Is this Fair #2

NO, this is not fair. The federal government has shown itself to be discriminatory against Christianity.

 

"As it is, where it is!"

The City of San Diego voted 76% to keep the cross as it is and where it is. The ACLU has said that they will attack other crosses other places.

www.soledadnational.com

In the case of the gravel pit, I cannot see that sand and gravel is sacred and that the court can tell an owner what to do with his property but then the court has moved to abolish private property in the New London case.

The courts are clearly incompetent to handle religious liberty cases because they are really only anti-Christian.

I don't think that we are going to get any improvements from Bush during the last of his administration. There are wars all over the world and he has his hands full with the wars, not to mention Democrats who are out to make political hay over every little thing in order to regain power. I imagine that the GOP will lose the elections of 2006 and we will have more of the same as this case with the gravel pit owner.

 

Where were the Indians when the property was put in private hands? Neither they nor the govt. should have any claim against the landowner. Every rock and bush is sacred to some Indian somewhere, it seems.

 

While a cross was erected on the spot in 1934, it was a different one. This is just the latest incarnation.

The Parks Department refused to let the Buddhists put up a religious symbol near by, so it is not just Christianity. If Christians have been the only ones allowed up until now, who has been favorly discriminated towards?

Herded onto a reservation?

When the rock and the bush is on top of a burial ground, then I can see how they might possibly be considered sacred to the descendents.

 

Doesn't calling a burial ground sacred disturb you Daisy. From my perspective, once a person dies, it matters not what's done with the body. It's all for the living, not the dead.

 

No, it doesn't bother me if a burial ground is sacred to someone. Many Christians believe that desecrating a grave is wrong - but could a grave be desecrated if it weren't first considered sacred?

Yeah, I actually do agree with you there, hillclimber, but I suspect we are in the minority.

 

carpro,

No, none. It was mentioned in the article I'd linked to. I didn't pursue it further.

 

quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Daisy:

"While a cross was erected on the spot in 1934, it was a different one. This is just the latest incarnation.....
When the rock and the bush is on top of a burial ground, then I can see how they might possibly be considered sacred to the descendents."
-------------------------------------------------

Whether or not the cross is the original is irrelevant. Wooden objects do tend to rot.

What American Buddhist soldiers from Arizona fought in WWI and should be honored at the site? I doubt if you could find even one.

Nowhere is it stated that this is an Indian burial ground. Only that nearby Indians object to gravel being excavated there. It is basically a power play.

 

It matters because of the emphasis on 1934 as though that cross had historical significance as a monument.

Arizona? The site in Arizona is the Native American (specifically Navaho, Hopi and Zuni) sacred ground - why would a WWI Buddhist-American vet from Arizona be honored there, should any exist, unless he was also Navaho, Zuni or Hopi? For that matter, why would a Christian-American WWI vet from Arizona be honored there?

There were Asians (Japanese, Chinese & Fillipino) who served on the American side in WW1 and in 1918 such veterans were allowed to become citizens execpt in certain states including Arizona (finally in 1947 such laws were ruled unconstitutional).

You're right - it is merely sacred, no burials.

 

The cross was originally erected as a war memorial. Being made of wood, it has had to be replaced several times. It shouldn't matter whether or not it's the original materials. Historical buildings, in many cases, have had large percentages of the structure replaced over the years but they are still considered historical structures.

The vast majority of Americans who fought in WWI were at least nominally Christian. Only the ACLU (and certain federal judges) would object to honoring them with a Christian symbol.

 

98%? Why don't they just move it some place else?

I'm not convinced that the families of the non-Christian vets who fought and died feel particularly honored, but the heck with the minority.

 

Well, both my grandfathers served in France during WWI and I resent that the ACLU has the clout to have that memorial taken down. If people of a different faith decided to honor my grandfathers with religious symbols of their own, I wouldn't be offended. In fact I would take that as a kindly gesture.

 

Who ever said life was fair? We are not entitled to "special privelidges" as Christians in this life. We may even be persecuted for His Name's sake. Christ was certainly persecuted, as are many other Christians in this world.