Supreme Court covers Cross

#3
#3
I can't imagine why this is a big problem to have the cross up. Who is actually offended by this because they think it is a big effort to promote Christianity? I know there is freedom of religion in this country, and people should have that, but we still live in a society where the majority of people are Christian, so everyone else should respect that and stop whining like the Government is out to convert them.
 
#4
#4
They're whining because the current cross doesn't recognize or have anything do with the original reason for it being put up and they denied another religious symbol being put in the park.
 
#5
#5
tvolsfan said:
I can't imagine why this is a big problem to have the cross up. Who is actually offended by this because they think it is a big effort to promote Christianity? I know there is freedom of religion in this country, and people should have that, but we still live in a society where the majority of people are Christian, so everyone else should respect that and stop whining like the Government is out to convert them.
Click to expand...

Because this land has become one of pandering and vote getting measures, instead of backing someone or some groups right to display what ever they want to. When this country was started, they didn't care who was offended by what because they gave everyone the right to do as they please if they didn't like what they had to do.
 
#6
#6
666 said:
They're whining because the current cross doesn't recognize or have anything do with the original reason for it being put up and they denied another religious symbol being put in the park.
Click to expand...
It's not just this. Many people complain about things like "Under God" in the pledge and "In God we Trust" on coins like its a big attempt to convert them. If you don't like it, how hard is it to ignore?
 
#7
#7
tvolsfan said:
It's not just this. Many people complain about things like "Under God" in the pledge and "In God we Trust" on coins like its a big attempt to convert them. If you don't like it, how hard is it to ignore?
Click to expand...

not as easy as it is to create attention for yourself. that's all these people want.
 
#8
#8
The good ol' ACLU - our nation's guardians of liberty. :blink:

What's really interesting is why a "practicing Catholic" would raise the issue.
 
#9
#9
This largely depends on whether you think that freedom of religion means now what it meant 230 years ago. Then, the tolerance of religion was simply tolerance of another version of Christianity. Pilgrim versus Quaker comes to mind. Had someone tried to put up a sign in the courthouse advocating the hanging of all Quakers, that would present the same legal question we have now, just drawn on a narrower scale of difference.

Now, the distinction is between Christianity on the whole and Islam or whatever other religion might have a presence.

Not surprisingly, the people who advocate the more narrow reading are Chirstian. They might think differently if either a) they were in the minority group back in 1795,; or b) were currently Muslim.
 
#10
#10
tvolsfan said:
It's not just this. Many people complain about things like "Under God" in the pledge and "In God we Trust" on coins like its a big attempt to convert them. If you don't like it, how hard is it to ignore?
Click to expand...

I feel like you may have missed his point. You can't complain about the cross being taken down, when other religious symbols aren't even being allowed to be put up. How hard would those other symbols be to ignore?
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
This largely depends on whether you think that freedom of religion means now what it meant 230 years ago. Then, the tolerance of religion was simply tolerance of another version of Christianity. Pilgrim versus Quaker comes to mind. Had someone tried to put up a sign in the courthouse advocating the hanging of all Quakers, that would present the same legal question we have now, just drawn on a narrower scale of difference.

Now, the distinction is between Christianity on the whole and Islam or whatever other religion might have a presence.

Not surprisingly, the people who advocate the more narrow reading are Christian. They might think differently if either a) they were in the minority group back in 1795,; or b) were currently Muslim.
Click to expand...

Or (c) they might think differently if they were living in a predominantly muslim area. On the other hand, if they were offended by the Muslim religion they could also choose not to live in that area. LG, you are correct that our founding fathers were concerned about Christianity, tolerance, and... most importantly, to build a nation that was not led by the church. It was certainly not their intent to remove Christianity from the nation, which seems to be what is happening today. I have nothing against Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, choosing to live in the U.S. - it is the best country in the world. But we shouldn't have to give up, sacrifice, or lessen our founding fathers' beliefs to make others more comfortable who choose to live hear.. If, for some reason, it makes them uncomfortable... then perhaps they should live elsewhere.
 
#12
#12
IPorange said:
I feel like you may have missed his point. You can't complain about the cross being taken down, when other religious symbols aren't even being allowed to be put up. How hard would those other symbols be to ignore?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

No one should care there is a cross up...and likewise, if some Bhuddist sign is to be put up then it should be allowed as well.

The easy solution is to just not allow any of these religious monuments on public lands.
 
#13
#13
rjd970 said:
Exactly.

