Who invented the christian victim card?

[emilynghiem]

The Christian Victim card started being played when wackos like gaddawg and sky dancer started saying things like "People should only practice Christianity in their homes" and "Christians shouldn't be allowed into politics or education fields" and "Christians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children".

When we no longer have to fight that sort of oppression and proposed persecution, then you won't hear us complaining about it.

So you're a victim because of what those posters said on an anonymous message board, got it.

Man, the old race or religion based card used to actually have some shreds of merit to it, now people just play it for the fun of it.

Internet
Serious business.

*sigh*

that is a valid point for Allie. There are people out there that activly shit on people, places and objects of faith.

remeber people getting all butt hurt over a cross on a hill that was dedicated to Vets?

Some douche bags stole it and were never caught. [not to my knowledge]

A Nativity was taken down in a city at Christmas time, but in the same city, tax money was spent to put up an aztec god statue.

Taking down the 10 commandments from court houses.

It's shit like that, that makes the rounds.

To build on what Allie said, I can cite an area where the backlash to Christian faith is costing everyone more money and resources, and creating more victims.

Because of this extreme interpretation of "separation of church and state" to deny or cut any perceived connection between government and anything faith-based or religious,
the practice and/or proof of "spiritual healing" has been oppressed and censored or denied.

Effective methods of spiritual healing have been applied to heal:
cancer, alcholic or other drug addictions, sexual abuse and even criminal addictions,
and other diseases of the mind, body and spirit.

So proving and practicing spiritual healing as a regular part of therapy and medicine
would reduce the cost and incidence of more expensive treatments and also crime.

Yet because of the "backlash" and rejection of "anything Christian"
this avenue is not pursued as valid or valuable. And it is costing everyone more for it.

NOTE: Some of the oppression of the knowledge of spiritual healing is coming from WITHIN the Christian denominations themselves. That is the most shocking and dumbfounding discovery to me! Both the Church of Christ and the Jehovah's Witness deny spiritual healing as demonic or false, and not of God's will but outside Christ and abusing spiritism instead. The Catholic Church in the past monopolized exorcism, claiming only their anointed priests are authorized as the body and representatives of Christ to do this procedure. Now the Pentecostals and other denominations practice and teach deliverance; but many of the fundamentalists end up going too far, as to reject science and medicine, and then cause more backlash and rejection (while true spiritual healing works with science and medicine) So the cause of oppression is not clearly one source, but coming from many directions, and unresolved divisions internal and external.

That is one particular area where I would agree there is persecution and oppression because of anti-Christian bias and backlash. But the victims are people in society suffering from abuse, addiction, mental illness, disease, and crimes that could be prevented, corrected, or reduced -- by applying spiritual healing prayer for forgiviness to remove unconscious obstructions in the spirit (caused by unforgiven conflicts or memories, even from past generations) that otherwise block the body and mind's natural self-healing process. More and more studies are being done on this process, but it is still largely underground and not recognized publicly because of the false divisions between religion and science, fueled by anti-Christian backlash going on today.

Some sources on research on prayer and spiritual healing:
* Dr. Francis MacNutt HEALING (edition 1999 or later) www.christianhealingmin.org
* Dr. Larry Dossey
* Dr. Dale Matthews
* Dr. Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" (he applied scientific method to observe the exorcism process
and concluded that the spiritual entities and the effective treatment were both real, on a spiritual level,
that he advocted be researched and recognized formally by the psychiatric profession to cure more patients)

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you're a victim because of what those posters said on an anonymous message board, got it.

Man, the old race or religion based card used to actually have some shreds of merit to it, now people just play it for the fun of it.

Internet
Serious business.

*sigh*

that is a valid point for Allie. There are people out there that activly shit on people, places and objects of faith.

remeber people getting all butt hurt over a cross on a hill that was dedicated to Vets?

Some douche bags stole it and were never caught. [not to my knowledge]

A Nativity was taken down in a city at Christmas time, but in the same city, tax money was spent to put up an aztec god statue.

Taking down the 10 commandments from court houses.

