Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)

4. I would accept a one-time government expenditure to move the cross to whatever private land/owner

Reply to Cartoonist (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:15 AM

Jun 2019

agrees to upkeep and display it for... dunno, 100 years or whatever. Sort of like transferring a cultural icon that the government owns, to the Smithsonian, or something like that.

Especially since the cross was originally on private land, and was eminent domain-ed due to the construction of a freeway.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules 'peace cross' in Maryland can remain. [View all] AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 OP

Peace cross? SHRED Jun 2019 #1

One more step on the road to theocracy. nt procon Jun 2019 #2

I have mixed feelings on this issue Cartoonist Jun 2019 #3

I would accept a one-time government expenditure to move the cross to whatever private land/owner AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #4

The fact that it was built originally on private land customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #5

The side protrusions on the cross, and the central supports. AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #6

Then either a private group raises funding to deal with that customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #7

I haven't read it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #8

I, too, am an atheist customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #9

Horrible decision. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #10