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

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Rules Cross Violates Law and Must Be Removed
Townhall.com ^ | June 20, 2017 | Todd Starnes

Posted on 06/20/2017 6:43:07 AM PDT by Kaslin

Atheists across the fruited plain are rejoicing after a federal judge declared that a cross erected in a Florida park violated the law and must come down.

“I am aware that there is a lot of support in Pensacola to keep the cross as is, and I understand and I understand and respect that point of view,” U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling. “But, the law is the law.”

The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by the notorious Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association on behalf of four Pensacola citizens

The judge pointed out that park has hosted tens of thousands of people for roughly 75 years without causing anyone offense – until now.

“When a city park serving all citizens – nonreligious, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian – contains a towering Latin cross, this sends a message of exclusion to non-Christians, and a corresponding message to Christians that they are favored citizens,” said Annie Gaylor, the organization’s perpetually offended co-founder.

The original cross was erected in 1941 in Bayview Park. It was replaced with a 34-foot, white “Latin Cross” in 1969 by the Pensacola Jaycees.

Judge Vinson noted in his ruling the “Bayview Cross” is “part of the rich history of Pensacola and Bayview Park in particular.”

He said the cross had been the focal point for Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day services – not to mention Easter Sunrise services.

“However, after about 75 years, the Bayview Cross can no longer stand as a permanent fixture on city-owned property,” the Reagan-appointed judge ruled.

He directed the city of Pensacola to remove the cross within 30 days. He also ordered the city to pay the aggrieved plaintiffs one dollar in damages. That comes out to a quarter apiece.

The American Humanist Association celebrated the judge’s ruling.

“We are pleased that the Court struck down this cross as violative of the First Amendment,” attorney Monica Miller said in a statement. “The cross was totally unavoidable to park patrons, and to have citizens foot the bill for such a religion symbol is both unfair and unconstitutional.”

Judge Vinson based his ruling on a court case involving a similar cross that suffered the same fate in Rabun County, Georgia.

“If the cross under review in Rabun County violated the First Amendment and had to be removed, the cross here must suffer the same fate,” the judge wrote.

Oddly, Judge Vinson seemed rather reluctant to rule against the cross.

“The historical record indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Establishment Clause to ban crosses and religious symbols from public property,” he wrote. “Indeed, ‘the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution’…would have most likely found this lawsuit absurd. And if I were deciding this case on a blank slate, I would agree and grant the plaintiffs no relief. But, alas, that is not what we have here.”

As I wrote in my book, “The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again,” people of faith are facing unrelenting attacks from a ruthless bunch of godless atheists -- hell-bent on eradicating Christianity from the public.

Should Christian citizens be relegated to some sort of second-class citizenship? Should they be directed to keep their beliefs hidden inside the church house?

Will they demand that city leaders rename Los Angeles and San Francisco? Should The Ten Commandments be chiseled off the doors of the Supreme Court? Should references to God be sandblasted from our national monuments?

Just how far do the atheists intend to go in this cultural jihad on our Judeo-Christian values?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: cross; lawsuit; pensacola; publicsquare; purge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Kaslin

... Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling: “But, the law is the law.” ...
-
Nowhere in the article does it say what “law” he is referring to.


41 posted on 06/20/2017 7:26:47 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (I was conceived in liberty, how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
In hindsight when the ACLU and it's ilk first started their war and used pliable judges to violate the constitution a good offense would be to have people with 10 commandment/cross sandwich signs constantly walk the area. They should also have circled ACLU buildings and courthouses with bad judges. Crosses and 10 commandments should have been erected everywhere around the area on private land and billboards.

Had patriotic Americans constantly blanketed the area with far more crosses and commandments then ever before, the unAmericans would have given up eventually.
42 posted on 06/20/2017 7:33:22 AM PDT by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

How about just ONE Judge with the balls to say to the plaintiff, “This is both a frivolous and absurd suit not to mention a waste of this courts time. Case dismissed, plaintiff to pay court costs in the amount of $500.”


43 posted on 06/20/2017 7:33:39 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

the judge is establishing a religion for the state.

the plaintiffs are a religion of atheism organization.


44 posted on 06/20/2017 7:37:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

After the war, when we beat the totalitarians, let’s put the crosses back.


45 posted on 06/20/2017 7:45:43 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Trump won; I celebrated; I'm good. Let's get on with the civil war now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Where is the lawsuit to prevent Muzzies from praying in a PUBLIC STREET?


46 posted on 06/20/2017 7:45:48 AM PDT by doug from upland (Mayflower Hotel --- hotel of choice for Dem officials and their hookers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee; DonkeyBonker

Exactly. What the ungodly don’t know is it’s not a matter of tolerance; it’s a matter of truth.


47 posted on 06/20/2017 7:46:58 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX (For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. ~ Hosea 8:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
the judge is establishing a religion for the state.

the plaintiffs are a religion of atheism organization.

Exactly. If a cross is a symbol of a forbidden religion isn't NO symbol (nothing) a symbol of a forbidden secular religion? The atheists are imposing their symbol (less) religion on me. No belief is a belief.

48 posted on 06/20/2017 7:49:56 AM PDT by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How can we “deport” such judges.

When he says “the law” is really ONLY talking about an errant judicial interpretation of the Bill of Rights and with it a misinterpretation of “separation of Church and state”, which is NOT in the Constitution.


49 posted on 06/20/2017 7:50:17 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The First Amendment reads: “CONGRESS shall make no law REGARDING the establishment of religion …”

The Constitution only prohibits the Federal government from legislating on the question of religion. Congress can no more prohibit the states from establishing religion as they can in mandating it. The question is reserved to the states. The Federal courts and Federal legislation should have no jurisdiction on the question.


50 posted on 06/20/2017 7:50:39 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If it had been a 24 foot star of david would it have been alright?


51 posted on 06/20/2017 7:51:32 AM PDT by Pirate Ragnar (Libs put feelings first and thought second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So basically what this and similar court rulings are doing is establishing atheism as the State religion of the United States government in violation of the Constitutional intent.


52 posted on 06/20/2017 7:58:28 AM PDT by bonehead4freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

The resurrection. Death has no sting and the ungodly have no ultimate power. They cannot prevail. They may win some battles, but the outcome of the war has been decided.

Philippians 2:10ff:
…Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…


53 posted on 06/20/2017 7:59:01 AM PDT by Jay Thomas (If not for my faith in Christ, I would despair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pirate Ragnar

I wouldn’t have no problem with a Star of David, I would though with a Muslim moon crest and a star


54 posted on 06/20/2017 8:05:05 AM PDT by Kaslin (The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triump. Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Which “law” does the cross violate?

While we are wasting lives and money in overseas adventures, the Republic and its foundations are being demolished.


55 posted on 06/20/2017 8:05:14 AM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“If the cross under review in Rabun County violated the First Amendment and had to be removed, the cross here must suffer the same fate,”

Really? You guys create and strike down laws at will...The rulings saying the crosses must come down have no actual laws attached...just interpretations of a letter by Jefferson.

You could have found the earlier ruling flawed.

If you had the true courage of your convictions and a set of ballz.


56 posted on 06/20/2017 8:05:57 AM PDT by Adder (Mr. Franklin: We are trying to get the Republic back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
There is no false understanding. They know full well our founding fathers would approve of such crosses on public property, but Satan's minions also know conservatives are too weak and lazy to do anything about it. That's just the way we are.

If a godless, demonic supreme court would legalize the murder of our unborn without conservatives "storming the Bastille", then we're sure not going to do anything about this.

Pseudo Christians do Christ's cause more harm than anything.

57 posted on 06/20/2017 8:11:20 AM PDT by LouAvul (The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A very old, very tired tactic of the evil one...

“Your foes have roared in the midst of your meeting place;
they set up their own signs for signs.
They were like those who swing axes
in a forest of trees.
And all its carved wood
they broke down with hatchets and hammers.
They set your sanctuary on fire;
they profaned the dwelling place of your name,
bringing it down to the ground.
They said to themselves, “We will utterly subdue them”;
they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.”

Psalm 74 (of Asaph)


58 posted on 06/20/2017 8:11:26 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Exactly.


59 posted on 06/20/2017 8:16:38 AM PDT by Kaslin (The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triump. Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Law is the Law but tradition, history and culture are tradition, history and culture and when law conflicts with the latter, the law should be changed and juridical decrees that border on the ludicrous like this, ignored.


60 posted on 06/20/2017 8:26:28 AM PDT by ZULU (DUMP THAT POS PAUL RYAN!! KIM FATTY the THIRD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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