It's shit like that, that makes the rounds.

To build on what Allie said, I can cite an area where the backlash to Christian faith is costing everyone more money and resources, and creating more victims.

Because of this extreme interpretation of "separation of church and state" to deny or cut any perceived connection between government and anything faith-based or religious,
the practice and/or proof of "spiritual healing" has been oppressed and censored or denied.

Effective methods of spiritual healing have been applied to heal:
cancer, alcholic or other drug addictions, sexual abuse and even criminal addictions,
and other diseases of the mind, body and spirit.

So proving and practicing spiritual healing as a regular part of therapy and medicine
would reduce the cost and incidence of more expensive treatments and also crime.

Yet because of the "backlash" and rejection of "anything Christian"
this avenue is not pursued as valid or valuable. And it is costing everyone more for it.

NOTE: Some of the oppression of the knowledge of spiritual healing is coming from WITHIN the Christian denominations themselves. That is the most shocking and dumbfounding discovery to me! Both the Church of Christ and the Jehovah's Witness deny spiritual healing as demonic or false, and not of God's will but outside Christ and abusing spiritism instead. The Catholic Church in the past monopolized exorcism, claiming only their anointed priests are authorized as the body and representatives of Christ to do this procedure. Now the Pentecostals and other denominations practice and teach deliverance; but many of the fundamentalists end up going too far, as to reject science and medicine, and then cause more backlash and rejection (while true spiritual healing works with science and medicine) So the cause of oppression is not clearly one source, but coming from many directions, and unresolved divisions internal and external.

That is one particular area where I would agree there is persecution and oppression because of anti-Christian bias and backlash. But the victims are people in society suffering from abuse, addiction, mental illness, disease, and crimes that could be prevented, corrected, or reduced -- by applying spiritual healing prayer for forgiviness to remove unconscious obstructions in the spirit (caused by unforgiven conflicts or memories, even from past generations) that otherwise block the body and mind's natural self-healing process. More and more studies are being done on this process, but it is still largely underground and not recognized publicly because of the false divisions between religion and science, fueled by anti-Christian backlash going on today.

No, the medical field always prefers using medicine to religion when curing people. Doesn't matter which religion it is.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, the medical field always prefers using medicine to religion when curing people. Doesn't matter which religion it is.

See, you are doing it too!
You are assuming that medicine/science and religion/spiritual laws
are "either/or"

These are NOT in opposition!
You do NOT have to choose one or the other!

This false division is causing the oppression!

If you read my message and/or also the books by Dr. MacNutt, he expresses this emphatically
1. spiritual healing works WITH science and medicine and does not deny or
replace/substitute for it.
2. fundamental religionists who reject science and medicine are part of the problem!

Dr. Drock, true spiritual healing works and FACILITATES scientific and medical treatments, especially in the cases of mental health treatment where some of the s ickness
is rooted in the spirit, and FORGIVENESS therapy helps if not ALLOWS the patient
to receive treatment.

Again, in the book I cited by Dr. Peck, the patients with EXTREME schizophrenia he observed COULD NOT be treated at all, until they went through EXORCISM first,
and got their free will back that was overtaken by spiritual sickness and oppression.
In those cases, he became convinced it really was demonic or satanic possession
which is rare.

if you don't treat the WHOLE person, body mind AND spirit,
that is where a lot of medicine fails. Treatments work better when you
address ALL LEVELS that are contributing to why a person is sick or rejecting
healing or treatment.

Spiritual healing does not reject or conflict with methods for healing the mind
through therapy or education, or healing the body through science, medicine, surgery etc.

However, if you deny spiritual healing, there are cases where the
mind and body do not heal. Medicine alone cannot cure the cases of
schizophrenia and rheumatoid arthritis that spiritual healing was able to,
where the obstruction to healing was in the spirit and had to be removed first
as PART of the treatment. Not "in place of"

These things, treatment of body/mind/spirit
are NOT IN OPPOSITION or competition with each other.
That thinking is false!

They work in harmony and ALL levels of treatment are necessary
in order to maintain health for the whole person. Does this make more sense now????

 

[Two Thumbs]

So you're a victim because of what those posters said on an anonymous message board, got it.

Man, the old race or religion based card used to actually have some shreds of merit to it, now people just play it for the fun of it.

Internet
Serious business.

*sigh*

that is a valid point for Allie. There are people out there that activly shit on people, places and objects of faith.

remeber people getting all butt hurt over a cross on a hill that was dedicated to Vets?

Some douche bags stole it and were never caught. [not to my knowledge]

A Nativity was taken down in a city at Christmas time, but in the same city, tax money was spent to put up an aztec god statue.

Taking down the 10 commandments from court houses.

It's shit like that, that makes the rounds.

That stuff happening at a court room doesn't make anyone a victim.

If I recall.

They were set into the stone wall. So the court house refused. They got sued and lost b/c people were faux offended at seeing them up there. so they had to take them down.

It all cost taxpayer money, so everyone was victimised.

 

[Ringel05]

Was it when the % of the population in america who claimed to be christian dropped from 80 to "only" 75?


Was it when the christian representation in government dropped from 100 to 99%?



It's a phenomena I don't understand. We live in a society of mostly christians, a society that almost promotes hating muslims and atheists, when did the overwhelming majority become victims? And of what?

It's a result of the same perception that Liberals and Conservatives carry about their ideals being under attack from the other side. Much of the animosity derives from the main stream media's penchant for focusing on only the most controversial aspects of events even though the controversy is a result of just a few's rantings and actions.
Many traditional Christians feel they have watched their dearly held American social "norms" eroded by what they consider rampant social secularism and see it as an attack on their beliefs and their way of life.
What's even funnier here is you bought into it with your last statement. Since when did a relatively small group of anyone constitute an majority of the main group? Oh yeah, like I said, since the info you receive is geared to make the issue appear much larger than it is and is not designed to promote anything but stereotyping for the express purpose of selling news. Way to go.

Can I recommend a few classes in sociology and behavioral psychology?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, the medical field always prefers using medicine to religion when curing people. Doesn't matter which religion it is.

See, you are doing it too!
You are assuming that medicine/science and religion/spiritual laws
are "either/or"

These are NOT in opposition!
You do NOT have to choose one or the other!

This false division is causing the oppression!

If you read my message and/or also the books by Dr. MacNutt, he expresses this emphatically
1. spiritual healing works WITH science and medicine and does not deny or
replace/substitute for it.
2. fundamental religionists who reject science and medicine are part of the problem!

Dr. Drock, true spiritual healing works and FACILITATES scientific and medical treatments, especially in the cases of mental health treatment where some of the s ickness
is rooted in the spirit, and FORGIVENESS therapy helps if not ALLOWS the patient
to receive treatment.

Again, in the book I cited by Dr. Peck, the patients with EXTREME schizophrenia he observed COULD NOT be treated at all, until they went through EXORCISM first,
and got their free will back that was overtaken by spiritual sickness and oppression.
In those cases, he became convinced it really was demonic or satanic possession
which is rare.

if you don't treat the WHOLE person, body mind AND spirit,
that is where a lot of medicine fails. Treatments work better when you
address ALL LEVELS that are contributing to why a person is sick or rejecting
healing or treatment.

Spiritual healing does not reject or conflict with methods for healing the mind
through therapy or education, or healing the body through science, medicine, surgery etc.

However, if you deny spiritual healing, there are cases where the
mind and body do not heal. Medicine alone cannot cure the cases of
schizophrenia and rheumatoid arthritis that spiritual healing was able to,
where the obstruction to healing was in the spirit and had to be removed first
as PART of the treatment. Not "in place of"

These things, treatment of body/mind/spirit
are NOT IN OPPOSITION or competition with each other.
That thinking is false!

They work in harmony and ALL levels of treatment are necessary
in order to maintain health for the whole person. Does this make more sense now????

Alright, combining all religions with medicine, or not combining any religions with medicine, still doesn't make followers of one particular religion in those groups a victim.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Was it when the % of the population in america who claimed to be christian dropped from 80 to "only" 75?


Was it when the christian representation in government dropped from 100 to 99%?



It's a phenomena I don't understand. We live in a society of mostly christians, a society that almost promotes hating muslims and atheists, when did the overwhelming majority become victims? And of what?

It's a result of the same perception that Liberals and Conservatives carry about their ideals being under attack from the other side. Much of the animosity derives from the main stream media's penchant for focusing on only the most controversial aspects of events even though the controversy is a result of just a few's rantings and actions.
Many traditional Christians feel they have watched their dearly held American social "norms" eroded by what they consider rampant social secularism and see it as an attack on their beliefs and their way of life.
What's even funnier here is you bought into it with your last statement. Since when did a relatively small group of anyone constitute an majority of the main group? Oh yeah, like I said, since the info you receive is geared to make the issue appear much larger than it is and is not designed to promote anything but stereotyping for the express purpose of selling news. Way to go.

Can I recommend a few classes in sociology and behavioral psychology?

Correct I should've worded it better, why do some in the majority feel the majority are being victimized?

 

[emilynghiem]

If I recall.

They were set into the stone wall. So the court house refused. They got sued and lost b/c people were faux offended at seeing them up there. so they had to take them down.

It all cost taxpayer money, so everyone was victimised.

I agree with TT. Unresolved conflict, and refusal to mediate directly, costs us all money and resources and overburdens govt with things that are not state responsibility.

In Texas, there was a similar case over removing some reference to the Bible at a state building. It may have been at the Capitol, where the court ruled in favor of the idea that Biblical law was a historical influence, and a valid part of HISTORY. So it was not a religious violation to include this in a HISTORICAL display since that is cultural fact.

I also question how can the ACLU even sue in such cases, if court documents require filing by dates that are based on the Judeo-Christian calendar. Isn't that intrusion of religious belief on secular government? I was told that there is a secular equivalent of AD, that uses the same calendar, (CE I think?). But it still seems to me that whatever is accepted by convenience, such as using money even though it has references to God on it, is not sued; but only when someone "disagrees" then this is contested legally or politically.

So to me, the REAL issue is "consent of the governed."
Whether a public law or policy/decision reflects or represents the people.
It is NOT really about religion, but whether or not we AGREE with a ruling or policy!

So why not settle ALL conflicts by consensus and not impose or oppress ANY minority?
That to me would be more in keeping with 14th Amendment protections of all persons without discrimination or bias.

If all conflicts had to be resolved before making laws, so that these truly reflect the public consent of the ENTIRE population EQUALLY, then we would have to do all that work in private and quit taxing govt with trying to make and impose all those decisions for us.

We would have very little laws, since these would have to be agreed upon globally,
and most of the social services and institutions would be localized and privatized so that people can govern themselves by consent, by the policies/institutions of their free choice
without imposing on some other group that has a different way of governing their district.

 

[daveman]

Generally speaking, non-believers want the freedom to criticize believers. And that's fine; no one's saying they shouldn't.

But the militant non-believers don't want to be criticized themselves. And when they are, they accuse the critics of playing the victim card.

 

[Ringel05]

Was it when the % of the population in america who claimed to be christian dropped from 80 to "only" 75?


Was it when the christian representation in government dropped from 100 to 99%?



It's a phenomena I don't understand. We live in a society of mostly christians, a society that almost promotes hating muslims and atheists, when did the overwhelming majority become victims? And of what?

It's a result of the same perception that Liberals and Conservatives carry about their ideals being under attack from the other side. Much of the animosity derives from the main stream media's penchant for focusing on only the most controversial aspects of events even though the controversy is a result of just a few's rantings and actions.
Many traditional Christians feel they have watched their dearly held American social "norms" eroded by what they consider rampant social secularism and see it as an attack on their beliefs and their way of life.
What's even funnier here is you bought into it with your last statement. Since when did a relatively small group of anyone constitute an majority of the main group? Oh yeah, like I said, since the info you receive is geared to make the issue appear much larger than it is and is not designed to promote anything but stereotyping for the express purpose of selling news. Way to go.

Can I recommend a few classes in sociology and behavioral psychology?

Correct I should've worded it better, why do some in the majority feel the majority are being victimized?

Simple, there are those (a very small minority) who actively attempt to either do away with Christianity or at very least confine it within the walls of churches and homes, who do you think the media covers? People also begin feeling marginalized when everything they believe in and hold dear appears to be under attack, how would you respond?
Throughout much of our national history most of our social constructs have been built around Christian principles (not specifically Christianity itself and definitely not always a true application of those beliefs and principles) which is where the term "a christian nation" comes from, not that it's a Christian nation in other than an unwritten social structure sense of the term.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Generally speaking, non-believers want the freedom to criticize believers. And that's fine; no one's saying they shouldn't.

But the militant non-believers don't want to be criticized themselves. And when they are, they accuse the critics of playing the victim card.

Militant non-believers? That wasn't the least bit sensationlized lol.

No I accuse people of playing the victim card after they've played the victim card, happens on this board all the time when christians talk about christian bureacrats being anti-christian.

 

[Ringel05]

Generally speaking, non-believers want the freedom to criticize believers. And that's fine; no one's saying they shouldn't.

But the militant non-believers don't want to be criticized themselves. And when they are, they accuse the critics of playing the victim card.

Militant non-believers? That wasn't the least bit sensationlized lol.

No I accuse people of playing the victim card after they've played the victim card, happens on this board all the time when christians talk about christian bureacrats being anti-christian.

You don't believe that there are radical secularists out there? There are radicals for every belief/social/political system known to man, that's a given.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Generally speaking, non-believers want the freedom to criticize believers. And that's fine; no one's saying they shouldn't.

But the militant non-believers don't want to be criticized themselves. And when they are, they accuse the critics of playing the victim card.

Militant non-believers? That wasn't the least bit sensationlized lol.

No I accuse people of playing the victim card after they've played the victim card, happens on this board all the time when christians talk about christian bureacrats being anti-christian.

You don't believe that there are radical secularists out there? There are radicals for every belief/social/political system known to man, that's a given.

In the Navy we called them "digget dogs" or "Lifer digget dogs". No matter how WTF things got, they were not only in it, they supported it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Generally speaking, non-believers want the freedom to criticize believers. And that's fine; no one's saying they shouldn't.

But the militant non-believers don't want to be criticized themselves. And when they are, they accuse the critics of playing the victim card.

Militant non-believers? That wasn't the least bit sensationlized lol.

No I accuse people of playing the victim card after they've played the victim card, happens on this board all the time when christians talk about christian bureacrats being anti-christian.

No, it happens when douchebags flood the site with their vision of a perfectly fascist state, where Christians (not Muslims, not atheists) will not be allowed to speak publicly, to practice their religion except under cover, to raise their own kids, to work, or to participate in politics.

Like I said, walk a mile. I'm not a particularly overt Christian, and I get to hear at least once a day how worthless Christians are, how stupid they are, and all the reasons they shouldn't be allowed to publicly adhere to their faith.

It's the same situation as any of the times a government has required citizens to recant their non-state approved beliefs publicly, and pursue their faith only under cover of night, illegally, and with the threat of prosecution (up to and including torture and death) over their heads.

This is what happens when a state requires citizens to hide their faith:
Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Persecution of Christians as a consequence of professing their faith can be traced both historically and in the current era. "

"
Christian missionaries as well as the neophytes that they converted to Christianity have been the target of persecution, many times to the point of being martyred for their faith. There is also a history of individual Christian denominations suffering persecution at the hands of other Christians under the charge of heresy, particularly during the 16th century Protestant Reformation.
In the 20th century, Christians have been persecuted by radical Muslim and Hindu groups inter alia, and by atheistic states such as the USSR and North Korea. Currently (as of 2010), as estimated by the Christian missionary organisation Open Doors UK, an estimated 100 million Christians face persecution, particularly in North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia.[2] A recent study, cited by the Vatican, reported that 75 out of every 100 people killed for religious hatred are Christian.[3] [4]"

So before sniggering about how wonderful Christians have it, you might want to consider that historically, when people start talking about the state requiring those of the Christian faith to worship covertly, to hide their religion, it is almost always a pre cursor of bloodshed, butchery, and the like.

