Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-14-2014, 01:52 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,518,653 times
Reputation: 16962

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
I went back and actually read the newspaper reports. The boy died in May 2012 and the cross was put up in December of 2012. Therefore, it was only up for 15 months, not 2 years. The AHA did not travel to California. They simply pointed out that the display violated the separation of church and state, so the city ordered it to be removed rather than subject themselves to another lawsuit. The city had recently been on the wrong end of a similar lawsuit (also prompted by AHA), dealing with a veteran memorial depicting a soldier kneeling in front of a cross. The article said a complaint caused the AHA to intervene. A memorial is being put up and a tree planted in a park in memory of the dead boy.
There ya go. A sensible rendering of the church and state thingy results in accusations of intolerance hatred and bigotry from intolerant, hateful and bigoted knee jerker's.

 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:17 PM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,268,727 times
Reputation: 2127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
So they are intolerant?
Being intolerant of religious displays on public property = defending the Constitution.

Sorry, you just got caught in one of your own cute little traps.
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,485,918 times
Reputation: 8599
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
I went back and actually read the newspaper reports. The boy died in May 2012 and the cross was put up in December of 2012. Therefore, it was only up for 15 months, not 2 years. The AHA did not travel to California. They simply pointed out that the display violated the separation of church and state, so the city ordered it to be removed rather than subject themselves to another lawsuit. The city had recently been on the wrong end of a similar lawsuit (also prompted by AHA), dealing with a veteran memorial depicting a soldier kneeling in front of a cross. The article said a complaint caused the AHA to intervene. A memorial is being put up and a tree planted in a park in memory of the dead boy.
All they had to do was move it 2 feet back onto the vacant private lot - or put the cross on their own front lawn.

StreetView (no cross when the Google car last passed):
Cross was planted forward and right of the tree
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7264...3Rq1478UQA!2e0

http://www.pe.com/incoming/20140306-...D_0307ffdb.jpg
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:36 PM
 
Location: California
37,155 posts, read 42,278,198 times
Reputation: 35041
A tree planted somewhere, even in your own yard, IS a time honored traditional way of memorializing someone. I'm glad they did that.
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,044,586 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Or.....maybe someone from the community wasn't OK with it and they were the ones who contacted the AHA to get rid of it.
That is exactly what did occur - and those people should have minded there own business.

Instead they acted on their hatred and intolerance of religion.
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,044,586 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Being intolerant of religious displays on public property = defending the Constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits religious displays on public property - in fact the constitution specifically forbids the prohibition of free exercise of religion.
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,044,586 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
All they had to do was move it 2 feet back onto the vacant private lot - or put the cross on their own front lawn.
The AHA would still be complaining.

This is how we know that the motive is hatred and intolerance of religion - why didn't they request the cross be moved a couple of feet?

Answer - they didn't want the cross to be visible at all.
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,785,338 times
Reputation: 15482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
That is exactly what did occur - and those people should have minded there own business.

Instead they acted on their hatred and intolerance of religion.
How do you know it wasn't any of their business? Do you know who did it? If I see something improper occurring in my community on public property, isn't it within my sphere to take action?
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,044,586 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
How do you know it wasn't any of their business? Do you know who did it? If I see something improper occurring in my community on public property, isn't it within my sphere to take action?
Washington D.C. is 3,000 miles or so from Lake Elsinore.

That isn't exactly in the same community, so it was not in their "sphere".

This is an example of a busybody organization that hates religion and wanted the cross gone because it offended them.

You should not be able to force the removal of a memorial for an accident victim simply because of an irrational reaction.
 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,678,596 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Washington D.C. is 3,000 miles or so from Lake Elsinore.

That isn't exactly in the same community, so it was not in their "sphere".
I guess that it's a fact that there are various watchdog groups who've taken it upon themselves to be constitutional lighthouses for any perceived infractions. I know that the 2nd amendment community is very sensitive to any encroachment on what they consider incursions on the their constitutional rights. It's that way with the group that threatened this suit. They are not anti christian. they are anti religious symbolism being displayed on public property.
In the end it's all about slippery slope. 2nd amendment advocates are very watchful of slippery slope laws and incursions. So are these people watchful of incursions of religious symbolism on public lands. Public lands mean just that. they belong to the public not to any one citizen or any one religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top