• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Bladensburg Cross Unconstitutional?

Tanngrisnir said:
Where we actually disagree is that those 'attacks' constitute an attempt by 'the left' to 'destroy' the Christian religion.

The foundation of my position is that there is no credible evidence to support that claim. Full stop.
Click to expand...

A position that hasn't been substantiated by you either. :shrug:
 
Now shall we get back to the purpose of the OP. Here are two of the eight points from the OP

3) A victory for the government would be bad news for Christians.
If this cross is declared legal, think about what that would mean: The Supreme Court would basically be saying the cross is not a uniquely Christian symbol but rather some generic symbol representing death.

Is this the understanding of evangelical Christians? If this cross is ruled to be a non-secular symbol with no relationship to the Christian faith, what might be the repercussions?

8) No one’s asking for the Bladensburg Cross to be destroyed.
While one possible solution is to remove the “arms” of the cross and create a secular “obelisk” memorial, the AHA would be perfectly fine with it being moved to private property.

Please explain how removing the cross from public-owned land to a private property, one from which the cross is still visible while driving by, is to be seen as an attack on Christianity.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I don't have to. I didn't make the claim; I don't have to substantiate it. The evidence that has thus far been offered doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

Also an interesting position. 'Believe me, but I won't support it'.

Whatever, dude.
 
eohrnberger said:
Also an interesting position. 'Believe me, but I won't support it'.

Whatever, dude.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that that's not my position.

If you have to lie about what others believe, it might be time to reexamine your own stance.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that that's not my position.

If you have to lie about what others believe, it might be time to reexamine your own stance.
Click to expand...

I'm not lying about anything. You have yet to support your position.

Let me know if and when you do support your position. Until then, laters!
 
eohrnberger said:
I'm not lying about anything. You have yet to support your position.

Let me know if and when you do support your position. Until then, laters!
Click to expand...

My position has already been supported. For the contention you made, you have not supplied any credible evidence. I understand that you need to pretend otherwise, as a self-defense mechanism, but we're just going in circles.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
My position has already been supported. For the contention you made, you have not supplied any credible evidence. I understand that you need to pretend otherwise, as a self-defense mechanism, but we're just going in circles.
Click to expand...

Where have you supported your position?
BTW: Pro Tip: Just claiming something without citations isn't considered supporting.

At least I supported with citations, which, of course and as expected, you don't accept.
Well, what else is new when trying to reasonably discuss something with a liberal?

Pretty much sums up the 'news' (come political propaganda) the leftist media keeps pushing as well, come to think of it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Where have you supported your position?
BTW: Pro Tip: Just claiming something without citations isn't considered supporting.

At least I supported with citations, which, of course and as expected, you don't accept.
Well, what else is new when trying to reasonably discuss something with a liberal?

Pretty much sums up the 'news' (come political propaganda) the leftist media keeps pushing as well, come to think of it.
Click to expand...

Again: what you cited isn't even remotely evidence that 'the left' is trying to 'destroy the Christian religion'. Full stop.

Marxists like you never could muster a rational argument. Don't know why I expected anything different.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Again: what you cited isn't even remotely evidence that 'the left' is trying to 'destroy the Christian religion'. Full stop.

Marxists like you never could muster a rational argument. Don't know why I expected anything different.
Click to expand...

You haven't musted much of a reasonable argument nor any substantiation for your position. Just a claim that it isn't so, and that's no substantiation. Seems that this is a recurring pattern of yours.
Don't know why I expected anything different.

Have a nice day.
 
eohrnberger said:
You haven't musted much of a reasonable argument nor any substantiation for your position. Just a claim that it isn't so, and that's no substantiation. Seems that this is a recurring pattern of yours.
Don't know why I expected anything different.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Again, since you're compelled to lie about my position and what I've stated, you might reconsider your position.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Again, since you're compelled to lie about my position and what I've stated, you might reconsider your position.
Click to expand...

Quote your substantiation of your position.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Asked and answered already. That you're not in the position to accept that emotionally isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

True, asked and answered, but still no substantiation other than your assertion.
Well, sorry guy, that's not substantiation, regardless of how impressed with yourself you might be.

Emotionally? LOLz. Yet another unsubstantiated claim. You seem to do that quite often.

Like I posted further back. Let me know when you are ready to provide some substantiation for your claim.

Till then, have a nice day.
 
eohrnberger said:
True, asked and answered, but still no substantiation other than your assertion.
Well, sorry guy, that's not substantiation, regardless of how impressed with yourself you might be.

Emotionally? LOLz. Yet another unsubstantiated claim. You seem to do that quite often.

Like I posted further back. Let me know when you are ready to provide some substantiation for your claim.

Till then, have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Already done. Again, you seem incapable of accepting even basic reality, so we'll just have to let it go. And my observation about your emotional nature doesn't need substantiation. This seems to both confound and confuse you.

Oh, well.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Already done. Again, you seem incapable of accepting even basic reality, so we'll just have to let it go. And my observation about your emotional nature doesn't need substantiation. This seems to both confound and confuse you.

Oh, well.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming 'already done', yet you've not.
All you've called it is 'a basic reality', well, sorry, you must be confused as to what substantiation is. I'm sorry for you.
And you go and do it again making unfounded assertions about things you have no factual knowledge about. I'm sorry for you.

Seems to me that you appear to be far more confused than I. :shrug:

You're right in going around and around, and from my view, probably have derailed this thread long enough.

Is the Bladensburg cross unconstitutional?
No I believe it is not.
There is no provision in the Constitution that I'm aware of that requires the tearing down or restricting of public displays of religious symbolisms.

The Constitution does, however, prevent the government from instituting a state mandated religion.
 
eohrnberger said:
You keep claiming 'already done', yet you've not.
All you've called it is 'a basic reality', well, sorry, you must be confused as to what substantiation is. I'm sorry for you.
And you go and do it again making unfounded assertions about things you have no factual knowledge about. I'm sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Yawn. More make-believe games and delusional blathering from you. I don't really expect anything else at this point.
Seems to me that you appear to be far more confused than I. :shrug:

You're right in going around and around, and from my view, probably have derailed this thread long enough.

Is the Bladensburg cross unconstitutional?
No I believe it is not.
There is no provision in the Constitution that I'm aware of that requires the tearing down or restricting of public displays of religious symbolisms.

The Constitution does, however, prevent the government from instituting a state mandated religion.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it does.
 
eohrnberger said:
(snip)

Is the Bladensburg cross unconstitutional?
No I believe it is not.
There is no provision in the Constitution that I'm aware of that requires the tearing down or restricting of public displays of religious symbolisms.

The Constitution does, however, prevent the government from instituting a state mandated religion.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of The Lemon Test

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602). In the case, the Court decided that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. The case is discussed in more detail on the Constitution and Religion Page. One of the results of this case is the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the 1st Amendment.

The Lemon Test is not immutable - there is discussion in the general public and on the current Court about the Lemon Test. However, it has stood as a good guide for lower courts ever since 1971.

The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. myemphasis
Click to expand...

I asked earlier, if the cross is seen as purely a secular memorial for WWI veterans, is it then no longer a religious symbol?
 
I have a great idea!

Let's go to Arlington National Cemetery and remove every grave stone that has religious a engraving on it.

No room for this crap on Government property!
 
Somerville said:
Ever heard of The Lemon Test



I asked earlier, if the cross is seen as purely a secular memorial for WWI veterans, is it then no longer a religious symbol?
Click to expand...

You want to put some sort of secular memorial honoring the same veterans next to it, I think that'd be fine.

You want to tear down an existing memorial honoring those veterans, then I'd be objecting.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I have a great idea!

Let's go to Arlington National Cemetery and remove every grave stone that has religious a engraving on it.

No room for this crap on Government property!
Click to expand...

Cannot honor the fallen enough.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I have a great idea!

Let's go to Arlington National Cemetery and remove every grave stone that has religious a engraving on it.

No room for this crap on Government property!
Click to expand...

The grave markers in Arlington and in other military cemeteries are for individuals whose families wished to memorialise the faith of the fallen. The Bladensburg cross is meant to honour ALL of those who died in WWI, yet it is a specifically Christian memorial and thereby ignores the faith of the non-Christian who were lost. It is also a Christian marker on public property. Why not move it to private property?
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
Is a cross a purely Christian symbol when it is used as a fallen veteran memorial? The SCOTUS will be making a decision on this matter in the next couple weeks.



Reasons offered by the American Humanist Assn.


All quotes from [URL="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/31/heres-why-the-supreme-court-must-say-the-bladensburg-cross-is-unconstitutional/]Here’s Why the Supreme Court Must Say the Bladensburg Cross Is Unconstitutional[/URL]
Click to expand...

Screw the anti-Christianity AHA. They're Hell-bound in the end. They're also headed for a major defeat at SCOTUS, IMO.
 
Logicman said:
Screw the anti-Christianity AHA. They're Hell-bound in the end. They're also headed for a major defeat at SCOTUS, IMO.
Click to expand...

They're not anti-Christian, nor can you demonstrate that they are. What's going to be delicious is when you wake up in the Islamic Hell.
 
Here are some grave markers from Arlington National Cemetery. Does a cross honour the service of all of those who have gone before us?

atheist grave.JPG judaism.JPG wicca.JPG

islam.JPG

buddhism and.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom