Is the Bladensburg Cross Unconstitutional?

[Tanngrisnir]

conservatives tend to be christian and liberals opposed. 1+1=2

No, even the Constitution says that Christianity and conservatism are diametrically opposed and the conservatism is against the law.

 

[James972]

No, even the Constitution says that Christianity and conservatism are diametrically opposed and the conservatism is against the law.

where exactly???? Notice the liberal cant?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

where exactly???? Notice the liberal cant?

Thanks for agreeing with me!

 

[James972]

Thanks for agreeing with me!

my pleasure!

 

[joko104]

Well said...you've hit the proverbial nail on the head...:thumbs:

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.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Already know that we see things very differently.

So then prove that the left isn't, in context with the many anti-Christian legal suits brought, anti-Christians media attacks, the near constant elbowing of the Christian religion off of the public square.

If Christianity was completely removed from government and Christian symbols were completely banned from public land, are you saying that would "destroy the Christian religion?"

Mind you, I think this was a stupid case for the American Humanists to take. I am just asking why you think a very strict interpretation of the separation of church and state would destroy Christianity.

I would also point out that in many developed countries without a separation of church and state, Christianity has floundered. Just look at much of Northern and Western Europe. Many European countries have Christianity as the official state religion, Britain and the Church of England for example, yet Christian adherence is much lower there. The reason for this is that when you don't have a line between Church and State, the Church tends to become just a cultural institution and nothing more.

 

[Daisy]

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.

In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church even concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”

On December 7, 1941, the same day Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese axis partner of Hitler and Mussolini, the New York Times, under headline “‘War Prayer’ for Reich” and subhead “Catholic Bishops at Fulda Ask Blessing and Victory,” published the following:

“FULDA, Germany, Dec. 6—The Conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special ‘war prayer’ which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services.

“The prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops further instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday sermon at least once a month German soldiers ‘on land, on sea and in the air.’

“The German Catholic clergy, while strongly objecting to certain aspects of Nazi racial policy, has always taken care to emphasize the duty of every Catholic to his country as loyal Germans in the present war.”

The clergy also connect up this God of the Bible with all their spilling of blood in violent wars. How? By praying to him to grant victory to their own nation as against the other nation, even putting on the belts of the soldier boys the words “God with us.” They have prayed the warriors of their nation into heaven by claiming that the soldiers dying on the battlefield for their political rulers have an immediate passport into heaven to be with God and Jesus Christ. It does not matter to the clergy whether their soldier boys prove to have fought for the losing side, and apparently the wrong side; they still go to heavenly bliss for having died under the blessing of their religious clergy who pray for them. Thus they picture Jehovah as a God that has backed up all this war and bloodshed committed by Christendom for the past sixteen centuries.

Whose Name Do You Respect More—Your Own or God’s? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[James972]

If Christianity was completely removed from government and Christian symbols were completely banned from public land, are you saying that would "destroy the Christian religion?"

no, he's saying its part of the liberal Marxist attempt to destroy Christianity and morality

 

[James972]

In 1933 the Roman Catholic Church even concluded a concordat with the Nazis. Cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: “This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler].”

and yet during the war Nazi troops surrounded the Vatican.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

no, he's saying its part of the liberal Marxist attempt to destroy Christianity and morality

You folks wiped your ass with morality when you voted for a man like Trump.

 

[Daisy]

and yet during the war Nazi troops surrounded the Vatican.

Their stupidity now, wasn't it? Political elements are about as loyal some religious elements, huh?

 

[James972]

You folks wiped your ass with morality when you voted for a man like Trump.

not really, Trump's family values for example are superior to liberal Marxist school to prison ghetto hip hop family values. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

Their stupidity now, wasn't it?

their????? English please

 

[ALiberalModerate]

and yet during the war Nazi troops surrounded the Vatican.

And Hitler regularly quoted the Bible and professed his Christian faith in speeches. For example:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." - Hitler 1922

 

[Daisy]

their????? English please

It was English...sorry understanding is over your head...:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

not really, Trump's family values for example are superior to liberal Marxist school to prison ghetto hip hop family values. Do you understand?

I am not sure what stands out more in that post, the racism or the cognitive dissonance.

