I am Ticked !

[check6]

Actually you have that backward. It was public land, the government tried to save the memorial by exchanging the public land it sits on for some land owned by the VFW in 2004. It was built on public land originally. If you can find a link that says otherwise, please provide it. Read below:

 

Nope, you got it wrong. Here is the link, which is part of the brief being given to the US Supreme Court...

 

http://www.saveourmemorials.com/docs/090223_release.pdf

 

and here it is in part.....

U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Mojave Desert Cross Case

Veterans Hope Court Saves War Memorial

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case regarding the Mojave Desert Cross, a memorial to World War I veterans that has been declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November of 2008, Liberty Legal Institute filed an amicus brief asking for certiorari on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), The American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH), Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of California, and American Ex-Prisoners of War (AXPOW). The VFW erected the memorial and originally owned the land on which the memorial sits, and had donated it to the government in 1934. The ACLU sued for removal of the veterans’ memorial on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ordered the memorial and cross dismantled.

After that decision, the VFW gave 5 acres of land in exchange for the retrieval of their monument. The Ninth Circuit ruled that was unconstitutional and ordered the monument and cross dismantled instead. The cross is currently covered by a plywood box, awaiting The Supreme Court’s decision.

 

What you said here is just the resent history....

 

In 2004, Congress responded by passing legislation that exchanged a local plot of private land for the land that the memorial stood on. Since that legislation, the property on which the memorial stands, is owned by the VFW.

 

In 2007, a 3 judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the lower court ruling, and invalidated the transfer of land, stating that “carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve — like a donut hole with the cross atop it — will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement of the religious symbol.”

 

Then in the fall of 2008, the Bush administration appealed the Circuit Court ruling on the basis that the 9th Circuit Court’s “seriously misguided decision” would require the government “to tear down a cross that has stood without incident for 70 years as a memorial to fallen service members.” In February, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. It will be heard this fall.

 

Your statement here may or may not be correct. Normally, the marker is selected by the family. However, I believe there is a possibility that someone might have a problem with any religious display, because, again, it's on government owned land. But who knows.

 

Grave markers are different in that they represent the individual soldiers faith. There are plenty of stars of david as well. In time you will probably see cresent moons and wiccan symbols in Arlington and elsewhere. It may be that way now.

 

Again, if you read my first response, I don't have an issue with not allowing religious symbols on government owned land. My beef was that the VFW owned the land to begin with. So, give them the land back.

 

The simple solution is to make a memorial that represents all WW1 soldiers without the religious trappings. This would honor ALL the soldiers, not just the Christian ones.

 

Yes, I am ok with either. I don't have a problem with this at all. Why should I and why in the world would you ask that? In answer to your first post when you ask the same thing, only with an Indian angle: It doesn't matter as I am Native American.

 

Let me ask you this, if that was a big cresent moon or star of David, would you be OK with it?

 

Nice debate on the Constitution...we'll have to see how it plays out with the Supreme Court

[sportscars]

The simple solution is to make a memorial that respesents all WW1 soldiers without the religous trappings. This would honor ALL the soldiers, not just the Christian ones.

 

Let me ask you this, if that was a big cresent moon or star of David, would you be OK with it?

 

The constitution is very specific, the government is to be religion neutral. It cannot interfere with religion, nor support religion. This part of the constitution is not being followed very well as we all know. Some have a problem with it. Some see religion in general as superstitious nonsense that has no business being codified into law or institutionalized by the governement or given special privilages. No one can really agree on religion or beliefs which is why the founding fathers put that in there. It best the government and religion not mix.

 

Sportcars: I got a good chuckle reading your post. The constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority. This is not mob rules here. You may not be happy about that now, but you might change your mind someday because Muslims are growing faster than Christians and someday THEY will be the majority and then, by your rule, they would put all the Christian Infidels to death...your grandkids. It may be niffty to be a Christian now, I doubt it will be in the future.

 

KC666

 

KC, First off - I am fine with a crescent moon or Star of David monument; I believe all who fought should be honored. I think even more so for those who are not “main stream”. While I am not Muslim or Jewish I would even donate $ to help erect those monuments. You see I practice what is called TOLERANCE (heavily promoted by a man names Jesus {reference “good Samaritan” as but one example}).

 

As far as the Constitution goes, you are not quite right. The original constitution only mentions religion once, in article 6, "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The first amendment to the Constitution adds the following, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Thats it! Nothing else. No "separation of church and state", no limits on the Gov't erecting crosses, nothing about the Ten Commandments. Basically the Constitution states that there shall be no official religion. It doesn’t say anything about not being offended. It also does not address “perceived” implications, which is at most what this situation is - as the government did not pay for or construct or authorize this monument.

 

The problem we have here is that these statements have been misconstrued by the Supreme Court to mean many different things over the last 50 or 60 years. These judges are not mainstream Americans. They are wealthy, isolated and exclusionary people who live a life so far removed from the common man as to not understand our beliefs and needs.

 

A cross or even the Ten Commandments on federal land in no way promotes Christianity over another religion. Just as a Chevy truck with government plates does not mean that the government is promoting Chevy over Ford. I am sure that somewhere, there is someone who “MIGHT” make that assumption, however you have to agree that it would be detrimental to the public as a whole to “dumb down” the nation to the lowest common denominator.

 

And as far as the Muslims putting the "infidels" to death. Once again, another bastardization of the Quran. Promoted by Muslim extremists and spread by hate mongers. No basis in reality. I have nothing to fear from Muslims. But to read your comments, maybe you do.

[KingCobra666]

Nice debate on the Constitution...we'll have to see how it plays out with the Supreme Court

The VFW erected the memorial and originally owned the land on which the memorial sits, and had donated it to the government in 1934.

