Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Cinjin]

Actually I know many religious symbols on public land but I am not going to lead any angry atheist to them.

Alright fellow heathens, lets contact our espionage atheists in our Angry Atheists chapter. We're going to need to put a tail on Chad to find out where all these symbols are on public land.

[Minimalist]

I am one of "the people" you clueless, disenfranchising douche bag.

G-C thinks "god" is his special friend. Most people grow out of having invisible friends when they are 5 or 6 but fucking baptists never grow up.

[Esquilax]

Actually I know many religious symbols on public land but I am not going to lead any angry atheist to them.

Do you think this petty point scoring is making your religion look good?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not saying I don't sympathize with the atheists on Mt S. Something that large is obnoxious just from a purely aesthetic point of view. And I can agree that putting up new religious monuments is not a good idea. But why is it necessary to tear down long standing features of the built environment, at tax payer expense just because a vocal minority has an ax to grind.

[Mister Agenda]

Actually I know many religious symbols on public land but I am not going to lead any angry atheist to them.

I know many symbols on public land that people think are in violation of the Constitution due to their religiosity but are not, but I'm not going to educate any ignorant theists about them. Mostly because they tend to be uneducable.

---

I'm not saying I don't sympathize with the atheists on Mt S. Something that large is obnoxious just from a purely aesthetic point of view. And I can agree that putting up new religious monuments is not a good idea. But why is it necessary to tear down long standing features of the built environment, at tax payer expense just because a vocal minority has an ax to grind.

You'll never know, because you refuse to discuss your secret examples. Finding out we'd be reasonable about them would wreck your preconceptions too much. Don't take that risk!

[ThomM]

Say goodbye to "free exercise". Maybe next activists can ban free speech.

Actually - there is NO problem with free exercise in this case

That clause refers to an individuals rite to practice their own religion - a monument is not a person. (For instance - it IS allowed at Arlington National Cemetery for the head stone to reflect the religion of the buried soldiers - since it is their headstone - not the governments's.

However - a monument of the government should not have any specific religious symbols because the government does not have the right to favor one religion over another - another part of that clause.

[Duck]

I'm not saying I don't sympathize with the atheists on Mt S. Something that large is obnoxious just from a purely aesthetic point of view. And I can agree that putting up new religious monuments is not a good idea. But why is it necessary to tear down long standing features of the built environment, at tax payer expense just because a vocal minority has an ax to grind.

So despite it violating the constitution, it should be allowed to stay because it has been there a long time? Does the same apply is a murderer isn't caught for a long time?

At least you agree that it is un-constitutional for it to be there, and it should not be there, and you only have a practical issue (ie money) with removing it.

My view? Definitely worth getting rid of. Might make a good load of firewood for the local town hall too. That would be nice, getting something worthwhile out of religion!

[Neo-Scholastic]

The establishment clause was intended to prevent an official state religion and religious tests for office holders. It has nothing to do with expressing favors or promotion of religion. If it did the early Congress would not have printed bibles for distribution.

[Duck]

The establishment clause was intended to prevent an official state religion and religious tests for office holders. It has nothing to do with expressing favors or promotion of religion. If it did the early Congress would not have printed bibles for distribution.

Really? I think it is very clear in that one religion should not be favored over another. Congress shouldn't have done that. Also, specific to your religion:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Treaty of Tripoli.
You should really really remember that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So you're saying that the guys that wrote the constitution didn't follow or understand it? But you are correct it was not explicitly founded as a Christian nation. Following your example maybe the people who wrote the ToT shouldn't have written that.