Thumbs Up: Court Rules the Old Rugged Cross Must Come Down

[Jose Fly]

Using TV guides to illustrate moral decline is both simplistic and very accurate.

Apparently so.......for older white Christian males.

For pity's sake the KKK made up less than .01% of the population and were founded by southern domocrats.

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights.

It appears the depth of your thinking on this is simply that "Democrat = left, across all history".

Is that about right?

So as long as the fringe's lot in life improves it does not matter that the morality in general has declined.

I'll allow your continued characterization of non-whites and non-Christians as "special interest snowflakes" and "the fringe" to speak for itself.

What you responded to is a list of supporting facts not an argument. Since the secular revolution occurred things have declined in general. What to do about it is a whole other subject, one I am willing to discuss if we drop everything else. Pointing out the problem and providing a comprehensive solution is just too mush to take on when combined.

Your argument seems to be that by providing social benefits to the poor we are incentiving being poor.

Is that about right?

When you impose what the fringe wants onto the majority, then the fringe is called a special interest groups.

Again I'll allow your characterization of non-white, non-Christians to speak for itself.

Christianity is the majority in the US, in that context we can't be a special interest. The term special means unlike others or in this context unlike the majority. If only 4% of the population were Christians (as is true of homosexuals) and we demanded crosses in every national park then we would be talking about special interest groups.

Apparently you are not aware that one of the primary goals of the founding fathers was to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority

No it is not.

- 75% of Americans identify with a Christian religion
- Christian identification is down from 80% in 2008
- 5% of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion, little changed

Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High

No free fall, try sticking with reality, it vexing enough on it's on.

You should read this report: America's Changing Religious Identity

Some key findings....

White Christians now account for fewer than half of the public. Today, only 43% of Americans identify as white and Christian, and only 30% as white and Protestant. In 1976, roughly eight in ten (81%) Americans identified as white and identified with a Christian denomination, and a majority (55%) were white Protestants.

White evangelical Protestants are in decline—along with white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. White evangelical Protestants were once thought to be bucking a longer trend, but over the past decade their numbers have dropped substantially. Fewer than one in five (17%) Americans are white evangelical Protestant, but they accounted for nearly one-quarter (23%) in 2006. Over the same period, white Catholics dropped five percentage points from 16% to 11%, as have white mainline Protestants, from 18% to 13%.

And the demographic trends are not in your favor either. Pay close attention to the bar chart on that page.

 

[1robin]

For starters, the Declaration is a non-legal, non-binding document. All it did was say "no more." Also you can't assume they meant a personal deity, such as Jehovah, because to the likes of Washington, the most god did was create the universe and set things into motion (a deist "clockwork" model of sorts). "Nature's god" is reflected in the phrase "laws of nature," more of a pantheist approach than a religious one, such as Spinoza, Einstein, or Sagan.

The declaration if anything contains stronger claims based on firmer foundations than out later documents. The declaration tends to lay out fundamental truths, while later laws are based on merely our personal preferences in most cases. Stating that rights are based on the inherent values of nature and nature's God is a claim concerning inherent objective truth, the constitution contains claims concerning preference. An analogy would be that the declaration is the foundation and framework of a building while the constitution is the paint, furnishings, and window dressing.

I would argue that Jefferson considered himself a pseudo Christian not a deist since he did have faith in the bible (at least most of it), however even if he was a deist that still makes his worldview a closer match to my own than to any secularist.

That doesn't surprise me. And it's not called research, it's called being familiar with the most-high governing document of our land. The research part comes in with finding out what the Framer's wrote about such things. Such as when I pointed out the writings and actions of Madison, who felt very strongly that the state should not dictate religion and religion should not dictate the state, and left behind plenty of evidence to support his position and how it is reflected in the Constitution.

Since you can't take a compliment with grace I will not bother with them in the future. As stated even including the clause you introduced nothing I have said has been contradicted. I agree that the state should not dictate religion, sticking a cross on public property dictates nothing.

