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

[ImmortalFlame]

That was before I did further investigation on the subject.and found the cross was donated by Latinos for the purpose of Remembering those who died during
WW1,
No more than the statute of Liberty was donated by the French Government.

And where is your evidence of this?

Where as the cross was donated by Latin =Hispanic a person of Latin American, fluent in Spanish.

The U.S. Census Bureau defines the Ethnonym Hispanic or Latin to refer to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican,
South or Central American or other Spanish Culture or origin.

Therefore the cross was donated by Latinos to honour those who died during WW1. And then the American legion put it up, to show Respect to the Latinos for their donating the cross to honour those who died during WW1.

Evidence, please?

Not that it matters, because it's still a cross and still a contravention of the 1st amendment.

But you like the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals are nothing more than Racist against Latinos.

Nope. It doesn't matter what group put the cross up or donated it - it's still a contravention of the 1st amendment.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, thought they could pull a fast one over on people. But got caught in their Racism towards Latinos.But then that's the democrates for Ya.

You're REALLY stretching here.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And where is your evidence of this?


Evidence, please?

Not that it matters, because it's still a cross and still a contravention of the 1st amendment.


Nope. It doesn't matter what group put the cross up or donated it - it's still a contravention of the 1st amendment.


You're REALLY stretching here.

Go search it out for yourself, The same as I did
I am not going to do your work for you.

It does matter who donated that cross.it was given in friendship from Latinos to the U.S to Honour those who died during WW1.

Had the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had done their home work better, They would haved seen the cross has more significance than just a cross, But given in Friendship to the U.S.

Therefore what the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did is being Racist against Latinos. As you are, Racist, Bigotry against Latinos.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Go search it out for yourself, The same as I did
I am not going to do your work for you.

I already did and found nothing. Demonstrate the truth of YOUR claim.

It does matter who donated that cross.it was given in friendship from Latinos to the U.S to Honour those who died during WW1.

No, it doesn't matter, because the issue is that the monument is in the shape of a cross and thus contravenes the 1st amendment. It doesn't matter if it was gifted or erected by Christians, Latinos, the NAACP or the K'lth'Uh'Qunian people of Mars - it's a religious symbol being maintained by taxpayer money, and thus a breach of the establishment clause.

Had the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had done their home work better, They would haved seen the cross has more significance than just a cross, But given in Friendship to the U.S.

So then you have no issue whatsoever with their decision to change the shape of the monument?

Therefore what the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did is being Racist against Latinos. As you are, Racist, Bigotry against Latinos.

Now you're just being completely silly. Are you going to debate this reasonably or continue making this ridiculous assertion?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I already did and found nothing. Demonstrate the truth of YOUR claim.


No, it doesn't matter, because the issue is that the monument is in the shape of a cross and thus contravenes the 1st amendment. It doesn't matter if it was gifted or erected by Christians, Latinos, the NAACP or the K'lth'Uh'Qunian people of Mars - it's a religious symbol being maintained by taxpayer money, and thus a breach of the establishment clause.


So then you have no issue whatsoever with their decision to change the shape of the monument?


Now you're just being completely silly. Are you going to debate this reasonably or continue making this ridiculous assertion?

Are you freaking kidding me, So what your saying, is that just because sometimes has a shape of a cross, That it's christian.
So If you look at a pine tree that grows straight upwards and has two limbs growing out wards, can be taken as a Christian cross.
Are you freaking kidding me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you freaking kidding me, So what your saying, is that just because sometimes has a shape of a cross, That it's christian.

Not quite. When something is specifically designed in the shape of a cross for the purpose of expressing a specific religious connotation with Christianity, then it's Christian.

So If you look at a pine tree that grows straight upwards and has two limbs growing out wards, can be taken as a Christian cross.
Are you freaking kidding me.

Perhaps if you stopped inventing arguments I never made and instead focused on the arguments I actually am making, you'd probably not be blinded so much by this anger of yours.

