Senate passes bill to save cross, Bush will sign

[Regis Philbin]

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Aug06/Art_Aug06_18.html


Senate passes bill to preserve Mt. Soledad cross; Bush to sign


WASHINGTON — The Senate approved without opposition Aug. 1 a bill intended to protect San Diego’s Mount Soledad cross as a memorial to military veterans.

Senators agreed by unanimous consent to grant to the federal government ownership of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, a 29-foot cross that stands atop an 800-foot mountain and has been a target of church-state separationists. The House of Representatives voted 349-74 for the same measure July 19.

President Bush is expected to sign it into law.

The legislation would sign over ownership of the property to the federal government to preserve it as a national military war memorial, which would be administered by the Department of Defense. The federal government would be required to pay an appropriate amount for the property and would be barred from extending its boundaries.

“Obviously we’re delighted,” said Charles LiMandri, a lawyer aiding defenders of the memorial, according to Copley News Service. “I think even the more liberal side of the Democratic Party has to recognize that there is widespread, grassroots support for preserving veterans memorials in general and the Soledad cross in particular.”

The Senate action marked another in a series of recent wins for those seeking to prevent a court from removing the cross, which was erected in 1954 as a tribute to veterans of the Korean War.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked enforcement of a federal judge’s order for San Diego to remove the cross by Aug. 1 or pay $5,000 a day in fines. Kennedy's July 7 decision prevented fines until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court rules on the case. The Ninth Circuit will hear the case in mid-October.

[Venisenvy]

Good, since i heard about the demands to take the cross down i was very dissapointed. See the first amendment is not about taking all religious imagery and words from public property. It allows all to believe what they want, it forces the government not to name an official religion. But religion has always been an important part of this country both public and private. Recently the far left has been using the first amendment as one that says freedom from religion and thats just not what it ever was intended to do. I know people bring up Jefferson's letter but that is not in the constitution, many framers have very different views plus Jeffersons actions show that he was not talking about freedom from religion, this is after all the president that very often attended church inside the capitol building. He obviously had no problem with that.

[Regis Philbin]

True, it was just to make sure the government does not establish a state religion. All religions are to be treated equally under the law. The ultra-left want to remove all religious symbols from public property and that's just not right...

[LesterX]

So can I assume that you two religious freedom advocates would be just as vociferously in support of having a giant crescent and moon (symbol of Islam) on gov't property looming over San Diego? How about a pentagram?

[Annoyedlistner]

True, it was just to make sure the government does not establish a state religion. All religions are to be treated equally under the law. The ultra-left want to remove all religious symbols from public property and that's just not right...

I one hundred percent agree with you on the fact that all religions are to be treated equally under the law...probably like yourself regis, i am a christian.....are christians treated fairly...of course we are..christians make up the majority of this country....if your not a christain your religion is not held to the same regard by the govt as christainity....and to quote you.....thats just not right.

regis, you dont belief in freedom of religion....you belief in the govt promoting one religion....christianity.

[Venisenvy]

I have had no problems in the past with the star of david or the muslim crecent to be placed on public property, i have had no problems with giant manoras(sp?) placed on public property celebrating chanuka, lighting one candle every day that goes by. I have no problem with other religions getting equal footing with christianity. I will admit i would have a big problem with a pentogram.

We are living in a country where the far left is out to attack christianity, taking christ out of christmas. SAyiong that new york schools can have a menora on display, a star of david, the muslim crecent but not a christian cross. How is that fair? Lets not forget our history, and lets not try to allow the far left to change our history. The fact is our founding fathers believed that religion and government were not completly seperate, the first amendment was not meant for freedom from religion. This country's founding was based on judeo-christian morals. I understand people dont like that but it doesnt mean we try to change history. I don't like slavery and our history with it but that does not mean we should go back and change our history to suit what we believe today.

Above i used the example of Jefferson attending church at the capitol building to show that he was fine with that happening on government property. Well let me use another example from Jefferson. In 1781 Jefferson said the following words:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

[BrokenHalo]

For the most part, Venis, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with religions other than mine being represented on public property. My school, unfortunately, was one that did *not* have representation for religions other than Christianity, but I know that it's gotten a bit more diverse in the past few years. I don't have a problem with Christmas, Channukah, whatever other holiday, being celebrated in schools so long as it's spread fairly/equally not just one religion over another.

I think it would be a real shame to take down a MEMORIAL because it had a cross. I'm glad that they opted to protect it.

My one problem with what you said is with the "big problem" with a pentagram. That is a major symbol of my religion; I'm not asking that we put pentagrams on everything (or even that it be equally represented), but I do have a problem with people treating it like it's evil and shunning it because they do not understand it.

A pentagram is a symbol of the 4 elements and spirit bound together in harmony. It's a symbol of peace and is a pagan symbol that very much is like the Christian's cross (or the jewish Star of David). It is also a major symbol of protection.

Just as a Christian person might be upset and feel persecuted for being asked to remove a necklace bearing a cross, a pagan likewise may be upset and feel persecuted for being asked to remove a pentagram. I do not think it is appropriate to ask someone to have to hide a symbol of their faith. I also think it's rather hypocritical for one to say they are for freedom of religion only to then turn around and say "except for pagans".

Also, just to mention, the pentagram is also a symbol in Christianity: it is for the 5 senses, and also is a symbol of health.

/end lesson of the pentagram. lol

The inverted/upside down pentagram is why there is such confusion I know; that is a symbol widely associated with Satanism. I don't know a whole lot about their religion or practices and can't say that I'm crazy about the idea of seeing that symbol on public property--but having said that, if other religions are allowed to have their symbol on public property, I must also protect their right. It's like the free speech issue--there are a lot of groups that I *really* don't like what they have to say, but I would still fight for their right to say it.

[LesterX]

Lets not forget our history, and lets not try to allow the far left to change our history. The fact is our founding fathers believed that religion and government were not completly seperate, the first amendment was not meant for freedom from religion. This country's founding was based on judeo-christian morals. I understand people dont like that but it doesnt mean we try to change history. I don't like slavery and our history with it but that does not mean we should go back and change our history to suit what we believe today.

Above i used the example of Jefferson attending church at the capitol building to show that he was fine with that happening on government property. Well let me use another example from Jefferson. In 1781 Jefferson said the following words:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

Most of our Founding Fathers were deists. It is not a "fact" that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The ones changing history in this country are the members of the Christian right who claim that the Founding Fathers were Christians. Some were, no doubt, but most were not.

Here are some more Thomas Jefferson quotes that round out the picture a bit.

“The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous. I join you [John Adams], therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.”

“If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your [John Adams’] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

[LesterX]

I think it would be a real shame to take down a MEMORIAL because it had a cross. I'm glad that they opted to protect it.


I really have no problem with the decision either. My gripe is with the Regises of the world who scream about religious freedom but really mean "we demand that Christian symbols be placed everywhere because this is a CHRISTIAN nation."

[db44]

The Pigrlims were religious, so maybe that's where the idea the Founding Fathers weren't deists came from?

The Pilgrims were Christian, but they came here for freedom of religion, to celebrate it in ways the English wouldn't allow them to and where they didn't have to worry about their children becoming overly Dutch (as that's how they tried to avoid religious percecution, going to Holland... Still the true land of the Free). They didn't come here to make this a Christian land, they came here so they, and the settlers after them, could worship freely.

So twice then those saying the reasons this country was founded was to protect Christianity have gotten it wrong.

[Venisenvy]

Let's take a look at our founding document. Now I think this document which we are basing our rights on clearly states the following:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hmm so lets see this clearly states that our rights which are self-evident have been given to us by our creator. That is the foundation of our rights, those rights we hold so dear and are extremely important in what we view America as being.

When you have a house and you remove its foundation what happens?

[Richard Tafoya]

Nobody's arguing that there's no place for belief in religion. It's the inference that Christianity is to be accomodated at the exclusion of other faiths (or lack thereof) that riles people who take the founding documents seriously.

The founding fathers were very clear that citizens should be free to engage or to choose not to engage any faith. There's a faction of the current Republican leadership and their more extremist media bulldogs that have pitted Christianity as being at war with those who don't see a place for exclusively Christian symbols in public spaces. And at war with those who choose to have some public spaces free from religious symbolism of any kind.

[db44]

For one thing, articles get into our governmental documents sometimes the wrong way... Look at the Pledge and the who was/wasn't there in the first place.

Actually, if you look at that passage and at what the Bible says, all people weren't created equal... Hence our problem now in the Middle East, to an extent. God favored the sons of Abraham over so many in the OT. So in that one passage, the whole basis of our country is already against what is written in the Bible.

And an interesting point is that it is nature's God, and the Creator listed. Not the Father or Yahweh, or Allah... Is this a religious God? Or can it be, the way it is written, science as God?

So let's say they are like me then... Closest thing I am to is Gnostic. I do believe in deities, but certainly not in any of the prescribed religions. I should also, as a born American, be allowed to practice the way I wish.

Now I like the Christmas spirit, and have no problem with it. I see a manger, I look, but know I don't have to, and I feel the people who are offended by the site or by the holiday are idiots. If you don't like "good will towards man" then you are seriously evil.

If it's something deeper, like being pestered by somebody to worship the holiday only one way, I can see where that is a niucance. If somebody starts asking why one isn't Christian, that I do believe is offensive, and yes, that does happen, especially around the holidays (been there, done that). I also don't have a problem with displays on public property, so long anyone of any religion is able to have thei equal space. Doesn't mean I'm going to put my top religious icon on display, but it should be my right.

And for the record, as a memorial, and pre-existing at that, I have no problem protecting the cross in question.

[Venisenvy]

It would be nice if most people felt that way, but the fact is that those on the far left do not. They are waging a fierce battle by twisting the First amendment to take all religion away from the public sphere the problem is that it was never intended for that.

