Here's an example:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060825-9999-1n25cross.html
From the article:
On Aug. 14, President Bush signed a bill that transferred the ownership of the cross and war memorial site to the federal government, specifically the Department of Defense.
The bill halted a legal process that seemed destined to lead to the removal of the cross, which has stood on city-owned land for decades.
With the land now belonging to the federal government, the legal battle will shift to how courts interpret the federal – not state – constitutional ban on government support for religion.
Cross supporters contend they have a better chance of winning under the federal analysis. But opponents, including the ACLU, say that virtually nothing has changed with the transfer of land ownership.
2006-08-25 06:38:31 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
“The issue is still the same,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU in San Diego. “We believe it is equally unconstitutional under state law, or federal law, for the government to subsidize, promote or endorse the Latin cross.”
2006-08-25 06:38:47 · update #1
Grandma Susie: Virutally everything you say is demonstrably wrong.
This is a dispute that has been going on for 17 years.
The "Christian" side has always lost in the courts over and over again.
Bush was under no obligation to sign the bill.
The only silver lining to Bush signing this thing is at least I don't have to have my city get fined $5000 a day for a cross.
2006-08-25 07:44:09 · update #2
Steve C: Yes I have. Many times.
The cross issue was supposed to have been settled when some church agree to take the cross off city property. We held an election and the voters approved that the church could take the cross and then after the election the church renged on its promise. In other words, they lied about taking the cross just so that the cross would stay on city property.
If you want people to believe you are a real Christian, don't lie.
2006-08-25 07:47:15 · update #3
*sigh*
At least this is his last term.
2006-08-25 08:05:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That has NOTHING to do with our tax money supporting Bush's religion, and you are a fool. That argument has been going back and forth for a year. Back in the 50s when patriotism was still a good thing and California wasn't yet such a liberal goofy state, the city put that cross up to honor Korean War Veterans. Suddenly this idiot atheist decided it "offended" him and the battle was on. Why should the city and the Korean war Vets for who this memorial was made have to give up this memorial to pacify a few sniveling whining atheists? And to come up with this silly propaganda about Bush. That is really weak. The President didn't even know about the danger to the War Memorial, Soledad Cross, until the people trying to protect the memorial wrote to him asking for help.
I really thought you had more sense than that.
2006-08-25 13:49:46 · answer #2 · answered by Grandma Susie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All politicians use stolen money to support their own philosophies. Bush just so happens to be a raving right-wing nut.
2006-08-25 13:40:55 · answer #3 · answered by Zombie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
thats a poor example...
it's a memorial.... have you been there?
it's gorgeous... they want to tear it down to develop it.... it was never about the cross... so they took it to the Fed, and they protected it....I hate bush... but that memorial is a poor example... sorry guy...
2006-08-25 13:51:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
bush is an as*, was an as*- and always will be an as*, and as long as he is president he will continue to make an as* out of america-
2006-08-25 13:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by shannon 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He thinks God is on his side. How is this surprising.
2006-08-25 13:41:24 · answer #6 · answered by Allison L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I hate him.he is a monkey
2006-08-25 13:44:22 · answer #7 · answered by h h 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