 

I have been trying to find any independant ie. non biased information about who owned the land originally. I'm not taking the Liberty Counsels word for it and that is their press release. For me it would change the situation if it were erected on private land then donated. They should just give it back and thats that. But it appears the cross is in the middle of the Mojave national park. Here is what I found

 

Supreme Court to hear Mojave Desert Memorial Cross case

On May 29th, the Supreme Court will hear the case of “Salazar vs. Buono” which will determine the fate of a 75 yr old cross erected by WW I Veterans atop Sunrise Rock, in what is now the Mojave Desert Preserve. Originally erected on land which was open range land, and free to public use; the cross was erected in memorial to those Veterans who’ve died serving their Country in war.

 

http://www.topix.net/city/edwards-ca/2009/...rial-cross-case

 

The question is, did the VFW originally own the land? It seems unlikely, as it is in the middle of public lands. So the Liberty Counsel is probably releasing erroneous information. Only right wing sites have that tidbit, no others that I could find mention it. If you have some credible information in a link it would be great if you could post it. Otherwise, I am skeptical about the VFW owing the land back in 1934.

 

 

Facts of the Case:

 

In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars built a wooden cross on top of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve as a memorial to those who died in World War I. The original cross no longer exists, but has been rebuilt several times. Frank Buono, a former Preserve employee, filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to prevent the permanent display of the cross. The genesis of his suit occurred in 1999 when a request to build a Buddhist shrine in the Preserve, near the cross, was denied. He argued that the cross' display on federal property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed and the cross was covered.

 

While the case was pending, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling with the use of federal funds. One year later, by land swap, Congress made Sunrise Rock private property in exchange for another parcel of land. Mr. Buono moved to not only enforce the previous court order preventing the display of the cross, but also to prohibit the land swap. The district court granted both motions. The Secretary of the Interior appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion.

 

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court reasoned that the government failed to show that the district court's fact findings or legal standards were clearly erroneous, nor did it show that the district court made an error in judgment.

 

Frank Buono is the former assistant superintendent of the preserve.

 

The denial of the Buddist shrine was the catalyst in this case.

 

Sportcars: Frank Buono wanted to put up his Buddist shrine and was denied.

 

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.

 

Notice it doesnt say of a religion...its say of religion. The Supreme court has extended these rules to other governement entities, as is their lawful right. So the government cant establish that there is religion, much less any specific one. Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored most of the US Constitution coined the term the separation of church and state. He was a big believer in it.

 

Some prefer a life free from religion. They have a right. Religious folks have a right to do what they want as long as they dont infringe on the rights of others to practice their religion or lack of religion. It really pretty simple.

 

All this Christian symbolitry on government land is a attempt to establish their religion, to create a theocracy or the appearance there of and to legitimize it with a government stamp of approval. Institutionalized religion would make it hard for anyone not to go along with it, to not fit in. It makes for more Christians and thus more power. Otherwise, why would you want the ten commandments on every courthouse lawn? How many commandments are actually codified into US laws? Not many. I think everyone knows the real purpose of this.

 

Anyway, I dont know how you can say putting religous symbols all over public land does not establish that there IS religion, and if they are Christian, that that one is "preferered". It is giving preferencial treatment. How is that fair? Buono tried to put up a Buddist monument and was denied. Is that fair? So he sued. He has every right.

 

I hear you that Jesus Christ was a man of peace and tolerance. Yet, how many nasty words have been directed toward this man who brought this suit, threats even, by his warped followers. I doubt JC would approve.

 

As far as Muslims, I am not eager to live under Sharia law, are you?

 

KC666

[check6]

"A cross or even the Ten Commandments on federal land in no way promotes Christianity over another religion. Just as a Chevy truck with government plates does not mean that the government is promoting Chevy over Ford. I am sure that somewhere, there is someone who “MIGHT” make that assumption, however you have to agree that it would be detrimental to the public as a whole to “dumb down” the nation to the lowest common denominator. "

 

I like your point Sportscars! +!

 

Oh, KC...go read the brief....I am a member of the VFW...I have been told that according to VFW records, we owned the land at that time, this stuff is all a mater of public record as property changed hands...also don't be fooled about the term "open range land" that doesn't really always mean "public land"....it just means land that was open to grazing for anyones cattle (ie little or no fences)...I grew up and still live in the Mojave area. My granddad, had a ranch just outside Mojave and most of it was "open range" even though he held the title of the land itself...and I gave you "credible evidence" you just chose not to except it...and you gave me a news article from a local Edwards' newspaper...come on, really, that is more credible? Newspapers get it wrong all the time...nope, I will go with the facts as given in the court brief thank you. So, here is another site offering evidence: I hope you think the VFW is "credible".

 

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4939

 

Here is a small bit of it....read the part in red...the VFW on their website, states that they were the original donor of the memorial...you can't donate something you don't own...Congress agrees with this and tried to give the land back...

 

"In 1934, the VFW erected a small wooden cross and plaque in what is now the Mojave National Preserve to honor the American “Dead of All Wars.” In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Frank Buono, filed suit in federal court arguing that the memorial violates the Constitution because of its religious symbolism. Congress has since designated the memorial as a national memorial and ordered the Secretary of the Interior to convey the memorial and the acre of land directly under it to the VFW, the original donors of the memorial, in exchange for five acres of land within the Preserve.

 

 

As far as the Constitution, sense you are mensing words, Article 1 clearly states "Congress shall past no law..." They knew what Congress was: they created it...it was the House and the Senate...just the legislative branch...not the whole government, not state and local government etc...the courts have interpreted that Congress really means "government" of all types....wonder why it took the courts so long to figure out that the founders really didn't know what they were talking about Anyway, there is no convincing you...doesn't mater what the heck we think anyway... the courts will play it out

[odgreen001]

How many commandments are actually codified into US laws? Not many. I think everyone knows the real purpose of this.

KC666

 

Here are 4 of the 10 commandments that have been made into law and 2 others that I think everyone understands is wrong to do:

 

You shall not murder - this one is obvious.

 

You shall not commit adultery - This law was the norm a long time ago and I'd bet anyone $50.00 that it is still on the books in some states.

 

You shall not steal - another obvious one

 

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor - even Bill Clinton knows this one

 

For these last two, the word "covet", according to dictionary.com means to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others

 

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

 

So at a minimum, 40% of the 10 commandments are on the books and 20% I think the majority know is wrong. That's pretty good I think.

[KingCobra666]

The VFW site doesnt say anything about owning the land in 1934. You might be confusing the VFW being the "original donors of the memorial" with donating the land. It appears they never owned the land at least that I can discover. I'm not going to read the brief . The Congress gave the land to the VFW in 2004 in hopes of subverting the judicial rulings.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court rules on this. They allowed the 10 commandments on court lawns so why wouldnt they allow this? It would seem like a contradiction. Looks like there is going to be one hell of a lot of angry Buddists out there....

 

odgreen: Adultery is not really illegal, technically maybe somewhere its still on the books but lets face it, people cheat all the time there is a TV show devoted to it...coveting is not a crime... wanting something someone else has..its almost the American way. Nice try though...its like 20% at best.

 

Besides, killing is only illegal under certain circumstances. Go to war, carry a badge, break into my house uninvited...all good reasons to kill and all perfectly legal, even neccessary. Its only illegal if you dont have a good reason.

 

Thats doesnt really make it sitting on the courthouse lawn material IMHO. But hey, we all have our opinions, glad we can express them in this great land!

 

KC666

[sportscars]

Sportcars: Frank Buono wanted to put up his Buddist shrine and was denied.

 

Congress shall 1) 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.

 

Notice it doesnt say of a religion...its say of religion. The Supreme court has extended these rules to other governement entities, as is their lawful right. So the government cant establish that there is religion, much less any specific one. 2) Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored most of the US Constitution coined the term the separation of church and state. He was a big believer in it.

 

Anyway, I dont know how you can say putting religous symbols all over public land does not establish that there IS religion, and if they are Christian, that that one is "preferered". It is giving preferencial treatment. How is that fair? Buono tried to put up a Buddist monument and was denied. Is that fair? So he sued. He has every right.

 

I hear you that Jesus Christ was a man of peace and tolerance. 3) Yet, how many nasty words have been directed toward this man who brought this suit, threats even, by his warped followers. I doubt JC would approve.

 

KC666

 

Ok, well here we go - :beatdeadhorse:

 

1) The Supreme Court has interpreted and added sp much to this simple sentance as to have completely lost the original meaning. How exactly is allowing a cross on federal land considered Congress to be passing a law that respects (acknowleges) an establishment (the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.) of religion. In this case Congress has neither passed a law or publicly acknowledged Christianity as the national religion. To assume otherwise is, well, asinine.

 

2) The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, both directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers". James Madison is generally considered to be the primary author (see the Virginia Plan).

 

3) Well, then because a few of the more than a billion followers of Jesus are wackos we should look apon all of Christianity as something bad? Call you local homeless mission and ask what day the athiests come down to help out. What percentage of athiests actually forbid their children from giving or receiving presents at Christmas time? How many athiests organize mission trips to help the poor? I submit to you that the world is a much better place because of Christianity.

 

As far as Buono putting up a Bhuddist shrine goes - He should have been allowed to do it as long as he was not asking the government to pay for it.

[odgreen001]

odgreen: Adultery is not really illegal, technically maybe somewhere its still on the books but lets face it, people cheat all the time there is a TV show devoted to it...coveting is not a crime... wanting something someone else has..its almost the American way. Nice try though...its like 20% at best.

 

Besides, killing is only illegal under certain circumstances. Go to war, carry a badge, break into my house uninvited...all good reasons to kill and all perfectly legal, even neccessary. Its only illegal if you dont have a good reason.

 

Thats doesnt really make it sitting on the courthouse lawn material IMHO. But hey, we all have our opinions, glad we can express them in this great land!

 

KC666

 

Dude you and those like you are part of the cause of why this country is going down hill. Adultery is still a crime and prosecuted at times in the military in these days. It has been in the law a long time...problem is, folks like yourself trample over existing and past moral issues making it common and "acceptable". There were times I'm sure when gays were put to death for their sexual orientatiion. And in some states, I'll bet another $50 here, it is still illegal according to law, but not enforced. God called it an abomination. Today, mankind calls it, ok and maybe even natural. It is not ok, and it is not natural. Ever heard of NAMBLA? Google it...they are also making inroads as what they do being acceptable. And I'll bet that in 50 years or so, it will be or at least not prosecuted. BS many will say now, but think back 50 or 60 years ago about the gays. Just because liberals such as yourself deam it is acceptable, doesn't make it so in God's eyes.

 

Killing in self defense is legal, killing in war time is almost always legal...but not always. Ask some of the Germans that were hanged after WW II....sorry you can't...they were hanged until dead. Point is, there is no law that allows one to go out and kill someone for no reason.

 

Get a grip.

[KingCobra666]

Dude you and those like you are part of the cause of why this country is going down hill. Adultery is still a crime and prosecuted at times in the military in these days. It has been in the law a long time...problem is, folks like yourself trample over existing and past moral issues making it common and "acceptable". There were times I'm sure when gays were put to death for their sexual orientatiion. And in some states, I'll bet another $50 here, it is still illegal according to law, but not enforced. God called it an abomination. Today, mankind calls it, ok and maybe even natural. It is not ok, and it is not natural. Ever heard of NAMBLA? Google it...they are also making inroads as what they do being acceptable. And I'll bet that in 50 years or so, it will be or at least not prosecuted. BS many will say now, but think back 50 or 60 years ago about the gays. Just because liberals such as yourself deam it is acceptable, doesn't make it so in God's eyes.

 

Killing in self defense is legal, killing in war time is almost always legal...but not always. Ask some of the Germans that were hanged after WW II....sorry you can't...they were hanged until dead. Point is, there is no law that allows one to go out and kill someone for no reason.

 

Get a grip.

 

Um, when you say people like me are the reason this country is going downhill what does that mean? I've been married once, to the same wonderful gal for 21 years. You dont know jack about me, so I dont think your in any position to judge me smart guy. I suppose I'm not a Christian bigshot blowhard like Mark Sanford, but you know, I'm ok with that.

 

You married? How many times? When you get 21 years under your belt let me know. If your single you best be virgin or your morals are all wrong man. Thou shalt not Fornicate.

 

Adultery and Sodomy (which include any unnatural/non procreative sexual act between men or women or any combo of there of) was illegal in many states until the Supreme court overturned them ALL few years back. See Lawrence vs the U.S. The court ruled that the government could not regulate the sexual acts of adults conducted in the private. Those laws are gone so you owe me $100.00 bub. Donate it to the ACLU OK?

 

KC666

[sportscars]

The court ruled that the government could not regulate the sexual acts of adults conducted in the private. Those laws are gone so you owe me $100.00 bub. Donate it to the ACLU OK?

 

KC666

 

 

Might want to clarify that statement there a little. Dont think that is quite accurate as stated.

[DubbsFaris]

\

So, now some 70+ years later, the court's views on the issue of memorials that express a religious belief are unconstitutional because of their interpretation of the establishment clause. OK, so be it.

 

....The courts just do not like people not accepting what they think the Constitution means.

 

 

Hmm, I dont think I agree with that logic 100%...

 

I would think a Supreme Court made up of almost ALL christians, with the few jewish exceptions, would be more likely to "think" like a christian when interpreting the law....either that, or the law just cant be made to fit the circumstance by judicially justified means. I know that it doesn't seem right to have anything christian disrespected in this way, but the whole meaning of having "law" is to define the boundaries and limitations of our actions.

 

To the majority I must say- A petition of your opinions to the supreme court is futile. If you really want it set in black and white and made legitimate, you MUST change the constitution. And do it before the numbers arent there to do it...the majority is shrinking. I would happily join in THAT fight. Whether or not a christian, you cant fault the ideals. It just gets lost in the actions of us mere mortals sometimes..

 

sportscars- sorry brother, I have to disagree with your conclusions on supreme court justices...they are about as mainstream vanilla as it gets. These people are only private AFTER their appointments in most cases. BUT, judges are a weird breed. I have known a few.

[check6]

Hmm, I dont think I agree with that logic 100%...

 

I would think a Supreme Court made up of almost ALL christians, with the few jewish exceptions, would be more likely to "think" like a christian when interpreting the law....either that, or the law just cant be made to fit the circumstance by judicially justified means. I know that it doesn't seem right to have anything christian disrespected in this way, but the whole meaning of having "law" is to define the boundaries and limitations of our actions.

 

To the majority I must say- A petition of your opinions to the supreme court is futile. If you really want it set in black and white and made legitimate, you MUST change the constitution. And do it before the numbers arent there to do it...the majority is shrinking. I would happily join in THAT fight. Whether or not a christian, you cant fault the ideals. It just gets lost in the actions of us mere mortals sometimes..

 

sportscars- sorry brother, I have to disagree with your conclusions on supreme court justices...they are about as mainstream vanilla as it gets. These people are only private AFTER their appointments in most cases. BUT, judges are a weird breed. I have known a few.

 

Thought I'd respond as I was quoted here lol....in the quote you used from me, from my first post on the subject, I was referring to the infamous 9th Curcuit...they are famous for, and have a long track record, of these types of vindictive decisions that I see this case as having. That is why they are overturned so often by the US Supreme Court...I did not mean to imply that all courts operate this way. I was just angry after having read the court brief on this case. Again, I was upset because the memorial was not just returned to the original donor, the VFW.

 

Also on note, and not mentioned by anyone as yet, is the fact that the Mojave National Preserve, were Sunrise Rock sits, did not exist before 1994. Before then, the land of the preserve was just a collection of public and private land. The VFW states they owned the memorial having built it in 1934. So, why is the court (again...court equals 9th Circuit lol) unwilling to just give it back to them.....thanks all!

[odgreen001]

Um, when you say people like me are the reason this country is going downhill what does that mean? I've been married once, to the same wonderful gal for 21 years. You dont know jack about me, so I dont think your in any position to judge me smart guy. I suppose I'm not a Christian bigshot blowhard like Mark Sanford, but you know, I'm ok with that.

 

You married? How many times? When you get 21 years under your belt let me know. If your single you best be virgin or your morals are all wrong man. Thou shalt not Fornicate.

 

Adultery and Sodomy (which include any unnatural/non procreative sexual act between men or women or any combo of there of) was illegal in many states until the Supreme court overturned them ALL few years back. See Lawrence vs the U.S. The court ruled that the government could not regulate the sexual acts of adults conducted in the private. Those laws are gone so you owe me $100.00 bub. Donate it to the ACLU OK?

 

KC666

 

 

Guy, I don't have to personally know you...you speak volumes about yourself in these forums. Even an idiot can provide judgement on your character and moral values....don't have to be smart, as like I said...you tell everyone about yourself through your words.

 

Never said I wasn't a sinner and the only man I've ever known not to sin is Jesus. So don't bring that old crap about Christians being hypocrites. We all sin, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or heathen. As far as the $100...uhh, you can claim a false victory all you want. It will get you no where.

[DubbsFaris]

Guy, I don't have to personally know you...you speak volumes about yourself in these forums. Even an idiot can provide judgement on your character and moral values....don't have to be smart, as like I said...you tell everyone about yourself through your words.

