Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Voters to decide on historic cross
WND ^ | May 21, 2005 | By James Lambert

Posted on 05/21/2005 9:58:14 PM PDT by BigFinn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-223 next last
To: needsomereason

I am not offended by trolls.(check my tagline)


41 posted on 05/21/2005 11:31:46 PM PDT by Adrastus (If you don't like my attitude, talk to someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: BigFinn
This is a double post. I posted the same article earlier. I do a search of the title before I post to see if it was posted before. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407613/posts
43 posted on 05/21/2005 11:42:51 PM PDT by bulldozer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
If these monuments are just being put up in order to mix politics and religion, then I don't think they should be up.

What part of - THEY HAVE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES - did you not understand?

I'm agnostic (Why bother stating the obvious.) and I don't support mixing religion and politics. you do not live here to you don't have to support it.

Obviously, you don't share my beliefs...but unlike most people, I'm not going to browbeat you over it.

That is all you have been doing is browbeating. Why don't you run along now, Troll.

44 posted on 05/21/2005 11:52:27 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
"In a case like this, the rights of citizens of San Diego would have to be weighed against the rights of the person/people/organization/government/etc that erected the cross on public land. Of course, if the cross was on private land, this would not be an issue at all."

"The San Diego City Council voted this week to allow voters to decide the fate of the historic Mt. Soledad Cross overlooking the Pacific Ocean in La Jolla."

"If the citizens of San Diego agree with this proposal, the site will be maintained by the National Park System. The bill was signed into law by President Bush in December.

Essentially, the voters will decide whether they want to transfer the property to the National Park System as a war memorial."

"Opponents of the transfer, including the ACLU, contend it is illegal and unconstitutional. However, a lawyer for the Thomas More Center, Charles LiMandri, contends there is legal precedent for protecting religious symbols that already are on federal land.

"the rights of the person/people/organization/government/etc that erected the cross on public land" and the rights of the citizens are being blocked by the aclu and the lone citizen they are pimping for.

45 posted on 05/21/2005 11:56:28 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BigFinn
Wouldn't it be funny if the Cross is the only thing holding San Diego onto the mainland?
46 posted on 05/21/2005 11:57:45 PM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
If it's really all about the monuments and the "glory of god," then they'll be satisfied with placing the monuments on private land.

No. In my opinion, taking this cross down is yet another chipping away at the foundation of what this country USED to be.

Surely you've heard of the frog in the kettle?

47 posted on 05/21/2005 11:57:52 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (Yo! Cowboy! I'm praying for a LoganMiracle! It CAN happen!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: needsomereason

Hey, it's not ME that's offended.

And, trust me...MY religion will NOT be rioting, yada yada yada if that cross comes down.


But thank you for the polite answer, and I mean that.


49 posted on 05/22/2005 12:04:54 AM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (Yo! Cowboy! I'm praying for a LoganMiracle! It CAN happen!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: needsomereason
I'm not overly offended either....

I was talking about Jesus.

51 posted on 05/22/2005 12:09:35 AM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (Yo! Cowboy! I'm praying for a LoganMiracle! It CAN happen!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

ping out tomorrow.


53 posted on 05/22/2005 12:22:58 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

Well......we ARE discussing a cross here.



Anyway....I'm outta here for tonight. Y'all sleep well.


54 posted on 05/22/2005 12:27:54 AM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (Yo! Cowboy! I'm praying for a LoganMiracle! It CAN happen!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
Instead of putting monuments like this on public land, religious people could save themselves the aggro and just put them on private land.

The active point here is that this monument was built long before the current interpretation of the 1st amendment was made. Based on your argument, all the monuments and memorials in DC should be sold to private citizens, along with almost every courthouse or government building in this country. Explain to me how honoring the God whose principles provided the impetus for the founding of this country is wrong, whether you believe in Him or not. If the Bible were purely fiction, it would still be a document worthy of at least the respect given the Magna Carta just because it is the basis of all the laws observed in the free world.

55 posted on 05/22/2005 12:28:29 AM PDT by Stonedog (I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's difficult to pronounce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

Thought I would let you know that there are other (me) conservatives who share your opinion of separation of church and state. Religous symbols should not be placed on public lands.


56 posted on 05/22/2005 12:32:54 AM PDT by citizenmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

When do you want crosses gone from the gravestones at Arlington?


57 posted on 05/22/2005 12:38:56 AM PDT by doug from upland (MOCKING DEMOCRATS 24/7 --- www.rightwingparodies.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason; eastforker; marmar; Old Sarge; Conspiracy Guy; MeekOneGOP; Fedora; ...
Our Founding Fathers seem to have intentionally avoided any mention of "god" in our constitution and wrote a specific ban on government establishment of religion.

How is erecting a religious symbol on public property establishing a religion?

And welcome to Free Republic.

58 posted on 05/22/2005 12:39:25 AM PDT by bad company ("A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

Sour Puss

Have you quite sucking on your Persimmon.


59 posted on 05/22/2005 12:42:24 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (LL THE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

When people register legitimate complaints that the crosses offend them - which isn't going to happen. Why don't you come up with an intelligent objection.


60 posted on 05/22/2005 12:43:46 AM PDT by citizenmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-223 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson