No God is Welcome in San Diego.......per U.S. District Judge Larry Burns

carcass

Member
Apr 25, 2009
759
327
Cedar City Utah
Name
scott
Boat
None
Oh, what the hell......

This nation was founded based on Judeo-Christian values, not Judeo-Christian Religion. The "national Church of England is what these guys were against and didn't want a national gov't religion for America. For a country that stated it valued religious freedom, it quickly went after the Mormon movement when they arose, so oppression on certain religions were underway a long time ago.

I believe they also stated that this form of gov't would only work in a society of God fearing individuals who respect the values that religion can bring. It will not work for a people who are immoral. So here we are. :shithappens:

The Fed gov't was to be minor when compared to the States. Through time the States have ceeded their soveriegnty to the Fed gov't and when the law was passed to elect senators by the popular vote instead of being appointed to represent their States interests, the State lost all power to the Fed Gov't.

This whole thing of respecting others views has warped into a one-way street. Respect is only a one-way street now and everyone must abide by it or you will be persuaded to abide by it at the point of a sword, the barrel of a gun, or a pen at the end of the IRS. It is perfectly fine for one side to force their beliefs on others. That is the problem we face.
 
Upvote 0

yellowklr

My Best Catch!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 22, 2003
3,778
1,698
48
San Diego,Ca
Name
Derek
Boat
complicated
It's a war memorial for American servicemen that fought under the American flag.....and the American flag is the only thing that should be honoring them as a group.

Unfortunately, the American flag offends some Americans too......[h=1]Petty tyrants across America try to ban the American flag[/h]
<!-- .entry-meta --> In May 2010, a FoxNews poll found that an astonishing 33% of people in the United States wanted the American flag to be banned. Some among that 33% are actually successful at getting the flag banned even when it’s someone else who’s displaying the flag.
Here are some instances chronicled by FOTM:

  1. A shopping mall in Portland, Oregon, forced the manager of the children’s train to remove American flags that are used to decorate the train ride.
  2. An apartment complex in Springfield, Oregon, served an eviction notice to a Navy veteran because he put up an American flag in a common area of the complex on Navy Day.
  3. A neighborhood association banned a 90-year-old veteran from flying the American flag outside his suburban Virginia home.
  4. An Olive Garden restaurant in Oxford, Alabama, banned a woman from bringing an American flag into the restaurant for a planned Kiwanis Club meeting because the flag would “disrupt the dining experience for all other guests.”
  5. The principal of Denair Middle School in California ordered a 13-year-old boy to remove the flag from his bike for fear the flag of the United States of America would “incite<del> racial incidents”</del> Hispanic outrage.
  6. The Live Oaks High School in Morgan Hill, California, sent three students home for wearing American flag t-shirts to school on Cinco de Mayo because the t-shirts might provoke “violence” on the Mexican holiday.

If these examples don't make you MAD something is wrong with you……………..If the American Flag offends you then GTFO
 
Upvote 0

kindafishy

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Jul 21, 2010
4,296
2,037
hemet/ca/riverside
Name
SCOTT
Boat
bayliner cierra express 2452 "RYLEE'S WAVE RYDER"
Upvote 0

Vermonster

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Feb 26, 2003
14,200
487
49
Escondido
Visit site
Name
Sean
Boat
I'm a Ho'.....
My only issue is that if your don't believe in God, or Christianity, then the cross should mean nothing more that being 2 pieces of wood, placed together at a right angle, yes? If you are driving down the road, and see a cross and some flowers placed on the edge, do you think "Oh shit, someone is trying to force feed me religion", or do you think "Damn, pretty sad, someone must have died there, and it's a tribute"? Just like the Mt. Soledad cross. Do you really think atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., drive by there, and have some spastic body reaction to that cross? Do they go into convulsions, have to call 911? No, they don't. It's nothing more than someone who gets off being a thorn in someone else's side. It's not physically hurting anyone.

It reminds me of all those frivolous lawsuits that people file just to make $$$$ or a name for themselves. Take the one guy and his lawyers that serve lawsuits against businesses en masse for violating the ADA and being under code. They tried it a few years ago against basically every business in Julian, citing everything from width of doors, railing heights and ramps, etc. Well you know what, they found out that the one guy named as a plaintiff, had never set foot in any of those stores. He had no stake in it at all, just splitting their take with the lawyers Same with this cross. If you don't like it, look the other way........

As with so many things in life, if people just chilled the $(%* out, things would be so much better.......
 
Upvote 0

Sherm

aka: The Sherminator
May 16, 2006
7,359
160
58
San Diego
Name
Scott
Boat
Yak
Agreed. This is just a few people who want to be noticed. The guy who originally started the lawsuit is dead yet the lawyers keep going.

Actually this ruling is a good thing. The last time this went to the supreme court they refused to hear it. They sent it back to the circuit court judge. For another try at a remedy. The Judge said the 9th circuit gave him no choice with their decision and ordered it down. Then he stayed the order so the appeal could once again go back to the U.S. Supreme court and now they will rule on it. Many a war monument has been upheld by the supreme court lately and this one will too. (my humble opinion of course, I have been wrong in the past).

The constitution never mentions separation of church and state. It says congress shall make no law regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. (or something like that) No national religion is what they were aiming for. No "church of the united states" like there was the church of England. You are free to worship as you see fit and government shouldn't get in your way.

This whole issue can be summed up by the words of Seargant Hulka..........LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS,!!!!!!








There is a Shinto bell at the end of Shelter island on government land. How come no one has asked for that to come down?
 
Upvote 0

ConSeaMate

Legend in my own mind
Sep 6, 2005
2,686
286
65
Escondido
Name
Buster Brown
Boat
28' Silverton "ConSeaMate"
Agreed. This is just a few people who want to be noticed. The guy who originally started the lawsuit is dead yet the lawyers keep going.

Actually this ruling is a good thing. The last time this went to the supreme court they refused to hear it. They sent it back to the circuit court judge. For another try at a remedy. The Judge said the 9th circuit gave him no choice with their decision and ordered it down. Then he stayed the order so the appeal could once again go back to the U.S. Supreme court and now they will rule on it. Many a war monument has been upheld by the supreme court lately and this one will too. (my humble opinion of course, I have been wrong in the past).

The constitution never mentions separation of church and state. It says congress shall make no law regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. (or something like that) No national religion is what they were aiming for. No "church of the united states" like there was the church of England. You are free to worship as you see fit and government shouldn't get in your way.

This whole issue can be summed up by the words of Seargant Hulka..........LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS,!!!!!!








There is a Shinto bell at the end of Shelter island on government land. How come no one has asked for that to come down?

Thanks for the info.....I'll have my lawyer file a suit.......
 
Upvote 0

Johnny J

Formally INOXicated
May 10, 2008
4,983
1,590
Idyllwild, CA USA
www.bluepacifictackle.com
Name
John
Boat
not mine
I believe the use of the term was to keep Government out of the Church not the Church out of Government.

Wall of Separation

When Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase "wall of separation," it is certain that he never would have anticipated the controversy that surrounds that term two centuries later. The metaphor has become so powerful that more Americans are more familiar with Jefferson's phrase than with the actual language of the Constitution.{1}In one sense, the idea of separation of church and state is an accurate description of what must take place between the two institutions. History is full of examples (e.g., the Inquisition) of the dangers that arise when the institutions of church and state become too intertwined.But the contemporary concept of separation of church and state goes far beyond the recognition that the two institutions must be separate. The current version of this phrase has come to mean that there should be a complete separation between religion and public life.At the outset, we should state the obvious: the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. Although that should be an obvious statement, it is amazing how many citizens (including lawyers and politicians) do not know that simple fact.Since the phrase is not in the Constitution and not even significantly discussed by the framers (e.g., The Federalist Papers), it is open to wide interpretation and misinterpretation. The only clear statement about religion in the Constitution can be found in the First Amendment and we will look at its legislative history later in this article.Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state" when he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Then the phrase slipped into obscurity. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black revived it in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. He wrote that the First Amendment "was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State." He added that this wall "must be kept high and impregnable."{2}The wall metaphor revived by Justice Black has been misused ever since. For example, the wall of separation has been used to argue that nearly any religious activity (prayer, Bible reading, moment of silence) and any religious symbol (cross, creche, Ten Commandments, etc.) is impermissible outside of church and home. Most of these activities and symbols have been stripped from public arenas. As we will see, it doesn't appear that Jefferson intended anything of the sort with his metaphor.It's also worth noting that six of the thirteen original states had official, state-sponsored churches. Some states (Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) even refused to ratify the new Constitution unless it included a prohibition of federal involvement in the state churches.History of the Phrase (part one)

So what was the meaning of "separation of church and state" and how has it changed? Some history is in order.The presidential campaign of 1800 was one of the most bitterly contested presidential elections in American history. Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams (who served as Vice-President under George Washington). During the campaign, the Federalists attacked Jefferson's religious beliefs, arguing that he was an "atheist" and an "infidel." Some were so fearful of a Jefferson presidency, they buried their family Bibles or hid them in wells fearing that President Jefferson would confiscate them.{3}Timothy Dwight (President of Yale College) even warned a few years before that if Jefferson were elected, "we may see the Bible cast into a bonfire."{4} These concerns were unwarranted since Jefferson had written a great deal in the previous two decades about his support of religious liberty.In the midst of these concerns, the loyal Republicans of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to the president congratulating him on his election and his dedication to religious liberty. President Jefferson used the letter as an opportunity to explain why he did not declare days of public prayer and thanksgiving as Washington and Adams had done so before him.In his letter to them on New Year's Day 1802, Jefferson agreed with their desire for religious freedom saying that religious faith was a matter between God and man. Jefferson also affirmed his belief in the First Amendment and went on to say that he believed it denied Congress (or the President) the right to dictate religious beliefs. He argued that the First Amendment denied the Federal government this power, "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."It appears that Jefferson's phrase actually came from the 1800 election. Federalist ministers spoke against Jefferson "often from their pulpits, excoriating his infidelity and deism."{5} Republicans therefore argued that clergymen should not preach about politics but maintain a separation between the two.We might add that a century and a half before Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, Roger Williams erected a "hedge or wall of separation" in a tract he wrote in 1644. Williams used the metaphor to illustrate the need to protect the church from the world, otherwise the garden of the church would turn into a wilderness.{6} While it might be possible that Jefferson borrowed the metaphor from Roger Williams, it appears that Jefferson was not familiar with Williams' use of the metaphor.{7}Jefferson used his letter to the Danbury Baptists to make a key point about his executive power. In the letter, he argued that the president had no authority to proclaim a religious holiday. He believed that governmental authority belonged only to individual states. Essentially, Jefferson's wall of separation applied only to the national government.History of the Phrase (part two)

Although the Danbury letter was published in newspapers, the "wall of separation" metaphor never gained much attention and essentially slipped into obscurity. In 1879 the metaphor entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in the case ofReynolds v. United States. The court stated that Jefferson's Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effects of the [First] Amendment thus secured."{8} Although it was mentioned in this opinion, there is good evidence to believe that Jefferson's metaphor "played no role" in the Supreme Court's decision.{9}In 1947, Justice Hugo L. Black revived Jefferson's wall metaphor in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. He applied this phrase in a different way from Thomas Jefferson. Black said that the First Amendment "was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State." He added that this wall "must be kept high and impregnable."{10}Daniel Dreisbach, author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State, shows that Black's wall differs from Jefferson's wall. "Although Justice Black credited the third president with building the ‘wall of separation,' the barrier raised inEverson differs from Jefferson's in function and location."{11}The wall erected by Justice Black is "high and impregnable." On the other hand, Jefferson "occasionally lowered the ‘wall' if there were extenuating circumstances. For example, he approved treaties with Indian tribes which underwrote the ‘propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen.'"{12}There is also a difference in the location of the two walls. Whereas Jefferson's "wall" explicitly separated the institutions of church and state, Black's wall, more expansively, separates religion and all civil government. Moreover, Jefferson's "wall" separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment nonestablishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels—federal, state, and local.{13}Jefferson's metaphor was a statement about federalism (the relationship between the federal government and the states). But Black turned it into a wall between religion and government (which because of the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment could also be applied to state and local governments).First Amendment

How did we get the wording of the First Amendment? Once we understand its legislative history, we can understand the perspective of those who drafted the Bill of Rights.{14}James Madison (architect of the Constitution) is the one who first proposed the wording of what became the First Amendment. On June 8, 1789 Madison proposed the following:"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."The representatives debated this wording and then turned the task over to a committee consisting of Madison and ten other House members. They proposed a new version that read:"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."This wording was debated. During the debate, Madison explained "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."Representative Benjamin Huntington complained that the proposed wording might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion." So Madison suggested inserting the word "national" before the word "religion." He believed that this would reduce the fears of those concerned over the establishment of a national religion. After all, some were concerned America might drift in the direction of Europe where countries have a state-sponsored religion that citizens were often compelled to accept and even fund.Representative Gerry balked at the word "national," because, he argued, the Constitution created a federal government, not a national one. So Madison withdrew his latest proposal, but assured Congress his reference to a "national religion" had to do with a national religious establishment, not a national government.A week later, the House again altered the wording to this:"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."Meanwhile, the Senate debated other versions of the same amendment and on Sept. 3, 1789, came up with this wording:"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."The House didn't like the Senate's changes and called for a conference, from which emerged the wording ultimately included in the Bill of Rights:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."As we can see, Congress was attempting to prevent the establishment of a national religion or a national church with their drafting of the First Amendment.Separation, Sponsorship and Accommodation

How should the government relate to the church? Should there be a separation of church and state? Essentially there are three answers to these questions: separation, sponsorship, and accommodation.At one end of the spectrum of opinion is strict separation of church and state. Proponents of this position advocate the complete separation of any religious activity (prayer, Bible reading) and any religious symbol (cross, Ten Commandments) from government settings. Richard John Neuhaus called this "the naked public square" because religious values are stripped from the public arena.{15}Proponents of this view would oppose any direct or indirect benefit to religion or religious organizations from the government. This would include opposition to tuition tax credits, education vouchers, and government funding of faith-based organizations.At the other end of the spectrum would be sponsorship of religious organizations. Proponents would support school prayer, Bible reading in public schools, and the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and public places. Proponents would also support tuition tax credits, education vouchers, and funding of faith-based organizations.Between these two views is accommodation. Proponents argue that government should not sponsor religion but neither should it be hostile to religion. Government can accommodate religious activities. Government should provide protection for the church and provide for the free expression of religion. But government should not favor a particular group or religion over another.Proponents would oppose direct governmental support of religious schools but would support education vouchers since the parents would be free to use the voucher at a public, private school, or Christian school. Proponents would oppose mandated school prayer but support programs that provide equal access to students. Equal access argues that if students are allowed to start a debate club or chess club on campus, they should also be allowed to start a Bible club.We should reject the idea of a "naked public square" (where religious values have been stripped from the public arena). And we should also reject the idea of a "sacred public square" (where religious ideas are sponsored by government). We should seek an "open public square" (where government neither censors nor sponsors religion but accommodates religion).Government should not be hostile toward religion, but neither should it sponsor religion or favor a particular faith over another. Government should maintain a benevolent neutrality toward religion and accommodate religious activities and symbols.Notes
 
Upvote 0

OILAGER

Hecho en Estados Unidos
Apr 27, 2006
2,340
928
M Class Planet / Riverside
Name
Wayne
Boat
Grady White 228 Seafarer "GOTTA GET'M"
"Proponents would oppose direct governmental support of religious schools but would support education vouchers since the parents would be free to use the voucher at a public, private school, or Christian school. Proponents would oppose mandated school prayer but support programs that provide equal access to students. Equal access argues that if students are allowed to start a debate club or chess club on campus, they should also be allowed to start a Bible club."

Agreed, equal access.





"We should reject the idea of a "naked public square" (where religious values have been stripped from the public arena). And we should also reject the idea of a "sacred public square" (where religious ideas are sponsored by government). We should seek an "open public square" (where government neither censors nor sponsors religion but accommodates religion).Government should not be hostile toward religion, but neither should it sponsor religion or favor a particular faith over another. Government should maintain a benevolent neutrality toward religion and accommodate religious activities and symbols.Notes[/QUOTE]


This is where the fight started. An "open public square" can let in all kinds of crazies wanting to flex their constitutional rights, allowing anyone to form a "religion" and demand that it has equal access to the open public square.The followers of Westboro Baptist Church, Rev. Jim Jones, Nation of Islam, Wiccans and Raelism will demand equal access, and file suit when they don't receive it. Its better to have a clear delineation.
 
Upvote 0

Saluki

.
May 10, 2003
9,479
213
HB
Name
Mika Tan
Boat
"MoorZilla"
Why does it always feel like it's always the few with possibly too much time on their hands who desire to make changes that affect the many just to prove a point. Basically accomplishing little other than thumping their chests & wagging a finger or two....?
 
Upvote 0

ConSeaMate

Legend in my own mind
Sep 6, 2005
2,686
286
65
Escondido
Name
Buster Brown
Boat
28' Silverton "ConSeaMate"
Why does it always feel like it's always the few with possibly too much time on their hands who desire to make changes that affect the many just to prove a point. Basically accomplishing little other than thumping their chests & wagging a finger or two....?

Entitled.....
 
Upvote 0

eric harner

Caliente Tuna
Oct 7, 2009
1,919
1,092
63
Phoenix Hellazona
Name
Azlandlocked
Boat
RRII, PV, the Big X
A brief history lesson.

At the time when the US Constitution was in the process of being ratified, there was already a severe divide growing among the colonies over the subject of slavery. The authors of the Constitution were shrewd. They knew that if they included language critical of slavery or suggesting that it would be abolished, there would be no hope for unification of the colonies or the formation of the republic they envisioned. Slave owners at the time were wealthy men with real political power, so the issue had to be handled with kid gloves.

In 1807, the United States Congress, acting on Jefferson's request, passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves. Jefferson signed the act and it went into effect January 1, 1808, the EARLIEST DATE PERMITTED by the United States Constitution for any law regulating slavery. This was their sneak attack and the first major step towards abolition. The act equated slave importation or exportation with Piracy, which was punishable by death.

Jefferson himself was a slave owner, this is true (via inheritance from his late wife's family). But his views on slavery were complex, and he opposed the practice, especially later in his life. This is evidenced by his relationship with Sally Hemings as well as the actions he took as president to criminalize the practice of slavery.

I know it's hip and cool these days to bash the founders as racists, but unfortunately it's such an oversimplification that it's not even accurate. First of all, not all slaves were black, and not all slave owners were white. Look a little closer, and you will see that the founders were fighting an uphill battle against a deeply entrenched culture. Their goal was to establish a new form of government, never before seen in history, that enshrined and protected the Natural Rights of all men. This was a revolutionary idea and they (more or less) succeeded!

I'd like to see any of you try accomplishing something like that today. What did you do this morning to fight against the institution of slavery?

Are you even aware of the types of slavery that existed back then, or the types of slavery that exist today
"A Lesson in Life"
Seem's you have plenty of free time on your hand's my friend , judging from the effort you have put into this post. Also looks like your a pretty hard core God Guy & that's cool.You seem to take great satisfaction in feeling somewhat superior over others ... good for you. I on the other hand am agnostic.. humility is a lesson I have learned through 56 years of living ( Pretty sure Humility is mentioned the Bible somewhere.... ) Guess I'm not the type that gets satisfaction from trying to impress others by beating others into submission to prove a point. Pretty sure I'm on the right track. Having said that I want to thank you for "Another Lesson in Life"
 
Upvote 0

JFK

I Should Upgrade My Account
Apr 3, 2008
1,639
355
Santa Cruz, Ca
Name
James
Boat
14' Livingston skiff
Don't waste your time. If you don't agree with him or see what he see's he will call you a socialist, then when you respond your post will be erased by the moderator for being too "personal."
 
Upvote 0

stairman

......
May 16, 2009
5,323
3,503
ramona /ca/usa
Name
doug
Boat
yak and lowe duck hunting skiff but they identify as sportfishing crusiers
"A Lesson in Life"
Seem's you have plenty of free time on your hand's my friend , judging from the effort you have put into this post. Also looks like your a pretty hard core God Guy & that's cool.You seem to take great satisfaction in feeling somewhat superior over others ... good for you. I on the other hand am agnostic.. humility is a lesson I have learned through 56 years of living ( Pretty sure Humility is mentioned the Bible somewhere.... ) Guess I'm not the type that gets satisfaction from trying to impress others by beating others into submission to prove a point. Pretty sure I'm on the right track. Having said that I want to thank you for "Another Lesson in Life"

if you feel inferior that all on you...I'm agnostic too but relish the heritage that gave us a country where freedom from religion as established by the government is as important
as freedom to let our heritage and history be left alone from future government intrusion.when that cross was established there was no out cry from the godless.....why do those that are godless today want to rewrite our history?If you don't want future crosses erected on government land fine fight your battle...but let history be our true history not one rewritten by the whims of the day.

That path may someday visit what you hold dear.
 
Upvote 0

@-EZ

Fail, try again.
Apr 9, 2007
14,419
1,906
San Diego, CA.
Name
Max
Boat
Trophy Pro, @-EZ
Don't waste your time. If you don't agree with him or see what he see's he will call you a socialist, then when you respond your post will be erased by the moderator for being too "personal."

I don't think you're wasting time. I believe an education is being had. This thread has been quite educational for some who actually take the time to read the various responses.

The beauty of our nation is the opportunity afforded to all to form their own opinion and display it for all to see without recourse.


Please, carry on.
 
Upvote 0

Rauterki

The worst fisherman on the boat
Oct 8, 2009
1,089
357
53
San Clemente, CA
www.crossfittothecore.com
Name
Jon
Boat
I'm in the market. Make me an offer I can't refuse.
My only issue is that if your don't believe in God, or Christianity, then the cross should mean nothing more that being 2 pieces of wood, placed together at a right angle, yes? If you are driving down the road, and see a cross and some flowers placed on the edge, do you think "Oh shit, someone is trying to force feed me religion", or do you think "Damn, pretty sad, someone must have died there, and it's a tribute"? Just like the Mt. Soledad cross. Do you really think atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., drive by there, and have some spastic body reaction to that cross? Do they go into convulsions, have to call 911? No, they don't. It's nothing more than someone who gets off being a thorn in someone else's side. It's not physically hurting anyone.

It reminds me of all those frivolous lawsuits that people file just to make $$$$ or a name for themselves. Take the one guy and his lawyers that serve lawsuits against businesses en masse for violating the ADA and being under code. They tried it a few years ago against basically every business in Julian, citing everything from width of doors, railing heights and ramps, etc. Well you know what, they found out that the one guy named as a plaintiff, had never set foot in any of those stores. He had no stake in it at all, just splitting their take with the lawyers Same with this cross. If you don't like it, look the other way........

As with so many things in life, if people just chilled the $(%* out, things would be so much better.......

Well said Sean. Maybe it's just the day and age we live in. Maybe I'm just getting old but it seems as if the "mental toughness" of people has slipped a couple of notches; too many people being offended by too many little things. Some are actually saying that they can't relate to Christmas because Santa is……white.
 
