Posted on 12/12/2013 7:04:32 PM PST by annalex
A cross atop Mount Soledad in California is an unconstitutional religious display on government land and must come down, a federal judge in San Diego ruled late Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Larry Burns ordered the cross, which honors veterans, must be removed within 90 days -- a decision that could result in the case being sent back to the U.S. Supreme Court. Burns immediately stayed his order pending an expected appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The crisis of the ages demands that we renew the historic battle-cry of our Christian Forefathers: "We Have No King But King Jesus!"
"Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." -- Proverbs 22:28
Either your God will be your King or your king will be your god.
On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." The immediate response of Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company was:
"We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."
"In this crucial hour of our nation’s history it is past time that the true saints of God give total allegiance to the Kingship of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. The crisis of the ages demands that we renew the historic battle-cry of our Christian Forefathers –
""WE HAVE NO KING BUT KING JESUS!"
""It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" Patrick Henry
""Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty...of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
""And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms f this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever."
"-- Revelation 11:15
And to reemphasize what DoughtyOne said, recognizing that our country was founded by Christians, that was based on a fear and reverence for the God of the Bible, does NOT mean 4th class citizenship for those of other religions, but it does mean we can and should go back to acknowledging the Jesus Christ as the founder of this nation and give back His proper place of honor.
Nope nobody I can think of would be willing to support the Constitution.John B. reflected his lady? when he said something about Conservatives have protested before they saw it. The Republicrats have failed to IMPEACH a President —why should they care about Impeaching Judges?My point is if good men remain silent Evil prevails.
I’m not sure I am one to call myself atheist, but I would go so far to say, at the least, agnostic. Couple that with a (L) following...Either way, you paint with too broad of a brush re: self centered narcissists.
IMHO, science is never the final answer, and I have not see/read anything to firmly believe in a higher being. Not does that mean that one cancels out the other. Nor does that mean I am blind the ‘benefit’ of religion, as MOST religions espouse Hope and a code of conduct. Most of it, nor does it negate the verbiage of our Constitution. If fact, I abhor those that would use religion to supersede the Constitution (IE: ‘social safety net’ = Christian-like or Blue Laws [which I grew up with when I lived in MD])
*I* see no reason the demolish Mt. Soledad. In fact, I can see no reason why any like-minded individual (atheist/agnostic) would find offense to start, as the cross would represent...nothing. Other religions are free to setup their own memorials as well. I see yet *another* lawyer/judge over-stepping their authority and oath of office by clearly ignoring the 1st Amendment.
As a (L), there should be NO ‘national’ parks/etc., but neither should the taxpayers be on the hook (don’t get me started on property taxes :D). Revert it back to the people/group that bequeathed it originally. I’m sure there are more than enough volunteers to pay for the upkeep/maintenance/etc.
Now, as for the ‘raw meat’ example: Gov’t should not be recognizing holidays, they are to provide services to We the People. Let those that wish to take PTO, take it. That solves the 2.5x pay as well; it’s just another day or a day off. Unions and gov’t? Right out. Never is the taxpayer/Citizen represented when those two ‘negotiate’.
Liberalism is satan’s workshop.
I’m not sure I like your idea but another poster says the judge in this case was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
Maybe the name of that mountain you envision should be ‘RINO Mountain’.
Let me be the first to suggest "Go Diego Go." Has a nice ring to it. And none of those embarrassing reminders of the Christian religion.
Nope, Diego is a reminder of the city’s Christian heritage.
Just call it Sucktown.
Burns immediately stayed his order pending an expected appeal.
...not quite up to his neck.
5.56mm
What constitution is he reading? It certainly isn't the US Constitution.
"the federal judiciary shall use all powers over the people to eliminate any display which conflicts with the establishment of Humanism as the state religion . . ."
How long have the leftist douches been fighting this?
Too bad the right doesn’t have the fight mentality and tenacity to use against these godless tools.
Compromisers R us.
This has been going on since the 1980s. A Mayor of San Diego once tried to facilitate selling the land to a private buyer but the lawsuit that prompted the sale idea was unsuccessful do the idea of a land sale was abandoned once the threat was gone.
Apologies if there are errors in the following, but this is my understanding...
Note that it was the Republican Congress and George W. Bush who converted this property to federal land. A ballot initiative to sell to the highest bidder had failed, and one to donate it to the federal government passed overwhelmingly (but was ruled unconstitutional). So Congress and GWB stepped in and took it at the request of the City of San Diego, “to save the cross” by making it federal.
Judge Larry Alan Burns earlier (2008) ruled in favor of the cross, but in January 2011, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals reversed his decision unanimously.
Judge Burns noted that the Ninth Circuit’s reversal wording pretty much tied his hands, making it clear that nothing but removal would be acceptable.* I believe that he felt that all he could do was issue this ruling that would pave the way for the SCOTUS to take up the case (that they’d previously declined). See his order here
I’m not so sure the SCOTUS will allow the cross to stand—even Justice Alito seemed against it from what I remember. Only time will tell, but my guess is that they’ll order it taken down.
*From http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Dec/12/mount-solidad-cross-constitution-removal/2/?#article-copy:
Physically altering the cross was found not to be viable. In the end, Burns said he felt his hands were tied and there was little room to maneuver around the 9th Circuit’s ruling of unconstitutionality.
“Deliberate language in the opinion makes it clear that removal of the large, historic cross is the only remedy that the Ninth Circuit conceives will cure the constitutional violation,” Burns wrote in his ruling.
Well judges do.
I do believe there should be some way to gain relief.
It would bother me to see liberal areas jettison judges so a guy like Obama could appoint more during his terms in office.
Thanks BoxLunch. I appreciated your post. Good one.
You stated that you do not see any evidence of a higher being.
I respond by saying I see no evidence of a completed chain of morphing creatures that represent the progression from single cell to man.
So I ask you this? Why do you default to the field of science for your belief system? It would seem to me that the only sane position other than a belief in God, would be neutrality. If you are unwilling to buy into faith in God, then you should be equally unwilling to buy into faith in a field that hasn’t produced it’s smoking gun either.
We could look a the DNA of creatures and find commonality. This to some means relationship. To others it merely means that there are building blocks that would be common if a Supreme Being were to create creatures to live in the same environment. He wouldn’t have to create a new type of DNA for each creature, with no commonality whatsoever.
I appreciate your views on the destruction of a cross on a hillside. The whole thing is silly, until you realize that evidence of Christianity is be expunged from our schools, our public building, public lands... It’s quite clear where this is headed. The forced indoctrination into all things science and Liberalism to the exclusion of faith based teachings is geared to ween out Religion in a generation.
I don’t think any of us are demanding science be weened out within a generation.
I believe in evolution. It can be witnessed. Still man has not found the missing links along the trail of the ascent of man. I believe there is a reason for that. There wasn’t one.
Science is more of a religion that people give it credit for. There are things that can be proven. There are things that can be theorized. And there are things that cannot be proven. And when things can’t be proven, science becomes as much faith based as religion is.
Over and over and over again, science has had to admit that it made mistakes and it’s old beliefs were wrong.
I support scientific discovery. I am enchanted by the amazing things man uncovers by it. I do think we need to use some caution. I try to have an open mind when it comes to God too. It’s just that with the complexity of man, and the new discoveries that reveal the extent of that complexity, it becomes more and more clear to me that we didn’t just happen by accident.
Perhaps one day you’ll begin to see it that way too.
Absolutely false premise.
So it looks to me like the judge wants to put the whole case to rest once and for all by allowing the people who put up the monument to Christian veterans to take it to the Supreme Court. Otherwise why would he have immediately stayed his decision without a request by the plaintiff to do so?
I’d like to see Judge Larry Burns nailed to that cross before it’s taken down.
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.