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

[Father Heathen]

Because it is up to local communities to decide how to govern themselves. If a local community is Christian and they want to have Christian symbology or scripture then that's ok.

Just like CO have decided to decriminalize marijuana and shrooms, because it's what that local community feels is right for them.


So which is it? Do local communities, whether it be cities or states have the right to rule themselves? Or is federal law all that matters?

"local communitities" aren't states, and neither state nor federal law can defy the constitution. By your "logic", some deep south trailer park should be able to reinstate slavery within it's boundaries, since they're a local community that should decide how to govern itself, constitution be damned.

 

[columbus]

maybe a better question is "Why would an atheist cop risk their life for others?"

Another question might be, "Why wouldn't a Christian cop shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out"?
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

If the local community decided to ban all firearms, would you still be willing to just leave?

I would leave. Because local communities do have the right to govern themselves. I wouldn't live in a state that is anti-gun.

 

[Enoch07]

"local communitities" aren't states, and neither state nor federal law can defy the constitution. By your "logic", some deep south trailer park should be able to reinstate slavery within it's boundaries, since they're a local community that should decide how to govern itself, constitution be damned.

Now that's grasping at straws.

 

[columbus]

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.

You really don't see the distinction between an organization dedicated to the preservation and display of art and a police department?
Seriously?

I've visited a couple of those institutions and they have superb stuff from a variety of cultures. SC has a rock with a Bible verse on it in front of the police department. You really think that those are comparable?
Tom

 

[columbus]

I would leave. Because local communities do have the right to govern themselves. I wouldn't live in a state that is anti-gun.

But you don't have to because of The Constitution. You have rights that no state or municipality can vote away.
Because of the Constitution.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You really don't see the distinction between an organization dedicated to the preservation and display of art and a police department?

You know for everyone's *****ing and moaning, in reality the Establishment Clause only applies to the federal and state governments, there is nothing in the language of the clause that prohibits municipalities from having religious displays. And the display that that police dept was so innocuous that I really do not see what the fuss is about.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe a look at South Carolina's initial statutes and articles of confederation will show "faith", but maybe a better question is "Why would an atheist cop risk their life for others?"

Hmmm.... the reverse has actually happened-- multiple times-- only it wasn't religion so much as it was skin hue... and the cops were Good Christians™, naturally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would leave. Because local communities do have the right to govern themselves.

Government agencies don't have the roght to break the law.

I wouldn't live in a state that is anti-gun.

How about a state that's officially pro-gun, but where the police ignore the law in order to be anti-gun? That would be like what's happening here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know for everyone's *****ing and moaning, in reality the Establishment Clause only applies to the federal and state governments, there is nothing in the language of the clause that prohibits municipalities from having religious displays.

If you don't mind, I think it's better to rely on the opinion of the Supreme Court on this instead of the opinion of some random person on the internet.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So, if you were initially willing to risk your life for others, and then found out God didn't exist, would you no longer be willing to risk your life for others? This is implicit in your statement, by the way. Learning that God doesn't exist would make you disbelieve in him, and would make you an atheist. At which point you're saying you would no longer see the point in risking your life for anyone else.

And there's one major difference between you and I then - I would be willing to risk my life for someone who was in desperate need of the help, and certainly for anyone close to me in my life facing even less dire circumstances. And I don't even need belief that "God is watching" to motivate me. Doesn't that make me even more fundamentally principled in that respect than you are? I would say yes - yes it does.

Indeed. Anyone who doesn't need a Celestial Big Brother scaring them into being a Decent Human Being?

Has to have internalized Morality.

Whereas someone who requires a Celestial North Korean Dictator, in order to be Decent? Is actually quite frightening: What happens if they realize that it's all Myth? Do they go out on a Killing Spree?

Because that sounds like that's what would happen...

 

[Enoch07]

Government agencies don't have the roght to break the law.

Good thing they are not.

How about a state that's officially pro-gun, but where the police ignore the law in order to be anti-gun?

How so?

Are you equating reading scripture you don't believe in as violating your rights?

 

[columbus]

You know for everyone's *****ing and moaning, in reality the Establishment Clause only applies to the federal and state governments, there is nothing in the language of the clause that prohibits municipalities from having religious displays. And the display that that police dept was so innocuous that I really do not see what the fuss is about.

It's a hoot how quickly conservative Christians will find ways around the Constitution and the Bible when it suits them.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good thing they are not.

Psst: the Constitution is a law.

How so?

Are you equating reading scripture you don't believe in as violating your rights?

Government endorsing religion is illegal in the US.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

If you don't mind, I think it's better to rely on the opinion of the Supreme Court on this instead of the opinion of some random person on the internet.

Let's see their opinion on the matter:

Town Meetings Can Have Prayer, Justices Decide

Supreme Court upholds prayer at government meetings

Opinion | A Defeat for Religious Neutrality

Does the Establishment Clause Apply to the States?

Whoops.

 

[Enoch07]

Psst: the Constitution is a law.

It's not being broken.

Government endorsing religion is illegal in the US.

The govt is not endorsing religion.

No govt funds were spent on the monument. It was donated by private citizens.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Let's see their opinion on the matter:

Town Meetings Can Have Prayer, Justices Decide

Supreme Court upholds prayer at government meetings

Opinion | A Defeat for Religious Neutrality

Does the Establishment Clause Apply to the States?

Whoops.

For now. Public praying has been a back-and-forth Hot Button for decades.

It'll likely be banned in the future-- when you check the demographics vis a vis age and religious affiliation?

The younger you go in the USA, the less religious you are likely to be.

As these young people age out? They'll likely remove religion from government all together-- by stint of Law.

Just like Religious people used to do to non-christians, when they were in charge... right?

Oh, wait-- no, those people would either be killed, run out of town, or simply barred from doing anything like public office...

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It'll likely be banned in the future-

How? The Establishment Clause does not apply to municipalities? Are they going to change the Constitution in order to get the Clause to apply to municipalities?

 

[columbus]

How? The Establishment Clause does not apply to municipalities? Are they going to change the Constitution in order to get the Clause to apply to municipalities?

As good constitutional scholars know, you don't have to change the Constitution. You just change the SCOTUS judges interpreting it.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

As good constitutional scholars know, you don't have to change the Constitution. You just change the SCOTUS judges interpreting it.
Tom

There is nothing in the Constitution that say the Clause applies to municipalities, any honest scholar of the Constitution would see that. If they rule against municipalities in regards to this, then they are not ruling in favor of Constitutional freedoms but against them. By the way, where is the injury caused by the municipality having this statue? Who was harmed?