• 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?

Glitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

so did federal or state govt establish a religion with this cross?? what religion??
 
Does anyone wonder why we are constantly offended by this or that? What ever happened to respecting one another? I don't mean just this side or that side, but mutual respect for whatever we treasure.
Look at Abrahamic Religion, why are we constantly at each other's throat instead of finding common ground? Why is it so horrendous to look at a symbol that give solace to so many?
Just today, we visited a Buddhist retreat, being Christians and all. We were respectful, we were educated, and we left in peace.
Relax, people, and find what unites us instead of bickering about this or that.
 
James972 said:
so did federal or state govt establish a religion with this cross?? what religion??
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Before the First Amendment was incorporated in 1925 numerous States had their own government-sponsored religion. Massachusetts, as just one example, had their government-sponsored religion written as Article II in their Commonwealth Constitution. You could not be Governor of Massachusetts unless you lived in the Commonwealth for a minimum of seven years, owned property worth at least 1,000 pounds, and "shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion." Like the First Amendment at the time, the US Constitution's prohibition on religious tests was only a federal prohibition, not one that bound the States.
 
Glitch said:
Absolutely. Before the First Amendment was incorporated in 1925 numerous States had their own government-sponsored religion. Massachusetts, as just one example, had their government-sponsored religion written as Article II in their Commonwealth Constitution. You could not be Governor of Massachusetts unless you lived in the Commonwealth for a minimum of seven years, owned property worth at least 1,000 pounds, and "shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion." Like the First Amendment at the time, the US Constitution's prohibition on religious tests was only a federal prohibition, not one that bound the States.
Click to expand...

For third time: So did federal or state govt establish a religion with this cross?? What religion exactly??
 
James972 said:
For third time: So did federal or state govt establish a religion with this cross?? What religion exactly??
Click to expand...

jimmy, please tell the reading audience the difference between "establishing" and "supporting".

Now, for some reason you have - once again - failed to respond to the explanations provided which show the Bladensburg Cross is in violation of several Supreme Court rulings.
 
Somerville said:
jimmy, please tell the reading audience the difference between "establishing" and "supporting".

.
Click to expand...

To establish a religion is make one religion the state religion. Did the largely secular Bladensburg cross establish a religion? What religion? Did the federal govt establish that religion by ignoring the cross? Does ignoring crosses and symbols on churches temples mosques establish a religion? Does ignoring them mean the feds have established 3 religions?
 
Somerville said:
Bladensburg Cross is in violation of several Supreme Court rulings.
Click to expand...

if so what religion did the Feds establish by ignoring the Bladensburg cross????
 
jimmy, you are definitely trolling -- OR, you are so ignorant in regards to the Constitution that your answers come across as little more than trolling.

For the umpteenth time, a religious symbol on a building owned by a religious group is not in any legal or rational understanding, the equivalent of a religious symbol on public property. The fact that a symbol may be seen by the public when placed on a privately-owned property does not mean that said symbol should be placed upon property owned by a government entity.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
 
Lovebug said:
Does anyone wonder why we are constantly offended by this or that? What ever happened to respecting one another? I don't mean just this side or that side, but mutual respect for whatever we treasure.
Look at Abrahamic Religion, why are we constantly at each other's throat instead of finding common ground? Why is it so horrendous to look at a symbol that give solace to so many?
Just today, we visited a Buddhist retreat, being Christians and all. We were respectful, we were educated, and we left in peace.
Relax, people, and find what unites us instead of bickering about this or that.
Click to expand...

Often it's that tribalistic bug that gets in the way. Some folks can interpret "love thy neighbor" as loving the neighbor who subscribes to the same religion/ideology etc. as you otherwise they're not like you and don't deserve the same respect. What's clear is cultures through out humanity's history have found ways of approaching the unknowable and the spiritual aspect of our existence; that's what we have an common and should respect. Though I'm not religious, I am intrigued by the ideas and efforts carried out by human beings in their quest understand our raison d'être.
 
Somerville said:
a religious symbol on a building owned by a religious group is not in any legal or rational understanding, the equivalent of a religious symbol on public property.
Click to expand...

if the govt tolerates a religious symbol anywhere it is, apparently, establishing a religion. I don't see why it matters if on public or private property. Govt regulates private property all the time.
 
Somerville said:
jimmy, you are definitely trolling -- OR, you are so ignorant in regards to the Constitution that your answers come across as little more than trolling.

For the umpteenth time, a religious symbol on a building owned by a religious group is not in any legal or rational understanding, the equivalent of a religious symbol on public property. The fact that a symbol may be seen by the public when placed on a privately-owned property does not mean that said symbol should be placed upon property owned by a government entity.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Click to expand...

Off-topic/Red:
I do not think the Constitution demarks the extant limit to which you refer. I don't know what does; I'm merely confident the Constitution isn't it.
 
Xelor said:
Off-topic/Red:
I do not think the Constitution demarks the extant limit to which you refer. I don't know what does; I'm merely confident the Constitution isn't it.
Click to expand...

if i'm understanding your criticism properly, then the Constitution definitely does cover it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

you could say that this doesn't apply at state level based on just this, but i'm sure that's covered elsewhere, and if not, it is by Supreme Court cases.

if the government has just a large Christian symbol on the premises, and not symbols for all other religions, or in place of no religious symbols, then they are promoting one over the others, or the lack thereof, which is directly a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause
 
Somerville said:
jimmy, you are definitely trolling -- OR, you are so ignorant in regards to the Constitution that your answers come across as little more than trolling.


For the umpteenth time, a religious symbol on a building owned by a religious group is not in any legal or rational understanding, the equivalent of a religious symbol on public property. The fact that a symbol may be seen by the public when placed on a privately-owned property does not mean that said symbol should be placed upon property owned by a government entity.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


Xelor said:
Off-topic/Red:
I do not think the Constitution demarks the extant limit to which you refer. I don't know what does; I'm merely confident the Constitution isn't it.



nekrodev said:
if i'm understanding your criticism properly, then the Constitution definitely does cover it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

you could say that this doesn't apply at state level based on just this, but i'm sure that's covered elsewhere, and if not, it is by Supreme Court cases.

if the government has just a large Christian symbol on the premises, and not symbols for all other religions, or in place of no religious symbols, then they are promoting one over the others, or the lack thereof, which is directly a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Blue:
You've misunderstood my remarks. They pertained to and aimed to help abate your expressed uncertainty regarding the existence and nature of "Jimmy's" ignorance, not the nature or extent of what the Constitution covers or doesn't.
 
nekrodev said:
if the government has just a large Christian symbol on the premises, and not symbols for all other religions, or in place of no religious symbols, then they are promoting one over the others, or the lack thereof, which is directly a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause
Click to expand...

wrong of course, the Constitution does not say anything about promoting, just establishing. Now do you understand?
 
Glitch said:
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...

Apparently the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, agrees with me. The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. See American Legion et al. v. American Humanist Association et al.
 
Glitch said:
Apparently the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, agrees with me. The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. See American Legion et al. v. American Humanist Association et al.
Click to expand...

honestly, not surprising given the current SC, but it's still disappointing. all in all, not the worst outcome, though, they didn't blatantly rule that things like this were okay, in general - just that this particular one wasn't really intended to be just a symbol of Christianity.
 
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...

If the Bladensburg Cross has to come down, then there is a REAL problem with veterans cemeteries. They are full of crosses and Stars of David.
 
joko104 said:
Give one example of clergy praying for troops to "rack up a nice body count."

Atheists claiming Christians slaughtered their fellow man? In modern history, Christians don't even come close to the scale of slaughters by secular governments.
Click to expand...

Secular governments using Christians to do the killing, and the Christians happily acquiescing.
 
Waddy said:
If the Bladensburg Cross has to come down, then there is a REAL problem with veterans cemeteries. They are full of crosses and Stars of David.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court ruled that the Bladensburg Cross should be seen as a historical monument honouring the war dead and not as a Christian symbol - which is a bit weird in my opinion but that is what they decided.

All of those "crosses and Stars of David" are seen on individual grave markers, noting the faith of the fallen in that grave. There are other symbols allowed also

Approved Emblems of Belief for Veterans' Grave Markers
 
Somerville said:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Bladensburg Cross should be seen as a historical monument honouring the war dead and not as a Christian symbol - which is a bit weird in my opinion but that is what they decided.

All of those "crosses and Stars of David" are seen on individual grave markers, noting the faith of the fallen in that grave. There are other symbols allowed also

Approved Emblems of Belief for Veterans' Grave Markers
Click to expand...

Not weird at all when put into context. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress and the States (since 1925) from establishing a religion. Since the purpose of the Bladensburg Cross was as a memorial, and not in a religious context it was not government establishing or promoting a particular religion. It is the same thing for the Ten Commandments on display in the Supreme Court building. The purpose behind the display was to represent historical law givers, and had no religious intent. It all comes down to context. Government may not establish a religion, nor may they promote or hinder an existing religion.
 
Somerville said:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Bladensburg Cross should be seen as a historical monument honouring the war dead and not as a Christian symbol - which is a bit weird in my opinion but that is what they decided.

All of those "crosses and Stars of David" are seen on individual grave markers, noting the faith of the fallen in that grave. There are other symbols allowed also

Approved Emblems of Belief for Veterans' Grave Markers
Click to expand...

And it is all on public property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom