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

Oh well. Hopefully by then I'll have forgotten and it will be just as funny as the first time around.

Lisa0315 said:

Actually this ruling would return us to what the founding fathers had in mind. I can prove that with an unbiased source. The Library of Congress WOULD be unbiased, agree?

Lisa

Click to expand...

By the way, you aren't off the hook about equal freedom of religion and the issue off the use of government authority to support one religion above others.

Do you support equal freedom of religion? If you do then please show how you can support the use of government authority to support one religion above others?

How can it be equal freedom of religion when all are required to support the government but then the government goes and supports one religion above all others?

Please actually finally address that issue.

Lisa0315 said:

Actually this ruling would return us to what the founding fathers had in mind. I can prove that with an unbiased source. The Library of Congress WOULD be unbiased, agree?

Lisa

Click to expand...

Not the Faith and the Founders exhibit. That was put together specifically to reward the religious right for supporting the President in 2000. It was a cynical political cheapening of history.

Lisa0315 said:

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

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry about that. I work nights, sleep days, and was responding to the thread as I caught up on it, rather than reading the whole way through to see if objections had been responded to already.

crazyfingers said:

By the way, you aren't off the hook about equal freedom of religion and the issue off the use of government authority to support one religion above others.

Do you support equal freedom of religion? If you do then please show how you can support the use of government authority to support one religion above others?

How can it be equal freedom of religion when all are required to support the government but then the government goes and supports one religion above all others?

Please actually finally address that issue.

Click to expand...

Where exactly is that in the Constitution. I thought the government was only to not establish a state religion and to not interfere with religions that had established themselves. Where does it say that the governement has to treat all religions equally?

Let us say that a Congressman is an atheist, okay? His state in 1941 is made up of 97% Christians, 2% Jewish, and 1% unknown or undeclared. If a bill came before Congress asking for funds to send Bibles to the troops in Europe, should the Congressman vote the will of the People, what would be fair to the minority, what he believes personally, or what is Constitutionally correct?

Lisa

Lisa0315 said:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

Click to expand...

Yep, that's the one I'm talking about...

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServS...pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6127&news_iv_ctrl=1507

Lisa0315 said:

Since atheists have NO religion, how are their 1st ammendments rights violated?

Click to expand...

For you to ask that question demonstrates little knowledge on the subject. In a nutshell, wouldn't you agree that freedom of religion INCLUDES the freedom not to have one? Freedom of religion would be turned on its head to require someone to have a religion. Woudn't it?

If the government buys a piece of property that has a cross on it, why didn't they take it down then?

Click to expand...

You really have to ask that question? It's because far too many people in government do not respect equal freedom of religion and are perfectly happy to pander to those who would love to use government to promote their religion. The government does bad and illegal stuff all the time. That's why we have a constitution and a bill of rights. So that things will be fixed eventually.

They didn't because The PEOPLE cherished it. Keeping a cross that had been there does not establish religion, nor does it interfere with religion. Taking it down might.

Click to expand...

False on it's face. I do not believe that you understand what the establishment clause and free exercise clause actually means.

A government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE shall not perish from this earth...Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the issue. Try again.

That was far too easy.

USincognito said:

Yep, that's the one I'm talking about...

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServS...pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6127&news_iv_ctrl=1507

Click to expand...

I do not see where it says it was a concession to the voters in 2000. Your link only talks of the point of view of Jefferson. George Washington supported a tax that would support the church of choice.



Lisa

Lisa0315 said:

Where exactly is that in the Constitution. I thought the government was only to not establish a state religion and to not interfere with religions that had established themselves. Where does it say that the governement has to treat all religions equally?

Click to expand...

To ask that means that you are completely unfamiliar with constitutional case law on the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

It's very clear that you are unfamiliar with constitutional law by your comment about establishing state religions. That's not it by a very long shot. Please actually educate yourself on the issues.

I suggest that you educate yourself on the establishment clause and free exercise clause, colloquially referred to as separation of church and state.

Here is a good place to start.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

Let us say that a Congressman is an atheist, okay? His state in 1941 is made up of 97% Christians, 2% Jewish, and 1% unknown or undeclared. If a bill came before Congress asking for funds to send Bibles to the troops in Europe, should the Congressman vote the will of the People, what would be fair to the minority, what he believes personally, or what is Constitutionally correct?

Lisa

Click to expand...

If the bill allowed for sending bibles, Torahs, Korans, and any other religious book as requested by the troops who were currently unable to purchase such books on their own, then it would be OK. If it was only for bibles and no other religious or important book for the moral of the troops, then it would be wrong.

But that detail is neither here nor there.

I see full well that so far you've been dodging my questions.

The answer is he should evaluate the situation and do what he believes is best for the soldiers.

He should evaluate the situation, if there is a shortage of Bibles and sending those Bibles would improve moral then he should support the bill.

If Chaplins in Europe have plenty of Bibles to hand out and the money could be better spent in other ways then he should vote against it.

Lisa0315 said:

Let us say that a Congressman is an atheist, okay? His state in 1941 is made up of 97% Christians, 2% Jewish, and 1% unknown or undeclared. If a bill came before Congress asking for funds to send Bibles to the troops in Europe, should the Congressman vote the will of the People, what would be fair to the minority, what he believes personally, or what is Constitutionally correct?

Click to expand...

crazyfingers said:

For you to ask that question demonstrates little knowledge on the subject. In a nutshell, wouldn't you agree that freedom of religion INCLUDES the freedom not to have one? Freedom of religion would be turned on its head to require someone to have a religion. Woudn't it?



You really have to ask that question? It's because far too many people in government do not respect equal freedom of religion and are perfectly happy to pander to those who would love to use government to promote their religion. The government does bad and illegal stuff all the time. That's why we have a constitution and a bill of rights. So that things will be fixed eventually.



False on it's face. I do not believe that you understand what the establishment clause and free exercise clause actually means.



Irrelevant to the issue. Try again.

That was far too easy.

Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure there is plenty that I do not know about it. I think it comes down to interpetation. Supreme Courts of the past interpeted these clauses differently than they do today. Perhaps, Christians became spoiled to being treated as the religion supported by the government (in secret of course). The fact remains that until Ms. O'Hare challenged prayer in the classroom, we were called a "Christian" nation. Do you know there are people today even that think they are Christians just because they are Americans?

So for all intents and purposes, freedom of religion meant government would not force you to be a Christian, and certainly would not impose a certain denomination upon you. It was not meant to mean that government could not express or support one religion over the other. It is a 20th century idea, not one that the founding fathers would have foreseen, or perhaps they would have established Christianity as the State religion.

I am not looking at this from the perspective of what the current interpetation is or even what the correct interpetation should be. I am looking at this from an historical perspective and what the founding fathers intended. From what I have read, most (not all) of those who signed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were in fact Christian, and believed that they were establishing a nation in which the old Protestant vs Catholic thing would not occur. They included toleration and zero persecution for those who were not Christian, but I do not think their intent was to keep religion out of government.

Besides, if religion cannot be part of governement, why do we have a prayer at each meeting of Congress? I suppose now, they will either have to eliminate prayer altogether, or allow a member of ever religion to pray. I don't think they will get much done...

Lisa

Lisa0315 said:

Actually this ruling would return us to what the founding fathers had in mind. I can prove that with an unbiased source. The Library of Congress WOULD be unbiased, agree?

Lisa

Click to expand...

Yes, it would:

Treaty of Tripoli said:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Click to expand...

Okay, so thats covered.

ACougar said:

The answer is he should evaluate the situation and do what he believes is best for the soldiers.

He should evaluate the situation, if there is a shortage of Bibles and sending those Bibles would improve moral then he should support the bill.

If Chaplins in Europe have plenty of Bibles to hand out and the money could be better spent in other ways then he should vote against it.

Click to expand...

So, he should vote his concience and do that which is right in his own eyes regardless of what the people think? What if he thinks that those Bibles are a big waste of time, and the soldiers would be better off not reading such drivel? What if instead, he believes that the soldiers would be better off reading the Quran even though only 1 out of 10,000 soldiers happen to be Muslim?

You know this is not the right answer.

Try again.

Lisa

G'night you guys. I will be back tomorrow morning or afternoon between services. Have a good night.

Lisa

He shouldn't use his position to advance or impede any religion. Soldiers deserve spiritual support for the tasks they undertake in our name and they deserve Bibles, Korans, or whatever else they need to be the best possible Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan or whatever.

If there is a shortage of Bibles then he certainly should vote for the measure. If the Chaplains have more than enough Bibles to hand out then, he should not vote for the measure.

This is the only possible correct answer. Impeding the flow of religious material because you disagree with that material is wrong. Sending excess material because you want to support your local Bible publisher is also wrong. Giving the soldier what he needs, when you have the means to do so, is always the right answer.

Lisa0315 said:

So, he should vote his concience and do that which is right in his own eyes regardless of what the people think? What if he thinks that those Bibles are a big waste of time, and the soldiers would be better off not reading such drivel? What if instead, he believes that the soldiers would be better off reading the Quran even though only 1 out of 10,000 soldiers happen to be Muslim?

You know this is not the right answer.

Try again.

Lisa

Click to expand...

Lisa0315 said:

Oh, I am sure there is plenty that I do not know about it. I think it comes down to interpetation. Supreme Courts of the past interpeted these clauses differently than they do today.

Click to expand...

Not really.

Perhaps, Christians became spoiled to being treated as the religion supported by the government (in secret of course). The fact remains that until Ms. O'Hare challenged prayer in the classroom, we were called a "Christian" nation. Do you know there are people today even that think they are Christians just because they are Americans?

Click to expand...

We are not a Christian nation. We are nation with a majority of Christians but about 25% who are not. And are you aware that a large number of critical separation of church and state constitutional battles were not between Christians and non-Christians but between different Christians sects? For example, I suggest that you look more closely into the “prayer in school” cases and note that Protestant vs Catholic played a prominent role in the constitutional decision that government run schools must not have government sponsored prayers.

So for all intents and purposes, freedom of religion meant government would not force you to be a Christian, and certainly would not impose a certain denomination upon you.

Click to expand...

False. It means that government stays out of questions of religion.

It was not meant to mean that government could not express or support one religion over the other. It is a 20th century idea, not one that the founding fathers would have foreseen, or perhaps they would have established Christianity as the State religion.

Click to expand...

False.

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
[/quote]

I am not looking at this from the perspective of what the current interpetation is or even what the correct interpetation should be. I am looking at this from an historical perspective and what the founding fathers intended.

See above.

From what I have read, most (not all) of those who signed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were in fact Christian, and believed that they were establishing a nation in which the old Protestant vs Catholic thing would not occur.

Click to expand...

Your sources have given you very bad information. Again see above. And that again dodges the question about equal freedom of religion. That’s not just a legal question but a moral question. How on earth can you support requiring non-Christians to support government sponsorship of Christianity, against their own beliefs? That’s wrong. Morally Wrong. Again, the Golden Rule applies. A government that requires support by all must stay out of religious questions. Otherwise someone will be forced to support a religious position that s/he does not support.

Equal Freedom of Religion.

They included toleration and zero persecution for those who were not Christian, but I do not think their intent was to keep religion out of government.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with James Madison? He’s generally called the Father of the US Constitution. He was also chairman of the committee that wrote the 1st Amendment. He says:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history” [atempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]

“An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]

The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison, 1819, in Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong about the Separation of Church and State]

That’s a few examples among many.

Consider the following: If religion guides government then that government will impose itself upon those who disagree. It’s not a one way thing. It’s a two way thing. Government can’t impose on religion. But allow the power of government to be used by one religion and it will impose itself upon others.

Do you believe in equal freedom of religion? If so, then you can’t be willing to allow government to be infused with religion or it will impose itself upon others.

Besides, if religion cannot be part of governement, why do we have a prayer at each meeting of Congress? I suppose now, they will either have to eliminate prayer altogether, or allow a member of ever religion to pray. I don't think they will get much done...

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the term “separation of powers”. Look into it. The supreme court is reluctant to mess with the internal affairs of congress. But they have little reluctance to impose the constitution upon the affairs of federal agencies, states and local government.

Lisa0315 said:

The fact remains that until Ms. O'Hare challenged prayer in the classroom, we were called a "Christian" nation. Do you know there are people today even that think they are Christians just because they are Americans?

Click to expand...

I wonder how Jews feel about that?

You might want to familiarize yourself with what really happened back in 1962 rather than regurgitate the mythology of the Accomodationists. O'Hair never actually filed the case herself, but was only party to it. The Plaintiff, Engel in Engel v. Vitale was Jewish. Apparently some Christians don't like what he did.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=engel+regents+ohair
Take the second link of this search. The one from christianparty.net entitled "Jew Engel outlaws Christian prayer in 1962"

The following year saw another landmark case Abbington v. Schempp. I found this blog entry eulegizing Sidney Schempp that has a concise history of their case. The Schempp's were Unitarian btw.

Religious people have filed many more chruch/state cases than atheists have. Santa Fe ISD v. Doe was filed by a Catholic and Mormon.

mayatesnomas said:

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=370

For those following the Mount Soledad cross case in California, the liberals just lost a big one. The cross in San Diego will stay right where it is. After a long struggle of liberal attacks and ballot initatives, the majority finally won.


Here is a link to the opinion:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/884B5DA8987512478825726100093F24/$file/0655769.pdf?openelement

A DIOS SEA LA GLORIA!!!!!
A DIOS SEA LA GLORIA!!!!!
A DIOS SEA LA GLORIA!!!!!
A DIOS SEA LA GLORIA!!!!!
A DIOS SEA LA GLORIA!!!!!

Click to expand...

thanks for the link. i had no idea how much work had been done to create that memorial around it. It was just a big white cross in a dirt field when i last saw it.

This attitude reminds me of the many "unreconstructed" confederates extant in my state. The Civil War was lost, the slaves were freed, the Civil Rights movement was successful, Jim Crow is dead - yet, they still have that there confederate flag - long may it wave!

Yeah boy.

Atheists Defeat Christians in Constitutional Debate! No god wins!