Mt. Soledad bill would end fed ownership

[kevinmaynard]

Because there are so many religions and sects that it becomes insane. It creates a nasty environment where people are putting up monuments just to try and one up or mock others (see the satanist statue controversy).

Our country has a lot of Christian roots. The majority of people were and are Christian. It makes sense that there are symbols associated with this that made their way into the public arena. I'm pretty sure we can cope with that.

I don't see why Christians sharing the public space with others would cause a nasty environment. Why do you assume Christians would be nasty? I think the people could cope with seeing other faiths get a turn in the public.

 

[Vylo]

I don't see why Christians sharing the public space with others would cause a nasty environment. Why do you assume Christians would be nasty? I think the people could cope with seeing other faiths get a turn in the public.

It usually atheists or smaller sects being nasty when it comes to this. I really don't care what religion currently has such monuments, etc. currently, just that no more are put up, and we don't waste money dismantling old ones.

 

[gnomon]

Tearing this cross down would be a far greater symbolic importance.

It wasn't a war memorial when erected so declaring such later is a lie. It served a purpose against Jews purchasing land in that area so that the cross served as a symbol of ethnic hatred.

Tear it down.

 

[kevinmaynard]

It usually atheists or smaller sects being nasty when it comes to this. I really don't care what religion currently has such monuments, etc. currently, just that no more are put up, and we don't waste money dismantling old ones.

Doesn't seem like atheists are being nasty. Jews brought the lawsuit. The reason people bring it up is because only one religion represented in public. I understand you don't mind your religion being given privilege, but people of other faiths do mind they are discriminated against while you are not.

So allow everyone to share or take them all down. We all pay taxes so we should all be allowed to use the public land.

 

[Vylo]

I understand you don't mind your religion being given privilege, but people of other faiths do mind they are discriminated against while you are not.

Uh, I don't have a religion, I'm atheist.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Uh, I don't have a religion, I'm atheist.

Well people of religions other than Christian want to share the public space too. That is easy to understand. If one is allowed than allow everyone. Freedom only really works when people are free equally.

 

[Vylo]

Well people of religions other than Christian want to share the public space too. That is easy to understand. If one is allowed than allow everyone. Freedom only really works when people are free equally.

I understand the argument, but it just seems massively impractical and petty. Its like removing "in god we trust" from money. Should it be done? Yes, the next time they change bills/coins. Is it worth making a stink over? Not really.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Doesn't seem like atheists are being nasty. Jews brought the lawsuit. The reason people bring it up is because only one religion represented in public. I understand you don't mind your religion being given privilege, but people of other faiths do mind they are discriminated against while you are not.

So allow everyone to share or take them all down. We all pay taxes so we should all be allowed to use the public land.

That is a very strangely worded observation coming from a Christian.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Well people of religions other than Christian want to share the public space too. That is easy to understand. If one is allowed than allow everyone. Freedom only really works when people are free equally.

That's very naive. Freedom an equality are two separate entities.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Tearing this cross down would be a far greater symbolic importance.

It wasn't a war memorial when erected so declaring such later is a lie. It served a purpose against Jews purchasing land in that area so that the cross served as a symbol of ethnic hatred.

Tear it down.

Well, that was then and this is now.
What matters now is the war memorial and a Judges 2008 ruling that at least went on the record then and identified this cross for what it is. Not for what it is argued to have been decades ago.
Perpetual victim arguments as those perpetuated by the plaintiffs in this case are offensive to everyone.

 

[kevinmaynard]

I understand the argument, but it just seems massively impractical and petty. Its like removing "in god we trust" from money. Should it be done? Yes, the next time they change bills/coins. Is it worth making a stink over? Not really.

It is neither impractical or petty. It is quite easy to accomplish either removing the only religion currently occupying the public space or to allow others to come into the public space.

It upsets those who have grown used to having special privilege.

 

[Vylo]

It is neither impractical or petty. It is quite easy to accomplish either removing the only religion currently occupying the public space or to allow others to come into the public space.

It upsets those who have grown used to having special privilege.

