Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Bob Kelso]

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

While I can't speak for the others, for me this is about secularism, not veterans. This behemoth of a cross that can be seen from large distances is on federal property, this is not ok. The government should not affiliate with any religion, if this were a satanic cross or an Islamic symbol you better believe Christians would be using the same argument in courts to get it taken down.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Try to comprehend the fact that public land is owned by the people for the use of the people. Keep your bigotry out of it.

[Bob Kelso]

Try to comprehend the fact that public land is owned by the people for the use of the people. Keep your bigotry out of it.

Try to comprehend this particular cross is on federally owned property and has no place being there.

[Ryantology]

Try to comprehend the fact that public land is owned by the people for the use of the people. Keep your bigotry out of it.

It's not for my use. If you want to put up some tacky piece of shit like that, put it on land that you're paying for on your own. I don't feel like helping to subsidize a monument to your delusions.

[Esquilax]

Try to comprehend the fact that public land is owned by the people for the use of the people. Keep your bigotry out of it.

Yes. All the people, not just those who feel their christian privilege should never be challenged in any way.

How do you do that? How do you actually square what you've just said with the hidden extra component, which is "owned by the people, just not people who aren't christian."?

I mean, if you want to ignore the constitution, then go right ahead. But don't expect everyone else to just let your religion break the law because it feels it should be able to.

[EgoRaptor]

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.

I would actually go for that. You can erect your crosses as long as I can erect a giant Sigil of Baphomet or a Satanic cross next to it.

[Angrboda]

Let me get this straight. You want it to be the will of the people. And by will, you of course mean money and political power. So the rich Christian segment of the population can erect their crosses everywhere there's a public space, and a Hindu or Shinto or Buddhist, with less money and political power, essentially gets the shaft. And you probably still wonder why I consider you unethical.

[Tiberius]

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.

In my opinion, the first solution has additional problems. Lack of space for example; what happens when 100 people from different religions want to put stuff up? We've seen this silliness when town halls allow holiday displays; everyone wants one and it just looks crowded and ridiculous.

So for that reason I'm in favour of simply disallowing any religious (or anti-religious) display on public property.

[Mister Agenda]

For Pete's sake! Read the article. It was built with private funds. Even I would oppose taxpayer funding.

Glad to see you have limits on what you'll approve of on government property.

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?

People adorning themselves with their religious symbols is a far cry from people adorning our commonly-held property with their religious symbols.

Religious groups have just as much right as any other group to use public property on which displays of conscience are displayed.

Other private groups have no right to access to government property for their advertising, it's at the discretion of the authorities involved, but in practice it is usually not allowed at all. Once a religous group is allowed to use government property for its displays, the part of government involved has much less discretion: it must allow any other display related to religion that meets publically-known neutral qualifications. To do otherwise would be to show favoritism to particular religions. Unless the goal at the outset was to have some sort of garden of displays of multiple religious viewpoints, the sensible thing to do is not allow any.

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.

Both alternatives are viable. It is not censorship to not provide a forum for your position on property owned by all the people. It is not our fault that in many situations, the government body involved chooses to take down the display it has rather than allow other points of view. Maybe they didn't want a 40' statue of Buddha on Mt. Soledad. Or, noting that Jewish War Veterans were among the plaintiffs, maybe they didn't want a 40' tall Star of David.

[Godscreated]

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.

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

GC