 

[eohrnberger]

If Christianity was completely removed from government and Christian symbols were completely banned from public land, are you saying that would "destroy the Christian religion?"

Mind you, I think this was a stupid case for the American Humanists to take. I am just asking why you think a very strict interpretation of the separation of church and state would destroy Christianity.

I would also point out that in many developed countries without a separation of church and state, Christianity has floundered. Just look at much of Northern and Western Europe. Many European countries have Christianity as the official state religion, Britain and the Church of England for example, yet Christian adherence is much lower there. The reason for this is that when you don't have a line between Church and State, the Church tends to become just a cultural institution and nothing more.

I'd point out that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion, especially not in the public square.

Freedom of religion is that you can practice the religion of your choice (or not) and no one, not the government, can stop you from doing so.

The separation of church and state is so the state doesn't institute a 'Church of England' type of thing, as has been done in the past.
It doesn't mean a banishment of any religion from the public square.

Quite true. Christianity, and other religions I'm sure, have floundered in some countries, being displaced by government, which appears to have become the people's new god.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'd point out that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion, especially not in the public square.

Freedom of religion is that you can practice the religion of your choice (or not) and no one, not the government, can stop you from doing so.

The separation of church and state is so the state doesn't institute a 'Church of England' type of thing, as has been done in the past.
It doesn't mean a banishment of any religion from the public square.

Quite true. Christianity, and other religions I'm sure, have floundered in some countries, being displaced by government, which appears to have become the people's new god.

OK, there is no prayer in school anymore. Well, that is not really true though is it. There is no school sanctioned prayer in school, but any kid or group of kids can choose to pray any free time they want in public school and it happens every day, just look at Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Explicitly religious monuments have been taken down in many public squares and parks. Yet people are still free to erect any kind of religious monument on any private land they want. In the South there are crosses and statues of Jesus so big they can be seen for miles. They are just on private property.

The point is that even with the strictest interpretation of a separation of church and state, there is still freedom of the practice of religion. All a constitutional separation of church and state means, is that the state, it's government, and it's institutions, cannot be used as a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel adherence to a religious belief. Even with the most liberal interpretation of a separation of church and state, that is all that it means.

 

[James972]

I am not sure what stands out more in that post, the racism or the cognitive dissonance.

but do you realize thats Trumps family values are superior to liberal school to prison pipeline values?? NOtice how you are running away?

 

[James972]

All a constitutional separation of church and state means, is that the state, it's government, and it's institutions, cannot be used as a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel adherence to a religious belief.

but you see liberals are using it, with other measures, to attack and destroy Christianity-right?

 

[pinqy]

I'd point out that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion, especially not in the public square.

Freedom of religion is that you can practice the religion of your choice (or not) and no one, not the government, can stop you from doing so.

But the issue of the cross has nothing to do with freedom of religion...it's about the establishment of religion: government support for one religion over others or religion over non-religion.

Even if every single person in a town had the same religion and 100% agreed on how to express that religion, it would still be unconstitutional for the government to support of promote that religion.

The separation of church and state is so the state doesn't institute a 'Church of England' type of thing, as has been done in the past.
It doesn't mean a banishment of any religion from the public square.

Do you really think the difference between an official and unofficial religion makes any difference?

 

[James972]

..it's about the establishment of religion:?

cross has been there for 100 years; it has not established a religion. Christianity is not even religion

 

[James972]

it would still be unconstitutional for the government to support of promote that religion.

its illegal to establish. It says nothing about support.

 

[James972]

Do you really think the difference between an official and unofficial religion makes any difference?

what religion are you even talking about? Christianity can be catholic or mormon. Do you understand?

 

[jet57]

It's worth noting that the American Humanist Association supported the Satanist statue of the deity Baphomet on public grounds.

Which is not to say that they support Satanists, but it is to say their objection to religious symbolism on public ground is selective and utilitarian.

Yeah, it was placed on the same grounds as The Ten Commandments. So of course the humanists would support it. They would support a statue of Buddha as well and other religious symbols so that not just the Christians could have their way... That pesky freedom of religion thing you know.

Damn that Constitution!!

making everything fair and not selective; deciding that not just white people are human beings with rights...

darn


WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAY???