• 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?

Somerville said:
it is becoming increasingly evident that one religious belief is being supported over all others.
Click to expand...

What is this evidence???? Odd you forgot to tell us?
 
Somerville said:
jimmy, I am beginning to believe that the Goggles of Truth have rendered you incapable or reading words with which you disagree.

View attachment 67254124
Click to expand...

oh no I am beginning to believe that the Goggles of Truth have rendered you incapable or reading words with which you disagree.

( this is a liberals idea of debating)
 
Somerville said:
Other than the fact that it is difficult to "hate" something one doesn't believe exists, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Simply asking that government at all levels not support any religious belief is not caused by hatred. After all, at this time and with the president, Congress and judges we have, it is becoming increasingly evident that one religious belief is being supported over all others. Some of the American citizenry find this to be problematic.

Once again for those who have not read the entire thread. The American Humanist Assoc. is not asking for the cross to be destroyed but simply that it be moved to private property and in the future to be maintained by private funding. HOW does that suppress any religious belief?
Click to expand...

If atheists are right, then whether there's a cross there or not is absolutely irrelevant. The argument that it costs taxpayer money is irrelevant, since launching legal acton to have it removed will also cost taxpayer money.

The motivation for aggressive secularism is hatred of religion. Simple indifference would not explain this behavior.
 
AmNat said:
The motivation for aggressive secularism is hatred of religion.
Click to expand...

yes, religion changes slowly while the libcommie wants a rapid change to communism so of course they hate religion same as Marx did.
 
AmNat said:
If atheists are right, then whether there's a cross there or not is absolutely irrelevant. The argument that it costs taxpayer money is irrelevant, since launching legal acton to have it removed will also cost taxpayer money.

The motivation for aggressive secularism is hatred of religion. Simple indifference would not explain this behavior.
Click to expand...

HOW can taxpayer funding of a religious symbol be "irrelevant"? The cross is deteriorating, evidently it wasn't intended to last for centuries; repairing it where it stands will impede local traffic and cost taxpayer dollars.

There is no "hatred of religion" involved, there is a simple request to remove a symbol of ONE RELIGION from public property. Then, I think most who read the words of the Cross protectors can see that "religion" has only one definition - Christianity.

James972 said:
yes, religion changes slowly while the libcommie wants a rapid change to communism so of course they hate religion same as Marx did.
Click to expand...
Yes, jimmy, Karl Marx hated religion so much that he wrote in "Wages of Labour": "To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs—they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment."
 
Somerville said:
there is a simple request to remove a symbol of ONE RELIGION from public property.
Click to expand...

Constitution says congress can't establish a religion not that it should remove a symbol(cross) of a group of denominations. 1+1=2
 
Somerville said:
Yes, jimmy, Karl Marx hated religion so much that he wrote in "Wages of Labour": "To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs—they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment."
Click to expand...

So what religion did Marx practice??? Wonder why you forgot to tell us??? Ever heard of the opiate of the masses? 1+1=2. See how easy it is to defeat a liberal?
 
James972 said:
So what religion did Marx practice??? Wonder why you forgot to tell us??? Ever heard of the opiate of the masses? 1+1=2. See how easy it is to defeat a liberal?
Click to expand...

Once again jimmy, you are showing all that you know nothing of history. Your sentence structures and grammatical errors appear to indicate that you are still in middle school or that you failed every English class you attended while in school.

To continue to believe that you have 'defeated' any liberals and other rational persons on this forum is actually kind of sad.

The same man who wrote this: "Religion ist der Seufzer der unterdrückten Kreatur, das Herz einer herzlosen Welt und die Seele seelenloser Zustände. Es ist das Opium des Volkes."
also wrote this: "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering."
 
James972 said:
Constitution says congress can't establish a religion not that it should remove a symbol(cross) of a group of denominations. 1+1=2
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court extended First Amendment to be incorporated by the States and local government in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). As to whether or not the cross violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that depends on its context. If the purpose of the cross was not to advocate for a specific religion, but rather had another non-religious purpose, then it would not violate the Establishment Clause.

For example, within the Supreme Court courtroom there is a depiction of the 10 Commandments being held by Moses. The reason it does not violate the Establishment Clause is because Moses is being depicted with numerous other historical law-givers in the same courtroom. Therefore, the 10 Commandments depicted in the Supreme Court courtroom does not violate the Establishment Clause.
 
It should be noted that Congress, or the States, can only violate the Establishment Clause by enacting a law. Without a statute law Congress or the State legislatures are not "establishing" anything. If a valedictorian wishes to give a speech with religious references they are not violating the Establishment Clause. They are incapable of violating the Establishment Clause because a speech is not law. The same thing is true if the President gives a speech making religious references, or the Congressional Benediction. None of these things violate the Establishment Clause because none of them are laws.

As an atheist, I see a systematic attack against Christians by the left that has been going on for decades. The left is being deliberately hypersensitive, taking offense when none was intended. When the left takes offense when someone wishes them a "Merry Christmas" it is proof that the left are mentally deranged and have a rabid obsession with attacking Christianity. So what if you don't celebrate Christmas? I don't celebrate Christmas either. They are still wishing me to be "merry" on that day, so how could anyone take offense at that? Unless they wanted to be offended.

As far as I can tell, the Bladensburg Cross, while being a Christian symbol, was not specifically erected to advocate for any particular religion and is more for memorial purposes than religious. In which case it would not violate the Establishment Clause and should remain as is.
 
Glitch said:
It should be noted that Congress, or the States, can only violate the Establishment Clause by enacting a law. Without a statute law Congress or the State legislatures are not "establishing" anything. If a valedictorian wishes to give a speech with religious references they are not violating the Establishment Clause. They are incapable of violating the Establishment Clause because a speech is not law. The same thing is true if the President gives a speech making religious references, or the Congressional Benediction. None of these things violate the Establishment Clause because none of them are laws.
Click to expand...
Funny, in a rather sad way, that it is those who call themselves Christian who refuse to accept prayers and invocations from those of other faiths. Almost like they believe the United States is a "Christian nation", one that tolerates other faiths but doesn't want to allow them to take the podium.

As an atheist, I see a systematic attack against Christians by the left that has been going on for decades. The left is being deliberately hypersensitive, taking offense when none was intended. When the left takes offense when someone wishes them a "Merry Christmas" it is proof that the left are mentally deranged and have a rabid obsession with attacking Christianity. So what if you don't celebrate Christmas? I don't celebrate Christmas either. They are still wishing me to be "merry" on that day, so how could anyone take offense at that? Unless they wanted to be offended.
Click to expand...
It is the right which is mentally deranged and which goes off into rants when they hear "Happy Holidays". I must wonder about an atheism which fails to acknowledge that Christians dominate the public forum in this nation, and one that sees criticism of the failure to provide equal access to other faiths as "attacking Christianity".

As far as I can tell, the Bladensburg Cross, while being a Christian symbol, was not specifically erected to advocate for any particular religion and is more for memorial purposes than religious. In which case it would not violate the Establishment Clause and should remain as is.
Click to expand...
You are correct, it was not erected to advocate for Christianity because those who raised the cross simply believed only Christians have died in service to America - which isn't true today and wasn't true then.
 
Somerville said:
Funny, in a rather sad way, that it is those who call themselves Christian who refuse to accept prayers and invocations from those of other faiths. Almost like they believe the United States is a "Christian nation", one that tolerates other faiths but doesn't want to allow them to take the podium.
Click to expand...
It makes absolutely no difference what a valedictorian or a politician says in a speech. If they wanted to espouse their Wican beliefs in a speech, more power to them. Unless it is enacted into law it establishes nothing.

Somerville said:
It is the right which is mentally deranged and which goes off into rants when they hear "Happy Holidays". I must wonder about an atheism which fails to acknowledge that Christians dominate the public forum in this nation, and one that sees criticism of the failure to provide equal access to other faiths as "attacking Christianity".
Click to expand...
I'm not offended by "Happy Holidays" either, although that is being more generalist. I often wish people a happy Winter Solstice, since that day has significance for me. Only the left begins foaming at the mouth and becomes incoherently irrational whenever someone wishes them a "Merry Christmas."
 
