U.S Supreme Court Rules to Allow a 40 Foot Christian Cross to Remain on State Property

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,442
Reaction score
2,223
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
137,963
Reaction score
15,910
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
112,781
Reaction score
24,027
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Atheists have all the nothing symbols they need, why bother with a cross?

Oh, look up in the sky, it's nothing and that perfectly expresses my atheist religion beliefs
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
64,896
Reaction score
9,253
Points
2,070
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.


And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.
 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
57,489
Reaction score
15,289
Points
2,250
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.
Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case.
agree
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,442
Reaction score
2,223
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
206,716
Reaction score
34,101
Points
2,190
I generally oppose Christian symbols on public land

But given the historical context of when it was placed, I’m OK with it
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,442
Reaction score
2,223
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.


And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.
You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:
The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019
And what is the lie of multiculturalism??
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
64,896
Reaction score
9,253
Points
2,070
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.


And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.
You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:
The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019
And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

The lie of multiculturalism, is that all cultures were be respected and live together in harmony, and equally.


Now we see that was a lie. Traditional American culture is being targeted.


We were tolerant, and nice, and generous. And people like you, are using it to destroy US.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
112,781
Reaction score
24,027
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Atheists have all the nothing symbols they need, why bother with a cross?

Oh, look up in the sky, it's nothing and that perfectly expresses my atheist religion beliefs
Atheism is not the absence of belief
But they very troubled about others belief systems. Thankfully we're not in some ME shithole where they behead you for not being a good Muslim
 

andaronjim

Gold Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
21,325
Reaction score
5,810
Points
290
Location
Floor E Da
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.
So when the Obama's put the Rainbow Colors on the White House was that putting atheist or Satanic symbol on a government building?
 

andaronjim

Gold Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
21,325
Reaction score
5,810
Points
290
Location
Floor E Da
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.


And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.
You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:
The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019
And what is the lie of multiculturalism??
Tradition back then wasn't putting a dick in another man's ass. Sorry but that shit started full force just after the sexual revolution not the American revolution.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
206,716
Reaction score
34,101
Points
2,190
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.


And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.
You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:
The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019
And what is the lie of multiculturalism??
Tradition back then wasn't putting a dick in another man's ass. Sorry but that shit started full force just after the sexual revolution not the American revolution.
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,442
Reaction score
2,223
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.


And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.
You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:
The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019
And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

The lie of multiculturalism, is that all cultures were be respected and live together in harmony, and equally.


Now we see that was a lie. Traditional American culture is being targeted.


We were tolerant, and nice, and generous. And people like you, are using it to destroy US.
Complete and utter horseshit but exactly what I what I have come to expect from you. No one is out to destroy anything. In your bizarre mind, you believe that someone else's gain has to be your loss . You believe that rights is a zero sum game just like the way you think that gay rights is destroying traditional marriage.

In any case, the issue here is that of a religious symbol on government property. It's an interesting issue and you might of noticed I took a rather neutral stand on it given the circumstances. Perhaps you might be able to come up with a reasonable and appropriate comment and dispense with your incessant, paranoid whining and bloviating about the destruction of tradition.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
206,716
Reaction score
34,101
Points
2,190
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.

Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925

At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.

It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.

In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.

Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:

Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists

Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.
So when the Obama's put the Rainbow Colors on the White House was that putting atheist or Satanic symbol on a government building?
No it wasn’t
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top