Calling All Aetheists

[Valke2]

btw, it has been there for years and it has been in litigation for years. The defenders keep losing in court and then shifting tactics.

 

[bella5110]

Absolutely because it is a cross it bothers me. If it were a Menorah, I would be a lot less bothered. But I would understand why others would have the right to complain. I have the same complaint with my town, which puts up Christmas trees on public land each year. They call it a holiday tree to get around the religion thing, but as smart as I am, I can still tell its a christmas tree.

Valke, do you not understand that Christmas is the birth of Christ and it has been that way for thousands of years? There is no getting around it. It is a national holiday.

As for the cross, it symbolizes Christianity and the people who died for our country. Is that what you want to take away??
And so what? It is a Christmas tree and always will be. there is no such thing as a “holiday tree”.

Christmas will always be. Have you ever read The New Testament?

 

[TOP]

Absolutely because it is a cross it bothers me. If it were a Menorah, I would be a lot less bothered. But I would understand why others would have the right to complain. I have the same complaint with my town, which puts up Christmas trees on public land each year. They call it a holiday tree to get around the religion thing, but as smart as I am, I can still tell its a christmas tree.

If it was a Menorah, I would be interested, not bothered.

 

[bella5110]

btw, it has been there for years and it has been in litigation for years. The defenders keep losing in court and then shifting tactics.

Actually, my brother,
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral arguements on October 19. The case should be dismissed on mootness grounds. On August 14, a law signed by Bush, immediately transferred all title and interest to the cross and memorial to the Federal Government.
As of August 14, the city no longer owns the property upon which the memorial is located. therefore, the District court’s injunction is no longer enforceable.
It has been there since 1957. do you work for the ACLU?

 

[Valke2]

Actually, my brother,
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral arguements on October 19. The case should be dismissed on mootness grounds. On August 14, a law signed by Bush, immediately transferred all title and interest to the cross and memorial to the Federal Government.
As of August 14, the city no longer owns the property upon which the memorial is located. therefore, the District court’s injunction is no longer enforceable.
It has been there since 1957. do you work for the ACLU?

My mistake. It has only been in litigation since 1989. That it is on Federal Gov’t property only changes the fact that new litigation will have to be commenced, if it hasn’t already. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still public property giving a prefrence to a religious icon.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, do you not understand that Christmas is the birth of Christ and it has been that way for thousands of years? There is no getting around it. It is a national holiday.

As for the cross, it symbolizes Christianity and the people who died for our country. Is that what you want to take away??
And so what? It is a Christmas tree and always will be. there is no such thing as a “holiday tree”.

Christmas will always be. Have you ever read The New Testament?

Yes. If you want it on public land, then find another symbol. Or put it on private land. I know there is no such thing as a “holiday tree.” It is a fiction local governments use to in order to display christmas trees.

The Constitution has only been around for a few hundred years, but there should be no getting around it either.

And the memorial portion that honors veterans was only put there after litigation had commenced.

 

[bella5110]

Yes. If you want it on public land, then find another symbol. Or put it on private land. I know there is no such thing as a “holiday tree.” It is a fiction local governments use to in order to display christmas trees.

The Constitution has only been around for a few hundred years, but there should be no getting around it either.

And the memorial portion that honors veterans was only put there after litigation had commenced.

Valke,
Congress and the president have spoken. The people of San Diego have spoken. It is time the courts stop allowing the ACLU to bypass the ballot box and the will of the people for the sake of it’s own anti-religious agenda. The new Federal legislation preserves the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial for all Americans.
The city no longer owns the Memorial property and the injunction cannot be forced against it, because the Federal Government is not a party to the action. Furthermore, is not subject to the California Constitution, which served as the legal grounds for the District court’s decision.

You still haven’t answered my question. Do you work for the ACLU? Simple question.

 

[Valke2]

Valke,
Congress and the president have spoken. The people of San Diego have spoken. It is time the courts stop allowing the ACLU to bypass the ballot box and the will of the people for the sake of it’s own anti-religious agenda. The new Federal legislation preserves the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial for all Americans.
The city no longer owns the Memorial property and the injunction cannot be forced against it, because the Federal Government is not a party to the action. Furthermore, is not subject to the California Constitution, which served as the legal grounds for the District court’s decision.

You still haven’t answered my question. Do you work for the ACLU? Simple question.

Actually, the courts are not done speaking. In fact, the propostion that allowed the transfer of land may have been unconstitutional and is currently being reviewed by the Court of Appeals. And, as I said, the fact that it may eventually be found to be on Federal land doesn’t change the fact that it is still unconstitutional. So, the conversation continues.

No I do not work for the ACLU? Do you?

 

[Ulalume]

You still haven’t answered my question. Do you work for the ACLU? Simple question.

Wow! Talk about asking questions that are none of your business. By the way bella, after reading some of your other post in the fourms:nerd: , it seems you are the one that can’t answer simple questions.

 

[bella5110]

Actually, the courts are not done speaking. In fact, the propostion that allowed the transfer of land may have been unconstitutional and is currently being reviewed by the Court of Appeals. And, as I said, the fact that it may eventually be found to be on Federal land doesn’t change the fact that it is still unconstitutional. So, the conversation continues.

No I do not work for the ACLU? Do you?

And the conversation will continue. Actually when a civil case becomes moot during the course of an appeal, as in this case, the established practice in the Federal system is to reverse or vacate the judgement below and remand with a direction to dismiss. Because this controversy is now moot, both the trial and apellate courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the power to declare the law by deciding the merits of the case.

Therefore, this case should be dismissed.

And no, of course I don’t work for the ACLU, I’d rather sue them though. But not enough time and money.

 

[callador]

I thought I would chime in again!