Also, I'm still waiting for this evidence that the cross was donated by Latinos. Third time I've asked.

 

[1robin]

Wasn't aware of all of them, but in as much as most recognize and even promote one specific religious belief they have no place on government property. Where's that jackhammers and dynamite, Jeb? We've got work to do if we're going to clean up this country.

.

Trust me that was merely the tip of the ice burg. This brings us back full circle to my original post. If secularists actually removed all Christian symbols from the public square you would have to level Washington then reconstruct it. IOW you would have to unmake America then remake in our own image. Judging by the trends that have accompanied the time since the secular revolution in the 50s that would be a grave mistake. Our most cherished values lose their entire foundation without God.

 

[1robin]

Very much so. I loved the debate team.

I don't see it, but I will take you at your word.

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.

1. Can you respond with the post# where I said the constituting does not contain the separation of Church and state, and where I said our founders wanted us to be a quasi theocracy? I need some context.
2. I did not argue that just because X is not stated does not mean that X does not exist. So there is no quid pro quo.
3. The official title or way of stating what your trying to do usually goes like: "The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence". That is a phrase anyone who has done much debating should be familiar with. However, it's only function is to point out you can't prove a universal negative. However we are discussing things we both have access to not abstract things.

Understand?

Stick with the real instead of the hypothetical.

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 was talking about founding and binding documents not personal letters.

I have specifically resisted the urge to fill post after post with person quotes from our founding fathers because they are non-binding.

Have you read the ruling in this case?

The ruling case about what, public monuments? If so which one?

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 have dodged it because it was irrelevant to what you responded to, it is also something I have not thought a lot about, nor could I think of a reason to justify the time to investigate it.

My claim was that we have incentivized single parent families, and that point still stands.

I think the answer to your UNRELATED question about the poor is yes in some cases and no in others.

Not interested.

Not interested in humor?

 

[Skwim]

Trust me that was merely the tip of the ice burg. This brings us back full circle to my original post. If secularists actually removed all Christian symbols from the public square you would have to level Washington then reconstruct it.IOW you would have to unmake America then remake in our own image.

Hyperbole is never convincing. Try facts.

Judging by the trends that have accompanied the time since the secular revolution in the 50s that would be a grave mistake.

Why?

Our most cherished values lose their entire foundation without God.

Not even close to the truth. That Christians need their religion advertised across secular America in order to feel good about themselves is a sad need indeed, and says more about their mental health than probably anything else.

.

.

 

[Jose Fly]

1. Can you respond with the post# where I said the constituting does not contain the separation of Church and state, and where I said our founders wanted us to be a quasi theocracy? I need some context.
2. I did not argue that just because X is not stated does not mean that X does not exist. So there is no quid pro quo.
3. The official title or way of stating what your trying to do usually goes like: "The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence". That is a phrase anyone who has done much debating should be familiar with. However, it's only function is to point out you can't prove a universal negative. However we are discussing things we both have access to not abstract things.

Rather than me going through pages of posts and quoting you back to yourself (again), how about you just clearly state your position?

Do you believe the US federal government was deliberately set up to be secular?

Do you believe the founding fathers intended for church and state to be separate?

I was talking about founding and binding documents not personal letters.

In this case, the letter was Jefferson clearly explaining the intent of the First Amendment. I don't believe courts should ignore that.

The ruling case about what, public monuments? If so which one?

The one this thread is about.

My claim was that we have incentivized single parent families, and that point still stands.

Only if you assume that providing social benefits for a condition incentivizes that condition.

 

[Jose Fly]

That Christians need their religion advertised across secular America in order to feel good about themselves is a sad need indeed, and says more about their mental health than probably anything else..

That's something I've asked for some years now and haven't really gotten an answer to.

Why is it so important to some Christians that the government promote and advocate their religion? Specific to this case, if giant crosses are so meaningful, why aren't Christian groups erecting them on their own private properties across the country, rather than expecting the government (and taxpayers) to do it for them?

 

[1robin]

HERE, when I noted that "for people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians things have improved dramatically", you responded "So as long as the fringe's lot in life improves it does not matter that the morality in general has declined".

Later in the same post, in response to my question of whether or not "acknowledging the existence of people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians immediately makes them "special interest groups"", you responded "When you impose what the fringe wants onto the majority, then the fringe is called a special interest groups."

I don't see the words non-Christian in either of my statements that you quoted. The only place those terms appear is in your inaccurate commentary on my statements.

BTW: There are Christians within every group you have singled out.

In some cases yes, in other cases no.

Nope, in all cases yes.

14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause

Again and as noted previously, for someone who likes to spout off about founding documents and the Constitution, you sure seem to be fairly ignorant of them.

First how do you know so much about me or why do you think you do?

Second we were not discussing the application of laws, we were specifically discussing what the laws actually are. In a representative republic the laws are supposed to mirror the values of the majority, and then everyone is equally subject to them. You have things exactly reversed.

You're attempting to compare two theocracies to the US, which was deliberately set up to be a secular state (hence the wall of separation between church and state, prohibition against a state religion, and prohibition against religious tests for office).

There is no wall in our constitution.

First, no one said anything about minorities being "untouchable"; that is a straw man of your own making.

That is simply semantics, the argument remains unchanged. You want the ethics of fringe groups to trump the ethics of the majority.

Second, you again show that the notion of a concept existing even though it's not explicitly stated (e.g., the separation of powers) is beyond you.

Why does every argument you make depend on reading between the lines?

Your posts in this thread strongly suggest otherwise.

The title of this thread is not post as many examples of theological symbols on public facilities as you can.

Yes, and as I noted to you some time ago, you need to understand the concept of inclusivity versus exclusivity.

Neither of those words can be found in the establishment language of the constitution. And most of the examples I gave were exclusive.

All I can do is point you in the direction of various court rulings that explain this concept. If you refuse to read them, I cannot do anything more.

Apparently you can't even do that. You have not posted any rulings that I can remember. However I think my list of objective facts trumps your missing list of legal opinions.

Again, take the time to actually read up on this subject.

That is not an argument.

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

If you are quoting from Jefferson's personal letters then why can't I quote from even more authorities sources? You seem to want Judges to legitimize the ethics preferred by the minority even when they contradict those preferred by the majority. That is called an oligarchy.

Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/

Sure beats a personal letter.

 

[1robin]

Hyperbole is never convincing. Try facts.

What? I gave you a list of facts, then added that there were many more that I didn't have time to post. Why are you objecting to that?

Why?

Ok, lets start off simply. We have incentivized single parent family's.

Not even close to the truth. That Christians need their religion advertised across secular America in order to feel good about themselves is a sad need indeed, and says more about their mental health than probably anything else.
.

That has nothing to do with what you responded to. Let me restate it.

I said: Our most cherished values lose their entire foundation without God.

I will try and help you by giving an example. Racial equality has no actual foundation in reality without God. Now please respond with something relevant.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't see the words non-Christian in either of my statements that you quoted. The only place those terms appear is in your inaccurate commentary on my statements.

Pay better attention. Again, I specifically asked you if acknowledging the existence of three groups ("people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians") makes them "special interest groups". Your response was "When you impose what the fringe wants onto the majority, then the fringe is called a special interest groups", after previously referring to those three groups as "the fringe".

BTW: There are Christians within every group you have singled out.

There are Christians within non-Christians? Are they like, Shrodinger's Christian or something?

Nope, in all cases yes.

Again your ignorance of US history and law is noted. One obvious example that negates your assertion is Jim Crow. Obviously the majority of southerners felt it was moral to keep whites and blacks separate and for blacks to be 2nd class citizens. Those white southerners were the majority. Yet those laws were clearly unconstitutional.