Removing them is not easy. Do you know how much it costs to get rid of all of them? To find all of them? To fight legal battles over each one?

Its enormous, and it doesn't accomplish much at all.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Removing them is not easy. Do you know how much it costs to get rid of all of them? To find all of them? To fight legal battles over each one?

Its enormous, and it doesn't accomplish much at all.

It won't cost much to remove anything. To find them will be easy. They are in public. It won't cost money in legal battles if you don't fight the legal battles and either remove them or allow everyone.

It accomplishes equal protection under the law for all religion. Right now one get special privilege. It accomplishes following the constitution.

 

[Vylo]

It won't cost much to remove anything. To find them will be easy. They are in public. It won't cost money in legal battles if you don't fight the legal battles and either remove them or allow everyone.

It accomplishes equal protection under the law for all religion. Right now one get special privilege. It accomplishes following the constitution.

You can't just remove them, as has been shown time and time again. If you try, lawsuits follow which consume time and money, lots of it. Great news if you are a lawyer, not so much for everyone else.

It doesn't really do anything to protect religion. It really doesn't do much at all. How many people are going to be like "oh yeah we got that monument taken down, now I feel so...wait nothing really changed".

 

[kevinmaynard]

You can't just remove them, as has been shown time and time again. If you try, lawsuits follow which consume time and money, lots of it. Great news if you are a lawyer, not so much for everyone else.

It doesn't really do anything to protect religion. It really doesn't do much at all. How many people are going to be like "oh yeah we got that monument taken down, now I feel so...wait nothing really changed".

We certainly can just remove them. The lawsuits have been to remove them. Just don't defend to keep them. Let them go. That costs nothing.

Allowing others to participate does protect freedom and the constitution. Allowing only one religion to be in the public is not good. Just let everyone have a chance.

 

[Vylo]

We certainly can just remove them. The lawsuits have been to remove them. Just don't defend to keep them. Let them go. That costs nothing.

Allowing others to participate does protect freedom and the constitution. Allowing only one religion to be in the public is not good. Just let everyone have a chance.

You can't make other people not defend them. That isn't how things work.

"I'm going to sue you and you are going to concede"
"um, no"

 

[kevinmaynard]

You can't make other people not defend them. That isn't how things work.

"I'm going to sue you and you are going to concede"
"um, no"

Yes concede. If a group sues to remove a religious monument in public either allow all other religions or don't defend the suit, and remove the monument. It really is just that easy to solve this problem.

That some wish to make it difficult to do either goes to show how one group get really special benefits from being the only one allowed in public.

 

[Vylo]

Yes concede. If a group sues to remove a religious monument in public either allow all other religions or don't defend the suit, and remove the monument. It really is just that easy to solve this problem.

That some wish to make it difficult to do either goes to show how one group get really special benefits from being the only one allowed in public.

But they won't concede, if they would, this thread wouldn't exist, neither would the issue. They aren't going to concede.

 

[kevinmaynard]

But they won't concede, if they would, this thread wouldn't exist, neither would the issue. They aren't going to concede.

Who won't? The government won't or the religion that get's special treatment won't? The government can easily. That those who get special treatment don't like loosing special treatment is obvious. That the constitution prohibits one religion getting special treatment by the government is the law. The government should enforce the law.

That you think that a religion should be allowed to throw a hissy fit to get favors from government is odd seeing as how you claim to not be a member of the said religion.

 

[Vylo]

Who won't? The government won't or the religion that get's special treatment won't? The government can easily. That those who get special treatment don't like loosing special treatment is obvious. That the constitution prohibits one religion getting special treatment by the government is the law. The government should enforce the law.

That you think that a religion should be allowed to throw a hissy fit to get favors from government is odd seeing as how you claim to not be a member of the said religion.

The religion that has the monument. It doesn't matter what you, the government, etc. says, if they won't concede, they won't concede, and they have shown that they won't. You can win every legal battle, but you still have to win them, and that takes a lot of money and time. For what you gain, it is a terrible pay off.