No one should care there is a cross up...and likewise, if some Bhuddist sign is to be put up then it should be allowed as well.

The easy solution is to just not allow any of these religious monuments on public lands.
Click to expand...

So what if we change this example from a religious symbol issue to one of language. It would seem to be an appropriate analogy since there is likewise nothing in the Constitution stating that english is the official language... even though that is the language it is written in. And similarly, the ACLU is adamantly opposed to any attempts to make english an official language in the U.S.

Using your suggestion above, wouldn't that equate to allowing any other languages to be posted on "public property" (e.g. signs) that happen to include the english language? Many airports do this today, by choice, to make it easier for international travelers... but what if this were to become the standard? Or, as you say, it should be allowed so others aren't offended. Or, to take it a step further (again as an analogy to Christianity)... what if english were no longer allowed to be taught in schools unless every other language was also offered?
 
#14
#14
IBlvNTmWrk said:
So what if we change this example from a religious symbol issue to one of language. It would seem to be an appropriate analogy since there is likewise nothing in the Constitution stating that english is the official language... even though that is the language it is written in. And similarly, the ACLU is adamantly opposed to any attempts to make english an official language in the U.S.

Using your suggestion above, wouldn't that equate to allowing any other languages to be posted on "public property" (e.g. signs) that happen to include the english language? Many airports do this today, by choice, to make it easier for international travelers... but what if this were to become the standard? Or, as you say, it should be allowed so others aren't offended. Or, to take it a step further (again as an analogy to Christianity)... what if english were no longer allowed to be taught in schools unless every other language was also offered?
Click to expand...

Not even close to the same thing.

There is an establishment clause in the constitution specifically addressing the religious issue. If the cross is put up on public land, but no other religious symbol is allowed, then it can be reasonably argued (by the ACLU or anybody else) that it is in direct violation of the establishment clause.
 
#15
#15
I feel a Board of Education of Kiryas Village School District v Grumet discussion coming.........
 
#16
#16
rjd970 said:
Not even close to the same thing.

There is an establishment clause in the constitution specifically addressing the religious issue. If the cross is put up on public land, but no other religious symbol is allowed, then it can be reasonably argued (by the ACLU or anybody else) that it is in direct violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

How are they not the same thing? We can not have an "officially recognized" religion and we apparently can not have an "officially recognized" language... seems like a reasonable analogy to me.

So quit dodging the question... if you replace religion with language, are you in support of allowing "any language" to be displayed on public property?
 
#17
#17
IBlvNTmWrk said:
How are they not the same thing? We can not have an "officially recognized" religion and we apparently can not have an "officially recognized" language... seems like a reasonable analogy to me.

So quit dodging the question... if you replace religion with language, are you in support of allowing "any language" to be displayed on public property?
Click to expand...

Point to me where in the constitution it specifically says the government cannot establish a national language.

Until you do, they are not the same thing.
 
#18
#18
IPorange said:
I feel like you may have missed his point. You can't complain about the cross being taken down, when other religious symbols aren't even being allowed to be put up. How hard would those other symbols be to ignore?
Click to expand...
I didn't miss the point. I wasn't saying he was wrong, either. I'm just shocked at how often stupid arguments like this come up.
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
Point to me where in the constitution it specifically says the government cannot establish a national language.

Until you do, they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

First of all, I never claimed the constitution said that government cannot establish a national language. Second, I certainly did not say they were the same... I said it was a reasonable analogy, while you responded with they are "not even close to the same thing".

Perhaps you are not familiar with the term, but "analogy" refers to things that are similar through which a comparison can be made. For example, I could claim a reasonable analogy between a heart and a pump since they work in a similar fashion... but that doesn't mean they are the same.

I'm sure you're an intelligent guy RJD, but you have a tendency to revert to false accusations and illogical responses when you're unable to support previous statements or respond to questions directed to you. Kinda' takes the fun out of wanting to have an intellectual conversation.
 
#20
#20
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Or (c) they might think differently if they were living in a predominantly muslim area. On the other hand, if they were offended by the Muslim religion they could also choose not to live in that area. LG, you are correct that our founding fathers were concerned about Christianity, tolerance, and... most importantly, to build a nation that was not led by the church. It was certainly not their intent to remove Christianity from the nation, which seems to be what is happening today. I have nothing against Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, choosing to live in the U.S. - it is the best country in the world. But we shouldn't have to give up, sacrifice, or lessen our founding fathers' beliefs to make others more comfortable who choose to live hear.. If, for some reason, it makes them uncomfortable... then perhaps they should live elsewhere.
Click to expand...