That's a very easy answer for anyone who has bothered to read it (and because it's a pretty short document, there isn't much of an excuse for having not done so): No. The only time it's even remotely mentioned in the Constitution is when the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Artilce 6 Section 3. And those don't mention god, but rather the state shall not respect the establishment of religion, the state shall not impede upon the rights of citizens to freely worship, and there shall be no tests of faith to hold public office or trust. Basically, worship whomever you want, but keep it out of the state.

I found the post where you quoted a question "Does God exist in the constitution?" but I can't find the post where I asked that question. I think your quoting something I quoted from another source but can't find that either. So I have no idea what to do with the above.

No. Because even those such as Washington and Jefferson attended church, but they didn't believe in Jehovah, nor accept the divinity of Christ, with Jefferson having declared himself the "intellectual adversary of the clergy," and rewriting the Gospels to remove all references of divinity, miracles, and other supernatural happenings. And if you didn't live in the city (and we were much more rural then than we are now) church attendance was very inconsistent as it posed some difficulties in getting to one.

Church wasn't "just church," as back then they also tended to act as community centers and social hubs.

Ok then I withdraw my offer to settle at the lower number and reassert the actual data.

1. 95% of the founders and framers were Christian. Is the percentage of Christians in the US today lower than in 1776? by Neil Mammen | Alternative
2. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were
being built at a headlong pace. Religion in Eighteenth-Century America - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)
3. Most people don't realize what this nation was like at its beginning. Even as late as 1776 – 150 years after a Christian group we refer to as the Pilgrims moved their church to America, we see the population of our country as: 98 percent Protestant Christians, 1.8 percent Catholic Christians, and .2 of 1 percent Jewish. That means that 99.8% of the people in America in 1776 professed to be Christians.
Alliance For Life Ministries

Since you seem to be trying to assert over and over the thinly veiled claim that your having done more research than me (which has not even been established as true yet) concerning the founding documents of the US indicates a virtue in your case and a fault in mine, lets see if that is true.

1. We are finite creatures and have only enough time to research specific things.
2. You indicate that you have spent more time than me studying the founding documents (which is still not demonstrated). Yet those documents do nothing to answer questions about ultimate or eternal origination, value, meaning, purpose, destination, or morality.
3. I have spent the most time researching documents which do potentially answer the ultimate questions about origins, destinations, value, meaning, purpose, and morality.

I think it obvious which is more virtuous. You invest in the transient and subjective, and me the eternal and objective.

Exactly, and by erecting a cross, the government is showing preference towards Christianity, a preference suggesting it is the religion of the state over something such as Judaism or Buddhism.

I thought we had already concluded that the first amendment plus the article you mentioned mean the government can't do 2 things related to religion.

1. The government cannot establish a religion.
2. There can be no test for public service.

Sticking a cross somewhere violates neither. Where did you come up with an amendment that contains "preference"? Not that sticking a cross in the ground in actually preference either. There are religious symbols on public ground from many faiths including Judaism.

 

[1robin]

You're either missing the point or avoiding it. Again, that a legal concept is not stated outright in the Constitution does not mean that it is non-existent.

It must be non-existent because if it exists quoting it would have made a much better argument. I can't evaluate a hypothetical until it takes some shape or form.

I thought so.

It is intellectually dishonest and the sign of a failed argument to cherry pick a fragment of a much larger statement which changes the entire context in which it was given. If you want to have a discussion with me I would not repeat this too often.

Your posts are almost completely devoid of any.

I guess you blinked when I posted:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.
Religion in Eighteenth-Century America - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

Amendment I. 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.
First Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Read as is, that amendment only rules out the government from establishing a religion.

1. 95% of the founders and framers were Christian. Is the percentage of Christians in the US today lower than in 1776? by Neil Mammen | Alternative
2. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were
being built at a headlong pace. Religion in Eighteenth-Century America - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)
3. Most people don't realize what this nation was like at its beginning. Even as late as 1776 – 150 years after a Christian group we refer to as the Pilgrims moved their church to America, we see the population of our country as: 98 percent Protestant Christians, 1.8 percent Catholic Christians, and .2 of 1 percent Jewish. That means that 99.8% of the people in America in 1776 professed to be Christians.
Alliance For Life Ministries
4. In 1750 Boston, a city with a population of 15000, had eighteen churches.7 In the previous century church attendance was inconsistent at best. After the 1680s, with many more churches and clerical bodies emerging, religion in New England became more organized and attendance more uniformly enforced. In even sharper contrast to the other colonies, in New England most newborns were baptized by the church, and church attendance rose in some areas to 70 percent of the adult population. By the eighteenth century, the vast majority of all colonists were churchgoers.
Religion in Colonial America: Trends, Regulations, and Beliefs

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights.
How Republicans and Democrats switched on civil rights

Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator: We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes. So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.
Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History

The man most responsible for freeing the slaves was a Christian republican, Abraham Lincoln.

“Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination,” Swain said. “The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynching's, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s,” she said.
Watch: The inconvenient truth about the Democratic Party’s history of racism

Well, it was southern Democrats that fought for slavery. Oh, and the KKK, it was originally an arm of the southern Democratic Party. The mission: to terrorize freed slaves, and those who sympathize with them which would be “the Radical Republicans.”
Yes, Democrats Supported Slavery, But That Misses the Point

And that is just from the last two pages. Must have been more of a nap than a blink to have missed all that.

I have....the consistent rulings of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court.


You should actually read some of the court rulings on these cases. You seem to be fairly ignorant of them.


Again, take the time to educate yourself.....read the rulings.

Arrogance is the hardest trait to see in ourselves, but the easiest for others to see in us. I will respond to your points when you state them with a little humility.

 

[1robin]

Apparently so.......for older white Christian males.

Do what? This must be another special interest fringe point your making. I am talking about the majority and traditional morality. You do realize that some race will be the majority in any given nation right?

It appears the depth of your thinking on this is simply that "Democrat = left, across all history".

Is that about right?

I do not think you said that right. I think you mean to say that liberal and democrat have not always been the same thing. Is that about right?

I'll allow your continued characterization of non-whites and non-Christians as "special interest snowflakes" and "the fringe" to speak for itself.

Fine with me. The labels are accurate.

Your argument seems to be that by providing social benefits to the poor we are incentiving being poor.

Is that about right?

Why is this entire post a restatement of every argument I made into something else and asking is that right? The answer is no, that is not right.

Again I'll allow your characterization of non-white, non-Christians to speak for itself.

Your the one who started dividing up the population into classes not me.

Apparently you are not aware that one of the primary goals of the founding fathers was to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority

That must explain why the person or bill that gets the least votes is accepted then.

You should read this report: America's Changing Religious Identity

Some key findings....

White Christians now account for fewer than half of the public. Today, only 43% of Americans identify as white and Christian, and only 30% as white and Protestant. In 1976, roughly eight in ten (81%) Americans identified as white and identified with a Christian denomination, and a majority (55%) were white Protestants.

White evangelical Protestants are in decline—along with white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. White evangelical Protestants were once thought to be bucking a longer trend, but over the past decade their numbers have dropped substantially. Fewer than one in five (17%) Americans are white evangelical Protestant, but they accounted for nearly one-quarter (23%) in 2006. Over the same period, white Catholics dropped five percentage points from 16% to 11%, as have white mainline Protestants, from 18% to 13%.

And the demographic trends are not in your favor either. Pay close attention to the bar chart on that page.

For pity's sake I am only doing this one last time. Actually I am not quoting all that data again. I have done it over and over and has had no effect. Data rarely has any effect on an emotional position but if you care at all what the data actually is see post#203 about the percentage of the population that is Christian at different periods in our history. However a famous study showed that when a person is absolutely wrong, they will more adamantly defend their position as they are shown more and more data against it. IOW the wrong-er they are shown to be the right-er they claim to be.

