Cross ruled unconstitutional

Quote:In addition to ordering the city to remove the cross, Vinson awarded $1 in damages to the plaintiffs — two of whom, Amanda and Andreiy Kondrat'yev, have moved to Canada — since the case began. The other two plaintiffs are Andre Ryland and David Suhor.

Money is the root of all evil
crazy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Infidel 762Quote:In addition to ordering the city to remove the cross, Vinson awarded $1 in damages to the plaintiffs — two of whom, Amanda and Andreiy Kondrat'yev, have moved to Canada — since the case began. The other two plaintiffs are Andre Ryland and David Suhor.

Money is the root of all evil
crazy.gif


*
 
Last edited:
The only ones who should feel shame lookin at a cross are Roman legionnaires, Who are all long dead. Now, I agree that having a long standing cross removed is a petty argument. Grandfathering in the standing religious relics, but discontinuing the practice of spending communal funds on religious structures, seems more reasonable.
 
Actually the ruling itself is unconstitutional...

Quote:The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.


The cross has been there longer than the plaintiffs have been alive, to claim one is offended by an object that has been standing for nearly 50 years, then leave the country with the 25 cent the judge awarded you in your lawsuit, is B_S_ to begin with, and quite obviously the ruling is a showing of favor of religion, or in this case non-religion, on the court's part.

As is the case in the court's denying the Trump travel ban, we again come to a position where a single appointed judge is ruling against the will of the majority of the people. His decision being offered against his own better judgement, strictly on the basis of a previous court ruling, rather than having the balls to stand up and throw the case out of court for it's frivolous nature.

As much as the whiney-asss non-religious snowflakes and atheists that don't believe will want to cry about it, I would dare say we will soon see this practice cease. Not so much because of any resurgence in religious following, but because we the people are tired of such frivolous cases. Especially those where one claims they are offended and then leave the friggin country, let alone the community, before a decision is even rendered in the case. This case was a waste of the court's time, the people's tax dollars defending the case, and was an affront to the citizen's of Pensacola.

If the cross in the park offends you to the point you simply cannot function, deal with it like an adult, and stay the [beeep] out of the park, it's a simple solution. And, if any of you aren't adult enough to feel this isn't a solution and want to argue the point, let's face the facts... All the currency in this country says "In God We Trust" but not one of the low-lifes bringing these frivolous suits, not one of you professing your lack of religion, is starving to death. In most of these cases, the low-lifes seek punitive damages as well, therein clearly establishing the fact that they are NOT so offended by the Christian religion as to give up use of US currency. They accept and even seek it's message concerning God, and go on with their day to day lives, using said currency to their own benefit on a daily basis.
 
Originally Posted By: swampwalkerThe only ones who should feel shame lookin at a cross are Roman legionnaires, Who are all long dead. Now, I agree that having a long standing cross removed is a petty argument. Grandfathering in the standing religious relics, but discontinuing the practice of spending communal funds on religious structures, seems more reasonable.

Yep, seems like the simplest solution to me too.
thumbup1.gif
 
Why should a cross offend an atheist? How can an atheist be offended by God when they do not believe in God? The fact that atheists are offended by a cross is evidence that God exists. Demanding the cross is removed is an example of how atheists are the biggest hypocrites.
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1
As much as the whiney-asss non-religious snowflakes and atheists that don't believe will want to cry about it, I would dare say we will soon see this practice cease. Not so much because of any resurgence in religious following, but because we the people are tired of such frivolous cases.

Rocky, I think you have a valid point. We will soon see this practice cease, and I think the "resurgence in religion" will probably be the major factor behind it ceasing.

The charismatic mega-church preachers are suckering in more new "Christians" with their watered-down "message" than anybody would have believed 10 years ago.
These new "prosperity" converts send in billions of "In God We Trust" dollars that buy new private jets for the men and women of God to fly around the world in search of a new flock to fleece. They build bigger churches that seat thousands of the faithful that come to hear their feel-good message.

And you can't make that kind of money selling a He11 fire and brimstone message.

The Bible-thumping fundamental zealots are going to dwindle away.
The new flock will follow their motivational speakers to a brand new type of faith, and it won't even resemble what it has always been.
The line between secular and religious will be so faint it'll be almost invisible.
 
Originally Posted By: FursniperWhy should a cross offend an atheist? How can an atheist be offended by God when they do not believe in God? The fact that atheists are offended by a cross is evidence that God exists. Demanding the cross is removed is an example of how atheists are the biggest hypocrites.

It's not about being offended. It's about footing the bill for a God that you don't believe in. You wouldn''t want to pay for a statue of Mohamed would you? "In God we trust" on our currency is a bit different. It doesn't specifically address any one particular God.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: swampwalker "In God we trust" on our currency is a bit different. It doesn't specifically address any one particular God.

Yes, and it got put there based on purely political reasons, not religious.
 
Originally Posted By: swampwalkerIt's not about being offended. It's about footing the bill for a God that you don't believe in. You wouldn''t want to pay for a statue of Mohamed would you? "In God we trust" on our currency is a bit different. It doesn't specifically address any one particular God.


The Jaycee's donated and erected the cross in the 70s, the city incurred no costs there.

Looking at that the city has incurred...

-- The costs of mowing the grass around it, just like they would mow the grass if it wasn't there.
-- They've probably incurred the cost of lighting it at night, much like they light the rest of the park at night.
-- They've probably got a few flowers planted around it, much like they have flowers planted in other places around the park.
-- About the only true cost to tax payers would likely be the cost of painting it every however many years, which it's not unreasonable to believe that somewhere in the 5+ year range, maybe more dependent upon paint used. And, if it cost $5,000 a trip to paint it, that's $50,000 costs incurred over 50 years.

It's also likely that they've spent tens of millions of dollars on bicycle paths around the city, when the majority of the population doesn't ride a bicycle, tens of millions of dollars on recreation facilities that only a small percentage of the population uses, the costs of insuring and maintaining bicycle paths, and sporting complexes are far greater every year, than the costs of maintaining that cross for 50 years. We spend millions on handicap facilities that only a very small percentage of the population uses. Does anyone ask that any of these facilities be removed because they are forced to foot the bill for any of them, when they don't believe in or use them?

I would agree with you however that it's not about anyone being offended; it's about offending someone else. Someone doesn't believe, therefore they feel compelled to go out and pisss in someone else's cornflakes because they do, quite honestly. And, that's what suits of this nature are about. Activists take offense to such a monument, move into the community, run down and claim they're offended, because sharing the costs of maintenance on something of this pales in comparison to everything else they share costs, so they have to be offended for it to count in court, file suit, and move on to their next target.

Next time y'all encounter some anti-gun/anti-hunter types on public land when you're afield, give up your guns, and quietly go home, you have no right to offend them according to what you're suggesting here.



 
planned parenthood offends me, they get tax payer money, and there is a law against using tax funds to support their business.

But, i am not out suing. Libtards seem to have to much time on their hands. Get over yourself and find something to do with yourself.
 
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: Rocky1
As much as the whiney-asss non-religious snowflakes and atheists that don't believe will want to cry about it, I would dare say we will soon see this practice cease. Not so much because of any resurgence in religious following, but because we the people are tired of such frivolous cases.

Rocky, I think you have a valid point. We will soon see this practice cease, and I think the "resurgence in religion" will probably be the major factor behind it ceasing.

The charismatic mega-church preachers are suckering in more new "Christians" with their watered-down "message" than anybody would have believed 10 years ago.
These new "prosperity" converts send in billions of "In God We Trust" dollars that buy new private jets for the men and women of God to fly around the world in search of a new flock to fleece. They build bigger churches that seat thousands of the faithful that come to hear their feel-good message.

And you can't make that kind of money selling a He11 fire and brimstone message.

The Bible-thumping fundamental zealots are going to dwindle away.
The new flock will follow their motivational speakers to a brand new type of faith, and it won't even resemble what it has always been.
The line between secular and religious will be so faint it'll be almost invisible.


I honestly don't believe it will be a resurgence in religion Jeff, nor will it be because of the yo-yoassss preachers on TV that claim to espouse religion while seeking to fill their collection plates, people are just getting really tired of being pushed around by small fanatical groups.
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: Rocky1
As much as the whiney-asss non-religious snowflakes and atheists that don't believe will want to cry about it, I would dare say we will soon see this practice cease. Not so much because of any resurgence in religious following, but because we the people are tired of such frivolous cases.

Rocky, I think you have a valid point. We will soon see this practice cease, and I think the "resurgence in religion" will probably be the major factor behind it ceasing.

The charismatic mega-church preachers are suckering in more new "Christians" with their watered-down "message" than anybody would have believed 10 years ago.
These new "prosperity" converts send in billions of "In God We Trust" dollars that buy new private jets for the men and women of God to fly around the world in search of a new flock to fleece. They build bigger churches that seat thousands of the faithful that come to hear their feel-good message.

And you can't make that kind of money selling a He11 fire and brimstone message.

The Bible-thumping fundamental zealots are going to dwindle away.
The new flock will follow their motivational speakers to a brand new type of faith, and it won't even resemble what it has always been.
The line between secular and religious will be so faint it'll be almost invisible.


I honestly don't believe it will be a resurgence in religion Jeff, nor will it be because of the yo-yoassss preachers on TV that claim to espouse religion while seeking to fill their collection plates, people are just getting really tired of being pushed around by small fanatical groups.

Rocky,
"prosperity evangelists" like Joel O'steen and Paula White are raking in millions with their feel-good fluff and stand-up comedy routine sermons, and their converts are folks who want to claim a "faith" without a genuine obligation.
They are doing more to destroy traditional Christianity than any other single factor in the last 2,000 years.
In one more generation it will be so sold out and watered down that it won't be recognizable. Today's serious believers will end up as the "small fanatical groups", and the feel-good followers will be the new norm.

And the new evangelists will be flying around the world and counting their money.
 

("prosperity evangelists" like Joel O'steen and Paula White are raking in millions with their feel-good fluff and stand-up comedy routine sermons, and their converts are folks who want to claim a "faith" without a genuine obligation.
They are doing more to destroy traditional Christianity than any other single factor in the last 2,000 years.
In one more generation it will be so sold out and watered down that it won't be recognizable. Today's serious believers will end up as the "small fanatical groups", and the feel-good followers will be the new norm.

And the new evangelists will be flying around the world and counting their money. )

Until the Socialist Democrats take over completely and we have Communism, Right??
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Originally Posted By: swampwalkerIt's not about being offended. It's about footing the bill for a God that you don't believe in. You wouldn''t want to pay for a statue of Mohamed would you? "In God we trust" on our currency is a bit different. It doesn't specifically address any one particular God.


The Jaycee's donated and erected the cross in the 70s, the city incurred no costs there.

Looking at that the city has incurred...

-- The costs of mowing the grass around it, just like they would mow the grass if it wasn't there.
-- They've probably incurred the cost of lighting it at night, much like they light the rest of the park at night.
-- They've probably got a few flowers planted around it, much like they have flowers planted in other places around the park.
-- About the only true cost to tax payers would likely be the cost of painting it every however many years, which it's not unreasonable to believe that somewhere in the 5+ year range, maybe more dependent upon paint used. And, if it cost $5,000 a trip to paint it, that's $50,000 costs incurred over 50 years.

It's also likely that they've spent tens of millions of dollars on bicycle paths around the city, when the majority of the population doesn't ride a bicycle, tens of millions of dollars on recreation facilities that only a small percentage of the population uses, the costs of insuring and maintaining bicycle paths, and sporting complexes are far greater every year, than the costs of maintaining that cross for 50 years. We spend millions on handicap facilities that only a very small percentage of the population uses. Does anyone ask that any of these facilities be removed because they are forced to foot the bill for any of them, when they don't believe in or use them?

I would agree with you however that it's not about anyone being offended; it's about offending someone else. Someone doesn't believe, therefore they feel compelled to go out and pisss in someone else's cornflakes because they do, quite honestly. And, that's what suits of this nature are about. Activists take offense to such a monument, move into the community, run down and claim they're offended, because sharing the costs of maintenance on something of this pales in comparison to everything else they share costs, so they have to be offended for it to count in court, file suit, and move on to their next target.

Next time y'all encounter some anti-gun/anti-hunter types on public land when you're afield, give up your guns, and quietly go home, you have no right to offend them according to what you're suggesting here.





So I suppose a Muslim group could put up a statue of Mohamed in a park and you'd be okay with that? If not you're simplistic hypocrite. If you want to setup a huge cross put it on all that tax free land the churches have. Seems simple enough

I'm not even going to waste time comparing a bike trail to a religious relic...
 
Last edited:
Socialist Democrats and Communist are largely who is pushing the problem with ...

http://www.predatormastersforums.com/for...997#Post3073997


They're also the ones who pushed the issue with this cross. The two moved to Canada because they're imbecilic snowflakes, they're afraid the country is too dangerous to live in since Trump got elected. They support the black lives matter movement. Information concerning other protests and movements are found all over their social media accounts.
 
Back
Top