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

[leibowde84]

I'm OK with some religious stuff on public land, eg, aboriginal art on rocks.
Those are historically significant artifacts worth preserving, & there's no
constitutional conflict.
But when government has its own hand in placing it there, that must go.

Agreed. I was only referring to when government officials OK religious symbols on public land.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am just saying that once the witch-hunt begins from either side, be it Christian, Atheists -- the important parts may be lost in translation.

It's not a witch hunt though. It's the state admitting it was wrong by building that monument, that it goes against the American values of a secular state, and they are rectifying their mistake.

 

[Grandliseur]

It's not a witch hunt though. It's the state admitting it was wrong by building that monument, that it goes against the American values of a secular state, and they are rectifying their mistake.

I understand what you say. Just watch where it goes: "There's a butcher under your covers."
It is easy to justify things that begin to avalanche and become unstoppable.

The paranoia of Trump with the wall and the terrible things done to the immigrants already here with families - shows a Hitler type mentality that is extremely dangerous. None can stop it anymore.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is easy to justify things that begin to avalanche and become unstoppable.

What avalanche? The only avalanche I am aware of avalanche of applicants of religions who wanted their own space on the Alabama court house lawn when the 10 Commandments was allowed to stand. By your claim, Germany should never have torn down any statues of Hitler or other Nazis. There was no slippery slope, and for a number of reasons the right thing to do. One of the being those statues were mistakes that were only placed when a fluke in the system took over.

The paranoia of Trump with the wall and the terrible things done to the immigrants already here with families - shows a Hitler type mentality that is extremely dangerous. None can stop it anymore.

This thread has nothing to do with Trump.

 

[Grandliseur]

What avalanche? The only avalanche I am aware of avalanche of applicants of religions who wanted their own space on the Alabama court house lawn when the 10 Commandments was allowed to stand. By your claim, Germany should never have torn down any statues of Hitler or other Nazis. There was no slippery slope, and for a number of reasons the right thing to do. One of the being those statues were mistakes that were only placed when a fluke in the system took over.

This thread has nothing to do with Trump.

I get nervous when people begin such things. I have read too much to not see what may happen. That does not mean I am right.

 

[Poisonshady313]

"The Bladensburg Memorial, located in Bladensburg Park, Md., has honored the sacrifices of 49 men from the Bladensburg area who died during World War I... "

The only way for the whole cross-as-war-memorial to be ok is if it can be proven without a doubt that every last one of those 49 men were Christians.

 

[Skwim]

"The Bladensburg Memorial, located in Bladensburg Park, Md., has honored the sacrifices of 49 men from the Bladensburg area who died during World War I... "

The only way for the whole cross-as-war-memorial to be ok is if it can be proven without a doubt that every last one of those 49 men were Christians.

Nope. It still wouldn't be okay. For one thing, and it really doesn't make any difference one way or the other to the ruling, their religion was not germane to their service in the armed forces.

.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Once the Government starts there will be No stopping the Government of over running the people.

I think you're a little late for that concern

When in fact the Founding fathers were Christians.

They weren't Christians, they were masons.

 

[Skwim]

I think you're a little late for that concern

They weren't Christians, they were masons.

"The Founding Fathers of the United States were those individuals [147 of them] of the Thirteen Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown in word and deed and contributed to the establishment of the United States of America.

Franklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 28 were Anglicans (in the Church of England; or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), 21 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson, who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin.

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".
Source; Wikipedia



"Of the 56 men that signed the Declaration of Independence, it appears that only nine were Freemasons, or masons with verifiable records of association."
source

.​

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think you're a little late for that concern





They weren't Christians, they were masons.

I beg your pardon, Free Mason's had a belief in God, The Free Mason's did not hold to any particular Religion, But wanted to build a free Society in the belief in God, which became to be known as the United States.

Maybe you should do some back ground checking.
This why throughout the Declaration of Independence has God being made mention of, That all men are created equal by the creator God.

Therefore the founding fathers had a belief in God. and wanted to establish a free Society to worship God in the way they chose and not by any one group or Government.

This why the founding fathers had written
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution
"Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof"

Therefore, if a certain church posted anything on their bill board outside, The Government nor any judge of the Court can not have that which is posted on the church bill board to have it removed.
All because the 1st Amendment does say
( Or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof)
Therefore that church has the free Exercise thereof. To post whatever that church chooses.

This is why John Adams Written unto which all the founding fathers agreed with

That the Constitution was written for a Moral and Religious people and is unfit for any other people.

That doesn't say much for Atheists or homosexualls or anyone else who does not fit into having Morals and Religion belief's now does it ?

By the way John Adams had written, this would exclude Atheists and homosexualls and anyone else who does not hold to Morals and Religion beliefs would be excluded from the Constitution.

As John Adams had written the Constitution was written for a Moral and Religious People and is unfit for any other people.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Therefore the founding fathers had a belief in God.

The demons believe in God too, what's your point?

This why throughout the Declaration of Independence has God being made mention of, That all men are created equal by the creator God.

Really, how many of the founding fathers had slaves?

 

[Faithofchristian]

The demons believe in God too, what's your point?




Really, how many of the founding fathers had slaves?

Owning a slave is what they did then.
The only problem the founding fathers had was they could not fight two fights at the same time.
The Founding fathers were fighting against Great Britain at the time.
So they had to make a choice whether to fight to set the slaves free or fight against Great Britain for Independence.

So the founding fathers chose to fight against Great Britain for Independence.

Who was the first black slave owner in this country ?

Before any white people came here, there were the American Indians, which when they had a war with another tribe of Indians, the tribe that would win the war, would make slaves of the other tribe. Therefore the American Indians were the first to have slaves in this country.

Then back in 1662-70, this is way before when this country was called the 13 colonies and then later in the 1776 which became the United States.

But back in 1662-70, The first to own black slaves in this country was a black man name Anthony Johnson.
Therefore the founding fathers were not the first to have black slaves in this country nor was the white man.
But a black man name Anthony Johnson back in 1662-70.

You can check this out by putting in your search engine
Anthony Johnson first black slave owner

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Therefore the founding fathers were not the first to have black slaves in this country nor was the white man.

That matters not, you said,

This why throughout the Declaration of Independence has God being made mention of, That all men are created equal by the creator God.

You think they had white slaves also? You know, since they believed that all men are equal and all.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That matters not, you said,



You think they had white slaves also? You know, since they believed that all men are equal and all.

That was the Problem they were having at that time, which they couldn't fight two fights at the same time.

So rather be under the control of Great Britain, the founding fathers chosen to fight against Great Britain for Independence.
But the founding fathers did act knowledge that Slavery was wrong. But they couldn't fight those who would want to keep Slavery and not fight Great Britain for our Independence at the same time.
So rather than risk of dividing the country over Slavery, the founding fathers chose to fight Great Britain for Independence.

 

[Skwim]

I beg your pardon, Free Mason's had a belief in God, The Free Mason's did not hold to any particular Religion, But wanted to build a free Society in the belief in God, which became to be known as the United States.

But djhwoodwerks statement was "They weren't Christians, they were masons." And in as much as Masons don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, I doubt anyone would call them Christians.

" . . . Masonry does teach that Jesus Christ was merely a man. Concerning the denial of Christ’s deity we may note the observations of Masonic leader Jim Shaw. Shaw was a 33rd degree Mason, a Past Worshipful Master of the Blue Lodge, Past Master of all Scottish Rite bodies, and a Knight Commander of the Court of Honor. He acknowledges that official Masonic doctrine maintains that, “Jesus was just a man. He was one of the “exemplars,” one of the great men of the past, but not divine and certainly not the only means of redemption of lost mankind.' ”
source
​

Would you call such a person a Christian?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But djhwoodwerks statement was "They weren't Christians, they were masons." And in as much as Masons don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, I doubt anyone would call them Christians.

" . . . Masonry does teach that Jesus Christ was merely a man. Concerning the denial of Christ’s deity we may note the observations of Masonic leader Jim Shaw. Shaw was a 33rd degree Mason, a Past Worshipful Master of the Blue Lodge, Past Master of all Scottish Rite bodies, and a Knight Commander of the Court of Honor. He acknowledges that official Masonic doctrine maintains that, “Jesus was just a man. He was one of the “exemplars,” one of the great men of the past, but not divine and certainly not the only means of redemption of lost mankind.' ”
source
​

Would you call such a person a Christian?

That looks like an anti-Masonic site.

Freemasonry and Religion

 

[Phil25]

Its a pity that its going to be destroyed. Wish some Christian group would buy the cross and move it to private land.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Looks like a nice looking historical cross. Why remove it?

Maybe not remove it, but demand private funding for it.

So, if USA had a Mayan pyramid, the government should tear it down instead of spending money to preserve it, as it represents the religion of the Mayans?

I believe the only reason the US government (what other countries do is not my problem) should fund such sites would be to perform restitution for killing off a great deal of their followers and enslaving or otherwise demeaning any survivors. I don't consider it the same thing as funding some sort of religious propaganda to shame others.

If there were a Mayan pyramid here in US today, it would have to be maintained using government money. Should it or shouldn't it?
Same for historic American Indian sites of religious significance.

But how are Natives who were wiped out thanks to disease and genocide supposed to fund the upkeep? I would agree with you, but when the population who should be paying for it was wiped out by YOUR population, the least you could do is honor their stuff.

If the latter, it's illegal to do so under a secular constitution and should be torn down according to you, correct?

Last I heard, Mexico isn't beholden to our Constitution.

I have no objection to Christmas crèches, or Hanukkah menorahs, or anything else. In public spaces, I would permit individuals or private groups to put anything up they want, and to maintain them, so long as the taxpayer is not in any way on the hook.

Exactly. I would just add the exception for when we've practically destroyed the people who should be taking care of it. There might still be Mayans, but ten bucks says they don't have the money to restore all those pyramids.

Anyone who supports this, unless - they were monuments dedicated to remembering Hitler, or some such, -- is taking the Muslim road. A road I detest.

The choices aren't limited to public maintenance and utter destruction, though.

Yup. And I'll run the wreaking crane, thank you. .. Our Constitution trumps nostalgia and historical tradition every time.

My family walked up one of those pyramids when I was a kid. Getting to the top was absolute torture but I still wouldn't knock it down.

Since Congress can not Establish no law Prohibiting the Exercise of Religion

Are people unable to practice their religion without it? Do they hold church services there?

Now Notice the words
( prohibiting the free exercise thereof)

Notice "cannot establish".

Also, I could say that the bible warns us against making graven images and idolatry, so I'd be within my religious rights to claim it is blasphemy and should be torn down, right?

Would you be happy if that was being done for (say) an Islamic statue or a Satanic statue?

I would, just for the laughs from people whose heads would explode.

The Government can not establish no law prohibiting the free Exercise Thereof

How. Does. This. Cross. In. Particular. Destroy. Your. Religion?

John Addams one of the founding fathers Written and all the founding fathers agreed with.
"That the Constitution was written for a Moral and Religious People and is unfit for any other people.

The Constitution was written to ensure they could screw over both free and slave people. Don't let political pandering cloud your view of what these people were really like. They turned on their own as soon as they got in power.

But a free Exercise of my Religion.

You specifically put it up a hundred years ago? How old ARE you?

But all the more to do with WW1 who died in that War.
But still what is so wrong in Remembering those who gave their lives ?

How does a cross and not, say, a military emblem scream "WW1"?

Just another case of the Government wanting to erase history from the minds of people.

