oddly enough isnt this what christians did to other sects...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
oddly enough isnt this what christians did to other sects...
Oh please, KK... they are on a cul de sac... there is no cost. Someone complained and that is the only reason the city is even involved. Someone objected to their gathering and that is the only reason we're hearing about it. Either you support people being able to freely assemble or you don't, where do you stand?
someone complained...probably the people who had their drive ways blocked....or were sick of the screaming and shit...i dont wanna hear amen and all that all evening
LOS ANGELES — A Latin cross that looms over San Diego from a hilltop city park can stay put, a federal judge has ruled, turning aside complaints that its presence violates the United States Constitution.
The ruling on Tuesday was the latest over the cross, the subject of a nearly 20-year-long legal dispute. The fight is among the longest-running involving a monument and questions of the separation of church and state.
Advocates of the concrete cross, which is 29 feet tall (43 feet with its base) and stands atop Mount Soledad in the La Jolla district, believe this latest turn could prove definitive. It was the first ruling since the cross and the property immediately around it were turned over to the federal government in 2006 to be maintained as a veterans memorial, and it was the first time a judge had based a ruling on the United States Constitution, rather than the State Constitution.
The judge, Larry Alan Burns of Federal District Court in San Diego, said in his ruling that the group that had sued to have the cross taken down, which consisted of an atheist and Jewish war veterans, had failed to prove that the cross’s primary purpose was religious.
Defenders of the cross argued that although religious services had been held at the site, the cross had evolved to serve a more secular function as a memorial to the nation’s war veterans, with some 2,400 plaques in tribute to them, arranged in six concentric rings at the base.
“The memorial is not designed for worship services, and there is no evidence the cross, which is surrounded by a tall fence and not approachable by visitors, is — or is intended to be — the object of religious devotion,” Judge Burns wrote, adding, “The primary effect of the Mount Soledad memorial is patriotic and nationalistic.”
James E. McElroy, a lawyer for Steve Trunk, the atheist who had filed suit, said an appeal would be filed within a couple of weeks with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. McElroy said that court would probably not rule for more than a year.
Mr. McElroy said Judge Burns had “clearly got it wrong” and had strived to avoid what Mr. McElroy saw as the central point: that a pre-eminent religious symbol, which he argued was placed with religious intent, should not be permitted to stand on federal property.
The case has already been to the United States Supreme Court on technical issues, and supporters of the cross say they believe that if the case returns there they will prevail, owing to the leanings of at least four and perhaps five or six of the justices in such cases.
“I feel real good about that,” said Charles LiMandri, a lawyer for a citizens’ group backing the cross. “We have a 75 percent chance of winning in the Ninth Circuit, and I think an 85 percent chance, maybe 90 percent, with the Supreme Court.”
This is par for the course when it comes to what San Diegans deal with...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01statue.html
LOS ANGELES A Latin cross that looms over San Diego from a hilltop city park can stay put, a federal judge has ruled, turning aside complaints that its presence violates the United States Constitution.
The ruling on Tuesday was the latest over the cross, the subject of a nearly 20-year-long legal dispute. The fight is among the longest-running involving a monument and questions of the separation of church and state.
Advocates of the concrete cross, which is 29 feet tall (43 feet with its base) and stands atop Mount Soledad in the La Jolla district, believe this latest turn could prove definitive. It was the first ruling since the cross and the property immediately around it were turned over to the federal government in 2006 to be maintained as a veterans memorial, and it was the first time a judge had based a ruling on the United States Constitution, rather than the State Constitution.
The judge, Larry Alan Burns of Federal District Court in San Diego, said in his ruling that the group that had sued to have the cross taken down, which consisted of an atheist and Jewish war veterans, had failed to prove that the crosss primary purpose was religious.
Defenders of the cross argued that although religious services had been held at the site, the cross had evolved to serve a more secular function as a memorial to the nations war veterans, with some 2,400 plaques in tribute to them, arranged in six concentric rings at the base.
The memorial is not designed for worship services, and there is no evidence the cross, which is surrounded by a tall fence and not approachable by visitors, is or is intended to be the object of religious devotion, Judge Burns wrote, adding, The primary effect of the Mount Soledad memorial is patriotic and nationalistic.
James E. McElroy, a lawyer for Steve Trunk, the atheist who had filed suit, said an appeal would be filed within a couple of weeks with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. McElroy said that court would probably not rule for more than a year.
Mr. McElroy said Judge Burns had clearly got it wrong and had strived to avoid what Mr. McElroy saw as the central point: that a pre-eminent religious symbol, which he argued was placed with religious intent, should not be permitted to stand on federal property.
The case has already been to the United States Supreme Court on technical issues, and supporters of the cross say they believe that if the case returns there they will prevail, owing to the leanings of at least four and perhaps five or six of the justices in such cases.
I feel real good about that, said Charles LiMandri, a lawyer for a citizens group backing the cross. We have a 75 percent chance of winning in the Ninth Circuit, and I think an 85 percent chance, maybe 90 percent, with the Supreme Court.
I guess you had to be here. San Diegans have an inferiority complex over their conservative neighbors to the north, Orange County, and seem to want to overcompensate with a lot of over the top lefty sabre rattling.
Has anyone ever told you you just basically say the opposite of what anyone else says?
*shrug* the issue is that he seems to be clogging up the street each week, which the county has the right to regulate. They seem to be going about it in a poor manner, but this isn't about what hes allowed to do in his home, its about not being a nuisance to the community.
Remember, Google tailors your search results based on what you typically search for, for me it came up around page 10, there are several "major use" permits in Washington state, and since I live here most of my searches include the word Washington or Seattle, so those all came up first, Seattle, followed by Renton and other cities, all of which had several within the "major use" type. Many of which were construction permits (which is odd but meh) and some were for event planning. All were Major Use: something-or-other.
Um... ok KK, whatever.
Some of us will grasp at any excuse... i guess you fall into that category. I'm a 'drunken teen in KC' and had no trouble finding the info but for you it's impossible. Sure.... whateva.
You must be drunk, since I didn't say impossible, just slower. Page 10, that's a lot of search pages to look through since I forgot to add the word California thinking that they would have the same permits. I was wrong in thinking they would all be the same, but that doesn't mean I was lying. You are however being dishonest. This whole issue is still not about religion, and so far only the reports on the story are all with religious whining, no one is stating "just the facts", but what more can I expect from a bunch of American Idol worshipers.