The majority cannot violate the civil rights of the minority, and justify it simply because they are the majority.

First how do you know so much about me or why do you think you do?

Your posts speak for themselves.

Second we were not discussing the application of laws, we were specifically discussing what the laws actually are. In a representative republic the laws are supposed to mirror the values of the majority, and then everyone is equally subject to them. You have things exactly reversed.

You're either dodging or not paying attention. Again, I noted that the Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and supported that by pointing you to the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law regardless of their majority or minority status.

If you disagree and think that the majority can legally violate the rights of minorities, then just say so.

There is no wall in our constitution.

*sigh*

Now you're just going in circles. We've been over the notion of a legal concept existing, even though it's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, e.g., the separation of powers.

That is simply semantics, the argument remains unchanged. You want the ethics of fringe groups to trump the ethics of the majority.

I've never said that at all. That is merely a straw man of your own making.

Neither of those words can be found in the establishment language of the constitution. And most of the examples I gave were exclusive.

So apparently that a concept can exist without being explicitly stated is indeed beyond your ability to comprehend. I will not waste any more time trying to get you to understand that.

Apparently you can't even do that. You have not posted any rulings that I can remember.

Yes I have. CLICK HERE and try and pay better attention.

If you are quoting from Jefferson's personal letters then why can't I quote from even more authorities sources?

Who said you can't?

You seem to want Judges to legitimize the ethics preferred by the minority even when they contradict those preferred by the majority. That is called an oligarchy.

The overturning of Jim Crow must have really irked you. How dare those courts side with the minorities when a clear majority wanted those laws!!

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/

Sure beats a personal letter.

Um......that webpage cites some of Jefferson's personal letters. The fact that you don't recognize your hypocrisy is amazing.

 

[1robin]

Rather than me going through pages of posts and quoting you back to yourself (again), how about you just clearly state your position?

Do you believe the US federal government was deliberately set up to be secular?

Do you believe the founding fathers intended for church and state to be separate?

I am pleased that you opted to stop the cycle we were engaged in.

I believe that our foundations are somewhere a theocracy and a republic. The whole issue of church and state came from what had occurred in Europe. In Europe the state had co-opted Christianity and dictated things that many Christians disagreed with. So they fled to North America to escape theocracy but they also did not erect any wall between the church and state. It's not a digital black or white issue, but a shade of grey. The only open argument is what shade of grey is it that they intended.

In this case, the letter was Jefferson clearly explaining the intent of the First Amendment. I don't believe courts should ignore that.

Well I don't necessarily disagree with you, however if they are going to consider private documents then they should consider all of them. You claim to have a lot of knowledge in this area, what are the specific rules or precedence concerning private documents and court rulings.

The one this thread is about.

I am sure that there have been far more than one about religious symbols in public spaces. Instead of constantly hinting at things or reading between the lines why don't you simply post the amendments or court cases so I know exactly what your referring to.

Only if you assume that providing social benefits for a condition incentivizes that condition.

Oh come on. There are hundreds of articles and statistics about this issue that all lead to the same conclusion.

How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It

 

[1robin]

Pay better attention. Again, I specifically asked you if acknowledging the existence of three groups ("people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians") makes them "special interest groups". Your response was "When you impose what the fringe wants onto the majority, then the fringe is called a special interest groups", after previously referring to those three groups as "the fringe".

Ok, now I see the disconnect.

1. The way you asked it seemed as if you were suggesting that at some point I had stated that all non-Christians were disenfranchised fringe groups.
2. I knew I that I had never stated or even suggested that so I kept asking you to quote where I had stated it.
3. I see now that it was you who introduced that non-Christian notion, but I hadn't noticed it.
4. So let's go back and re-clarify my position again. My position is that democracies and representative republics are designed to reflect the moral values and duties of the majority. The laws based on the values of the majority are applied equally to everyone.
5. So my position has to do with a majority not any single group or type of people.

