Supreme Court Ruling, ...a little common sense is nice for a change Options

[GoShow]

The Constitution "does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm" - The US Supreme Court regarding a ruling about the Cross erected to honor WWI dead in the Mojave National Preserve.

There are actually people who want this Cross removed and because so, it has been covered in plywood for years. What a sad commentary on "progress" in this country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court upheld common sense and reason.

Even though many believe our Constitution states their must be separation of Church and State it does not.

It DOES say:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

[FiveBays]

Teri,

Amazing, we get a little common sense once in awhile. Do you know who wrote the majority opinion and who was the majority?

Dave

[GoShow]

Teri,

Amazing, we get a little common sense once in awhile. Do you know who wrote the majority opinion and who was the majority?

Dave

I believe it was Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion and Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, Kennedy were the majority.

[GoShow]

The ACLU originally brought the suit because a man in Oregon was offended by the Cross.

When are we going to stop pandering to the minority and start using common sense in these issues?

If your offended by the Cross...don't look at it. The MAJORITY want it there.

[DanWoods]

The ACLU originally brought the suit because a man in Oregon was offended by the Cross.

When are we going to stop pandering to the minority and start using common sense in these issues?

If your offended by the Cross...don't look at it. The MAJORITY want it there.

The case began when the federal government would not allow a Budda statue next to the cross (on federal land). I guess that allowing a cross but not allowing recognition of the non-Christian war heros is not respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree that the cross should be left alone. The Budda statue should be there next to it.


"The cross stood peacefully for years until the Park Service was asked if a Buddhist Shrine could also be built near the cross.

When the Park Service declined the request, Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another. He later filed suit in federal district court. "

[GoShow]

The case began when the federal government would not allow a Budda statue next to the cross (on federal land). I guess that allowing a cross but not allowing recognition of the non-Christian war heros is not respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree that the cross should be left alone. The Budda statue should be there next to it.
"The cross stood peacefully for years until the Park Service was asked if a Buddhist Shrine could also be built near the cross.

When the Park Service declined the request, Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another. He later filed suit in federal district court. "

I've read reports where the "Buddha Story" is untrue. That Frank Buono concocted the story. It would be interesting to find out the truth.

[Laurie]

I think it would be a little difficult to concoct a story of this magnitude, Teri -- particularly since there was a trial in which Buono must have testified.

The link Dan provided was interesting -- Buono is a Roman Catholic.

I've read reports where the "Buddha Story" is untrue. That Frank Buono concocted the story. It would be interesting to find out the truth.

[GoShow]

I think it would be a little difficult to concoct a story of this magnitude, Teri -- particularly since there was a trial in which Buono must have testified.

The link Dan provided was interesting -- Buono is a Roman Catholic.

There are quite a few reports that the story was concocted by Buono. There are many reports that say the Buddha issue was a hoax that was taken by the ACLU and they ran with it.

It really isn't that hard to make this kind of story up, Laurie. You just have to Google it to see how he allegedly did it. Now whether it's true is another story. I know their are two versions to the story and I'm not sure which one is true.

I'm not too sure what being a Catholic has to do with it.

What I know to be true is that common sense won yesterday and our country is better for it.

[DanWoods]

I'm not too sure what being a Catholic has to do with it.

What I know to be true is that common sense won yesterday and our country is better for it.

Being a practicing Christian and objecting to the government establishing a religion is much different than the ACLU wanting to clear our country of all religious symbols.

Dismissing the background because it doesn't fit your preconceived opinions doesn't help you understand what is going on.

There are quite a few reports that the story was concocted by Buono.

Links please?

[GoShow]

Being a practicing Christian and objecting to the government establishing a religion is much different than the ACLU wanting to clear our country of all religious symbols.

Dismissing the background because it doesn't fit your preconceived opinions doesn't help you understand what is going on.
Links please?

Excuse me? I'm not dismissing his background because that would mean it MATTERED. But it's just like you to pick, pick, pick at the inconsequential to try to prop up your weak points. It doesn't matter what religion this man is, Dan. Not. One. Iota.

He is in the MINORITY of wanting that cross removed. How does it matter what Religion he is?

How about you stick to the point...The Supreme Court decision...instead of attacking me.

Now even though you think I should be your secretary, I know you can do this all by yourself.... from your browser type in www.google.com. Next, type in something like Buddha Mohave hoax. Hit your enter key and Presto! The magic of the internet is something else. But the kicker is you may have to read things you don't want to know which tends to not help you understand what is going on.

