DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**JonnLeejsp** · 01-18-2007, 02:46 AM

Hey, do you think they would mind if I went to Israel and demand they take down the “Star of David” in there veterans cemeteries???

They represent no Jewish families or relations of any kind in this cemetery that was picked by family members with respect and placement of “Star of David” memorials on each of there graves..

You seem to have freedom mixed up with establishment clause. Government bans or rulings are what are not allowed in the constitution.
The cross was privately funded and the Jewish group is free to privately fund a Star of David.

If you had bothered to read any of the facts in this case it would be easier to discuss it with you.

Only one of the many plaintiffs is a jewish organization. The cross was erected on public land and is still on public land. The fact that it was privately funded is irrelevant in law. The "veterans memorial" was only incorporated into the cross after the lawsuit which demanded its removal was instituted. It doesn't fool anyone. The city politicians know that and that's why the mayor cooked up this scheme with the recently jailed congressman duke cunningham to transfer ownership to the feds. It won't make any difference. The precedent of the last two establishment clause cases decided by the supremes make this case pretty cut and dried. The ownership shenanigans have only served to delay the decision.

01-18-2007, 02:46 AM	#24
JonnLeejsp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	Hey, do you think they would mind if I went to Israel and demand they take down the “Star of David” in there veterans cemeteries??? They represent no Jewish families or relations of any kind in this cemetery that was picked by family members with respect and placement of “Star of David” memorials on each of there graves.. You seem to have freedom mixed up with establishment clause. Government bans or rulings are what are not allowed in the constitution. The cross was privately funded and the Jewish group is free to privately fund a Star of David. If you had bothered to read any of the facts in this case it would be easier to discuss it with you. Only one of the many plaintiffs is a jewish organization. The cross was erected on public land and is still on public land. The fact that it was privately funded is irrelevant in law. The "veterans memorial" was only incorporated into the cross after the lawsuit which demanded its removal was instituted. It doesn't fool anyone. The city politicians know that and that's why the mayor cooked up this scheme with the recently jailed congressman duke cunningham to transfer ownership to the feds. It won't make any difference. The precedent of the last two establishment clause cases decided by the supremes make this case pretty cut and dried. The ownership shenanigans have only served to delay the decision.
	Quote