And I have no idea why you are dividing the population up even further by denominations this time. Why do liberals say they want unity using arguments based on division? That was a rhetorical question BTW. I know the answer.

 

[Jose Fly]

It must be non-existent because if it exists quoting it would have made a much better argument. I can't evaluate a hypothetical until it takes some shape or form.

I'll allow your argument that unless a legal concept (e.g., separation of powers) is explicitly stated, then it doesn't exist to speak for itself.

It is intellectually dishonest and the sign of a failed argument to cherry pick a fragment of a much larger statement which changes the entire context in which it was given. If you want to have a discussion with me I would not repeat this too often.

What exactly was dishonest? I asked you where the separation of powers was explicitly set up in the US Constitution and you said "I don't know where it's laid out", to which I responded "I thought so".

I guess you blinked when I posted

I made that comment before you had posted the material.

Arrogance is the hardest trait to see in ourselves, but the easiest for others to see in us. I will respond to your points when you state them with a little humility.

So you've come into a thread about the legal issues surrounding religious displays on public property, and not only have you not read any of the relevant court rulings, you see any suggestion that you should read them as "arrogance".

That's rather telling.

Do what? This must be another special interest fringe point your making. I am talking about the majority and traditional morality. You do realize that some race will be the majority in any given nation right?

Again, I will allow your characterization of people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians as "special interest fringe" to speak for itself.

I do not think you said that right. I think you mean to say that liberal and democrat have not always been the same thing. Is that about right?

That's correct, unless you want to actually try and argue that everyone who's ever been in the Democratic Party has been a liberal.

Why is this entire post a restatement of every argument I made into something else and asking is that right? The answer is no, that is not right.

Then what is your point about providing benefits to the poor?

Your the one who started dividing up the population into classes not me.

Yes, I have no trouble recognizing that people of color, members of the LBGTQ community, and non-Christians exist and should not be waved away as mere "special interest fringe groups".

That must explain why the person or bill that gets the least votes is accepted then.

Your ignorance of history is noted.

For pity's sake I am only doing this one last time. Actually I am not quoting all that data again. I have done it over and over and has had no effect. Data rarely has any effect on an emotional position but if you care at all what the data actually is see post#203 about the percentage of the population that is Christian at different periods in our history. However a famous study showed that when a person is absolutely wrong, they will more adamantly defend their position as they are shown more and more data against it. IOW the wrong-er they are shown to be the right-er they claim to be.

And I have no idea why you are dividing the population up even further by denominations this time. Why do liberals say they want unity using arguments based on division? That was a rhetorical question BTW. I know the answer.

So let's look at the data.

In 1948 91% of Americans identified as Christians.

In 2008 77% of Americans identified as Christians.

In 2016 69% of Americans identified as Christians.

In 2016 55% of Americans aged 18-29 identified as Christians.

Make of that what you will.

 

[1robin]

I'll allow your argument that unless a legal concept (e.g., separation of powers) is explicitly stated, then it doesn't exist to speak for itself.

I believe there are specific documents outlining the separation of powers. However I don't know what the relevance is, and until you show me those documents I can't assess whether they support your position.

What exactly was dishonest? I asked you where the separation of powers was explicitly set up in the US Constitution and you said "I don't know where it's laid out", to which I responded "I thought so".

Because the separation of powers was not the issue under discussion. It appears you do not know where it's laid out either. That's what the rest of my statement was about, which you did not quote.

I made that comment before you had posted the material.

I disagree but will accept your claim anyway.

So you've come into a thread about the legal issues surrounding religious displays on public property, and not only have you not read any of the relevant court rulings, you see any suggestion that you should read them as "arrogance".

It wasn't your subject matter that was arrogant it was the accusatory and disparaging language you used.

That's rather telling.

What on earth am I supposed to do with thought fragments like this statement? Can you please just stick to posting evidence used as a premise then state your conclusion. All this color commentary is a waste of time.

Again, I will allow your characterization of people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians as "special interest fringe" to speak for itself.

I told you before when you made this exact same statement 2 or 3 times. I do not care, let it speak for its self.

That's correct, unless you want to actually try and argue that everyone who's ever been in the Democratic Party has been a liberal.

Since I was only dispelling the claim that the racists were primarily conservative Christians, your point doesn't change anything.

The man who did more to free slaves than any other in history was a Christian.

Then what is your point about providing benefits to the poor?

Exactly what I said it was, that among many other immoral things we have incentivized single parent family's. Pretty simple claim which does not require restating in a completely different way.

Yes, I have no trouble recognizing that people of color, members of the LBGTQ community, and non-Christians exist and should not be waved away as mere "special interest fringe groups".

Please quote out of the 13000 debates I have had where I waved away groups of minorities. Democracies and representative republics are specifically designed to enact the will of the majority. No form of government exists that will make everyone satisfied.

Your ignorance of history is noted.

Your arrogance is disgusting and becoming intolerable. I have had about as much of it as I can stand. So I am going to cut this short and require that you demonstrate which claim I made here that is historically inaccurate.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe there are specific documents outlining the separation of powers. However I don't know what the relevance is, and until you show me those documents I can't assess whether they support your position.

Because the separation of powers was not the issue under discussion. It appears you do not know where it's laid out either. That's what the rest of my statement was about, which you did not quote.

You've missed the entire point. Again, just because a legal concept is not explicitly stated, that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Similar to your claim about other documents and the separation of powers, the intent behind the separation of church and state is described in extra-Constitutional documents, e.g., Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It wasn't your subject matter that was arrogant it was the accusatory and disparaging language you used.

Yes, I tend to take a dim view of folks who attempt to debate a legal matter that has an extensive case history, yet refuse to read any of it.

Since I was only dispelling the claim that the racists were primarily conservative Christians, your point doesn't change anything.

Who made the claim that racists were primarily conservative Christians?

Exactly what I said it was, that among many other immoral things we have incentivized single parent family's. Pretty simple claim which does not require restating in a completely different way.

And that brings me right back to the question I asked you earlier.....is it your view that providing benefits to the poor incentivizes being poor?

Please quote out of the 13000 debates I have had where I waved away groups of minorities.

Your consistent habit of referring to people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians as "special interest fringe groups" and "snowflakes" coupled with your repeated appeals to majority rule strongly suggest you do not hold those groups in high regard.

Democracies and representative republics are specifically designed to enact the will of the majority. No form of government exists that will make everyone satisfied.

And as I mentioned earlier, our government was also set up to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. For example, everyone is supposed to receive equal treatment under the law, regardless of their minority or majority status.

Your arrogance is disgusting and becoming intolerable. I have had about as much of it as I can stand. So I am going to cut this short and require that you demonstrate which claim I made here that is historically inaccurate.

When I pointed out that the framers of our government took steps to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority, your response was "That must explain why the person or bill that gets the least votes is accepted then". I concluded that you were either dodging the point or were ignorant of the history behind the concept. Given some of your other statements in this thread, I went with the latter.

Again, I suggest that before you attempt to debate a legal issue such as religious displays on public property, you actually take the time to read some of the relevant case history. At the very least, you should read the ruling in the specific case referenced in this thread.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...rcuit-says-towering-cross-shaped-monument.pdf

 

[Faithofchristian]

First of all that old rigged cross, has nothing at all to do with christianity.

That cross was put their as a Memorial to those who died in wars and nothing more.

So to try to make a Christian thing out of it, will not work.if it was a Christian thing, Then the
1st Amendment to the Constitution comes into play. That by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that Christians has the free Exercise thereof.

The 1st Admendment to the Constitution reads as follows --- "Congress shall not make no law respecting as establishment of Religion or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof"

Therefore if that cross had anything to do with christianity, then Christians has the free Exercise thereof to have that cross there as their Free Exercise thereof. By the
1st Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First of all that old rigged cross, has nothing at all to do with christianity.