Somerville said:
You are correct, it was not erected to advocate for Christianity because those who raised the cross simply believed only Christians have died in service to America - which isn't true today and wasn't true then.
Click to expand...
The cross, as a symbol, has been used for many different purposes, not least of which is as a memorial. It does not necessary indicate the religion of the person(s) that died, just that they should be remembered. It is no different from the little crosses you see by the side of the road after a fatal accident. They are not advocating Christianity, they are evoking a memorial. However, the left is too myopic with too much hatred towards Christianity to see the real meaning, so they manufacture some fiction instead.
 
Glitch said:
It makes absolutely no difference what a valedictorian or a politician says in a speech. If they wanted to espouse their Wican beliefs in a speech, more power to them. Unless it is enacted into law it establishes nothing.

I'm not offended by "Happy Holidays" either, although that is being more generalist. I often wish people a happy Winter Solstice, since that day has significance for me. Only the left begins foaming at the mouth and becomes incoherently irrational whenever someone wishes them a "Merry Christmas."
Click to expand...

Ever watch Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity ranting about Happy Holidays? Then there was this fun day back in 2013 before the sexual predator left FoxNews to "spend more time with his family"; Fox News Airs ‘Happy Holidays’ Message As Bill O’Reilly Declares Victory In War On Christmas
 
Glitch said:
The cross, as a symbol, has been used for many different purposes, not least of which is as a memorial. It does not necessary indicate the religion of the person(s) that died, just that they should be remembered. It is no different from the little crosses you see by the side of the road after a fatal accident. They are not advocating Christianity, they are evoking a memorial. However, the left is too myopic with too much hatred towards Christianity to see the real meaning, so they manufacture some fiction instead.
Click to expand...

Crosses are Christian. Roadside crosses memorialize dead Christians. Do you honestly think that a Muslim family would put a cross on the grave, or death location, of their relative? Or a Jewish family, Or a pagan family?
 
Somerville said:
Ever watch Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity ranting about Happy Holidays? Then there was this fun day back in 2013 before the sexual predator left FoxNews to "spend more time with his family"; Fox News Airs ‘Happy Holidays’ Message As Bill O’Reilly Declares Victory In War On Christmas
Click to expand...

I live in the boonies in Alaska, I don't get satellite or cable TV. I wouldn't use "Happy Holidays" myself because it groups all the holidays together. I prefer to be more specific. I'll wish someone a "Happy New Year," for example. If I know someone is Christian, or if someone wishes me a "Merry Christmas" first, then I will wish them a "Merry Christmas" as well. The day means nothing to me, but they are at least wishing me to be happy or at least "merry" on that day. It is natural to return the good wishes. It is unnatural to be offended by someone's good wishes.
 
Somerville said:
Crosses are Christian. Roadside crosses memorialize dead Christians. Do you honestly think that a Muslim family would put a cross on the grave, or death location, of their relative? Or a Jewish family, Or a pagan family?
Click to expand...

A cross on the side of the road has no more religious meaning than the cross on the side of a government-owned ambulance. Should we ban the Red Cross while we're at it?

This is the kind of leftist hysteria towards Christianity I'm referring. Everywhere they see a cross they think Christians are out to get them.
 
Glitch said:
A cross on the side of the road has no more religious meaning than the cross on the side of a government-owned ambulance. Should we ban the Red Cross while we're at it?

This is the kind of leftist hysteria towards Christianity I'm referring. Everywhere they see a cross they think Christians are out to get them.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are convinced your beliefs are true - doesn't make 'em so.

This + does not have the same meaning as this t
 
Somerville said:
Crosses are Christian. Roadside crosses memorialize dead Christians. Do you honestly think that a Muslim family would put a cross on the grave, or death location, of their relative? Or a Jewish family, Or a pagan family?
Click to expand...

too bad Bill of Rights does not address your issue. It merely says Congress cant establish a religion. When a local group erects a cross, Congress has not established a religion. A kindergartener could understand this simple point.
 
