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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

I am an Atheist and not at all troubled by others belief systems as long as religion is not wielded as a weapon to control and marginalize others who do not believe as they do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Oh and by the way, I live in a multicultural community. We have Christians and Orthodox Jews. We have Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus . We have Latinos.. We have African Americans and other dark skinned people. And we have married same sex couples. Everyone wins are there are no losers. Everyone gets along. The community works. You are just angry and paranoid and I almost feel sorry for you.....almost. But mostly I thank the Goddess that I am not you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

I am an Atheist and not at all troubled by others belief systems as long as religion is not wielded as a weapon to control and marginalize others who do not believe as they do.

How does that cross control you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

I am an Atheist and not at all troubled by others belief systems as long as religion is not wielded as a weapon to control and marginalize others who do not believe as they do.

How does that cross control you?

Did I say that it did. ? I think you know what I mean. It is more than symbolism that concerns me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Notwithstanding Alito's obvious lie (in your post above), I agree the cross should stay. Taking down the Cross is tantamount to what the extremists did to other religious icons in Afghanistan years ago.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

reasonable people are tolerant of crosses

 

[Yarddog]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

Well, the cross was put up as a PEACE cross. I suppose at the time the cross was put up the people probably had good intentions as it was meant to memorialize the dead and fallen. If there's some other group who thinks strongly about proposing peace in that area, then sure by all means let them put something up. Maybe they can have a big ceremony to make it mean something.
On the other hand if someone simply has a thorn in their pants because they feel some kind of religious competition, or just put something up because.... then its not in the spirit of peace and there would be no good reason to have it there.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Old news and there's already threads on it.

.

 

[Correll]

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.

It is a part of Traditional American culture and as such hateful to people like you.

I did note your attempt at being neutral. Very nice. Doesn't change the fact that someone else like you, felt a need to try to stop the evil Christian symbol from being seen in public.

 

[Correll]

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.

Oh and by the way, I live in a multicultural community. We have Christians and Orthodox Jews. We have Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus . We have Latinos.. We have African Americans and other dark skinned people. And we have married same sex couples. Everyone wins are there are no losers. Everyone gets along. The community works. You are just angry and paranoid and I almost feel sorry for you.....almost. But mostly I thank the Goddess that I am not you.

Yeah, I bet you have "Christians" living in harmony. As long as they toe the Party Line.



You brag about being NEUTRAL about an attempt by people like you, to get rid of a FUCKING CROSS, in a cemetery.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

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

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.

Oh and by the way, I live in a multicultural community. We have Christians and Orthodox Jews. We have Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus . We have Latinos.. We have African Americans and other dark skinned people. And we have married same sex couples. Everyone wins are there are no losers. Everyone gets along. The community works. You are just angry and paranoid and I almost feel sorry for you.....almost. But mostly I thank the Goddess that I am not you.

Yeah, I bet you have "Christians" living in harmony. As long as they toe the Party Line.



You brag about being NEUTRAL about an attempt by people like you, to get rid of a FUCKING CROSS, in a cemetery.

What the fuck are you blathering about.? You have a pathological need to find hate and discord where there none. You have problems, but I knew that already.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Yes it is LoL. But there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[bodecea]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

"Come to papa"

That's one to put up. Put a big one of these up too:

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

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

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.

It is a part of Traditional American culture and as such hateful to people like you.

I did note your attempt at being neutral. Very nice. Doesn't change the fact that someone else like you, felt a need to try to stop the evil Christian symbol from being seen in public.

Yes the cross is part of American culture. American Christian culture. But so is the first amendment and the idea that all religions should be treated equally by the government which you obviously choose to ignore.

 

[rightwinger]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

Well, the cross was put up as a PEACE cross. I suppose at the time the cross was put up the people probably had good intentions as it was meant to memorialize the dead and fallen. If there's some other group who thinks strongly about proposing peace in that area, then sure by all means let them put something up. Maybe they can have a big ceremony to make it mean something.
On the other hand if someone simply has a thorn in their pants because they feel some kind of religious competition, or just put something up because.... then its not in the spirit of peace and there would be no good reason to have it there.

I agree
You have to put the cross in the context of when it was erected
In 1919 you honored the dead with a cross. That was an appropriate monument

 

[bodecea]

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

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

Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:

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

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.

Oh and by the way, I live in a multicultural community. We have Christians and Orthodox Jews. We have Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus . We have Latinos.. We have African Americans and other dark skinned people. And we have married same sex couples. Everyone wins are there are no losers. Everyone gets along. The community works. You are just angry and paranoid and I almost feel sorry for you.....almost. But mostly I thank the Goddess that I am not you.

Yeah, I bet you have "Christians" living in harmony. As long as they toe the Party Line.



You brag about being NEUTRAL about an attempt by people like you, to get rid of a FUCKING CROSS, in a cemetery.

While I bet it was accidental...you are absolutely right...as long as people toe the christian party line, they are tolerated.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Yes it is LoL. But there is nothing wrong with that.

If I believe that there is no God, that is a belief . Actually I am more of an Agnostic. I accept that possibility of God, but believe that we can never know for sure and if there is a God, we cannot know what she really is.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Yes it is LoL. But there is nothing wrong with that.

If I believe that there is no God, that is a belief . Actually I am more of an Agnostic. I accept that possibility of God, but believe that we can never know for sure and if there is a God, we cannot know what she really is.

Nothing wrong with that but you're playing with words. "Belief" in this sense means the all mighty. I am a Jew but I am not overly religious. Agnostic myself but I uphold the culture and fight against the Leftists who vilify Israel.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Yes it is LoL. But there is nothing wrong with that.

If I believe that there is no God, that is a belief . Actually I am more of an Agnostic. I accept that possibility of God, but believe that we can never know for sure and if there is a God, we cannot know what she really is.

Nothing wrong with that but you're playing with words. "Belief" in this sense means the all mighty. I am a Jew but I am not overly religious. Agnostic myself but I uphold the culture and fight against the Leftists who vilify Israel.

Belief means the "all mighty"?? Seriously? Israel? Lets not muddy the waters by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism if that is what you're implying. And lets not forget what this thread is actually about.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Yes it is LoL. But there is nothing wrong with that.

If I believe that there is no God, that is a belief . Actually I am more of an Agnostic. I accept that possibility of God, but believe that we can never know for sure and if there is a God, we cannot know what she really is.

Nothing wrong with that but you're playing with words. "Belief" in this sense means the all mighty. I am a Jew but I am not overly religious. Agnostic myself but I uphold the culture and fight against the Leftists who vilify Israel.

Belief means the "all mighty"?? Seriously? Israel? Lets not muddy the waters by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism if that is what you're implying. And lets not forget what this thread is actually about.

Yep that’s the implication. And you’re wrong about Israel.