But I have a feeling you won't do it. It's easier for you and fits your preconceived notions that I made up the possibility the Buddha thing was a hoax. Or better yet that I'm "parroting" some right wing conspiracy.

But...back to the POINT...The Supreme Court made a common sense ruling that ignores the paranoia and propaganda of the progressives that the Government is going to force us all to practice some State controlled religion. There is a place in the middle that takes into consideration our Constitution, the MAJORITY opinion and common sense.

[Laurie]

Did you read Dan's link?

Buono being a Roman Catholic is relevant because he was not objecting to the cross' being erected -- it is the symbol of his faith -- but to the refusal to allow other religion's symbols to be included.

I'm as cynical as the next person, and I'm also as patriotic as the next person, but it seems to me that when American people are killed in the line of duty, their religious choices should be honored. We had a local Wiccan resident, killed in the Gulf War, whose family was not allowed to have the Wiccan symbol on his memorial plaque until a huge stink was raised. To me, that's just WRONG.

There are quite a few reports that the story was concocted by Buono. There are many reports that say the Buddha issue was a hoax that was taken by the ACLU and they ran with it.

It really isn't that hard to make this kind of story up, Laurie. You just have to Google it to see how he allegedly did it. Now whether it's true is another story. I know their are two versions to the story and I'm not sure which one is true.

I'm not too sure what being a Catholic has to do with it.

What I know to be true is that common sense won yesterday and our country is better for it.

[Laurie]

Content of Dan's link:


Supreme Court Keeps Mojave Cross Case Alive
Divided 5-4 Decision Sends Case to Lower Court, Hints That Cross Should Stand

77 comments
By ARIANE de VOGUE
WASHINGTON, April 28, 2010
PrintRSS
Font Size:
Share:
EmailTwitterFacebook
More
FarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixx
Yahoo

A divided Supreme Court ruled today that a lower court failed to conduct an appropriate analysis when it ordered a white cross removed from California's Mojave National Preserve. The cross, first erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars more than 70 years ago, had become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about religious symbols on public property.
The Supreme Court says a religious cross can have more than one meaning.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 majority opinion. "A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished, need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs."

Kennedy's language was bold regarding the symbolism of a cross, which, he said, can include non-religious significance.
Related
WATCH: A Cross Not to Bear
Supreme Court Hears Mojave Cross Case
Sharp Debate at High Court Over Cross on US Land

"A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs," he wrote. "It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.

"Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields making the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

The legal history of the cross has been tortured and today's ruling does not put the case completely to rest. Kennedy ordered the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The ruling dismayed those who believe the cross should come down.

"This court clearly wants the lower court to find a way to maintain this religious symbol in this public park," said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "We are very disappointed."

The cross stood peacefully for years until the Park Service was asked if a Buddhist Shrine could also be built near the cross.

When the Park Service declined the request, Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another. He later filed suit in federal district court.

Supreme Court: Lower Court Analysis Flawed

While Buono, a Roman Catholic, did not find the cross itself objectionable, he was disturbed that it stood on government property when the government would not allow individuals to erect other permanent displays celebrating their religions.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Buono took his case to federal court and won. The court found that the cross violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from giving preference to one religion. Seeking to quell the controversy, Congress stepped in, trying to find a way to remedy the situation. Congress looked for a fine line between those who viewed the cross as a religious symbol on government property and others, notably veterans, who viewed it as a symbol of the sacrifices of fallen soldiers.

Congress found a novel way to deal with the situation in 2003, passing legislation to transfer the land to private ownership. But transferring the land to private ownership did not end the problem. A federal court enjoined the transfer, finding that the congressional response did not adequately resolve the constitutional violation that had occurred.
Related
Supreme Court Set to Tackle Hot-Button Issues
Unusual Start for New Term
Supreme Court: Free Speech vs. Campaign $$

The Supreme Court found today that the lower court's analysis of the transfer was flawed.

"Even if, contrary to the congressional judgment, the land transfer were thought an insufficient accommodation in light of the earlier finding of religious endorsement, it was incumbent upon the District Court to consider less drastic relief than complete invalidation of the land-transfer statute," Kennedy wrote for the majority.

At oral arguments, there was some discussion of the use of signs or placards to indicate that the cross display is a private memorial, not a government owned symbol.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that Congress' action transferring the ownership of the property to private hands was an improper remedy.

