Book a Hotel
| Featured |
|---|
Sports: |
| Main Menu |
|---|
sandiego.com Polls |
|
| Article Topics |
|---|
|
|
| SanDiego.com Links |
|---|
|
|
San Diego OpEd
Canadian Comments on Mt Soledad Cross
"In God We Trust"?
By Mark S. Burgess
Posted on May 08 2006
Last updated May 08 2006
San Diego ordered to remove cross or face fines
The City of San Diego has 90 days to remove the cross
from atop Mount Soledad or face a $5,000-a-day fine,
a Federal judge ruled Wednesday (May 3, 2006).
To the Editor:
I was reading a major paper up here in Canada and came across this story which was a bi-line[sic]. It seems in these so-called modern times, and with all the advances, and all the state-of-the-art technology, that religion, God forbid (oops, sorry), is strictly forbidden and must not be seen. Well, hello! Do I hear the Crusades are making a comeback? Is Communism to become part of the American Dream where a dictatorship is allowed to tell you how to worship?
I'm not what you would call a religious person, but a spiritual one who believes in a higher power greater than myself, and respect for all. But your country, and mine, was founded and protected, by those before us who believed, fought, and died. Hard to believe, isn't it, that they did this so that someone who didn't believe in a whole lot, could have the audacityto stand up in a courtroom and demand that a monument from 1954 to those same men be removed or a fine incurred. And to the Judge who ordered this to be so...SHAME ON YOU! You are throwing your country back to the Dark Ages.
What's next? I know...take the Federal Mint to court! Demand your rights! After all...isn't SOMEONE being religiously discriminated against each and every time they touch your money? After all..it says "In God We Trust".
By the way, this isn't just a problem in the U.S. of A. We have those twits in this country too! And we wonder why our countries are in such turmoil!
I Believe...
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(Ontario, Canada)
Share this article
by e-mail · del.icio.us · digg this · stumbleupon · reddit · spurl
Subscribe to OpEd
·
Comments
| Posted by Pete | May 8, 2006 |  |
| As another Canadian, I have to admit, I couldn't disagree with the lady from Ontario more. It seems to me every time any government takes a step alligning itself with any religion, including atheism, it is taking one step closer to the middle ages. Any implication that the government officially recommends any particular religious point of belief, or lack thereof, is wrong. When it comes to religion, the government needs to be silent, and not have any symbols of any kind. Religion, simply put, is none of the government's business. | ||
| Posted by Alanna | May 9, 2006 | |
| I agree with Pete. America was based on the principle of a separation of church and state. | ||
| Posted by Andre | May 9, 2006 | |
| America was not based on the principle of separation of church and state. thats
bull. Removing the cross accomplishes nothing. Non religious people need to stop whining. | ||
| Posted by Linda in North Carolina | May 10, 2006 | |
| To remove the cross is a disgrace. This cross honors the men who fought in Korea for our freedom. What is wrong with our country when we let a minority make our laws and take away our freedom. Our country was founded on religious freedom, a cross in the courthouse, on a prayer in a public building doesn't mean our government supports a religion. If we had a "State" religion and were forced to believe this way, then we would have something to complain about. Aren't the people who filed this law suit, imposing on the rest of us their beliefs? I for one am tired of being "politically correct", I don't mean to hurt feelings, but common sense should prevail.
| ||
| Posted by Pete | May 10, 2006 | |
| Thanks Linda - but isn't it common sense that for most of the people in the world the cross is a symbol of somebody else's religion? HEck, there is a major religion that the concept of God isn't a part of it (Buddhism), and there is another that puts forth the notion of many gods (Hinduism). That doesn't take in to account the many relegions of small groups. It seems to me the in terms of the public sphere common sense would dictate either giving everybody their voice/symbol, or just remaining mum on the issue, and not having the government spend our tax money maintaining (and, thereby, promoting) one specific religion. | ||
| Posted by Walter Harper | May 15, 2006 | |
| I turned on my television today and saw where some one who has nothing better to do than to tie up our court system by filing a lawsuit against the city of San Diego, Calif. to force said city to remove a 43 foot cross that was built to honor our veterans who fought and died in the Korean War. May God have mercy on your soul.
I for one fully support the Mayor of San Diego's decision to fight the ridicously liberal federal judge to sided with the atheist who filed the lawsuit. Our country was founded on our nation's belief in God. I feel that our forefathers would litterally "turn over in their graves", along with our deceased service veterans, if they knew how our country is allowing religious persecution to go on in today's society. to the individual who filed the lawsuit, you evidently have too much free time on your hands and obviously you have too much money if you can find nothing better to do than to use our judicial system to further your own beliefs. Why would a war memorial that has been erected for over the past 50 years "offend" someone now? I don't really think that anyone has been "forced" to look at this cross if they didn't want to. I truly feel sorry for anyone who feels that this great and honorable war memorial makes them feel uncomfortable. Maybe the "offended" person should take a long and deep look inside themselves. Thay might not like what they find there! | ||
| Posted by Christopher | May 15, 2006 | |
| This cross was NOT erected as war memorial. It was turned into a war memorial in 1998 as a backhanded way of trying to keep the cross on public land. If anything, shame on the people that hatched this scheme to save the cross and their abuse of public sentiment for war veterens. I live in San Diego and travel by the cross twice a day on my way to medical school. It is visible to several hundred thousand people a day as they travel along Interstate 5. It's a great reminder of how effective the christian religion has been in the quest for converts. | ||
| Posted by Jan O'Connor | May 18, 2006 | |
| I drive by the Memorial on the 5 everyday to and from work. Sometimes I cut through La Jolla so that I can drive through the Memorial on my way home. It is one of my favorite places in San Diego. It is a simple, naturally beautiful tribute to those who have lost their lives in a war. Although people refer to it as the Korean Memorial, if you stop to read the plaques and look at the faces of those who are represented, you will note that every war
is represented, including the Vietnam War and the Iraqi War. It is well known that this country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. However, this memorial was built long before the issue of a cross on government property was an issue. Why don't we leave this memorial as it is and was intended to be - a tribute to those people who lost their lives in a war. | ||
| Posted by Pete | May 19, 2006 | |
| Why not just put a flag there? Or maybe a monument containing the Bill of Rights? After all, didn't those soldiers die for America, and the ideals contained therein? | ||
| Posted by Suzanne | May 23, 2006 | |
| The words 'separation of church and state' do not appear in our Constitution, the Declaration of Independance nor the Bill of Rights. Therefore, how does one conclude that this country was founded on that principle? Those words come from a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson written in 1801. The Constitution was signed in 1787, Articles 1 through 8 were proposed in 1789 and reatified in 1792, Declaration of Independance was signed in 1777. And I wont listen to the lie that our founding fathers were all deists. They weren't. Every year we travel to DC for Rolling Thunder and talk to hundreds of Vets. I have yet to find one that objects to prayer or any of our war memorials. If this is a war memorial, how about we let the VETS decide about the cross instead of some Judge or some athiest who has nothing to beleive in but making trouble for Faith based peoples. But don't worry, taking down the cross doesn't make God any SMALLER!! | ||
| Posted by Pete | May 23, 2006 | |
| Your right Suzanne. What the Constitution does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, if you want to pray, or wear a "Lord's Gym" tee shirt, or even have a sunrise service on top of Mt. Soledad, that's your business. But the government can't give preference to said sunrise service (if a cub scout troop is ahead of you in line to get the permit so they can have a breakfast picnic there, sorry, that's the way it goes), and they can't encourage a religion. The government can't encourage atheism, either. When it comes to religion, they government should remain silent; verbally, fiscally, legally, whatever. Which is why a giant cross permanantly maintained on public land is a no no.
| ||
| Posted by Suzanne | May 30, 2006 | |
| The first amendment was to protect religion from government, not government from religion. I feel that if this monument is in fact to remember vets, then let the vets decide whether the cross should be there or not. I do not believe that one atheist should dictate what the rest of the people believe. I believe that the man who began this lawsuit so many years ago is in the minority (and is he even a vet?). Let the vets decide what happens at the monument, not the judges, not the atheists, not the Christians.
This country was founded on the principles found the the Bible. The man who penned the first amendment felt the the Bible should be a school book to teach children how to live. I also believe that there are a lot of monuments that are being removed wholly or partially, that have stood for many years because someone just decided it offends them. You cannot erase the history of this country any more than you can erase my family history. If people want to make a real impact they should be looking towards the future instead of trying to tear down the past, or turn back the clock. | ||
| Posted by Tom Paine | May 30, 2006 | |
| "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."
"...national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Any questions? | ||
| Posted by James Madison | May 30, 2006 | |
| During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." Look up the "Original Pledge of Allegiance"~the one with no "God" in it. It wasn't until 60 years later or so that "God" was added to appease the religious right. | ||
| Posted by Suzanne | June 7, 2006 | |
| Thomas Paine? You mean the one described as "An Englishman by birth, French citizen by decree, and American by adoption"? Hated by many, died a social outcast, divorced from his second wife, wrote Age of Reason which many called the "atheists bible" and his unorthodox views on religion made him one of the most hated men of his time.
However, he did much for the Revolutionary War. Not the person I would quote when dealing with religion as it was not his strong point. | ||
| Posted by Steve Miller | July 27, 2006 | |
| GOD BLESS | ||
(1)sandiego.com, Inc. invites comments in which readers can respond freely and anonymously if they wish. Comments submitted by readers will be rejected that are deemed by the editors to be damaging to the future of this web site.
(2)Comparison is made from the IP Address identity of the computer placing the posts. Some networks share these addresses between users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 sandiego.com, Inc. All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without written consent.