Glitch said:
A cross on the side of the road has no more religious meaning than the cross on the side of a government-owned ambulance. Should we ban the Red Cross while we're at it?
Click to expand...
I wonder if liberals would like to ban crosses on churches? It must make Muslims very uncomfortable since there are so many churches and so few Mosques.
 
James972 said:
too bad Bill of Rights does not address your issue. It merely says Congress cant establish a religion. When a local group erects a cross, Congress has not established a religion. A kindergartener could understand this simple point.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has incorporated the First Amendment to apply to both State and local governments in 1925. It does not, however, apply to private organizations. Just government, at every level.
 
James972 said:
I wonder if liberals would like to ban crosses on churches? It must make Muslims very uncomfortable since there are so many churches and so few Mosques.
Click to expand...

The left appears to be obsessed with only persecuting Christians. For example, they could have easily gone after an orthodox Jew, or a devout Muslim baker, instead of the Christian baker in Colorado. Instead, the left specifically targeted a Christian for persecution. So I don't think you are going to see Muslims feeling uncomfortable. In fact, it is because Muslims make Christians uncomfortable is why the left embraces Muslims, even though most Muslims would rather kill a leftist - particularly the homosexual atheist leftists.
 
Glitch said:
The left appears to be obsessed with only persecuting Christians. For example, they could have easily gone after an orthodox Jew, or a devout Muslim baker, instead of the Christian baker in Colorado. Instead, the left specifically targeted a Christian for persecution. So I don't think you are going to see Muslims feeling uncomfortable. In fact, it is because Muslims make Christians uncomfortable is why the left embraces Muslims, even though most Muslims would rather kill a leftist - particularly the homosexual atheist leftists.
Click to expand...

Mindless bigotry aided and abetted by the tweets of our dim-witted president. Sad that so many apparently are unable to see the real world.

"easily gone after an orthodox Jew, or a devout Muslim baker"? How could a gay couple have easily entered a bakery owned by an orthodox Jew or a devout Muslim, when the numbers of such businesses are miniscule compared to the number of 'devout' Christian-owned bakeries?

There are approximately 8 million Americans who identify as Jewish, one-third are Orthodox ( less than 3 million in the US). 27 of the states have fewer than 1% total populaton that is Jewish. Now, tell the readers how easy it would be to find an Orthodox Jew-owned bakery.

There are 3.5 - 4 million Muslims in the US. Surprisingly, a recent (2017) survey found the majority of American Muslims support same-sex marriage.

Data to think about
Most religious groups in the U.S. now support same-sex marriage, including overwhelming majorities of Unitarians (97%), Buddhists (80%), the religiously unaffiliated (80%), Jewish Americans (77%), and Hindus (75%). Roughly two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (67%), white Catholics (66%), Orthodox Christians (66%), and Hispanic Catholics (65%) also favor same-sex marriage. A slim majority of Muslims (51%) favor same-sex marriage, but only 34% are opposed; 15% offer no opinion on this issue.
(. . .)
Opposition to same-sex marriage is now confined to a few of the most conservative Christian religious traditions. Only about one-third (34%) of white evangelical Protestants support same-sex marriage today, while nearly six in ten (58%) are opposed, including 30% who are strongly opposed. And just 40% of Mormons support same-sex marriage, compared to 53% who are opposed. Jehovah’s Witnesses, a racially mixed religious group, are the exception. Just 13% support the policy, compared to 63% who oppose it. However, nearly one-quarter (24%) of Jehovah’s Witnesses express no opinion on this issue. Nevertheless, even those religious groups most opposed to same-sex marriage have become more accepting of it over the last five years.
Click to expand...
 
James972 said:
I wonder if liberals would like to ban crosses on churches? It must make Muslims very uncomfortable since there are so many churches and so few Mosques.
Click to expand...

This has to be one of your top inane and irrelevant posts, jimmy. Please inform the reading audience the exact relationship between the Bladensburg Cross on public property and a cross seen on a Christian church.

Which cross should we ban, jimmy? crosses.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom