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

[1robin]

While I don't have TV Guides laying around, I imagine one main difference is today's TV is much more diverse than the almost exclusively homogeneous white shows of the 1950's.

We went from leave it to beaver to sex and the city, we have made virtue into a vice, and vice into a virtue. If you can't see the moral decay that occurred during the period I described then you are morally blind.

What in the world does that have to do with secularism?

When you deny the actual God you must substitute something for him. In our case it is the Nanny state. Today we confuse a want with a right. We want the government to take care of our health even if it bankrupts our grandchildren, so we say we have the inherent right of healthcare. The government does not have a warehouse of rights to dispense to people. If any inherent rights exist they are founded on God just as Jefferson claimed.

Makes you wonder why so many Christians oppose expanding the right to marry, doesn't it?

Even in places where homosexuals can legally get married they do not seem to actually want to do it. That is not where the problem lies. The problem arises from our incentivizing single parents through welfare and self interest replacing traditional morality.

Tell that to a person of color or a member of the LGBTQ community.

I am referring to the whole or average, not to any special interest group of snowflakes.

While homosexuals only make up 4% of our population they are responsible for over 60% of new aids cases.

Today we slaughter human lives in the womb on an industrial scale, the 19th century has been bloodier than the previous 18 combined, and for the first time we have invented the means of our own extermination and are so morally insane as to have almost done it, at least twice. Is incentivizing cancer next?

I think your in over your head here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whoever is driving the ship took a uturn back in the 50s and is headed in the wrong direction.

And we should turn that ship around and head it back to that era... when political dissenters were ostracized, we were free to poison the air and water with impunity, and women and black people knew their place. Am I right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We went from leave it to beaver to sex and the city, we have made virtue into a vice, and vice into a virtue. If you can't see the moral decay that occurred during the period I described then you are morally blind.

Indeed. Everyone knows that the scale of moral transgressions, starting with the worst, goes:

- killing white people
- being a communist
- premarital sex
- black people voting
- other felonies
- misdemeanors
- lynching black people

Things were much more moral back in the 50s.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The government owns and maintains theological symbols from many religions. Why are only the Christian ones under attack?

Nobody's under attack. People just push back against religious intrusions i to their lives. In the US, most of those intrusions are Christian.

The population has freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

You can't have one without the other. The surest way to lose freedom of religion is to give a church power over the government.

 

[Jose Fly]

The government owns and maintains theological symbols from many religions. Why are only the Christian ones under attack?

Again, this particular monument isn't being taken down because it's a Christian symbol and the government is attacking only Christianity. It's being taken down because it's an exclusive display of one religion. What that religion is doesn't matter. If the monument were a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Satanic symbol it would receive the same treatment.

It's the exclusivity that's the issue, not the specific religion. Understand?

The population has freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. This country was founded by 95% Christian's and most of the 5% were deists.

So? The founding fathers deliberately set the US up to be a secular state rather than a theocracy. Therefore the government can't be seen as endorsing or supporting one religion over others, or faith over non-faith.

 

[Skwim]

The government owns and maintains theological symbols from many religions. Why are only the Christian ones under attack?

Not talking about "theological symbols" where they may appear in cemeteries, or in some cases on government property, but not in a religious context. We're talking about monuments : statues, or other structures erected to commemorate a famous or notable event or idea.

The population has freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

Right, and no one is taking away anyone's right to freely practice their religion as long as it doesn't involve the government. If a religion wants to erect a monument on private properly signifying its religion, fine. But to erect one on government property, not fine at all.

This country was founded by 95% Christian's and most of the 5% were deists.

OMG. I thought thinking like this, "Might means right," went out centuries ago. Obviously not.





Do you actually feel the religious beliefs of the founders of the United States confers some special privilege to their religion? Really? REALLY?

.

 

[Jose Fly]

We went from leave it to beaver to sex and the city, we have made virtue into a vice, and vice into a virtue. If you can't see the moral decay that occurred during the period I described then you are morally blind.

I'm always fascinated to see how some people look back on the times of Jim Crow laws, institutional racism, and institutional bigotry as the good ol' days. The fact that you would go back to those things just so TV programs won't talk about sex says a lot about you.

When you deny the actual God you must substitute something for him. In our case it is the Nanny state. Today we confuse a want with a right. We want the government to take care of our health even if it bankrupts our grandchildren, so we say we have the inherent right of healthcare. The government does not have a warehouse of rights to dispense to people. If any inherent rights exist they are founded on God just as Jefferson claimed.

I'm sorry, but that argument makes no sense.

Even in places where homosexuals can legally get married they do not seem to actually want to do it.

Er.....um..........

You actually believe that gay couples aren't marrying?

