Mt. Soledad Cross will Stay!!! GOD DEFEATS ATHEISTS!!!!

Only difference between this and the destruction of the Lithuanian Crosses in 1951 by atheists is one of method (dynamite vs years of expensive litigation) and that Christians and others of good will were able to stop it before it happened instead of fighting for 4 decades to rebuild.

Lisa0315 said:

WooHoo! I had not heard that we won, but I was aware that the ACLJ was fighting to keep the cross. You have no idea how close we came to losing! It was only a petition from all over the country and a governor's stay that kept the cross up until the case could be reviewed again. This is AWESOME!

Lisa

Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to use government property to promote your religion to the exclusion of everyone else?

Voegelin said:

Only difference between this and the destruction of the Lithuanian Crosses in 1951 by atheists is one of degree and that Christians and others of good will were able to stop it before it happened instead of fighting for 4 decades to rebuild.

Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to mark public land with Christian markings, to the exclusion of others?

crazyfingers said:

Why do you feel the need to use government property to promote your religion to the exclusion of everyone else?

Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to use government property to promote your lack of belief to the exclusion of those who do?

Lisa

Lisa0315, what I see is a pettiness that should be considered disrespectful by God, if in fact your god exists, in that surely Christians ought to be using their energies and their money to help the poor and suffering, to ease conflict, to do good. Instead, I see some Christians here crowing over the fact that they have 'won' a court case allowing them to continue disrespecting countless non-Christian veterans, and further to jeer at 'atheists', which term in this case appears to include Jews and Muslims. Is God merely concerned with appearances and gigantic symbols?

Lisa0315 said:

Why do you feel the need to use government property to promote your lack of belief to the exclusion of those who do?

Lisa

Click to expand...

That makes zero sense.

Lisa0315 said:

Government shouldn't interfere with religion, true, but there is NOTHING in our constitution that says that religion cannot influence government. I can PROVE that if you need me to.

Click to expand...

So why are religious institutions tax-free?

If they want to start playing with politics, they'll have to pay the entry fee just like everybody else. Once in, they'll also risk becoming just another political party, with power as their God.

Lisa0315 said:

Our God cannot be defeated, but He can be disrespected.

Click to expand...

You're implying severe insecurity on His part.

How does respect for all of your country's citizens show disrespect towards any one of them? If anything, 'memorials' like this which only function as God billboards (as established here) show disrespect towards everybody who'd like to not have your ideals shoved in their face by a government who is supposed to represent everyone. Even the people represented by the endorsement sometimes feel that it trivializes their religion by implying that it needs endorsement in the first place.

Or perhaps you'd prefer a giant Buddha in front of every public school and courthouse? After all, taking the Buddhas down would show disrespect towards all Buddhists.

Lisa0315 said:

Why do you feel the need to use government property to promote your lack of belief to the exclusion of those who do?

Click to expand...

You're implying that any space which is not filled with a cross or other religious symbol is automatically endorsing atheism.

Do you ever walk through a park and think its promoting atheism?
Does the grand canyon endorse atheism by not being filled with thousands of religious trinkets?
Do you ever drive down a highway and think that the median is endorsing atheism because it isn't covered with little crosses?

alphatronics said:

So why are religious institutions tax-free?

If they want to start playing with politics, they'll have to pay the entry fee just like everybody else. Once in, they'll also risk becoming just another political party, with power as their God.



You're implying severe insecurity on His part.

How does respect for all of your country's citizens show disrespect towards any one of them? If anything, 'memorials' like this which only function as God billboards (as established here) show disrespect towards everybody who'd like to not have your ideals shoved in their face by a government who is supposed to represent everyone.

Or perhaps you'd prefer a giant Buddha in front of every public school and courthouse? After all, taking the Buddhas down would show disrespect towards all Buddhists.

Click to expand...

LOL! We don't pay taxes to have a right to have a say in government.

God is not insecure nor did I imply it. I am a secure parent, but my child can disrespect me at time.

I am against prayer led by state employees for this very reason, but Mt. Soledad comes under a different heading. It has to do with death and a person's right to be buried within the faith they desire. What right do people who are born LATER have to take this away from those who desired to be buried in their faith?

It is not just this one cross, anyway. A defeat here may have led to all crosses being taken down. Think Normandy and Arlington.

Lisa

Lisa0315 said:

but Mt. Soledad comes under a different heading. It has to do with death and a person's right to be buried within the faith they desire. What right do people who are born LATER have to take this away from those who desired to be buried in their faith?

It is not just this one cross, anyway. A defeat here may have led to all crosses being taken down. Think Normandy and Arlington.

Lisa

Click to expand...

You appear to be laboring under a serious lack of knowledge as to what exactly is located at Mt. Soledad.

I suggest that you review Post #16 as provided by USincognito

Lisa0315 said:

It has to do with death and a person's right to be buried within the faith they desire.

Click to expand...

I agree with the concept, but do your research. Who is being represented here? Earlier, you were talking about God being represented, so it sounds like you yourself don't believe that the individual has anything to do with it in this situation.

This is not like Arlington, because (like you said) it is up to each individual to choose their own symbol. The crosses there are intended as representative of the individuals.

Is it just me or is the whole thing a little bit silly? I mean, does it really matter that much one way or another? I say, if the Cross is already there, then just leave it. It's not hurting anyone, surely.

I always find it very interesting that in the UK we have an 'established church', our national anthem is 'God save the Queen' and many official ceremonies such as coronations are rife with mentions of God, and Jesus and Christianity, and are held in churches. Our head of state is the 'Defender of the Faith' and his or her ascension to the throne must be approved by the most senior Anglican archbishops.

...and yet the nation is not polarised, no-one is up in arms about it, the vast majority are very moderate. Christians can enjoy and appreciate the Christian references in our official life, and the rest of us can pay a tiny bit of lip service because we respect our nation's traditions, then get on with our lives. I cannot for the life of me understand why things like this even matter.

The US has a relatively modern written Constitution and strictly secular laws and yet our 'constitution' is a collection of parchments dating back to the 11th century that no-one cares about, and we manage to have much less of the backwards religious strife that most of us grew out of centuries ago.

Let's please distinguish between burning people at the stake and having a few token Christian monuments here and there.

peace

alphatronics said:

I agree with the concept, but do your research. Who is being represented here? Earlier, you were talking about God being represented, so it sounds like you yourself don't believe that the individual has anything to do with it in this situation.

This is not like Arlington, because (like you said) it is up to each individual to choose their own symbol. The crosses there are intended as representative of the individuals.

Click to expand...

Well, to a Christian, what represents God represents the individual. I guess I would need to hear from family members that are buried at Mt. Solodad who will say that their loved one did not believe, (and I would want some kind of evidence that they were not misrepresenting their loved one because they have their own agenda)

Lisa

Robbie_James_Francis said:

...and yet the nation is not polarised, no-one is up in arms about it, the vast majority are very moderate. Christians can enjoy and appreciate the Christian references in our official life, and the rest of us can pay a tiny bit of lip service because we respect our nation's traditions, then get on with our lives. I cannot for the life of me understand why things like this even matter.

Click to expand...

Lest you forget, the religious moderates are historically the ones who stayed in Britain in the first place.

Lisa0315 said:

Well, to a Christian, what represents God represents the individual. I guess I would need to hear from family members that are buried at Mt. Solodad who will say that their loved one did not believe, (and I would want some kind of evidence that they were not misrepresenting their loved one because they have their own agenda)

Lisa

Click to expand...

NOBODY IS BURIED THERE.

Can it be made any more clear?

HERE, READ THIS.

alphatronics said:

Lest you forget, the religious moderates are historically the ones who stayed in Britain in the first place.

Click to expand...

Good point. Maybe that explains why the US is being torn apart by gay marriage, but when gay civil partnerships became legal over here at the start of last year, most people didn't even notice. And when they do their reaction is something like, "Oh. That's interesting."

peace

alphatronics said:

NOBODY IS BURIED THERE.

Can it be made any more clear?

HERE, READ THIS.

Click to expand...

Thank You. I do stand corrected!

crazyfingers said:

Why do you feel the need to mark public land with Christian markings, to the exclusion of others?

Click to expand...

I'm not involved in this. Never did put a religious display in the public square. Do recall very vaguely praying in school when it was legal (as I suppose my relatives going back to the first who attended public school did). Never made a display of faith in the public square since.

But I do support the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. I support those who wish to express themselves. So if Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs--whoever--want to display their faith in the public square, I'm all for it. But that is me. A tolerant kinda guy. Wouldn't occur to me to go to court to tear down a Menorah, a Cross or a Crescent. Among the class into which I was born, such an action is unthinkable. It simply is not done.

Voegelin said:

But I do support the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. I support those who wish to express themselves. So if Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs--whoever--want to display their faith in the public square, I'm all for it. But that is me. A tolerant kinda guy. Wouldn't occur to me to go to court to tear down a Menorah, a Cross or a Crescent. Among the class into which I was born, such an action is unthinkable. It simply is not done.

Click to expand...

You are confusing free expression of religions by private individuals/organizations with the endorsement of religions by the government.

When a Menorah/Cross/Crescent goes up in someone's yard, they're paying for it. When it goes up in a courthouse, everyone is paying for it. Even if the object is donated, it still has to be maintained, and everyone who enters that building interprets it as a government endorsement of a particular religion to the exclusion of others.

A person asked on the first page how someone can be offended by a cross.

The defensiveness shown by several people on this thread is obvious. This is a Christian forum and a Christian posted something that Christians can be excited about. Why the death defying shock?

Get over it.