 

Never said I wasn't a sinner and the only man I've ever known not to sin is Jesus. So don't bring that old crap about Christians being hypocrites. We all sin, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or heathen. As far as the $100...uhh, you can claim a false victory all you want. It will get you no where.

 

Wow dude, I dont know YOU, but I guess you got it all figured out...I personally dont like your tone towards an established member here speaking his mind...I dont mind his opinion or yours...but apparently you do. Way to be tolerant....thats very christian of you...

 

If these type of discussions bother you, I suggest you quit reading them if all they are going to do is drive you to a personal attack.

 

I noticed you dont resond to his questions- how long have you been married, etc...so I guess maybe he was right on the money since you avoid that subject all together. Maybe you are the reason this country is going downhill? Is this country going downhill? Does that mean I can quit pedalling?

[odgreen001]

Wow dude, I dont know YOU, but I guess you got it all figured out...I personally dont like your tone towards an established member here speaking his mind...I dont mind his opinion or yours...but apparently you do. Way to be tolerant....thats very christian of you...

 

If these type of discussions bother you, I suggest you quit reading them if all they are going to do is drive you to a personal attack.

 

I noticed you dont resond to his questions- how long have you been married, etc...so I guess maybe he was right on the money since you avoid that subject all together. Maybe you are the reason this country is going downhill? Is this country going downhill? Does that mean I can quit pedalling?

 

See, you're making judgements on me from my comments...it doesn't take a genious after all does it? You can't always judge a book by its cover, but you can judge after reading its pages...and that's what we all are doing here....writing pages.

 

These types of discussions don't bother me at all. It's a nice and sane way to voice one's opinion and you know what they say about opinions...they're like @$$holes...everyone's got one.

 

To answer his question, I'm on my second wife. The first was 12 years, my current wife since 92.

 

And yes, the country his heading downhill. Take off the blinders and look around. No, don't quit pedalling, but do turn your bike around and head up hill to higher ground.

 

And as I mentioned before, all people, including Christians, are sinners. If I've hurt your feelings or 666's feelings I'm sorry. You do however, have the option of not reading or posting to this forum. If it is too hot in the kitchen, get out.

 

God bless you all.

[DubbsFaris]

See, you're making judgements on me from my comments...it doesn't take a genious after all does it? You can't always judge a book by its cover, but you can judge after reading its pages...and that's what we all are doing here....writing pages.

 

These types of discussions don't bother me at all. It's a nice and sane way to voice one's opinion and you know what they say about opinions...they're like @$$holes...everyone's got one.

 

To answer his question, I'm on my second wife. The first was 12 years, my current wife since 92.

 

And yes, the country his heading downhill. Take off the blinders and look around. No, don't quit pedalling, but do turn your bike around and head up hill to higher ground.

 

And as I mentioned before, all people, including Christians, are sinners. If I've hurt your feelings or 666's feelings I'm sorry. You do however, have the option of not reading or posting to this forum. If it is too hot in the kitchen, get out.

 

God bless you all.

 

 

Nope, doesnt bother me a bit...Im comfortable with myself, and have enough good sense to know that I cant possibly mesh with every personality out there...Im not judging you, and I didnt say anything to that effect, but did add an ounce of sarcasm to the post....I just pointed out you didnt answer the question...but have now. If I do judge you, you probably wont know it, as I at least would keep those kinds of non constuctive thoughts to myself. So what would you like to see us all doing to make the country better? What are you doing about it? Other than complaining on a small membered car forum aside...

 

Thank you for apologizing to 666 though. That was nice, and the christian thing to do. And I know you havent posted a bunch here, but this kitchen is just my kind of hot...if it sparks my motivation to address an issue...My point of jumping in was for a completely different reason, but I don't like anyone getting attacked personally. I find that for every person that makes someone feel small, defending that person makes up for the insult, and shows the recipient of the insult that they are valued by others. I kind of feel like it is what Jesus would do. God Bless you too.

[svttim]

This thread has degraded as they usually do. This lawsuit is BS and we all know it. Besides the religious issue, there is a historical issue that goes right along with it. No where i the constitution does it say we cant have religious symbols on public land. The left has been far over reaching on this and wil continue until the cross will be illegle. And yes, I would be just as horrified if this was the Jewish star on that hill

[ShelbyEra08]

I dont like to follow the news and whatnot, because I know how terrible the country is just by the tv programming and music.

 

But the reason I am posting is, dont throw the word Christian around. I am not trying to offend anyone, so i am going to word this carefully.

 

In my 4 years attending 2 Christian colleges, one being Liberty University

 

In this day and age everyone thinks they are "Christians": Protestants, Catholics, Southern Baptists, Baptists, Non-Demontational, Lutherans, some Buddists and Hindusts, etc....think they are Christians

 

Even people who killed, sell their bodies, Abortion Doctors, etc.... think they are Christians.

 

Christian/Christianity is a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, some people who called themselves Christian dont have that relationship.

 

As to the religious symbols and whatnot, back in the age the country i believe was more Christian based, so years later people complaining about a Cross or Davids Star, are retarded..

 

The Star and the Cross just doesnt mean religion. For instance Davids Star is a symbol of Divine Mind. Also the Cross is a symbol of Sacrifice since so many men and women fought for the United States freedom.

 

If people want to take it down, its means they dont care what the people fought for and believed in, so its sending a message out, "I dont care, I want people to agree with me" attitude, and that is the reason why this country blows in political and the news media.

[KingCobra666]

See, you're making judgements on me from my comments...it doesn't take a genious after all does it? You can't always judge a book by its cover, but you can judge after reading its pages...and that's what we all are doing here....writing pages.

 

These types of discussions don't bother me at all. It's a nice and sane way to voice one's opinion and you know what they say about opinions...they're like @$$holes...everyone's got one.

 

To answer his question, I'm on my second wife. The first was 12 years, my current wife since 92.