It's a cross.

That cross was put their as a Memorial to those who died in wars and nothing more.

So you don't object to the memorial remaining in some form other than a cross?

So to try to make a Christian thing out of it, will not work.if it was a Christian thing, Then the
1st Amendment to the Constitution comes into play. That by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that Christians has the free Exercise thereof.

It also prohibits government from making any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

The 1st Admendment to the Constitution reads as follows --- "Congress shall not make no law respecting as establishment of Religion or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof"

Therefore if that cross had anything to do with christianity, then Christians has the free Exercise thereof to have that cross there as their Free Exercise thereof. By the
1st Amendment of the Constitution.

But it's a religious symbol paid for and maintained by the government using taxpayer money - i.e: it is in contravention of the establishment clause. That is what has been determined by the court.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's a cross.


So you don't object to the memorial remaining in some form other than a cross?


It also prohibits government from making any laws respecting the establishment of religion.


But it's a religious symbol paid for and maintained by the government using taxpayer money - i.e: it is in contravention of the establishment clause. That is what has been determined by the court.

That cross has nothing at all to do with Christianity.
That cross was put there as a Memorial to those who died in wars.

What ever the courts ruled, the court over step their boundaries of the 1st Admendment to the Constitution that Prohibits the free Exercise thereof.

What the court did was, play on People's of not knowing what the 1st Admendment to the Constitution does say on a matter.

Let's for say, that cross is of Christianity, Then that cross is Christians free Exercise thereof by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

But then you will without a doubt say, What about Separation of church and State.
There is nothing in the Constitution that's Written about Separation of church and State.

This is why the 1st Admendment to the Constitution was added, to give Christians the freedom to Exercise their Religion.

Whether it be on Government buildings or land. That Christians has the free Exercise thereof Religion.

This is the Government trying to deregulate the Constitution. In other words taking away People's freedoms.
Let's for say, Atheists will say, who cares if the Government deregulates the Constitution. Whether the Atheists knows this or not, they are establishing that at any time the Government chooses they can deregulate the Constitution at any time, by there taking away even Atheists rights or anyone else's Rights.

If the Constitution falls in one aspect, then in time it will all fall, taking away even Atheists rights or anyone else's Rights.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That cross has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

It is literally the symbol of Christianity.

That cross was put there as a Memorial to those who died in wars.

So you have no issue with the shape of the monument being changed, then?

What ever the courts ruled, the court over step their boundaries of the 1st Admendment to the Constitution that Prohibits the free Exercise thereof.

No, they upheld the 1st amendment which says government can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This isn't free exercise, it's a monument erected on public land and maintained with taxpayer money. It was decided that this is a contravention of the amendment.

What the court did was, play on People's of not knowing what the 1st Admendment to the Constitution does say on a matter.

It clearly says that the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Let's for say, that cross is of Christianity, Then that cross is Christians free Exercise thereof by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

It's not free exercise - it's a monument maintained with tax payer funding.

But then you will without a doubt say, What about Separation of church and State.
There is nothing in the Constitution that's Written about Separation of church and State.

Except the 1st amendment.

This is why the 1st Admendment to the Constitution was added, to give Christians the freedom to Exercise their Religion.

And to prevent government from creating laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Whether it be on Government buildings or land. That Christians has the free Exercise thereof Religion.

They do. They do not, however, have the right to use taxpayer money to promote their religion - that's the point of the establishment clause.

This is the Government trying to deregulate the Constitution. In other words taking away People's freedoms.

Nobody's freedoms are being taken away.

Let's for say, Atheists will say, who cares if the Government deregulates the Constitution.

Nobody will say that, including atheists, because that's not what they're doing.

Whether the Atheists knows this or not, they are establishing that at any time the Government chooses they can deregulate the Constitution at any time, by there taking away even Atheists rights or anyone else's Rights.

Nobody's rights are being taken away or infringed.

If the Constitution falls in one aspect, then in time it will all fall, taking away even Atheists rights or anyone else's Rights.

The constitution says the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It was determined by the court that this monument was of specifically religious significance and are taking steps to correct this. The 1st amendment is being upheld.

QUESTION:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof;"

I can tell you're familiar with the latter part of the amendment, but what do you think the underlined part means?

 

[Altfish]

That cross has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Priceless

You couldn't script statements like that; after 9/11 the religious nutters were trying to claim that the joints in the steel frames were signs of Christ.

 

[1robin]

You've missed the entire point. Again, just because a legal concept is not explicitly stated, that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Did you ever take speech, debate, philosophy, or watch professional debates? Debates take place on common ground. Your referral to this principle who's only merit is that we don't know it does not exist is not common ground. Quoted laws, stated principles recorded in official and binding documents, historical events, etc..... are common ground. Mentioning that it is not necessarily true that something does not exist is not common ground nor persuasive in any way.

Similar to your claim about other documents and the separation of powers, the intent behind the separation of church and state is described in extra-Constitutional documents, e.g., Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

This is a non binding document, nor it a founding document containing the principles which are inherent to our founding. Also don't just mention a random letter and call it an argument. Do what I have been doing. Quote a few lines from a relevant document or person, supply the link so I can check the context, and give me some kind of conclusion in which to consider what you quoted.

Yes, I tend to take a dim view of folks who attempt to debate a legal matter that has an extensive case history, yet refuse to read any of it.

I tend to think of non-Christians as hypocritical blind sheep walking in darkness, which do not actually live constantly with their worldview. However if I were to say that in a post I would seem desperate, arrogant, it would distract from my intended point, and not what Christ has commanded me to do.

I have read quite a bit of what you insinuate I haven't. You have no idea what so ever how much of our founding documents I have read. Just make your point as I described above and leave out the arrogance and you and the person your talking with will have a much more productive and enjoyable discussion.

Who made the claim that racists were primarily conservative Christians?

I think it was SKWIM but I am not going back through dozens and dozens of posts to verify it.

And that brings me right back to the question I asked you earlier.....is it your view that providing benefits to the poor incentivizes being poor?

The destruction of the family unit an the condition of being poor are two completely different subjects. Why do you keep equating them?

The policies and principles produced by modern liberals and secularists have:
1. Incentivized Illegal immigration.
2. The destruction of millions of human beings on an industrial scale based on convenience.
3. Have incentivized the destruction of the traditional family unit.
4. Have besieged the free speech of anyone that opposes them.
5. Incentivized local terror organizations.
7. Have attacked our right to bear arms even though more people are saved by guns than have been murdered by them.
8. Incentivizing being poor would be a completely separate issue just like the previous 7. However quickly considering it I believe they do (at least in many cases) incentivize being relatively poor.
9. Etc... I can do this all day but I want to lighten the mood and take a break.

I will post a humorous poem that comically sums up the modern secular worldview, but I will respond to the rest of your post in a separate response.

The modern secular creed

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK

as long as you don’t hurt anyone

to the best of your definition of hurt,

and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and

after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better

despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated

And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes

UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,

Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think

His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-

at least the one that we read was.

They all believe in love and goodness.

They only differ on matters of creation,

sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing

Because when you ask the dead what happens

they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its

compulsory heaven for all

excepting perhaps

Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson

What’s selected is average.

What’s average is normal.

What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.

We believe there are direct links between warfare and

bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.

It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth

that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,

And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be

the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

 

[Jose Fly]

First of all that old rigged cross, has nothing at all to do with christianity.

Then Christians should have no problem at all when it comes down.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It is literally the symbol of Christianity.


So you have no issue with the shape of the monument being changed, then?


No, they upheld the 1st amendment which says government can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This isn't free exercise, it's a monument erected on public land and maintained with taxpayer money. It was decided that this is a contravention of the amendment.


It clearly says that the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion.