There are Christians within non-Christians? Are they like, Shrodinger's Christian or something?

You mentioned two other groups along with non-Christians. Two of the 3 groups you mentioned include Christians.

Again your ignorance of US history and law is noted. One obvious example that negates your assertion is Jim Crow. Obviously the majority of southerners felt it was moral to keep whites and blacks separate and for blacks to be 2nd class citizens. Those white southerners were the majority. Yet those laws were clearly unconstitutional.

I am no longer going to reply to any statement that includes an accusation of ignorance. You do not have access to the amount of knowledge I possess.

The majority cannot violate the civil rights of the minority, and justify it simply because they are the majority.

They most certainly can and almost always have.

Your posts speak for themselves.

I am happy to let my posts speak for themselves but since you keep repeating this same phrase I will here after simply delete them.

You're either dodging or not paying attention. Again, I noted that the Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and supported that by pointing you to the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law regardless of their majority or minority status.

Your the one not getting it. You keep confusing creation with application.

Again, My position is that democracies and representative republics are designed to reflect the moral values and duties of the majority. The laws based on the values of the majority are applied equally to everyone.

I will do what you never seem to do and actually quote what the relevant law or amendment states.
Amendment 14 section 1: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

If you disagree and think that the majority can legally violate the rights of minorities, then just say so.

First of all you must establish what rights minorities (or anyone) actually have and the foundation they rest upon. Let's start simply are the rights (you didn't even state) we possess
subjective Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia
or
objective Malum in se - Wikipedia

*sigh*

I will also delete all irrelevant commentary from here on in.

Now you're just going in circles. We've been over the notion of a legal concept existing, even though it's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, e.g., the separation of powers.

If every argument you make is based on things read between the lines then it your burden to demonstrate what your reading in between the lines is actually true. Hypotheticals are not persuasive.

I've never said that at all. That is merely a straw man of your own making.

It never the less accurately describes your position.

Yes I have. CLICK HERE and try and pay better attention.

I am not reading a 48 page document for an informal debate. For pitie's sake quote something instead of giving me the address of a library.

Who said you can't?

You objected when I quoted from a document containing Jefferson's personal correspondence.

The overturning of Jim Crow must have really irked you. How dare those courts side with the minorities when a clear majority wanted those laws!!

So now your basically calling me a racist even though I wasn't alive at the time. Your all class aren't you?

The values of the majority can change over time.

Um......that webpage cites some of Jefferson's personal letters. The fact that you don't recognize your hypocrisy is amazing.

What the heck are you talking about? You quoted personal correspondence so I did likewise. How is that hypocrisy? Your empty accusations are getting to the point where I start considering whether a discussion is justifiable or not.

BTW I did not quote the entire webpage and made no comment about it in general.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe that our foundations are somewhere a theocracy and a republic.

Can you support that belief by referencing our founding documents and showing the theocratic elements therein? I can point to the prohibition of a state religion, prohibition of religious tests for public office, and Jefferson's stated intent of a wall of separation between church and state as supportive of us being a secular state.

Well I don't necessarily disagree with you, however if they are going to consider private documents then they should consider all of them.

I agree.

You claim to have a lot of knowledge in this area, what are the specific rules or precedence concerning private documents and court rulings.

First, I never claimed to have a lot of knowledge in this area. And to answer your question, the use of such documents in court decisions is not something I've really looked into.

I am sure that there have been far more than one about religious symbols in public spaces. Instead of constantly hinting at things or reading between the lines why don't you simply post the amendments or court cases so I know exactly what your referring to.

I've posted the one specific to this case and you refused to read that. Why are you asking for more?

Oh come on. There are hundreds of articles and statistics about this issue that all lead to the same conclusion.

How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the conservative Heritage Foundation's positions. Again, it all boils down to one question.....do you believe that providing benefits under specific circumstances incentivizes people to put themselves into those circumstances?

So let's go back and re-clarify my position again. My position is that democracies and representative republics are designed to reflect the moral values and duties of the majority. The laws based on the values of the majority are applied equally to everyone.

So on what basis were Jim Crow laws overturned?

They most certainly can and almost always have.

So if in say, 10 years the majority of the country is non-Christian, you would be ok if they passed laws specifically targeting Christians?

I will do what you never seem to do and actually quote what the relevant law or amendment states.
Amendment 14 section 1: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Exactly. So where does it say "unless you're a minority group, in which case your rights are determined by the majority"?

First of all you must establish what rights minorities (or anyone) actually have and the foundation they rest upon.

I already did when I cited the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. As you quoted it above, all citizens have the same rights, regardless of their majority/minority status.

If every argument you make is based on things read between the lines then it your burden to demonstrate what your reading in between the lines is actually true

First, I've made many arguments here, and they are not all based on "reading between the lines".

Second, in the specific cases I've cited (separation of powers and separation of church and state) I've given specific reasons and citations to justify the conclusion that those are valid legal concepts even though they are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

It never the less accurately describes your position.

Then show where I've said that.

I am not reading a 48 page document for an informal debate. For pitie's sake quote something instead of giving me the address of a library.

Your unwillingness to do even the most cursory of reading on the very subject you're attempting to debate speaks for itself.

You objected when I quoted from a document containing Jefferson's personal correspondence.

I don't recall doing that. Can you show where I did?

So now your basically calling me a racist even though I wasn't alive at the time. Your all class aren't you?

The values of the majority can change over time.

No, I did not call you racist.

Again, you've been arguing that the morals of the majority always trump those of minorities. As a counter-example to that belief, I cited the courts overturning Jim Crow laws. Now try and focus on the point here.....obviously the majority of citizens in the US south during those times wanted blacks and whites to be separate and for blacks to be treated as second-class citizens. At the time the courts overturned those laws, it was still the majority view in those states.

So, if you truly believe that "majority morals" always rules, on what basis did the courts overturn the Jim Crow laws? Or do you believe those rulings were wrong?

What the heck are you talking about? You quoted personal correspondence so I did likewise. How is that hypocrisy?

Again, try and keep up here.

When I cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, you waved it away because it was a personal letter and not a "founding and binding document". But then you turned right around and cited letters yourself. That's hypocritical.

 

[1robin]

Can you support that belief by referencing our founding documents and showing the theocratic elements therein? I can point to the prohibition of a state religion, prohibition of religious tests for public office, and Jefferson's stated intent of a wall of separation between church and state as supportive of us being a secular state.

Before you respond let me fix an error I made when I made my claim. I forget to put the words "in between" after the word somewhere.

I agree.

Good

First, I never claimed to have a lot of knowledge in this area. And to answer your question, the use of such documents in court decisions is not something I've really looked into.

You have made so many claims touting your depth of knowledge compared with mine in this field this is a surprise.

I've posted the one specific to this case and you refused to read that. Why are you asking for more?

It was practically a small book, I do not have time to read that much for a informal debate. I didn't ask for more, I asked for specific quotes instead of references to huge documents.
The way this is supposed to go is:

1. That you make a specific claim.
2. That you quote a specific sentence or paragraph that supports it.
3. Then you supply the link to the full document in case the other person wants to read more about it.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the conservative Heritage Foundation's positions. Again, it all boils down to one question.....do you believe that providing benefits under specific circumstances incentivizes people to put themselves into those circumstances?

I absolutely believe that. We are an extremely flawed race, and many take the easiest path available.

So on what basis were Jim Crow laws overturned?

I am not sure but I would bet that it is one of the two following reasons.

1. Jim Crow laws were found to be inconsistent with the constitution or at least it's foundation.
2. That the majority changed their minds about race issues. I can give you many reasons why race people changed their mind about race issues if necessary.

So if in say, 10 years the majority of the country is non-Christian, you would be ok if they passed laws specifically targeting Christians?

We were not discussing targeting anyone, there was never a law against being gay that I am aware of. If Christians became a minority they should not be targeted nor should their moral views become law in most cases. However if you want to discuss targeting I can give you many examples where the Christian minority has been targeted by a minority of liberal judges, just as Jefferson feared.

Exactly. So where does it say "unless you're a minority group, in which case your rights are determined by the majority"?

I never said that amendment 14 had anything to do with that. Your the one who used amendment 14 to back up a claim you made. I simply showed it doesn't. You keep changing contexts based on convenience.

I already did when I cited the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. As you quoted it above, all citizens have the same rights, regardless of their majority/minority status.

You changed from laws to rights for some reason (despite the amendment you chose using the word law). So let me restate my position.

1. In a democracy or representative republic the majority establishes what rights we have, or what laws follow from those rights.
2. Then those rights and/or laws are applied equally to everyone.

BTW I noticed you did not respond as to whether our rights are objective or subjective.

First, I've made many arguments here, and they are not all based on "reading between the lines".

Not all, but most are based on paraphrasing the actual laws or documents and reading between the lines.

Second, in the specific cases I've cited (separation of powers and separation of church and state) I've given specific reasons and citations to justify the conclusion that those are valid legal concepts even though they are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

The separation of powers is irrelevant to the thread and all that is denied to the government by the actual binding documents is the establishment of a religion by the state.

Then show where I've said that.

It was a definition not a quotation.

No, I did not call you racist.

Again, a reasonable description or summation, not a quote.

Again, you've been arguing that the morals of the majority always trump those of minorities. As a counter-example to that belief, I cited the courts overturning Jim Crow laws. Now try and focus on the point here.....obviously the majority of citizens in the US south during those times wanted blacks and whites to be separate and for blacks to be treated as second-class citizens. At the time the courts overturned those laws, it was still the majority view in those states.

No, I have been arguing that they should not that they are. The great evil Jefferson feared is coming to pass. Liberal judges are ruling in cases contradictory to the will of the majority. I heard the other day that in a state (Colorado I think) 4/5ths of the people polled wanted the traditional bathroom partitions left in place but a judged defied their wishes. A quasi oligarchy is being erected by secular leftists. The supreme court's greatest possible failure was said to make law from the bench yet that is exactly what Sotamayor said she intended to do. Secularists are doing exactly what the founders feared.

The civil war decided that power rests with Washington, not Alabama or Virginia. So local majorities do not prevail against the general majority.

So, if you truly believe that "majority morals" always rules, on what basis did the courts overturn the Jim Crow laws? Or do you believe those rulings were wrong?

You asked and I answered the exact same question above.

When I cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, you waved it away because it was a personal letter and not a "founding and binding document". But then you turned right around and cited letters yourself. That's hypocritical.

No, I suggested that we use no personal correspondence or all of it. I basically left it up to you.

If you notice I deleted several statements by you based on grounds I stated in my previous post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No more than the statute of Liberty was donated by the French Government.

The Statue of Liberty has no religious connotation behind it. It is, ideally, the symbol of American ideals and values. A cross represents Christianity.

 

[DavidFirth]

Hyperbole is never convincing. Try facts.


Why?


Not even close to the truth. That Christians need their religion advertised across secular America in order to feel good about themselves is a sad need indeed, and says more about their mental health than probably anything else.

.

.

Those horrible Christians! They should be banned! Outlaw them I say! They shouldn't be teaching that Jesus stuff. Out with them!

 

[Skwim]

Those horrible Christians! They should be banned! Outlaw them I say! They shouldn't be teaching that Jesus stuff. Out with them!

Nah, all they require is a bit of psychological consoling, OR if this isn't their problem, then how about explaining why they need their religion displayed across secular America. Not that I expect a straight answer, but one would be nice.

.