Do you realize how silly that statement is ? It doesn’t matter if they rule the way they do because of ideology, religion, bribery, coercion or LSD spiked coffee; because they say so, it makes legal sense ? If they make two rulings that contradict without resolving that contradiction, will your head catch on fire like an old Star Trek android ?
Got an actual argument to make? Apparently not…
OK, answer me this. If there is a way of knowing what the right and the wrong answer is, why do we need the SCOTUS to make a ruling in the first place?
My arguement is that your position is silly.
Because someone has to; that doesn’t mean we should turn off our brains and ignore egregious incompetence or dishonesty on their part.
I have perused the Wiki article twice, now. It speaks of several decisions to sell the thing to non-government non-profits, and back to various pieces of the government. I’m still puzzled over who owns the thing now.
Either way, it should be an open and shut case. If the government owns it, the cross should come down like Saddam’s statue. If it doesn’t belong to the government, it’s none of their business, and it can stay as long as the owner likes it.
Take the arms off it and call it a lingam.
The Constitution is clear:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
So how is leaving a cross up on a hillside in violation of the Establishment clause? Is there something next to it like a sign that says “Christianity rocks! Others suck!”
How we all got from “Congress shall make no law…” to “the government better not even acknowledge religion exists” is beyond me.
I will have a problem with this cross when the government tells me I have to bow to it, and say a prayer when I see it. Until then, who gives a shit?
Why do you think there’s a cross, and only a cross ?
Besides which, Christianity is based around the belief that is is the only true religion, and all others are false gods. Any Christian symbol carries the message of intolerance.
How would you feel if it was a gigantic swastika instead ? And no, given the bloodthirstyness of Christianity throughout history and it’s influence over the Nazis, I don’t think that’s at all unfair a comparison.
If you posted to a discussion of religion without being rude to other posters, would your head catch fire and explode?
Stick to the discussion and leave the personal remarks out of it.
Read the long history of jurisprudence on the subject. But be prepared for many instances of eyes glossing over.
In a nutshell, though, the government isn’t supposed to single out any one religion over and above the others. Except when the SCOTUS says it’s OK to do so. 
It does seem that the SCOTUS tends to respect long standing traditions that aren’t overly coercive, but it’s really hard to tell how the decisions are going to come down.
Well, we haven’t quite gotten there yet, so I think that’s a strawman (except wrt several posters here who think exactly that).
But how would Diana Ross feel?
Even considering that it dominates the landscape for miles? That seems like a lot of power to give a private religious organization. It’s quite an intimidating statue. I don’t know if you’ve ever been there or near it, but you can see it clearly all the way up the hill and it towers over the surrounding neighborhood like a ginormous Big Brother Is Watching poster.
It’s a big frickin’ establishment of Christianity towering over a densely populated piece of the nation’s 6th (or 7th or 8th, don’t remember) largest metro area. To borrow your analogy, it’s not a sign that says “Some people like this God and feel that he’s a nice guy, and that’s kind of cool”. No, it’s a BIG FRICKING STATUE that looms over everything around it. I live here, dude, and I can tell you it’s intimidating and every time I see it I’m reminded of how much power Christian fantasy has over my government.
That sounds like a description of many churches. If it meets the building codes, and is on private land, I don’t see how the court could possibly disallow it. Don’t forget that that the 1st amendment has two clauses wrt religion (my emphasis):
It is a horribly unfair and ignorant comparison, I wish I was shocked you made it. And if you need me to cite reasons why your ignorant making such a comparison, your to far gone for cites to convince you of anything.
So would it bother if you if the cross was 100 feet higher than it is now, but on private property? What does the size of it matter? The government is still not requiring you to bow to it, your not being arrested for bitching about it, hell you can drive by and scream “FUCK YOU” to it and I doubt anyone would even raise an eyebrow. How is this state sponsored religion?
Doesn’t sound like any church I can remember passing by any time in recent memory. I could be wrong; I don’t pay much attention to churches.
Technically Congress can’t prohibit the exercise of free speech, but pragmatically sometimes it has to. It’d take a legal scholar to say definitively whether the second religion clause plays a part in it, I guess. I’m willing to believe you that there’s already precedent for towering religious symbol on private ground, but this cross–I’m not sure if you’re aware of this–is in the middle of a public park, and a fairly nice one at that.
Yes, it would bother me. I couldn’t tell you definitively whether that’s legally allowed, but it would bother me morally. It doesn’t matter what the government does or doesn’t require me to do when I see it. The walls of every business could be covered in “Big Brother Is Watching” posters with Bush’s face on them and I might not be required to respect the posters but it’d still be fucking creepy, disrespectful and evil.
You clearly have never been to Salt Lake City, or driven the Washington beltway on the Maryland side, or driven I84 thru Connecticut…
Well, let’s be clear what we’re talking about. You said that even if it was on private property you think it’s too big. My point is that that’s a building code issue, not a content issue. But if you think you can find a SCOTUS precedent covering that situation, I’d be eager to see it.
If it’s on public property, that is different. But I think the SCOTUS has tended to look at these older, “historic” monuments a bit differently than if something were just thrown up today. Read the recent decision in Van Orden v. Perry to get some context.
-
The closest I’ve been is St. George.
-
I lived in DC suburbs on the Maryland side from birth until age 11. I couldn’t have cared less at the time.
-
I’ve never been in Connecticut.
I believe you that there are crosses that big on private property, although I wouldn’t be comfortable driving by them. If I had the power to controll all nine justices’ minds I would make it illegal, but it’s nowhere near as big a deal as crosses on public property and I don’t pretend to be well versed enough in the law to touch it.
Just to clarify, if everybody on all sides called me this afternoon and asked me to make the definitive ruling, I would have the thing completely destroyed or shipped to the Vatican. But I would settle for moving it to a private church in the area. Its height bothers me, but its position on the mountaintop bothers me more because of the symbolism and the reality that it really does loom over the entire area in a way that it otherwise couldn’t.
What kind of an argument is that? You want the cross removed because you don’t like it? So what? Give us a legal basis or something! I just don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
Again, what legal argument are you using to justify that position? You seem to be thinking it should be removed even if it’s on private propoert (per your post #50). I don’t know how that legal argument could be made. Do you?
(bolding mine)
You did this on purpose, of course, to show us just the kind of typographical error the SCOTUS might make, if they ever made them.
I want the cross off public property because I think its presence on public land is unconstitutional and–let’s be honest–I also don’t like it, but again I back that part up with the establishment clause.
If I could have it my way, I would have the thing plain-out removed permanently and not displayed in the US–but I have no legal argument to back that up. I thought I was clear about that. Apparently not.
No. I told you that already. I don’t know how it can be made, and if it can’t that’s fine. Just get it off public property.