 

And yes, the country his heading downhill. Take off the blinders and look around. No, don't quit pedalling, but do turn your bike around and head up hill to higher ground.

 

And as I mentioned before, all people, including Christians, are sinners. If I've hurt your feelings or 666's feelings I'm sorry. You do however, have the option of not reading or posting to this forum. If it is too hot in the kitchen, get out.

 

God bless you all.

 

Dub: Thanks, I appreciate what you said. I almost fell out of my seat when I read it.

 

ODgreen: Don't worry my man, you haven't hurt my feelings. I don't like when these things degenerate into personal attacks, but its no biggee. I hope that you can set aside your stereotypes and Rush Limbaugh rhetoric and realize that everyone who thinks different from you is not necessarily bad.

 

Sportcars: I have never said that Christians don't do some good deeds, but there is always a catch that you have to listen to them prostelizing. There are also many secular groups who help the needy. In Orlando for instance, Food Not Bombs is probably doing more than anyone for the homeless. United Way, Unicef, Doctors without Borders, The Smile Train, Seed foundation, Mercy corps. They help people out without demanding religious conversion. I don't think Christians have the market cornered on compassion. They do seem to have the market cornered on bigotry, however.

 

One look at the pope in Africa telling people that they ought not use condoms while millions are being killed by AIDS makes you really question how much good Christians are doing. They are doing harm too.

 

Yes, Jefferson didn't physically write the constitution, but he did formulate many of its ideas.

 

SheblyEra08: I'm confused by your comments. Jesus was all about helping prostitutes and murders. I dont think many Buddist or Hindu's think they are Christians...

 

Anyway, I also beg to differ on what a cross symbolizes. Its a religious symbol of sacrifice but has nothing to do with freedom. It symbolizes Gods son dying, a deeply religious situation.

 

This is not an appropriate symbol to represent men and women from our nation who died in WW1 which cover the gambit of beliefs both religious and non-religious.

 

The flag, old glory, is a symbol of men and women dying for freedom. We know what those red strips are for. They are patriot blood. A much more fitting symbol and tribute to our fallen heroes.

 

This is not the United States of Christianity. This is a free country. Christians want their religious symbol to be synonymous with freedom. That's claiming ownership of something they don't own. We have the freedom to worship, but not to impose our religion or symbols on others. We should respect each others beliefs or lack of beliefs.

 

All this religious posturing over this cross is about thrusting religious symbols into areas owned by everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist and Agnostic. All of us have a right to be religious and also be free from religion.

 

If you want to honor the men who sacrificed in WW1 for FREEDOM....honor them by putting a religiously neutral symbol that can represent them ALL. How about a monument and a flag? Then you will have done the right thing, the honorable thing, and preserved everyone's rights in the process.

 

One other thing, I dont think this country is "going downhill" or "blows". Economically we are in tough times, but there is still a lot of good people, fair people. I have tremendous faith in this country and its principles. I hate to hear others so eager to give up or write it off because we dont all adhere to one religion. It was never meant to be that way. Our diversity is our greatest strength, it is not a weakness.

 

KC666

[odgreen001]

Dub: Thanks, I appreciate what you said. I almost fell out of my seat when I read it.

 

ODgreen: Don't worry my man, you haven't hurt my feelings. I don't like when these things degenerate into personal attacks, but its no biggee. I hope that you can set aside your stereotypes and Rush Limbaugh rhetoric and realize that everyone who thinks different from you is not necessarily bad.

 

 

KC666

 

So much for not judging and personal attacks. Now your judging that I should set aside my stereotypes and Rush Limbaugh rhetoric...From your biased view point, I guess that isn't judging or personally attacking me....typical liberalist ideology. But I guess that wouldn't be hypocritical to you.

 

I stand by my comments...it is the liberalistic and socialistic views and ideology that you seem to beilieve in that are running this country downhill.

[odgreen001]

Dub:

 

Sportcars: I have never said that Christians don't do some good deeds, but there is always a catch that you have to listen to them prostelizing. There are also many secular groups who help the needy. In Orlando for instance, Food Not Bombs is probably doing more than anyone for the homeless. United Way, Unicef, Doctors without Borders, The Smile Train, Seed foundation, Mercy corps. They help people out without demanding religious conversion. I don't think Christians have the market cornered on compassion. They do seem to have the market cornered on bigotry, however.

 

One look at the pope in Africa telling people that they ought not use condoms while millions are being killed by AIDS makes you really question how much good Christians are doing. They are doing harm too.

 

KC666

 

 

Dude you are either an extreme leftist or an athiest...more likely both. If I'm wrong, just come out and tell us what you are.

 

Let me see, there is always a catch for people who are helped by Christians? Did I understand that correctly? Again, you are out to lunch, are just plain ignorant, or are lieing through your teeth. The Christian churches and organizations I'm aware of do many things like food drives / donations, money given, material things given, assistance with adoption (so humans are not murdered in the womb), assistance with pregnancies, assistance for many things, that are just given. NO STRINGS ATTACHED. While there may be some type of written material or some type of preaching done...there is no one making the people read or stay to listen. There is no forcing of religious conversion.

 

You mention many secular groups. I'm sure they do many things for people as well, but I am SURE they do the same thing, as in preaching their beliefs or handing out phamplets to promote their ideology. All the groups you mention are leftist groups...am I wrong?

 

And for you to say that Christians have the market on bigotry BS. Yes my "not" friend, you and I both write volumes about our belief system on these pages. Don't you or the other DA say that you don't throw personal attacks out here or judge people, because it is nothing more than a lie.

 

While I don't hate you personnally, I definitely hate your ideology and its effect on our country.

[odgreen001]

Dub:

 

SheblyEra08:

 

I'm confused by your comments. Jesus was all about helping prostitutes and murders. I dont think many Buddist or Hindu's think they are Christians...

 

Anyway, I also beg to differ on what a cross symbolizes. Its a religious symbol of sacrifice but has nothing to do with freedom. It symbolizes Gods son dying, a deeply religious situation.

 

This is not an appropriate symbol to represent men and women from our nation who died in WW1 which cover the gambit of beliefs both religious and non-religious.

 

The flag, old glory, is a symbol of men and women dying for freedom. We know what those red strips are for. They are patriot blood. A much more fitting symbol and tribute to our fallen heroes.

 

This is not the United States of Christianity. This is a free country. Christians want their religious symbol to be synonymous with freedom. That's claiming ownership of something they don't own. We have the freedom to worship, but not to impose our religion or symbols on others. We should respect each others beliefs or lack of beliefs.

 

All this religious posturing over this cross is about thrusting religious symbols into areas owned by everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist and Agnostic. All of us have a right to be religious and also be free from religion.

 

If you want to honor the men who sacrificed in WW1 for FREEDOM....honor them by putting a religiously neutral symbol that can represent them ALL. How about a monument and a flag? Then you will have done the right thing, the honorable thing, and preserved everyone's rights in the process.

 

One other thing, I dont think this country is "going downhill" or "blows". Economically we are in tough times, but there is still a lot of good people, fair people. I have tremendous faith in this country and its principles. I hate to hear others so eager to give up or write it off because we dont all adhere to one religion. It was never meant to be that way. Our diversity is our greatest strength, it is not a weakness.

 

KC666

 

1. Jesus was for everyone, not just murderers and prostitutes...he's even for people as yourself that from my judgement, doesn't believe in Him.

2. There is nothing wrong with a religious symbol being used to memorialize people's sacrifice during war. It is done around the world...whether to honor death in battle or from just everyday living. You don't believe, so resent it and claim it isn't proper.

3. You are right...this is still pretty much a free country. So why is it that you are trying so hard to take the freedoms away from religious groups promoting their way of life? You seem not to have any problems promoting non-Christianity...is there something wrong with that picture?

4. If you believe in socialism and the supression of religion (and you definitely seem to do so), then I understand why you don't believe the country is going down hill.

 

The written battle between you and myself represents the typical differences between the right (conservatism) and left (liberalism).

 

Since I'm judging, I'll stick my neck out and say that you are also anti-gun and pro-abortion...am I wrong?

[ShelbyEra08]

This is becoming a heated topic

 

If you want to honor the men who sacrificed in WW1 for FREEDOM....honor them by putting a religiously neutral symbol that can represent them ALL. How about a monument and a flag? Then you will have done the right thing, the honorable thing, and preserved everyone's rights in the process.

 

So you are saying that the men that fought in WWI is wrong for putting up a cross and should of being political correct instead, it should be taken down to put up a Flag.

 

What is next, people wont be allowed to the the analogy of David vs Goliath? Have to take "In God We Trust" off of everything

 

If people want to honor the men who fought, keep it up because it meant something to those guys.

 

SheblyEra08:

 

I'm confused by your comments. Jesus was all about helping prostitutes and murders. I dont think many Buddist or Hindu's think they are Christians...

 

 

Jesus was about helping everyone the saved, the unsaved, the unborn. Also with Buddist and Hindu some do believe they are "christians" I have a book somewhere in my closet that talked about all of the different religions, I had to read it last semester. Basically it mentions everyone thinks they are Christians by the way they act but how they get to Heaven and Hell is difference between the religions.

 

 

If people want to tear down something from the past, basically its no respect towards those people, and they it their way instead, that is way this country is becoming pathetic because of the leadership in this country, but hey its my opinion.

 

Im not here to change ur mind about religion and make u come over to the "Christian way of living" That is why I mentioned dont throw the word Christians around

 

Alot of True Christians(that have the relationship with God) do not force their religious views on people, except for some wackos like from the Fred Phelps Church and the Westboro Church or are from strict relgious backgrounds

[KingCobra666]

The written battle between you and myself represents the typical differences between the right (conservatism) and left (liberalism).

 

Since I'm judging, I'll stick my neck out and say that you are also anti-gun and pro-abortion...am I wrong?

OD: Your not going to make another bet are you?

 

ShelbyEra08:Yes, those men who fought in ww1 can't erect crosses on public land because it violates the constitution for the reasons I stated. Is the whole suit padantic to a degree? Sure it is, but there is a overarching reason why its important. Religion and government dont mix. Its bad for both and beyond that, its against the law. In God We Trust, One nation under God, all added in the 50's by men who did not grasp the importance of keeping God and government apart. If there was no constitution, you would see America become a Christian version of Iran. That might make some people happy, for a while, but in the end it would destroy us. I don't expect you to agree or understand, but thats the truth of it.

 

KC666

[svttim]

OD: Your not going to make another bet are you?

 

ShelbyEra08:Yes, those men who fought in ww1 can't erect crosses on public land because it violates the constitution for the reasons I stated. Is the whole suit padantic to a degree? Sure it is, but there is a overarching reason why its important. Religion and government dont mix. Its bad for both and beyond that, its against the law. In God We Trust, One nation under God, all added in the 50's by men who did not grasp the importance of keeping God and government apart. If there was no constitution, you would see America become a Christian version of Iran. That might make some people happy, for a while, but in the end it would destroy us. I don't expect you to agree or understand, but thats the truth of it.

 

KC666

 

 

Please quote the constitution and wher it says, It is illeagle to erect a cross, a star of david, a cresant ect on public land. It does say that the covernment cannot force religion on the people as in Iran, Sorry, you are wrong on this one

[DubbsFaris]

Wow...too much anger goin on for me here....OD, you calling me a dumbass isnt exactly taking the high road. And you probably think sportscars is a much better guy than me too, huh?

 

Just because the appearance is that he has your view and I have 666s view right?

 

I am all eyes awaiting the response to this... Nobody give it away...quiet please..