Upvote 0

eric harner

Caliente Tuna
Oct 7, 2009
1,919
1,092
63
Phoenix Hellazona
Name
Azlandlocked
Boat
RRII, PV, the Big X
Don't waste your time. If you don't agree with him or see what he see's he will call you a socialist, then when you respond your post will be erased by the moderator for being too "personal."
10-4 Your absolutely correct..I'm not much of a "Key Board Worrier " Like your point of view !
 
Upvote 0

@-EZ

Fail, try again.
Apr 9, 2007
14,419
1,906
San Diego, CA.
Name
Max
Boat
Trophy Pro, @-EZ
Something else to chew on for a while.

[h=1]US Army War College considers removing portraits of Robert E. Lee, Confederate generals[/h]<TIME itemprop="datePublished" pubdate datetime="2013-12-18T11:52-05:00">Published December 18, 2013</TIME> FoxNews.com



  • Portraits of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.National Archives


The U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania is considering removing its portraits of Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals after at least one official questioned why the school honors those who fought against America.
The college is currently conducting an inventory of its paintings and photographs, which feature Confederate generals such as Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. The school plans to re-hang the images later in historical themes to tell a story, the Washington Times reports.
College spokeswoman Carol Kerr told the newspaper that at least one official -- who was not identified – asked the administration why the school honors generals that were enemies of the U.S. Army.
“There will be a dialogue when we develop the idea of what do we want the hallway to represent,” she said. “[Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. … This is all part of an informed discussion.”
The U.S. Army War College, which opened in Carlisle in 1901 to study the lessons of war, graduates more than 300 officers, foreign students and civilians each year, the Washington Times reports.
Before the college opened, Lee led the Army of Northern Virginia for the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. Lee and Jackson are both graduates of the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.
 
Upvote 0

eric harner

Caliente Tuna
Oct 7, 2009
1,919
1,092
63
Phoenix Hellazona
Name
Azlandlocked
Boat
RRII, PV, the Big X
if you feel inferior that all on you...I'm agnostic too but relish the heritage that gave us a country where freedom from religion as established by the government is as important
as freedom to let our heritage and history be left alone from future government intrusion.when that cross was established there was no out cry from the godless.....why do those that are godless today want to rewrite our history?If you don't want future crosses erected on government land fine fight your battle...but let history be our true history not one rewritten by the whims of the day.

That path may someday visit what you hold dear.
Don't feel inferior at all .. Just reconfirmed as to where I don't want to at this point in my life. Being agnostic has nothing to do with being godless ... I'm simply not a believer in "Western Religion" But thanks for your 2 cents.
 
Upvote 0

Saluki

.
May 10, 2003
9,479
213
HB
Name
Mika Tan
Boat
"MoorZilla"
[Insert name here] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the [Whitehouse] whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. …




:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Upvote 0

dweston

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
May 12, 2008
2,859
247
vista Ca. USA
Name
Duane
Boat
yours
So why is it so hard to accept the fact that our country, The United States of America was founded on God fearing people with Christian morals and values. Be it right or wrong that is our history. One points out slavery and raping and pillaging of the Indians land. If we look through out history this is nothing new. The Roman Empire is a prime example. The fact of the matter is that it happened plain and simple. Whether it was right, justified or immoral doesn't really matter. You cannot change the past. Acceptance is the key. The fact that we can debate this in our country is huge, so before you shit on the constitution, the flag, or the rich white slave owners who shaped this county you may want to in fact thank them for having the foresight to allow us our religious freedoms. We are fortunate that we do not live under government censorship and can express ourselves freely. For all those who want to remove the cross for whatever reason, do yourselves a favor and actually visit the site. It would do you well to see the names of those that" gave it all" so you can speak freely to remove a little history. I applaud the men and women that have served and are currently serving our country to protect our freedoms and rights. As it has been said before if you do not like what "America" stands for you are free to leave any time. God bless you all,
Merry Christmas.
 
Upvote 0