Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 394
Thanks Tree83Thanks

Thread: City Transfers Land Surrounding Cross to Private Foundation to Bring Closure

  1. #21
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    51,425
    Thanks
    2789

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    I agree; and so does the FFRF.


    Why? Because it's the law. If the city sells land to a private individual below fair value, they have to explain why I (for example) can't get similar deals when the city is selling land for private use. Otherwise, it sounds like they're giving preferential treatment to a place of worship, and that's constitutionally prohibited.
    is there any cases about this? Lawsuits.

  2. #22
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    21,304
    Thanks
    19169

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    If the city required the new onwners to maintain the cross, and not demolish it and resell the land, would that be government endorsement?

  3. #23
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    51,425
    Thanks
    2789

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    If the city required the new onwners to maintain the cross, and not demolish it and resell the land, would that be government endorsement?
    You could try that angle, but it doesn't belong to the city anymore. They can't dictate anything to the new owner

  4. #24
    Conservatively Liberal NiteGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,043
    Thanks
    12442

    From
    Teardrop City
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I agree its a win win situation, but the FFRF is trying to dictate to the city how they should sell the land for a fair value. They didn't sell the land, they transferred it to the Heritage Foundation. I don't know how the FFRF can dictate what a city should do with the property as long as they don't own the property that is being questioned.
    Because the law says that the land must be sold at fair-market value. If all the city did was transfer the land in say, the form of a deed, they are breaking the law, because no other private entity can obtain city land at no cost.
    Thanks from OldGaffer, Babba and Friday13

  5. #25
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    51,425
    Thanks
    2789

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by NiteGuy View Post
    Because the law says that the land must be sold at fair-market value. If all the city did was transfer the land in say, the form of a deed, they are breaking the law, because no other private entity can obtain city land at no cost.
    I would like to know what the law says on that and what the fine is. Seems odd that the law would force the city to sell their land for a certain price.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,325
    Thanks
    29688

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    City Transfers Land Surrounding Cross to Private Foundation to Bring Closure to Complaint From Atheist Group


    NEOSHO, Mo. — A prominent professing atheist organization has expressed its skepticism after a Missouri city recently transferred a section of land surrounding an 80-year-old cross display to a private foundation in an effort to assuage the organization’s concerns about government endorsement of Christianity.
    “If the intent is to save the religious display, the purpose of the transfer is religious and could be considered a legally problematic sham remedy,” wrote the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to the City of Neosho on Friday.
    As previously reported, FFRF first sent a letter in May to Mayor Ben Baker, stating that it had been informed by a complainant that a cross figure lies on the side of a hill in Big Spring Park, which is public property. It asserted that the figure violates the U.S. Constitution because its public location sends the message that the government endorses Christianity.

    “The government’s permanent display of a Latin cross on public land is unconstitutional,” the correspondence asserted. “The display of this patently religious symbol on public property confers government endorsement of Christianity, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.”

    It requested that the cross be removed from the park or moved to private property.
    However, once residents of Neosho heard about FFRF’s effort, many urged officials not to cave to the Church-State separation group. The cross has been in place since 1930 without complaint.
    “In fact, all day today I got texts and messages and e-mails and calls saying, ‘Stand strong. Keep the cross,’ and so that’s what we’re going to do,” Baker told Action 12 News.

    City council members agreed that steps should be taken to preserve the cross at the park.
    “It is the position of the city council that the correspondence forwarded by this organization was deficient in identifying authoritative case law within the Eighth Circuit, and is further of the opinion that, in fact, controlling case law would support the continued presence of the cross within the park,” the council said in a statement.
    “Therefore, it is the unanimous opinion of the city council that the City of Neosho will not remove the cross or take any other actions which in any way compromises the long standing history of our city,” it declared.
    On Wednesday, Steven Hays, an attorney for the City of Neosho, wrote a letter to FFRF to advise that officials had transferred the land surrounding the cross figure to a private organization in order to avoid a lengthy and expensive court battle.
    “Effective this date, the City of Neosho has transferred the ownership of the land at issue and contains the cross which had been the motivating factor of your foundation contacting the City of Neosho,” he wrote.
    “Following the findings of Salazar v. Buono, the City of Neosho has transferred the subject property to the Save Our Heritage Foundation, a private foundation, utilizing a fee simple conveyance with a conservation easement as prescribed by the laws of the state of Missouri,” Hays explained. “It is the position of the City of Neosho that the actions it has taken brings this matter to a close.”https://christiannews.net/2017/09/11...atheist-group/

    This is the best remedy I have ever heard of to settle a case like this with the FFRF. They file a complaint of a cross being on public property, then transfer ownership to the Heritage Foundation so its no longer public property. Problem solved
    The FFRF is besides themselves, they starting to give orders that the property has to be sold at fair value. Why does the city have to take orders from the FFRF? The city doesn't, they are just trying to bully the city into thinking they will still get sued. Ignore them, all government entities should donate their property that has religious displays to the Heritage foundation, so the FFRF is powerless. This is a great idea
    It's no remedy at all.

    Why do you struggle so with the concept that the government may not act to endorse or prefer Christianity?

    I doubt there's a case like this in the country that involves the icon of another religion, and if there were, you'd be standing with the atheists.
    Thanks from Friday13

  7. #27
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,630
    Thanks
    4397

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    It's no remedy at all.

    Why do you struggle so with the concept that the government may not act to endorse or prefer Christianity?

    I doubt there's a case like this in the country that involves the icon of another religion, and if there were, you'd be standing with the atheists.
    I thinks it's because some individuals actually want the government to acknowledge Christianity as a state religion. Aboutenough posts on that theme continuously.
    Thanks from Babba and Friday13

  8. #28
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,157
    Thanks
    26364

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    How is this government "endorsing" a religion?
    By allowing a religious symbol in a public square while not allowing other religious sects the same benefit is tacit endorsement of a single religion. If all religions are allowed to display their symbols as well, then no one religious sect is endorsed.

    This is America, ALL Gods are equal.
    Thanks from Babba, Djinn and Friday13

  9. #29
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12,185
    Thanks
    4758

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    City Transfers Land Surrounding Cross to Private Foundation to Bring Closure to Complaint From Atheist Group


    NEOSHO, Mo. — A prominent professing atheist organization has expressed its skepticism after a Missouri city recently transferred a section of land surrounding an 80-year-old cross display to a private foundation in an effort to assuage the organization’s concerns about government endorsement of Christianity.
    “If the intent is to save the religious display, the purpose of the transfer is religious and could be considered a legally problematic sham remedy,” wrote the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to the City of Neosho on Friday.
    As previously reported, FFRF first sent a letter in May to Mayor Ben Baker, stating that it had been informed by a complainant that a cross figure lies on the side of a hill in Big Spring Park, which is public property. It asserted that the figure violates the U.S. Constitution because its public location sends the message that the government endorses Christianity.

    “The government’s permanent display of a Latin cross on public land is unconstitutional,” the correspondence asserted. “The display of this patently religious symbol on public property confers government endorsement of Christianity, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.”

    It requested that the cross be removed from the park or moved to private property.
    However, once residents of Neosho heard about FFRF’s effort, many urged officials not to cave to the Church-State separation group. The cross has been in place since 1930 without complaint.
    “In fact, all day today I got texts and messages and e-mails and calls saying, ‘Stand strong. Keep the cross,’ and so that’s what we’re going to do,” Baker told Action 12 News.

    City council members agreed that steps should be taken to preserve the cross at the park.
    “It is the position of the city council that the correspondence forwarded by this organization was deficient in identifying authoritative case law within the Eighth Circuit, and is further of the opinion that, in fact, controlling case law would support the continued presence of the cross within the park,” the council said in a statement.
    “Therefore, it is the unanimous opinion of the city council that the City of Neosho will not remove the cross or take any other actions which in any way compromises the long standing history of our city,” it declared.
    On Wednesday, Steven Hays, an attorney for the City of Neosho, wrote a letter to FFRF to advise that officials had transferred the land surrounding the cross figure to a private organization in order to avoid a lengthy and expensive court battle.
    “Effective this date, the City of Neosho has transferred the ownership of the land at issue and contains the cross which had been the motivating factor of your foundation contacting the City of Neosho,” he wrote.
    “Following the findings of Salazar v. Buono, the City of Neosho has transferred the subject property to the Save Our Heritage Foundation, a private foundation, utilizing a fee simple conveyance with a conservation easement as prescribed by the laws of the state of Missouri,” Hays explained. “It is the position of the City of Neosho that the actions it has taken brings this matter to a close.”https://christiannews.net/2017/09/11...atheist-group/

    This is the best remedy I have ever heard of to settle a case like this with the FFRF. They file a complaint of a cross being on public property, then transfer ownership to the Heritage Foundation so its no longer public property. Problem solved
    The FFRF is besides themselves, they starting to give orders that the property has to be sold at fair value. Why does the city have to take orders from the FFRF? The city doesn't, they are just trying to bully the city into thinking they will still get sued. Ignore them, all government entities should donate their property that has religious displays to the Heritage foundation, so the FFRF is powerless. This is a great idea
    Yes, keep religion in the private sector. This original post shows what great Americans the Freedom From Religion Foundation are.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12,185
    Thanks
    4758

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I guess no one challenges this idea. Great, its legal and the FFRF has been put in its place. They cannot remove crosses from property that is not public
    No one "put the FFRF in its place." The court put religion back in the private sector where it is supposed to be.The FFRF won and you lost because you want a theocracy.

    The FFRF never even tried to remove crosses from private property.
    Thanks from Friday13

Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th August 2014, 05:13 AM
  2. Atheist group demands Rhode Island city remove cross from atop war memorial
    By aboutenough in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 292
    Last Post: 14th May 2012, 09:51 PM
  3. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 28th May 2010, 03:10 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 25th March 2010, 07:26 PM
  5. Wal-Mart Subsidizes Money Transfers for Illegal Aliens
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 3rd August 2007, 11:32 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed