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

After reading this thread, I only have 2 things to say...

1. The O.P. obviously (to me anyway) did what news reporters do all the time...they said something catchy (alarming, offensive, whatever you want to call it) to get you to read the article. And, no surprise, it worked. Is it necessary to call them a liar?

2. The cross has been there for over 50 years. Why the big fuss now?

Oh and, I find it a little embarrassing that most Americans don't seem to have a clue what separation between church and state actually means. Hint: it doesn't mean this.

A giant cross is like a giant pacifier for people who actually get excited over, AND TAKE SERIOUSLY, post titles like "Mt. Soledad Cross will Stay!!! GOD DEFEATS ATHEISTS!!!!"

flicka said:

A giant cross is like a giant pacifier for people who actually get excited over, AND TAKE SERIOUSLY, post titles like "Mt. Soledad Cross will Stay!!! GOD DEFEATS ATHEISTS!!!!"

Click to expand...

I will stick with the foolishness of the cross, and yep, it gets me excited every time!

Lisa

My post was a jab at the utterly ridiculous wording of "god beats atheists!!!!" and how some people get excited over something so human and insignificant to the universe at large that no god would be the least bit interested in it. But their faith is so topical that the mere sight of those words are seen as a "win" for TJ (Team Jesus). I don't mean to mock but your post kind of proved my point.

flicka said:

My post was a jab at the utterly ridiculous wording of "god beats atheists!!!!" and how some people get excited over something so human and insignificant to the universe at large that no god would be the least bit interested in it. But their faith is so topical that the mere sight of those words are seen as a "win" for TJ (Team Jesus). I don't mean to mock but your post kind of proved my point.

Click to expand...

It is a win anytime a soul is saved, and who is to say that the sight of that cross won't bring someone to their knees.

Lisa

Lisa0315 said:

It is a win anytime a soul is saved, and who is to say that the sight of that cross won't bring someone to their knees.

Click to expand...

Surprise! The real motive comes out!

alphatronics said:

Surprise! The real motive comes out!

Click to expand...

[EVIL LAUGH!] And we would have suceeded too if not for those pesky kids!

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...

I don't think that you grasp that the case here nothing to do with individual free speech and freedom of religion. This is a case of the government promoting / supporting a religion. Government has no freedom of religion.

crazyfingers said:

I don't think that you grasp that the case here nothing to do with individual free speech and freedom of religion. This is a case of the government promoting / supporting a religion. Government has no freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're right in legal terms, but let's be honest. No-one was hurt, no-one was stopped from practising their religion and there's no real persecution going on. I think we all need a bit of perspective on things like this.

peace

Robbie_James_Francis said:

Maybe you're right in legal terms, but let's be honest. No-one was hurt, no-one was stopped from practising their religion and there's no real persecution going on. I think we all need a bit of perspective on things like this.

peace

Click to expand...

It is the right of all US citizens to be free of government preference for one religion over another. When government expends resources to aid one religion it necessarily harms all others who are also compelled to support that government. I know that you don't have separation of church and state in the UK. But it's a bedrock principle here.


As an example, if my town erected a Christian cross on public land it would harm me as I am still required to support that government, and so I am forced to support a religious point of view that I do not support.

Voegelin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, only those vile communist atheists destroy church property in the atheistic communist Soviet Union. Of course, when it was Russia Peter the Great took a bunch of Church bells (how will people know it's time to pray or go to Vespers without the bells ) and melted them down to make cannons.

I'm sure Voeglin thinks destroying pieces of churchs is o.k. as long as they materials are recycled for impliments of Imperialist expansion but not so much of done for ideological reasons.

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...

Or you could just read the links I provided showing that your assumptions about the cross are incorrect.

USincognito said:

Or you could just read the links I provided showing that your assumptions about the cross are incorrect.

Click to expand...

I did. I said, "I stand corrected". LOL! I was wrong. I admit it. I will write it two hundred times if you wish. (Of course it is pretty easy to do on a computer...)

See Post #57.

Lisa

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...

Please cite the ways he has attempted to use goverment property to promote atheism.

Morcova said:

Please cite the ways he has attempted to use goverment property to promote atheism.

Click to expand...

It was a game of dodgeball. He asked the exact same question with Christianity in place of atheism. So, I responded in kind.

Lisa0315 said:

I will stick with the foolishness of the cross, and yep, it gets me excited every time!

Lisa

Click to expand...

Idolatry is still considered a sin is it not?

Lisa0315 said:

It is a win anytime a soul is saved, and who is to say that the sight of that cross won't bring someone to their knees.

Lisa

Click to expand...

When did it become the goverments job to convert people?

Morcova said:

Idolatry is still considered a sin is it not?

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what I said. I don't worship the cross, but I do worship the One it represents. I don't have a cross. I don't wear a cross. I do not pray before a cross unless it is figuratively, but the sign of the cross is rich with meaning. The foolishness of the cross is speaking of the world and how the world will view us.

Lisa

Morcova said:

When did it become the goverments job to convert people?

Click to expand...

The moment God gave us this country...Nah. Just kidding.

Look, dude, I really love the fact that we won, but that doesn't mean that LEGALLY we should have. I do not disagree with you EXCEPT for the fact that I am a Christian before I am an American. That doesn't make me right from the standpoint of the constitution. It just makes me Christian.

Lisa

Lisa0315 said:

It was a game of dodgeball. He asked the exact same question with Christianity in place of atheism. So, I responded in kind.

Click to expand...

Only your question makes no sense. Mine on the other hand, still stands.