Right now in the US, thanks to FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Christians are able to live much more safely than their brothers and sisters abroad. But the US is one of the ONLY safe havens for Christians, and assholes are continually trying to change that. When I hear people laughing about the concept of persecution, when those same people have just said, out of the other side of their mouths, that Christians should hide their religion in their homes and never say a word outside of those walls, I, and other Christians, understandably get very, very nervous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Was it when the % of the population in america who claimed to be christian dropped from 80 to "only" 75?


Was it when the christian representation in government dropped from 100 to 99%?



It's a phenomena I don't understand. We live in a society of mostly christians, a society that almost promotes hating muslims and atheists, when did the overwhelming majority become victims? And of what?

Black Liberation Theology is all about the victim card. I won't say they invented it, but they sure did make it popular.

 

[daveman]

Generally speaking, non-believers want the freedom to criticize believers. And that's fine; no one's saying they shouldn't.

But the militant non-believers don't want to be criticized themselves. And when they are, they accuse the critics of playing the victim card.

Militant non-believers? That wasn't the least bit sensationlized lol.

I was making a differentiation between atheists who really don't care what other people believe and the kind who want to criminalize religion.

No I accuse people of playing the victim card after they've played the victim card, happens on this board all the time when christians talk about christian bureacrats being anti-christian.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[whitehall]

It probably started when FDR appointed democrat former segregationist and bigoted Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black wrote the modern version of "separation of church and state" which does not exist in the Constitution. Later liberal democrats expanded the myth and before you know it you could get arrested for placing a Christmas tree on public property or saying a prayer in school. It's ironic that public schools encourage muslem theology but threaten kids with expulsion for wearing a Crucifix to school. Democrat radical judges ruled that the half century old monument to Korean War Veterans in San Diego should be bulldozed and dynamited to rubble because it contains a 40 ft Cross. Anti-Christians have turned into a lynch mob.

 

[daveman]

It probably started when FDR appointed democrat former segregationist and bigoted Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black wrote the modern version of "separation of church and state" which does not exist in the Constitution. Later liberal democrats expanded the myth and before you know it you could get arrested for placing a Christmas tree on public property or saying a prayer in school. It's ironic that public schools encourage muslem theology but threaten kids with expulsion for wearing a Crucifix to school. Democrat radical judges ruled that the half century old monument to Korean War Veterans in San Diego should be bulldozed and dynamited to rubble because it contains a 40 ft Cross. Anti-Christians have turned into a lynch mob.

 

[emilynghiem]

It probably started when FDR appointed democrat former segregationist and bigoted Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black wrote the modern version of "separation of church and state" which does not exist in the Constitution. Later liberal democrats expanded the myth and before you know it you could get arrested for placing a Christmas tree on public property or saying a prayer in school. It's ironic that public schools encourage muslem theology but threaten kids with expulsion for wearing a Crucifix to school. Democrat radical judges ruled that the half century old monument to Korean War Veterans in San Diego should be bulldozed and dynamited to rubble because it contains a 40 ft Cross. Anti-Christians have turned into a lynch mob.

The Cross Is Unconstitutional, Again - HUMAN EVENTS
Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This case is sadly ridiculous, or ridiculously sad. Sorry to be reminded,
I thought this was resolved but it was not.

1. I still cannot believe that the efforts to resolve the conflict by selling the land to a private group were BLOCKED with arguments that government was still favoring religion by doing this to preserve the cross. I thought that was this case, maybe it was a different one. But in these articles it stated something similar, that in selling the cross to remove it, the govt could not be seen as favoring groups for preservation. Why doesn't it say it could not also favor groups for demolition or removal?

