"SC Police Hastily Scratch “Lord” and “Matthew 5:9” Off Monument...."

[The Reverend Bob]

A completely different purpose and context. We're talking about the establishment clause.

Publicly displaying church art doesn't violate the establishment clause but displaying a rock that cites (it doesn't quote it) does?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

others probably wouldn't even care.

That's not a reason for allowing and dismissing illegal displays.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The article made it clear whose fee fees were really hurt.

I thought "fee fees" were fees, as in fines, lmao!

 

[Nakosis]

That could be a loophole but I believe that it is a challengeable loophole that could be contested in court

Not settled but found this paper on the idea.

Every time a court orders a religious symbol torn down, it risks stirring up a certain measure of religious tension in the affected community. As the Van Orden plurality noted, our nation's capital and the rest of the country are full of monuments that remind us of the importance of religion to our national heritage. 288 Sometimes a measure of divisiveness will be the necessary cost of ending a genuine Establishment Clause violation, but so much the better if the court can achieve a remedy that both cures the violation and allows the symbol to remain. Such attempt at compromise should be part of any jurisprudence that strives for government neutrality toward religion. Hence, given certain requirements, even the Court's strictest Establishment Clause tests should allow defendant governments to sell land in order to cure Establishment Clause violations arising from permanent physical displays. In analyzing remedial sales under the Court's current Lemon endorsement jurisprudence, courts must ensure that a sale satisfies two separate constitutional concerns: first, that the sale itself is constitutional, and second, that the sale ends the impermissible state action (i.e., creating or hosting an unconstitutional display) that gave rise to an Establishment Clause violation in the first place. In doing so, courts will need to ensure sufficient separation between government land and the display by considering the location and history of the display, as well as the precise terms of the proposed sale. Finally, if a completed sale comes close to achieving a cure but contains some easily-fixed defect, the court need not undo the entire sale but should instead take a cue from the Marshfield court and order the fix. 289 Absent "unusual circumstances," remedial sales will often prove to be effective and desirable remedies for Establishment Clause violations.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu...httpsredir=1&article=3748&context=cklawreview

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Not settled but found this paper on the idea.

Every time a court orders a religious symbol torn down, it risks stirring up a certain measure of religious tension in the affected community. As the Van Orden plurality noted, our nation's capital and the rest of the country are full of monuments that remind us of the importance of religion to our national heritage. 288 Sometimes a measure of divisiveness will be the necessary cost of ending a genuine Establishment Clause violation, but so much the better if the court can achieve a remedy that both cures the violation and allows the symbol to remain. Such attempt at compromise should be part of any jurisprudence that strives for government neutrality toward religion. Hence, given certain requirements, even the Court's strictest Establishment Clause tests should allow defendant governments to sell land in order to cure Establishment Clause violations arising from permanent physical displays. In analyzing remedial sales under the Court's current Lemon endorsement jurisprudence, courts must ensure that a sale satisfies two separate constitutional concerns: first, that the sale itself is constitutional, and second, that the sale ends the impermissible state action (i.e., creating or hosting an unconstitutional display) that gave rise to an Establishment Clause violation in the first place. In doing so, courts will need to ensure sufficient separation between government land and the display by considering the location and history of the display, as well as the precise terms of the proposed sale. Finally, if a completed sale comes close to achieving a cure but contains some easily-fixed defect, the court need not undo the entire sale but should instead take a cue from the Marshfield court and order the fix. 289 Absent "unusual circumstances," remedial sales will often prove to be effective and desirable remedies for Establishment Clause violations.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu...httpsredir=1&article=3748&context=cklawreview

Yeah but some will contest the legality of a city or state selling land for the direct purpose of displaying religious art.

 

[Enoch07]

Who's crying about it?

People offended by seeing a reference to scripture.

 

[Enoch07]

"Secularist cry babies" like the founding fathers who penned the Constitution? The article made it clear whose fee fees were really hurt. If they were more concerned about lives as you claim then they wouldn't be wasting time pushing and defending unconstitutional religious propaganda in the first place.

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. It was a gift from private individuals. The govt did not spend money on it therefore the govt is not promoting christianity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. It was a gift from private individuals. The govt did not spend money on it therefore the govt is not promoting christianity.

We recently had a thread here where the court ruling was it doesn't matter if it's a gift. It's still on government ground.

 

[Enoch07]

We recently had a thread here where the court ruling was it doesn't matter if it's a gift. It's still on government ground.

The court is wrong. All ground is govt ground essentially. That would be a ban on religion totally.

 

[Kenny]

Currently on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art:

Permanent display at the Boston Public Library:

Displayed at the Brooklyn Museum:

All of these are displayed in public property that is funded by the public.
Should they be removed?

P.S. How the baby Jesus got a hold of a red crayon back then is beyond me.

AAAARG! I NEED A SECURE ROOM WHERE IT IS SAFE!! I WILL HAVE NIGHTMARES HAVING SEEN THESE PICTURES.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All ground is govt ground essentially.

The law does not agree.

 

[Enoch07]

The law does not agree.

The law is wrong sometimes.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

AAAARG! I NEED A SECURE ROOM WHERE IT IS SAFE!! I WILL HAVE NIGHTMARES HAVING SEEN THESE PICTURES.

Breathe...breathe...think of your safe space!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The law is wrong sometimes.

True. But in this case, there is very clear distinction between private and public property, and it isn't "all essentially government ground."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

.

And well they should have.

"Earlier this month, the Tega Cay Women’s Club in South Carolina gifted the local police department with a large stone that had the department’s logo painted on it.

Seems fine… until you realize the bottom of that design has the words “Matthew 5:9,” the Bible verse that includes the phrase “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

On the back of that stone is what’s known the “Police Officer’s Prayer,” which calls on the “Lord” to give officers courage, strength, and continued dedication to the job.

Bottom line: The police department installed a Christian monument outside the building. It’s absolutely illegal, and we know that because a similar monument referencing Islam or atheism or Satanism would never be permitted there.

Complaints flowed into the station as soon as that stone went up, and city officials agreed that this promotion of Christianity would lead to a lawsuit that they would inevitably lose.

“We talked to our attorney about it and he said they’re probably going to sue you,” said Mayor David O’Neal, also a campaign leader for U.S. Congressman Ralph Norman in past runs. “He said we’d have to hire a lawyer and it might cost $30,000 to $50,000 to fight it, or you can just move the offensive language.”​

But instead of just removing the monument, they handled this the worst possible way: by literally crossing out the words “Lord” and “Matthew 5:9.”

That move just angered conservatives even more.

S.C. State Rep. Bruce Bryant, R-York, was outraged the Biblical verse was removed. Bryant retired as York County Sheriff in 2017 after 20 years in office and 44 years in law enforcement.
“To say I am disappointed is an understatement,” Bryant said. “Law enforcement is a calling, a calling for men and women by God to protect the communities they serve. These principles of courage and faith are what this great state and nation were founded upon.”​

Notice how Bryant lied there. Courage is no doubt an important characteristic for law enforcement officials. But faith is not. Christianity is definitely not. Believing in the Jesus myth is not a prerequisite to being a cop. To pretend otherwise is an insult to all the men and women who aren’t Christians but risk their lives for the community anyway."
source

​

One has to marvel at just how clueless some people can be. Will they never learn? OR, is it they know, but "To hell with the law. Let's slip Christianity into secular society wherever we can on the off chance we'll get away with it."

.


.

This is South Carolina right?

 

[Skwim]

This is South Carolina right?

You're questioning the integrity of my sources?

.

 

[Enoch07]

True. But in this case, there is very clear distinction between private and public property, and it isn't "all essentially government ground."

It's debatable. Don't pay your property tax, commit some felonies on your land, or
If your land is needed for govt purposes they will obtain it. All of which are wrong laws imo too but meh it is what it is.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. It was a gift from private individuals. The govt did not spend money on it therefore the govt is not promoting christianity.

Not how the law works. Think of it this way. How would you feel if your local PD displayed a gifted statue of Satan wearing a badge and uniform, with a plaque that praised both law enforcement and Satan?

 

[Enoch07]

Not how the law works. Think of it this way. How would you feel if your local PD displayed a gifted statue of Satan wearing a badge and uniform, with a plaque that praised both law enforcement and Satan?

If I lived in a community of Satanist I would expect it. So long as my tax money was not spent on it. Of course I would move out of that community and find a more suitable community for myself, rather than throw a tantrum and make the whole community suit my 1 individual need.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You're questioning the integrity of my sources?

.

Dude it was a sincere question because I glossed over the material...SMH dude nevermind I'll re-read it myself now that I have time.