There is no denying as the case with this cross shows that there are people in the far left out to attack religion in the public sphere and it should be stopped. I see it getting worse and worse as time goes on and yes at times i do feel like the far left is hostile to religion primarily christianity but not specificaly just to it. But seeing as something like 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian its the one that is out in front. I want all religions treated the same, i want our history respected not changed, i want the first amendment to be used in the way it was truly meant to be used.

[LesterX]

Let's take a look at our founding document. Now I think this document which we are basing our rights on clearly states the following:



Hmm so lets see this clearly states that our rights which are self-evident have been given to us by our creator. That is the foundation of our rights, those rights we hold so dear and are extremely important in what we view America as being.


So? An Islamic nation could have the exact same document. Making some generic reference to a creator does not equate to Christianity. Deists believed in a creator too.

[LesterX]

It would be nice if most people felt that way, but the fact is that those on the far left do not. They are waging a fierce battle by twisting the First amendment to take all religion away from the public sphere the problem is that it was never intended for that.

There is no denying as the case with this cross shows that there are people in the far left out to attack religion in the public sphere and it should be stopped. I see it getting worse and worse as time goes on and yes at times i do feel like the far left is hostile to religion primarily christianity but not specificaly just to it.

No, that is not a fact. Stop painting everything with such a broad brush. You do realize that there are far left Christians out there, don't you?

But seeing as something like 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian its the one that is out in front.

"Out in front"? I didn't realize this was a competition. It's comments like this that rile people like me. Tyranny of the majority is not my cup of tea.

i want the first amendment to be used in the way it was truly meant to be used.

No, you want the 1st Amendment used in the way you believe it was intended. You are not the sole arbiter of how it was "truly" meant to be used.

[Venisenvy]

lol you really seem to misunderstanding most of what i am saying. By out in front i meant since its the largest group its the one that is most frequently attacked.

Sure there are far left christian but many of them support these measures and that still doesnt make it ok.

Im about to work so i dont have time to give you a history on the first amendment, but i suggest you read it, its very small, very precise and very simple.

[LesterX]

lol you really seem to misunderstanding most of what i am saying. By out in front i meant since its the largest group its the one that is most frequently attacked.

Sure there are far left christian but many of them support these measures and that still doesnt make it ok.



Sorry for misunderstanding your choice of phrasing. I am hardly misunderstanding "most" of what you are saying. I am disagreeing with it. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

m about to work so i dont have time to give you a history on the first amendment, but i suggest you read it, its very small, very precise and very simple

Thank God you have to go to work so I'm spared your history lesson. I suggest you stop being such a snot and recognize that your interpretation of something is not "truth" or the only interpretation.

[db44]

C'mon Leslie... Give Luis a little more respect than calling him a snot. Would you rather he be like the gruesome twosome? (correct me if I had a name brain freeze).

But Luis, I don't see this fierce battle you're telling me about.

[LesterX]

Sorry, but his suggestion to me was the epitome of snotty and not exactly respectful of me.

Ya got the name right!

[Venisenvy]

lol...im very passionate when it comes to the constitution and it being used the right way. What i see the courts doing overall is changing the constitution as they see fit. In a democracy that is a very big deal, we have a really hard process to amend the constitution for a reason but judges can do it very easily by just ruling a certain way because they feel like it. Judges on both sides of the isle do it all the time.

I am personaly completly against the death penalty, i hate it and don't want it. But as someone that has read the constitution i completly understand that it is constitutional and the courts cant rule against it. Well they can but they should not because its judicial activism. See the constitution says very clearly that the government can deny you life, liberty and property with due process, its right there in the 5th amendment. If they can deny you life then the government can take your life as long as it follows the proper procedures of a fair trial etc...

The first amendment is also that clear. We should not give something more meaning than what is already there. The first amendment is very simple:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress cannot establish a religion, thats fair we should all be able to worship the religion we desire and congress cannot set up an official religion. A lot of people also want to look at founders intent and say hey thats where we can find extrea meaning to what the constitution means. I have read a sizable portion of the constitutional convention and there are a lot of different opinion to cling to. But if we want to look at it which in many cases its definetly an option we should look at their behavior. Throughout our history mass has been celebrated in our public buildings. The White House and even the capitol are included. Jefferson this man who many claim set this wall is someone that regularly attended services at the capitol building. The letter itself does not really set up this solid wall. We are a free and tolerant nation but that does not stop us from being a religious nation. The first amendment does not take religon out of government, it does make sure our right to worship how we choose is protected. That does also mean if a town wants to have a gian menora on public property celebrating Chanuka that its ok. It is not prohibiting anyone from worshiping their own religion and as long as they do not prohiit other religions from having their own scenes like manger scenes etc its ok. It does not mean they have to, if a town is 99% jewish lets say and they set up a menora the town does not have to have a manger scene. Now if they set up a menora and a christian wants a manger scene and he asks the town the right to put one up and they deny him that right then rights have been violated because the town is putting one religion ahead of others. Historically the first amendment was to protect our right to worship and not a way to completly divorce religion from public life.