The wisdom of the theory, philosophically speaking, that there should be no government advancement of a particular religion, does not start and end with Chirsitanity. As you and both agree, at the time it was placed into the Bill of Rights, the context for it was differences within Christianity. So that was the practical import of the recognition that government should not sponsor a particular branch of Christianity over any other.

It would be absurd to ignore the fact that the scope of that discussion has now changed and is not merely as narrow as differences in branches of Christianity. The rule, or principle, behind avoiding clashes within or between Chritsian branches should apply with equal force to the current differences between all religions, not just Christianity.

The notion that, because it was at the time a Christian nation, and therefore the amendment is only to protect against government advancement of a particular branch of that specific religion, is really awful logic.

Does the fact that there were only printed words at the time also mean that the First Amendment, in this day and age, does not apply to radio, television, or the internet?

You have to take the principle, which is that the government is not allowed to tell you your religion, or even to have one, and apply the principle to the current times. It is not an excuse to force people to go back to the choices at that time. Your suggestion that people who don't like that go live elsewhere proves the point.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
IBlvNTmWrk said:
First of all, I never claimed the constitution said that government cannot establish a national language. Second, I certainly did not say they were the same... I said it was a reasonable analogy, while you responded with they are "not even close to the same thing".

Perhaps you are not familiar with the term, but "analogy" refers to things that are similar through which a comparison can be made. For example, I could claim a reasonable analogy between a heart and a pump since they work in a similar fashion... but that doesn't mean they are the same.

I'm sure you're an intelligent guy RJD, but you have a tendency to revert to false accusations and illogical responses when you're unable to support previous statements or respond to questions directed to you. Kinda' takes the fun out of wanting to have an intellectual conversation.
Click to expand...

The difference that you are overlooking in your analogy...which is monumentally significant when talking about the supreme court is one is specifically addressed in the constitution, while the other isn't. After all, the title of this thread is "Supreme Court covers Cross ". I don't even think the national language example is a reasonable analogy, given the context of this discussion.

There is nothing illogical about my response here. I don't give a hoot about what languages are on what signs, even as an analogy, it has no bearing on how the supreme court is interpreting what is specifically written in the constitution.
 
#22
#22
David Souter- "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
 
#23
#23
OrangeEmpire said:
David Souter- "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
Click to expand...


Some here would prefer to rephrase that as "government should not prefer one branch of Chistianity to another."

Which would be fine if it were 1809 instead of 2009.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
Some here would prefer to rephrase that as "government should not prefer one branch of Chistianity to another."

Which would be fine if it were 1809 instead of 2009.
Click to expand...

someone quote this so LG can see it

LG, you are dumber than dirt, there are no "branches of Christianity"
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
The wisdom of the theory, philosophically speaking, that there should be no government advancement of a particular religion, does not start and end with Chirsitanity. As you and both agree, at the time it was placed into the Bill of Rights, the context for it was differences within Christianity. So that was the practical import of the recognition that government should not sponsor a particular branch of Christianity over any other. Agree.

It would be absurd to ignore the fact that the scope of that discussion has now changed and is not merely as narrow as differences in branches of Christianity. The rule, or principle, behind avoiding clashes within or between Chritsian branches should apply with equal force to the current differences between all religions, not just Christianity. Why? Do you think the writers of the BoR were in favor of equally supporting a religion that calls for their own death? I don't believe so.

The notion that, because it was at the time a Christian nation, and therefore the amendment is only to protect against government advancement of a particular branch of that specific religion, is really awful logic. Yes, it was a Christian nation at the time. Those involved wanted to avoid a Church of England scenario and in no way were in a position to declare or financially support a "national" religion... especially since many states at the time practiced different religions (though still mostly Christ based).

Does the fact that there were only printed words at the time also mean that the First Amendment, in this day and age, does not apply to radio, television, or the internet? How does the "form" of communication change freedom of speech... as the true intent remains the same?

You have to take the principle, which is that the government is not allowed to tell you your religion, or even to have one, and apply the principle to the current times. The principle was to avoid a government that could be operated or influenced by the church, which was the correct decision. It is not an excuse to force people to go back to the choices at that time. Your suggestion that people who don't like that go live elsewhere proves the point. I've read this last statement a number of times. My apologies... but I am failing to grasp the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...
.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top