Well I am new to the board, R McGeddon seems like a nice guy. He, as well as others, are just presenting their opinions. Some of the Ad Hominem attacks made against him, especially those concerning grammar, are not needed. I personally do not proof my posts, I just type as fast as a speeding 3 toed sloth

We really cannot have a debate this issue directly. Theology and Science are completely different disciplines. A scientist (atheist) is not going to pick up a flower and say, “Wow! I just found God.” Nor is a scientist (theist) going to look at the Big Bang and say, “Dolt! (ala Homer Simpson), I guess there is no God.” Belief in God is personal. Even we Christians (Catholic at least) have to agree that it is God’s grace that allows us to believe. St. Paul knew this all too well. 1 Corinthians 1:18. I am not looking at a Bible, but I know he says that the wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe, but for us who are being saved, it is the power of God.

Basically, you can’t force anyone to believe. So what can we do? I think we should try to love everyone and lead by example. If they get the message, great! If not, they are still our brothers and we should love them anyways. I only make this point, since someone mentioned that atheist will turn out like Hitler (?) What? Hitler was a megalomaniac bent on world domination and ethnic cleansing. If we as Christians believe in the idea of “Natural Moral Laws”, even unbelievers would (in general) have them written on their hearts.

It seems to me this should be where our conversations can have more impact. Let’s talk Philosophy! David Hume would disagree with Natural Moral Laws, so I am sure we can go both ways with this. Even if we don’t change the conversation, at least keep this one polite. I have enjoyed meeting many new people on this thread / board.

Take care.

 

[Valke2]

And the conversation will continue. Actually when a civil case becomes moot during the course of an appeal, as in this case, the established practice in the Federal system is to reverse or vacate the judgement below and remand with a direction to dismiss. Because this controversy is now moot, both the trial and apellate courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the power to declare the law by deciding the merits of the case.

Therefore, this case should be dismissed.

And no, of course I don’t work for the ACLU, I’d rather sue them though. But not enough time and money.

Except here the very proposition that was before the voters is being questioned. And if it is found to be unconstitutional (the campaign was something like “save the cross”), then the underlying transaction to the Federal Gov’t will be void.

 

[bella5110]

Except here the very proposition that was before the voters is being questioned. And if it is found to be unconstitutional (the campaign was something like “save the cross”), then the underlying transaction to the Federal Gov’t will be void.

In laymans terms, why can’t the secular people just leave well enough alone? You seem to be especially offended by this. Would you still be upset if there were a set of Ten Commandments there instead? That is your Old Testament.

 

[Valke2]

In laymans terms, why can’t the secular people just leave well enough alone? You seem to be especially offended by this. Would you still be upset if there were a set of Ten Commandments there instead? That is your Old Testament.

As I had said earlier, if it were a Menorah, I wouldn’t be nearly as upset, but I’d understand why others would be and I would understand why it should not be on public property. Same goes for the Ten Commanments. And I don’t have an Old Testament. I have a Tanach.

If you can recall, all I said was that I was not “too crazy” about the cross being there. You may not see it as violating the seperation of chruch and state. I do.

 

[Damascus]

GodsElect;1656461:

Maybe the thinking of my previous statement is not for the shallow thinking mind…the point is…IF you don’t belive in God and that God doesn’t exsist, then why do you even use the thought of “god” in your disbelief. why does the atheist say “There is no god” or “I don’t belive in a god” To even have the thought of the word or being of God would be to say that God exsists…
QUOTE]

It is possible that my shallow mind can’t grasp your logic. But I is likely that your logic is seriously flawed.

I agree and tried to make this point on another thread about a newsweek article where an atheist stated his “beleifs” when in fact all he did was bash christianity (as if that was his only option) Urgh.

I think the fact that reason is supposedly their battle cry to deny God, then they ought to make a reasonable argument for it.

Not- well such and such religion is wrong, so I am pitching God.
Other religions should not be a factor. You either have a basis or you dont.

Or you could be like most atheists, and present no valid reason.

But that would make for a boring thread.

 

[bella5110]

As I had said earlier, if it were a Menorah, I wouldn’t be nearly as upset, but I’d understand why others would be and I would understand why it should not be on public property. Same goes for the Ten Commanments. And I don’t have an Old Testament. I have a Tanach.

If you can recall, all I said was that I was not “too crazy” about the cross being there. You may not see it as violating the seperation of chruch and state. I do.

Probably seeing it as an attorneys view.

 

[nucatholic]

Sigh, I don’t know how many times I have to point out that the burden of proof is on the positive claim. Atheists don’t have to make an argument that proves there is no god, because it is impossible to prove an unfalsifiable claim. Thatd be like me asking you to prove that Unicorns and Fairies don’t exist. If I believed in fairies and unicorns, the burden of proof would be on me not those denying that they exist.

 

[Damascus]

Can I ask what any of the bulk of many of the last posts have to do with Atheists?

I am reading this stuff and seeing that it has gone way past that into something off topic.

Atheists are not opposed to Halloween (the ones I know). They only get worked up about the other stuff.

This whole thread is horrible. Good night.

 

[Damascus]

Sigh, I don’t know how many times I have to point out that the burden of proof is on the positive claim. Atheists don’t have to make an argument that proves there is no god, because it is impossible to prove an unfalsifiable claim. Thatd be like me asking you to prove that Unicorns and Fairies don’t exist. If I believed in fairies and unicorns, the burden of proof would be on me not those denying that they exist.

They dont have to prove there is no God. Have them prove that what they believe is valid. Without bringing up God.

 

[jasm]

Basically, you can’t force anyone to believe. So what can we do? I think we should try to love everyone and lead by example. If they get the message, great! If not, they are still our brothers and we should love them anyways.

:clapping: