Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Tiberius]

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem of placing of religious icons on public land has two solutions:

1) You let anyone from any religion put their icon up.

2) You don't let anyone from any religion (including atheists) put any icons up.

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

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.

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

No it's not. It's fairly plain. One opinion is allowed because it doesn't further a single religion. The other is not because it does. Partisan has nothing to do with it.

What's disingenuous is the amount of equivocation and substitution of terms you'll go through to justify wanting to push your single religion using my (and everyone else's) land and resources.

Government + religion, no. Government + secular viewpoints, okay. For reasons it doesn't take a prophet to foresee.


It's like they say, to a Christian, not being allowed to force everybody else = oppression of their religion.

[Tiberius]

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

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

[EgoRaptor]

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

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

[Godscreated]

[EgoRaptor]

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.

Secularism isn't a religion. You have to pay to fund a secular state because you live in a secular country. You don't have to pay to put up monuments to atheism.

[Polaris]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

[EgoRaptor]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

Yes, because the cross is not a historical landmark, it isn't going to be destroyed & legal process was used.