[odgreen001]

Wow...too much anger goin on for me here....OD, you calling me a dumbass isnt exactly taking the high road. And you probably think sportscars is a much better guy than me too, huh?

 

Just because the appearance is that he has your view and I have 666s view right?

 

I am all eyes awaiting the response to this... Nobody give it away...quiet please..

 

Hey DA, you need to query 666 to answer my questions. Why were you in such a rush for me to answer his questions, but have'nt said anything to him to answer mine?

 

You are right, it was not the high road.

 

I don't always pay attention to names here, but if sportscars shares my views or vice versa, then all I can say is that we agree on many things. While I can't say what he is like personnaly, according to his pages (since you said he has my the appearance of my view) then I would judge him to be a pretty good guy. Of course he might be a serial killer or something and we just wouldn't know.

 

I'm confused by one of your statements. You say there is too much anger going on here, which suggests you will be leaving, but then go on to say you can't wait for my response. What's up with that?

[DubbsFaris]

Hey DA, you need to query 666 to answer my questions. Why were you in such a rush for me to answer his questions, but have'nt said anything to him to answer mine?

 

You are right, it was not the high road.

 

I don't always pay attention to names here, but if sportscars shares my views or vice versa, then all I can say is that we agree on many things. While I can't say what he is like personnaly, according to his pages (since you said he has my the appearance of my view) then I would judge him to be a pretty good guy. Of course he might be a serial killer or something and we just wouldn't know.

 

I'm confused by one of your statements. You say there is too much anger going on here, which suggests you will be leaving, but then go on to say you can't wait for my response. What's up with that?

 

Hey D-less

 

...I dont recall questions you have asked him, only insults...

 

I thought that is how you would respond to me...no, Im not going anywhere, and didnt elude to that, merely stated there is too much anger coming from you...I just dont like the bitterness you have for this subject matter. Im here for fun with my car and friends I have made through this forum, not to dog other people for their choices in life or political or religious views...the world is too big a place to try and make everyone fit in a narrow minded view cookie cutter. When you have that expectation, it is no wonder you end up so angry.

 

My point about sportscars is this- He is my brother. We have the same views on almost everything, and while I don't go to church like I should, I am a christian. You have ASSUMED my position to be that of an atheist due to coming to the defense of 666. But I dont hold religious affiliation to be my only or overriding qualification of a person's character. My point is that while I would LIKE to have this court battle come out in our favor, my time in law school suggests that the law may not be on our side. Precedent has been set with removal of the commandments and the bible from courthouses, so it will be no surprise to follow that logic to include other religious symbols in the fray of exemptions. There have also been Christmas decorations cases that have come up as well. Now, that isnt to say it wont work out in our favor, but there are many variants to this particular case.

 

I wont say who the problem is with our country by reading posts in a forum, but I think it is obvious who I would rather hang out with after reading through them.

 

Who is all the riff raff coming into our forums lately? ...geeez

[sportscars]

KC,

 

Think it "might" be possible to avoid making those HUGE blanket statements that lump ALL "christians" together?

 

Unless of course you really believe that we are all the same.

Every single one of us.

Just Jesus robots. <-- Thats funny! Jesus Robots!!!

 

I myself do not much care for "organized religion". But I attend a church where Jesus is first - and your relationship with Him is what matters and it is between you and Him, not you and the world.

 

If I thought you were about to be run over by a truck and you did not believe it, I would still try to save your life. Even if it made you mad. Sorry!

[odgreen001]

Hey D-less

 

...I dont recall questions you have asked him, only insults...

 

I thought that is how you would respond to me...no, Im not going anywhere, and didnt elude to that, merely stated there is too much anger coming from you...I just dont like the bitterness you have for this subject matter. Im here for fun with my car and friends I have made through this forum, not to dog other people for their choices in life or political or religious views...the world is too big a place to try and make everyone fit in a narrow minded view cookie cutter. When you have that expectation, it is no wonder you end up so angry.

 

My point about sportscars is this- He is my brother. We have the same views on almost everything, and while I don't go to church like I should, I am a christian. You have ASSUMED my position to be that of an atheist due to coming to the defense of 666. But I dont hold religious affiliation to be my only or overriding qualification of a person's character. My point is that while I would LIKE to have this court battle come out in our favor, my time in law school suggests that the law may not be on our side. Precedent has been set with removal of the commandments and the bible from courthouses, so it will be no surprise to follow that logic to include other religious symbols in the fray of exemptions. There have also been Christmas decorations cases that have come up as well. Now, that isnt to say it wont work out in our favor, but there are many variants to this particular case.

 

I wont say who the problem is with our country by reading posts in a forum, but I think it is obvious who I would rather hang out with after reading through them.

 

Who is all the riff raff coming into our forums lately? ...geeez

 

If you want to play sides or hide the side you are really on, then that is your business. But if you really are a conservative, then you should speak in behalf of your beliefs. You write and sound as if the fight isn't worth fighting, so you just accept what is coming down the line and being fed to you. The Army Rangers have a very good saying...Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Since you seem not to want to lead or follow..... At least don't throw stones at the side you believe in...if that is really true.

 

You say the world is too big a place to try to make everyone fit into a cookie cutter mold...I don't know about you, but I live in the United States. I've been to many different countries, 1st world to 3rd world, and I can say, there is not other country in the world, like our own. I'd like to keep it that way.

 

Don't know how old you are either, but there are too many immoral things that are becoming acceptable or "the norm" that shouldn't be. So what I'm saying here is, while I to wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, I sure as hell don't like the moral low road we are heading down, nor the socialism that is being forced down our throats by the current administration.

 

You should speak out if for your beliefs...if not, you'll just get rolled over.

 

As for the riff raff...I agree with you. Why are these people like KC in here or in this country for that matter. The United States doesn't need these types of radicals...let them go somewhere else.