The problem arises from our incentivizing single parents through welfare and self interest replacing traditional morality.

Can you explain how "welfare" incentivizes single parenting?

I am referring to the whole or average, not to any special interest group of snowflakes.

So you see people of color and the LGBTQ community as nothing more than "special interest groups of snowflakes" rather than US citizens that are part of what make up the whole of the country.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

While homosexuals only make up 4% of our population they are responsible for over 60% of new aids cases.

You want to know one of the big reasons why Christianity is in free fall in the US? This sort of thing. If what you say is true, one would think the Christian response would be along the lines of "Oh those poor people. We need to help them." But instead we get Christians like you using it to bash the gay community.

Today we slaughter human lives in the womb on an industrial scale, the 19th century has been bloodier than the previous 18 combined, and for the first time we have invented the means of our own extermination and are so morally insane as to have almost done it, at least twice. Is incentivizing cancer next?

I think your in over your head here.

I'm sure you do. But from where I sit, it looks more like you're another older, white fundamentalist Christian who sees the country moving away from your narrow and hateful beliefs and it both scares you and makes you angry. Your pining for the good ol' days of the 1950's when the country was run by white Christians, for white Christians at the expense of everyone else speaks volumes.

The removal of the monument is just one more indication that the days of your privilege are quickly slipping away. People of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and others have found their voices, are demanding that they also have a say in how this country is run, and are refusing to be relegated to the back of the bus...........and it terrifies you.

As the saying goes, to those in positions of privilege equality feels like oppression.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sure you do. But from where I sit, it looks more like you're another older, white fundamentalist Christian who sees the country moving away from your narrow and hateful beliefs and it both scares you and makes you angry. Your pining for the good ol' days of the 1950's when the country was run by white Christians, for white Christians at the expense of everyone else speaks volumes.

The removal of the monument is just one more indication that the days of your privilege are quickly slipping away. People of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and others have found their voices, are demanding that they also have a say in how this country is run, and are refusing to be relegated to the back of the bus...........and it terrifies you.

.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This country was founded by 95% Christian's and most of the 5% were deists.

If those sorts of stats matter to you, how much do you care that 0% of the founding fathers were Baptist? (Edit: and that more than half of them belonged to denominations that were traditionally antagonistic toward Baptists?)

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

 

[1robin]

And we should turn that ship around and head it back to that era... when political dissenters were ostracized, we were free to poison the air and water with impunity, and women and black people knew their place. Am I right?

4 posts in an hour, I must have said something that really rattled your cage.

We should definitely turn the ship around even if we didn't make any changes to it's route, however I never said the ship was on a perfect course prior to the 50s. I simply said it was on a much better course.

I will quote something I said in another post: On our present course we slaughter human lives in the womb on an industrial scale, the 19th century has been bloodier than the previous 18 combined (mostly due to communist/atheistic utopian tyrants), and for the first time we have invented the means of our own extermination and are so morally insane as to have almost done it, at least twice. Is incentivizing cancer next?

 

[1robin]

Indeed. Everyone knows that the scale of moral transgressions, starting with the worst, goes:

- killing white people
- being a communist
- premarital sex
- black people voting
- other felonies
- misdemeanors
- lynching black people

Things were much more moral back in the 50s.

I can't make ANY sense out of what you posted here.

 

[1robin]

Nobody's under attack. People just push back against religious intrusions i to their lives. In the US, most of those intrusions are Christian.

Where have you been the past few months? Monuments of many types have been covered up, removed, destroyed unlike any time in our history.

Beyond merely offensive masonry I would bet more Christians have been killed for their faith than any ten other faith's combined.

You can't have one without the other. The surest way to lose freedom of religion is to give a church power over the government.

I see I am going to have to explain the religion clause's context in full.

Most of the pioneers that left England, France, and the rest of Europe did so because Christianity was co-opted by the crowns in those places (especially England) or had become it's own crown (concerning the Catholic church). The first amendment was put into place to prevent what had occurred in Europe. It was not meant to separate religion from the state, it was meant to stop the state from controlling religion.

If viewed in the context it was established in, the 1st amendment makes perfect sense and no monuments need be under assault.

Why have I never seen a thread attacking the monument of Muhammad at the supreme court building?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why have I never seen a thread attacking the monument of Muhammad at the supreme court building?

Because it's part of a diverse display that includes representations from multiple faiths and historical figures.

The concept of inclusivity versus exclusivity seems to be beyond you.

 

[1robin]

Again, this particular monument isn't being taken down because it's a Christian symbol and the government is attacking only Christianity. It's being taken down because it's an exclusive display of one religion. What that religion is doesn't matter. If the monument were a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Satanic symbol it would receive the same treatment.

It's the exclusivity that's the issue, not the specific religion. Understand?

No, there is no clause that the government must display all or no religious symbols. That is a silly path to take in any discussion about the state and religion.

So? The founding fathers deliberately set the US up to be a secular state rather than a theocracy. Therefore the government can't be seen as endorsing or supporting one religion over others, or faith over non-faith.

I would ay they intended to have a government that was somewhere between a theocracy and secularism. You must view the first amendment in the context in which it was given. I will quote from another post to explain the context of the first amendment.

Most of the pioneers that left England, France, and the rest of Europe did so because Christianity was co-opted by the crowns in those places (especially England) or had become it's own crown (concerning the Catholic church). The first amendment was put into place to prevent what had occurred in Europe. It was not meant to separate religion from the state, it was meant to stop the state from controlling religion.

If viewed in the context it was established in, the 1st amendment makes perfect sense and no monuments need be under assault.

Why have I never seen a thread attacking the monument of Muhammad at the supreme court building?

 

[Skwim]

Beyond merely offensive masonry I would bet more Christians have been killed for their faith than any ten other faith's combined.

So what?

But out of curiosity, what's your evidence? The only killing of Christians I recall is Christians killing Christians when ethnic animosity was pretty strong in America; however, religious affiliation was only part of the reason.

.

 

[1robin]

Not talking about "theological symbols" where they may appear in cemeteries, or in some cases on government property, but not in a religious context. We're talking about monuments : statues, or other structures erected to commemorate a famous or notable event or idea.

Then get to raising the supreme court building, it's got statues of "holy" men all over it.

Right, and no one is taking away anyone's right to freely practice their religion as long as it doesn't involve the government. If a religion wants to erect a monument on private properly signifying its religion, fine. But to erect one on government property, not fine at all.

God is on our money, congress has had official chaplains, and our pledge contains God. I said I cared little for monuments in general in my opining post. However your going to have to re-found the united states and rebuild many of it's government structures to accomplish your goal.

OMG. I thought thinking like this, "Might means right," went out centuries ago. Obviously not.

Your response has nothing to do with what you responded to.

Do you actually feel the religious beliefs of the founders of the United States confers some special privilege to their religion? Really? REALLY?

.

No, it was given as an explanation why you find Christian symbols all over the place included government buildings, implements, ceremonies, and functions.

What could illustrate this better than the president being sworn in with a hand on the bible?

I am not arguing to save any specific thing here, I am saying Christian symbols are everywhere because our founders were Christian and the nation (for lack of a better word) has a Christian soul. However that soul is crumbling at the same rate moral insanity is increasing.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, there is no clause that the government must display all or no religious symbols.

There's no clause that says there must be separation of powers either.

I would ay they intended to have a government that was somewhere between a theocracy and secularism.

Then show where such a framework is set up in the Constitution.

You must view the first amendment in the context in which it was given. I will quote from another post to explain the context of the first amendment.

Most of the pioneers that left England, France, and the rest of Europe did so because Christianity was co-opted by the crowns in those places (especially England) or had become it's own crown (concerning the Catholic church). The first amendment was put into place to prevent what had occurred in Europe. It was not meant to separate religion from the state, it was meant to stop the state from controlling religion.

If viewed in the context it was established in, the 1st amendment makes perfect sense and no monuments need be under assault.

That may be your opinion, but that only matters to you. The federal court system has consistently ruled otherwise for decades now, and I tend to think their collective opinion carries a bit more weight than yours.

Why have I never seen a thread attacking the monument of Muhammad at the supreme court building?

Because it's part of a diverse display that includes representations from multiple faiths and historical figures.

The concept of inclusivity versus exclusivity seems to be beyond you.

 

[Skwim]

Then get to raising the supreme court building, it's got statues of "holy" men all over it.

Are they statues? NO They're sculpted figures in a frieze.
Are they monuments? NO.
Are they in a religious context? NO.

So they really don't count. However, to indulge your digression:

The representations of Moses present him in a context in which he is depicted as one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers, not as a religious figure. (This is why, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003 rejected appeals to overturn a decision ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse: they ruled that the monument did not present the Ten Commandments in a context other than as quotations of Biblical verse and was therefore deemed an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.)
source

God is on our money, congress has had official chaplains, and our pledge contains God. I said I cared little for monuments in general in my opining post. However your going to have to re-found the united states and rebuild many of it's government structures to accomplish your goal.

Irrelevant.

Your response has nothing to do with what you responded to.

Sure it does. It has to do with what you said.

No, it was given as an explanation why you find Christian symbols all over the place included government buildings, implements, ceremonies, and functions.

Then all I can say is, so what. In light of the First Amendment it's obvious that many of our leaders have been better swayed by their religion than by their loyalty to our Constitution. Hardy a pretty situation, but there you are.

