue solved. Freedom preserved. The alternative is just censorship, plain and simple.

(December 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The cross was erected with private funds. If you object to one groups symbol the right way to do that is to put up your own monument not tear down some one else's. That's how a free society works.

It's public land. Try to comprehend that.

And keep your jesus shit off of it.