Skip to main content

9th Circuit Court Holds Soledad Cross Unconstitutional Comments

This 9th Circuit opinion is an example of a growing governmental hostility toward religious faith, religious symbols, and, in particular, Christian faith and Christian symbols, in the public square. The effort to scrub the public square of such religious expression and symbols is a threat to religious freedom and represents an incorrect application of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.  Continue Reading

11 - 20 of 50 Comments

  1. vance
    3 years ago

    Everett, It doesn't matter if the cross was erected years ago. The "Context" is as much "Appropriate" today as it was 60 years ago. Jesus Christ was appropiate then, is appropriate now, and will be appropriate forever. What is NOT APPROPRIATE are the Ant-Christians that have "packed" the courts by Liberal politicians who appointed them. This is why I encourage my Catholic brothers and sisters and Christians of other demoninations to stand up to the anti-Christians on the court benches and IMPEACH them. Furhter, Stand up to the Liberal Establishment and demand all crosses in public places be replaced and all Nativity Scenes be displayed on public property. If the Jews want to display symbals for their holiday, fine. Islam, Hell no. They are at war with us.

  2. Everett Mann
    3 years ago

    Isabella and Vance, you are free to excercise Catholism, Buddhism, Judeaism or whatever ism you want in your home and in your place of worship. If you want to erect a cross in your backyard go for it. These are not PUBLIC spaces and do not belong to the PUBLIC; they belong to you. The government cannot come into your home and tell you to abandon your faith and now follow Islam or Hinduism That is what the establishment clause is. Nothing more nothing less.

    The problem with the court's decision is not that it is "anti-Christian" as the good Deacon would have you believe. No. The problem with the decision is that the court looked at something that was erected nearly 60 years ago and said it is inappropriate all of a sudden. If that is the case, that I have some items in my neighborhood I would like to see removed for their inappropriateness in today's context. I am sure they were appropriate to my grandparents but now that they are gone, these little statues of racist town founders have no place.

    Furthermore, I cannot for the life of me see how a cross on a hill is going to force a non-christian to suddenly accept Christ (establishing a religion) or a Crescent on a hill going to convert a Christian to Islam. I have been to many synagogues with my wife's family but never has the star of David convinced me to convert (to the dismay of the good Deacon, some readers here and probably my in-laws)

  3. vance
    3 years ago

    Isabella, Great post and excellent observation. God bless.

  4. JeanCatherine
    3 years ago

    Keep in mind we should protect the Religious clause in this country.

    Dont forget people that the founding fathers went to France and witnessed our Catholic brothers and sisters going to the guillotine.

    They new then what we know now about persecution and it comes in many forms at any time. This maybe a modern world but it is run by dark forces that want Chrisitanity brought to its knees.

    Peacefully we must protest of course, seen and heard from. That is why I like this forum.

  5. Bulbajer
    3 years ago

    Bruce Barron, I agree with this statement of yours: "The love of money is the root of all evil and the desire for power is infinite and greater than the sexual drive, far surpassing it." Other than that... you seem to think we live in a theocracy. I know that the First Amendment is often over-cited and used in the wrong context, but when you say "Christianty is the established religion of this country both by tradition and custom... the government has the obligation to protect specifically the Christian as the only true religion", I think it applies completely.

  6. Bruce Barron
    3 years ago

    Never should have sold the land to the federal government. I guess this occured in the Bush administration.The state doesn't have to sell one inch to the federal government nor can they take it by an act of Congress.
    The men and women who died were in the majority Christian.Christianty is the established religion of this country both by tradition and custom.It is not to back off to federal intimidation.
    How does the cross establish a religion? Well it doesn't! If others are offended by its truth too bad.Who cares? Every manner of resistence is to be used. The federal government has the obligation to recognize the Christian Religion for without it there would not be a United States.The Founders certainly understood its necessity.The state needs the Christian Religion to survive.And the government has the obligation to protect specifically the Christian as the only true religion.Islam is obviously pagan and an unconstitutional entity. A country without morals and religion is doomed to fail without any economic prosperity.The economic demise in this country is due to the lack of morals governing the economic order.
    The love of money is the root of all evil and the desire for power is infinite and greater than the sexual drive, far surpassing it.
    This is just another aspect of the federal government well orchestrated for decades to destroy the morals of this country and the Christian Religion which anyone with an open eye can easily see..
    The only religion that has any chance of opposition to the agenda of the one world order and its agenda and strategy is,in the final analysis the Catholic Church.

  7. Isabella
    3 years ago

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Perhaps the 9th circuit court needs to read the Bill of Rights again. What does the First amendment actually say? It says that Congress -ie the FEDERAL legislative body- cannot create a law to establish a federal religion. Why? This was because in England the religion was Anglican and anyone who did not follow the Anglican religion was severely persecuted. To prevent that from happening, we are given the 1st amendment. The second part says that Congress, again, a FEDERAL legislative body, cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof, meaning that Congress cannot prevent a cross from being on Federal land anymore than they can prevent a crescent or a Star of David from being on Federal land according to the law.

    This ruling directly violates the 1st amendment since it prevents the free exercise of religion on federal land.

  8. JeanCatherine
    3 years ago

    Thanks Eddie. My family also has served this country since the Revolution and up until Viet Nam almost unbroken in all American conflicts etc.

    I agree.

  9. vance
    3 years ago

    PhilipEdmund, I think the size of the cross is great and sholud stay there. The atheists and other OFFENDED nare-do-wells can go take a flying leap somewhere where the sun don't shine. I have no respect for those folks at all. If they are stupid enough to denounce Christ, that's on them but I am not going to roll over for their stupidity.

  10. Eddie
    3 years ago

    LarryLinn As a fellow veteran and one who served 27 years in the infantry and the father of a son who served seven tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with special operations forces, I agree that we need to honor those non christians who served this nation and gave the last full measure. However, I am puzzled why you think that the cross in any way diminishes the nation's gratitude to these men and women. The memorial to the 442d Regimental Combat Tm signifies America's respect and honor for its members' heroic contributions. There are other memorials honoring the contributions of native americans that demonstrate the nations gratitude. Now please explain to me what amends the nation needs to make to deists, agnostics and atheists? How has the nation done something to them that requires amends. Did they not fight so that others who held their beliefs might do so within the freedoms of this nation? I believe that the cross does not provide an obstacle to the honor that our great nation gives all those who served regardless of personal religious beliefs. Lets not forget that the greatest honor that we can provide those who served is the freedom to practise those beliefs to all who come after them . Thank you for your service to our army and our nation.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment


Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Second Thessalonians 3:6-10, 16-18
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge you, brothers, to ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 128:1-2, 4-5
[Song of Ascents] How blessed are all who fear Yahweh, who walk ... Read More

Gospel, Matthew 23:27-32
'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are ... Read More

Saint of the Day

August 27 Saint of the Day

St. Monica
August 27: St. Monica was married by arrangement to a pagan official in ... Read More