I am not arguing to save any specific thing here, I am saying Christian symbols are everywhere because our founders were Christian and the nation (for lack of a better word) has a Christian soul.

And as I say, displaying their personal religion is more important than adhering to the dictates of their Constitution. It's sad, but then politicians never have been known to be fair and impartial people. So I think it's a huge accomplishment when a court adheres to the Constitution, as in the Bladensburg case.

.

 

[1robin]

I'm always fascinated to see how some people look back on the times of Jim Crow laws, institutional racism, and institutional bigotry as the good ol' days. The fact that you would go back to those things just so TV programs won't talk about sex says a lot about you.

I said TV guides are a simplistic way of seeing that morality has nose dived since the 50s, I didn't say anything about their being the biggest problem that secularism has produced.

Also, it was leftists who fought against civil rights, it was the right who freed the slaves and promoted racial equality. The left has actually removed God from their platform all together. But lets pretend that racial inequality was something that was promoted by the religious right. It is nothing compared to killing our own children in the womb for the sake of convenience on an industrial scale. But remember it wasn't the conservative Christian right that wanted racial inequality to begin with, it was the relatively Godless left that promoted segregation and even slavery. No matter what time period you look at you can find many horrific practices in existence. My argument was not that moral values and duties were perfect in the 40's, it was that things started to decline in the late 50's.

I'm sorry, but that argument makes no sense.

It's the best conclusion for the evidence that has been offered so far. It doesn't make it true, but my conclusion (it wasn't an argument) perfectly explains the facts. If an explanation fits the facts then it is up to you to show why it isn't true.

Er.....um..........

You actually believe that gay couples aren't marrying?

I really wish you would stop taking my claims out of the analogue context they were given in and substituting a digital context then crying foul. That is actually fallacy. I didn't say nor even suggest none of them got married, I said a relatively small percentage of them did. It gets even worse because homosexuals have a higher rate of adultery even if they get married.

Can you explain how "welfare" incentivizes single parenting?

Apparently your not well informed about this issue. Even if you didn't agree with it you should at least know what the argument is.

In 1964, 7 percent of U.S. children were born outside marriage. Today, the number is 41 percent. For example, a single mother with two children who earns $15,000 per year will generally receive around $5,200 per year from the Food Stamp program. However, if she marries a father with the same earnings level, her food stamps would be cut to zero. A single mother receiving public housing benefits would receive a subsidy worth on average around $11,000 per year if she was not employed. But if she married a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits would be cut nearly in half.

How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It
Why Is It So Hard For Single Moms to Go to College?
How the Welfare State Penalizes Parents Who Marry

So you see people of color and the LGBTQ community as nothing more than "special interest groups of snowflakes" rather than US citizens that are part of what make up the whole of the country.

No, your singling them ought makes them special interest groups. Your the one dividing up people into special groups, not me. You can't make everyone happy, so we should select what is best for the population as a whole.

You want to know one of the big reasons why Christianity is in free fall in the US? This sort of thing. If what you say is true, one would think the Christian response would be along the lines of "Oh those poor people. We need to help them." But instead we get Christians like you using it to bash the gay community.

Christianity is not at a freefell I the US. The percentage who claim to be Christians today is slightly higher today than when the US was founded. Christianity as a whole is also growing by the equivalent of the population of Nevada every year

1. In 1700 the percentage of US citizens that were Christians was 75%
2. In 2015 it was 75.2%

You literally live in a matrix like world of your own creation don't you?

I'm sure you do. But from where I sit, it looks more like you're another older, white fundamentalist Christian who sees the country moving away from your narrow and hateful beliefs and it both scares you and makes you angry. Your pining for the good ol' days of the 1950's when the country was run by white Christians, for white Christians at the expense of everyone else speaks volumes.

The removal of the monument is just one more indication that the days of your privilege are quickly slipping away. People of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and others have found their voices, are demanding that they also have a say in how this country is run, and are refusing to be relegated to the back of the bus...........and it terrifies you.

As the saying goes, to those in positions of privilege equality feels like oppression.

Since your opening premise was wrong above, I didn't bother to read the rest.

 

[1robin]

If those sorts of stats matter to you, how much do you care that 0% of the founding fathers were Baptist? (Edit: and that more than half of them belonged to denominations that were traditionally antagonistic toward Baptists?)

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

I am not sure what your driving at here. I will simply say that our founders were Christians (I do not see, except for a handful of heretical cults why denominations would matter) and built a nation through the lens of Christianity. But again I really do not know what point your trying to make.

I do not see the relevance of "intramural disagreements" but I searched the link you gave for the words you used (like antagonistic) and I could not find any of them.