Stevens said a Latin cross, "necessarily symbolizes one of the most important tenets upon which believers in a benevolent Creator, as well as non believers, are known to differ.

"I certainly agree that the nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message."

[DanWoods]

Excuse me? I'm not dismissing his background because that would mean it MATTERED. But it's just like you to pick, pick, pick at the inconsequential to try to prop up your weak points. It doesn't matter what religion this man is, Dan. Not. One. Iota.

He is in the MINORITY of wanting that cross removed. How does it matter what Religion he is?

How about you stick to the point...The Supreme Court decision...instead of attacking me.

Now even though you think I should be your secretary, I know you can do this all by yourself.... from your browser type in www.google.com. Next, type in something like Buddha Mohave hoax. Hit your enter key and Presto! The magic of the internet is something else. But the kicker is you may have to read things you don't want to know which tends to not help you understand what is going on.

But I have a feeling you won't do it. It's easier for you and fits your preconceived notions that I made up the possibility the Buddha thing was a hoax. Or better yet that I'm "parroting" some right wing conspiracy.

But...back to the POINT...The Supreme Court made a common sense ruling that ignores the paranoia and propaganda of the progressives that the Government is going to force us all to practice some State controlled religion. There is a place in the middle that takes into consideration our Constitution, the MAJORITY opinion and common sense.

1. Your original post suggested that the suit was brought by a person in Oregon that wanted to remove the cross for no reason or because he was an athiest. Did I read that wrong?

2. All Buddists in this country are minorities. I'm not sure why the government should support one religion over another because of the number of people that practice each religion. Would you elaborate please?

3. When people make assertions that they know something that the rest of us don't it is usually good to back them up. Since you are pulling rumors out of something that the rest of us can't see and can not support them, I'll consider your assertions about the case unsubstantiated. Asking for a source when you say that you heard stories that contradict an article that is linked does not seem too much to ask.

[DanWoods]

The ACLU originally brought the suit because a man in Oregon was offended by the Cross.

Which part of this is correct?

[GoShow]

Which part of this is correct?

Open your eyes and your brain, Dan. It DOESN'T MATTER WHY THE GUY WANTED THE CROSS REMOVED.

What matters is that we pander to the MINORITY without using common sense and reason in addressing the issue in regard to the MAJORITY. One MUST be considered as well as the other for there to be any parity. I would think a Liberal would get that.

I'll give you plenty of time to try and wrap your head around that. A long, long time.

You just keep on skirting the issue and attack me and nitpick yourself into a tizzy.

I'll leave you to your liberal elitist fugue.

[GoShow]

Which part of this is correct?

The part you believe is correct, Dan.

[tapper]

well, i spose Religion is a hot button issue for most. But if they used another adjective, it works better.

1 person is offeded by firetrucks being red. 99 people have no problem with Firetrucks being red. Let's paint all firetrucks black because we don't want to offend one person.

[Georgine]

Of course everything should be decided by the majority, it does not matter if they are right or wrong.

Teri, also seems to miss the fact they sent the case back to the lower court. It is NOT over.

[Laurie]

I guess this is the fundamental reason we are disagreeing. I think it DOES matter why the cross was removed -- not because the man didn't want the cross to remain, but because symbols of other religions were not permitted to be placed.

I think that's what needs to be fixed -- the initial problem is not solved by crosses being banned or allowed. The problem WOULD be solved by symbols of other religions being allowed, particularly in sanctuaries and memorial areas dedicated to our servicemen.

Open your eyes and your brain, Dan. It DOESN'T MATTER WHY THE GUY WANTED THE CROSS REMOVED.

What matters is that we pander to the MINORITY without using common sense and reason in addressing the issue in regard to the MAJORITY. One MUST be considered as well as the other for there to be any parity. I would think a Liberal would get that.

I'll give you plenty of time to try and wrap your head around that. A long, long time.

You just keep on skirting the issue and attack me and nitpick yourself into a tizzy.

I'll leave you to your liberal elitist fugue.

[Laurie]

Except in this case Bruono was not offended by the cross . . . he was offended by the policy of refusing to have symbols of other religions on the same premises as the cross.

well, i spose Religion is a hot button issue for most. But if they used another adjective, it works better.

1 person is offeded by firetrucks being red. 99 people have no problem with Firetrucks being red. Let's paint all firetrucks black because we don't want to offend one person.