It's not free exercise - it's a monument maintained with tax payer funding.


Except the 1st amendment.


And to prevent government from creating laws respecting the establishment of religion.


They do. They do not, however, have the right to use taxpayer money to promote their religion - that's the point of the establishment clause.


Nobody's freedoms are being taken away.


Nobody will say that, including atheists, because that's not what they're doing.


Nobody's rights are being taken away or infringed.


The constitution says the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It was determined by the court that this monument was of specifically religious significance and are taking steps to correct this. The 1st amendment is being upheld.

QUESTION:

"Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof"

I can tell you're familiar with the latter part of the amendment, but what do you think the underlined part means?

Then Christians should have no problem at all when it comes down.

That all depends on what Christians your talking about.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did you ever take speech, debate, philosophy, or watch professional debates?

Very much so. I loved the debate team.

Your referral to this principle who's only merit is that we don't know it does not exist is not common ground. Quoted laws, stated principles recorded in official and binding documents, historical events, etc..... are common ground. Mentioning that it is not necessarily true that something does not exist is not common ground nor persuasive in any way.

It seems you've lost track of the point at hand. Recall, you attempted to argue that the separation of church and state isn't stated in the Constitution and that the founding fathers intended for us to be a quasi-theocracy. As a means to get you to understand the notion that just because a concept isn't explicitly stated that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I asked you where the Constitution explicitly describes the separation of powers. The point being that even though neither the separation of church and state nor the separation of powers are explicitly stated in the Constitution, both are foundational concepts to how our federal government operates.

Understand?

This is a non binding document, nor it a founding document containing the principles which are inherent to our founding. Also don't just mention a random letter and call it an argument. Do what I have been doing. Quote a few lines from a relevant document or person, supply the link so I can check the context, and give me some kind of conclusion in which to consider what you quoted.

You're dodging around the point a bit. When we were discussing the separation of powers you stated "I believe there are specific documents outlining the separation of powers", so I pointed out that there are also documents outlining the separation of church and state, e.g., Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. In that letter he clearly states the intent of the 1st Amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."​

Notice he didn't say it was a wall with a one-way door in it for the church to come through and interfere with the state, but instead specified that their intent was for the two to be separate.

I have read quite a bit of what you insinuate I haven't.

Have you read the ruling in this case?

The destruction of the family unit an the condition of being poor are two completely different subjects. Why do you keep equating them?

Because you singled out benefits to poor single mothers (we don't give such benefits to wealthy single mothers), which prompted me to ask if you believe providing benefits to the poor incentivizes being poor. You've consistently dodged that question.

I will post a humorous poem that comically sums up the modern secular worldview

Not interested.

 

[Jose Fly]

That all depends on what Christians your talking about.

Why?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why?

Because that cross has nothing to do with christianity. But if they want to replace it with a head stone of some short, In remembrance of those who died in wars so be it.
But then people will only find something wrong with that to.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because that cross has nothing to do with christianity.

So you're actually arguing that when they designed this thing, they just chose a cross at random with no idea at all of any connection it might have to Christianity?

I've seen ridiculous arguments before, but this? Wow.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So you're actually arguing that when they designed this thing, they just chose a cross at random with no idea at all of any connection it might have to Christianity?

I've seen ridiculous arguments before, but this? Wow.

That cross was donated by the Latin to those who died in WW 1, but though it does have some Christianity back ground, But it would be very rude and disrespectful to Latino to take that cross down and could signal discrimination against the Latinos.
Maybe your one that likes to discriminate against another Race of people.

All a person has to is put in their search engine government takes down old rugged cross
There you will find who donated it.and why.
So it didn't come about by people in this country, But from the Latinos.Because of those who died in WW1.

But you'll hear the 4th District Court of Appeals argue about discrimination, but finds nothing to discriminate against Latinos, That's very Rude and disrespectful towards another Race of people.

But you will hear how democrates are supposedly against discriminating, but thinks nothing about discriminating against Latinos.
What's up with all that?