2. So that is my main issue. If the laws in California forbid showing "preference" then why isn't the atheist argument against the Cross seen as showing favor or preference to THAT side? In order to show equal protection for all interests, all sides would have to AGREE on a solution in order for the govt to endorse that solution, without favoring one side over the other. I believe all cases, especially involving religion, should be decided by consensus to be fair, inclusive and equally protecting/representing all views/beliefs EQUALLY.

So as long as the courts/govt impose one side or the other, against the wishes of the other side, then THAT IS showing favor or preference to one view over the others!

Ridiculous and a sad waste of time, money and other resources at the same time.
If you want to "separate church and state" then resolve all religious conflicts in private and don't drag the state into it. Otherwise, cases like this make Americans look crazy; like we have nothing better to do with our freedom and democracy than to abuse it to fight for nonissues while many people in other countries suffer for lack of resources we waste here.

To threaten to bulldoze a cross as a religious icon reminds me of the Taliban blowing up century old statues of Buddha that were cultural and historic landmarks. Seems so crazy!

Whatever "teenage rebellion" phase our society is going through, I hope this passes soon. When we can interact as mutually respecting and responsible adults, we can address these conflicts maturely instead of abusing courts to fight like bullies on the playground.

 

[whitehall]

It probably started when FDR appointed democrat former segregationist and bigoted Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black wrote the modern version of "separation of church and state" which does not exist in the Constitution. Later liberal democrats expanded the myth and before you know it you could get arrested for placing a Christmas tree on public property or saying a prayer in school. It's ironic that public schools encourage muslem theology but threaten kids with expulsion for wearing a Crucifix to school. Democrat radical judges ruled that the half century old monument to Korean War Veterans in San Diego should be bulldozed and dynamited to rubble because it contains a 40 ft Cross. Anti-Christians have turned into a lynch mob.

The Cross Is Unconstitutional, Again - HUMAN EVENTS
Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This case is sadly ridiculous, or ridiculously sad. Sorry to be reminded,
I thought this was resolved but it was not.

1. I still cannot believe that the efforts to resolve the conflict by selling the land to a private group were BLOCKED with arguments that government was still favoring religion by doing this to preserve the cross. I thought that was this case, maybe it was a different one. But in these articles it stated something similar, that in selling the cross to remove it, the govt could not be seen as favoring groups for preservation. Why doesn't it say it could not also favor groups for demolition or removal?

2. So that is my main issue. If the laws in California forbid showing "preference" then why isn't the atheist argument against the Cross seen as showing favor or preference to THAT side? In order to show equal protection for all interests, all sides would have to AGREE on a solution in order for the govt to endorse that solution, without favoring one side over the other. I believe all cases, especially involving religion, should be decided by consensus to be fair, inclusive and equally protecting/representing all views/beliefs EQUALLY.

So as long as the courts/govt impose one side or the other, against the wishes of the other side, then THAT IS showing favor or preference to one view over the others!

Ridiculous and a sad waste of time, money and other resources at the same time.
If you want to "separate church and state" then resolve all religious conflicts in private and don't drag the state into it. Otherwise, cases like this make Americans look crazy; like we have nothing better to do with our freedom and democracy than to abuse it to fight for nonissues while many people in other countries suffer for lack of resources we waste here.

To threaten to bulldoze a cross as a religious icon reminds me of the Taliban blowing up century old statues of Buddha that were cultural and historic landmarks. Seems so crazy!

Whatever "teenage rebellion" phase our society is going through, I hope this passes soon. When we can interact as mutually respecting and responsible adults, we can address these conflicts maturely instead of abusing courts to fight like bullies on the playground.

Remember it because if you rely on the mainstream media for information you are liable to see a vacant lot where the Korean War monument once stood. I bet radical lefties secretly applauded when the Mojave Cross was destroyed by "vandals". Not much outrage in the liberal media. The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. They want you to believe America is an agnostic Nation but Congress has a chaplain and they swear on the Bible and say a prayer asking God's blessings and they erect a National Christmas tree every year on public property. Meanwhile faceless liberal democrat cowards threaten Americans with arrest if the see a Christmas tree in the Town Square.