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

Skip to comments.

Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park
Reuters ^ | September 6, 2007

Posted on 09/06/2007 1:24:08 PM PDT by Paige

At issue is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from favoring any one religion, as it applies to a lone white metal Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.

People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Free Republic; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcuurcuit; aclu; christianity; courts; cross; erasure; lawsuit; mojave; persecution; politicallycorrect; purge; religion; revisionism; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

1 posted on 09/06/2007 1:24:11 PM PDT by Paige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paige

9th Circus again


2 posted on 09/06/2007 1:25:35 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige
“...which bars the government from favoring any one religion...”

Uh, no it does not. It bars the government from establishing a national religion. Big effing difference, but nice try at propaganda and rewriting history, Reuters

3 posted on 09/06/2007 1:26:34 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ

ping


4 posted on 09/06/2007 1:26:55 PM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

OK for star and crescent.


5 posted on 09/06/2007 1:27:51 PM PDT by fweingart (Tom Tancredo Will Get The Job Done! (PS: I Don't Like The Clintons.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

“The government’s long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government’s purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place,” the judge said.

YEAH, SO WHAT? THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT FROM ALLOWING PRIVATE PERSONS TO BUILD A CROSS ON PRIVATE LAND. IN FACT, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND FACILITATE THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE PERSONS TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION.


6 posted on 09/06/2007 1:28:36 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige
"Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park"

As opposed to the Jewish kind of cross?

7 posted on 09/06/2007 1:28:51 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige
This clown Margaret McKeown is a Clinton appointee.I,myself,am stunned by this.
8 posted on 09/06/2007 1:29:00 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If martyrdom is so cool,why does Osama Obama go to such great lengths to avoid it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

Allowing a cross is not Establishing and forcing religion on anyone regardless of how much you may or may not look upon it.


9 posted on 09/06/2007 1:30:48 PM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

Ignore this anti-American court.


10 posted on 09/06/2007 1:32:28 PM PDT by wolfinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige
In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.

That's where they went wrong. I don't see a problem with people putting up their religious icons. Preventing them from doing it specifically because it's religious would be a restriction on freedom of religion. But here the government essentially said it allowed only expression of the Christian religion. IOW, the government recognizes only Christianity. That is a dangerous road, not only between religions, but within them, as we've seen with the various persecutions of one Christian sect by another that is in power.

11 posted on 09/06/2007 1:33:29 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige; Gabz

Second-hand religion ban ping.


12 posted on 09/06/2007 1:35:08 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paige

Let’s see...no cross on private land...but Islamic prayer footbaths in public bathrooms at the University of Michigan are just fine.

Is their something wrong with this picture? Does this add up?


13 posted on 09/06/2007 1:36:24 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Then why are we allowing the courts to dictate to us?


14 posted on 09/06/2007 1:36:24 PM PDT by freekitty (May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

The courts are solely for agenda and special interest groups.


15 posted on 09/06/2007 1:37:00 PM PDT by freekitty (May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Well there’s the Hakenkreuz.....


16 posted on 09/06/2007 1:38:46 PM PDT by Red Badger (ALL that CARBON in ALL that oil & coal was once in the atmospere. We're just putting it back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

““...which bars the government from favoring any one religion...””

I caught that too. NOTHING bars the “favoring” of any religion, just the “establishment” of one.


17 posted on 09/06/2007 1:39:09 PM PDT by hophead ( "Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

” As opposed to the Jewish kind of cross?”

If there was a crescent and star the ACLU would be protecting their right to keep it. I’d bet the farm on that one.


18 posted on 09/06/2007 1:40:44 PM PDT by hophead ( "Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paige

The Land of the Freaks and the Home of the Craven!


19 posted on 09/06/2007 1:41:29 PM PDT by tailgunner (USMC Korea-Era)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

Paid for by public dollars, most likely. If anything, that constitutes “establishment”. Here we have private individuals acting at their own expense on private land. But the Circus sees that as “establishment”. I don’t see it, myself. Then again, I’m just a layman when it comes to the law.


20 posted on 09/06/2007 1:42:39 PM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 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