When they want to change history, they put up CSA "heroes" and crosses to represent all people including non-Christians.

Not as much as I hate Voldemort.

Umbridge was worse. I had a principal who was basically her. *shudders*

I beg your pardon, Free Mason's had a belief in God

Which one? I had to work really hard not to laugh at my grandfather's funeral, which included a Mason service. For all the hate he put on his nieces for being Wiccan, it's just so incredibly obvious Masons have pagan roots and just slapped Jesus' name on it, it was absurd.

But wanted to build a free Society in the belief in God, which became to be known as the United States.

Then they suck at it, since we're only just now trying to grant rights to people who should've had them all along.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution
"Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting the free Exercise thereof"

Like the 2nd Amendment folks, we all notice you prefer only reading part of the sentence.

That doesn't say much for Atheists or homosexualls or anyone else who does not fit into having Morals and Religion belief's now does it ?

When did Jesus instruct you to behave this way towards "atheists and homosexuals"? I mean, if you're going to argue religious justifications, at least be so kind as to quote your god when trying to justify something and if you can't, let it go.

Owning a slave is what they did then.

They also raped and murdered. Doesn't make it okay.

The only problem the founding fathers had was they could not fight two fights at the same time.

Why not? The British had no problems offering slaves freedom.

So they had to make a choice whether to fight to set the slaves free or fight against Great Britain for Independence.

IIRC, George Washington was against having blacks in the military until he was losing pretty badly because, like always, Congress didn't want to pay the soldiers, so they all went home or died from preventable causes.

Who was the first black slave owner in this country ?

Was the first black slave owner part of the government?

Before any white people came here, there were the American Indians, which when they had a war with another tribe of Indians, the tribe that would win the war, would make slaves of the other tribe. Therefore the American Indians were the first to have slaves in this country.

Why are you trying so hard to justify SLAVERY?

Its a pity that its going to be destroyed. Wish some Christian group would buy the cross and move it to private land.

Yeah, you'd think since this cross' presence will determine the future existence of a global religion, they'd want to put more effort into saving it or something.

 

[Skwim]

That looks like an anti-Masonic site.

Freemasonry and Religion

I don't know about being anti-mason, but the more relevant question is, is it right about what it says about Freemasonry and its regard for Jesus?

As your linked article points out

Basic Principles. Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult, but advocates no sectarian faith or practice. Masonic ceremonies include prayers, both traditional and extempore, to reaffirm each individual's dependence on God and to seek divine guidance. Freemasonry is open to men of any faith, but religion may not be discussed at Masonic meetings.​

which means that it it's no more Christian (subscribing to the divinity of Jesus) than it's Jewish or Hindu.

I did a Google search for a Masonic site that addressed the Jesus/divinity issue, but couldn't find a single one. However, I did find quite a few pro-Christian sites that spoke to the Masonic disregard for Jesus as divine. Which would mean that if anything, Freemasonry regards Jesus as just a man.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know about being anti-mason, but the more relevant question is, is it right about what it says about Freemasonry and its regard for Jesus?

As your linked article points out

Basic Principles. Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult, but advocates no sectarian faith or practice. Masonic ceremonies include prayers, both traditional and extempore, to reaffirm each individual's dependence on God and to seek divine guidance. Freemasonry is open to men of any faith, but religion may not be discussed at Masonic meetings.​

which means that it it's no more Christian (subscribing to the divinity of Jesus) than it's Jewish or Hindu.

I did a Google search for a Masonic site that addressed the Jesus/divinity issue, but couldn't find a single one. However, I did find quite a few pro-Christian sites that spoke to the Masonic disregard for Jesus as divine. Which would mean that if anything, Freemasonry regards Jesus as just a man.

Freemasonry is non-sectratian, for the most part. I wouldn't expect it to have a stance one way or another about Jesus since not all Masons are Christians or even Christians of the same sect. Lots of Christians are anti-Masonic (especially Catholics) so I wouldn't give much credence to what they say.