High court rules cross doesn't violate separation of church and state
74 replies, posted
It seems that everyone's completely forgotten what "Separation of church and state" means.
I don't see this as constitutional, nor do I see this as a big deal. However, I think that it should be left there so long as it's made clear that this is completely separate from the government.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;21620940]Atheists looking for an excuse to complain.[/QUOTE]
Gmod_Fan77 showing his ignorance once again.
Wasn't there a group trying to buy the small patch of land the cross was situated on?
[QUOTE=davidofmk771;21621013]i thought that if a soldier died their religious symbol was put on their grave[/QUOTE]
That is up to the next of kin, unless it was stated in their will.
Listen, it was erected when it wasn't even on government property. It didn't use government funds. They had nothing to do with it.
And even if they had, why should it matter?
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;21620940]Atheists looking for an excuse to complain.[/QUOTE]
Hey, it's gmod_fan, someone who can't even use basic logic.
[QUOTE=weih;21620416]Yes, but the veterans themselves put it up. The U.S. government did not order it to be put up. That's like saying we can't have churches in cities because the government runs cities.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but people own land within the cities and that constitutes private property. If the veterans bought the land they could put all the crosses they want on it. However, being government-owned land, any monuments on it have to be secular. And a cross isn't secular, it's a christian icon. Perhaps pagan if you want to stretch.
Unincorporated land is another issue as well. If this was just a random spot out in the desert not technically owned by anyone I'd (and most atheists would) be fine with it. I mean, who hasn't seen a cross along the side of the highway marking where some jackass got drunk and drove their truck into a tree?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21631772]Yes, but people own land within the cities and that constitutes private property. If the veterans bought the land they could put all the crosses they want on it. However, being government-owned land, any monuments on it have to be secular. And a cross isn't secular, it's a christian icon. Perhaps pagan if you want to stretch.
Unincorporated land is another issue as well. If this was just a random spot out in the desert not technically owned by anyone I'd (and most atheists would) be fine with it. I mean, who hasn't seen a cross along the side of the highway marking where some jackass got drunk and drove their truck into a tree?[/QUOTE]
This argument is stupid, you are being stupid, and there is nothing wrong with the cross being there. Why does it bother you that much?
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21632319]This argument is stupid, you are being stupid, and there is nothing wrong with the cross being there. Why does it bother you that much?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't bother me, it bothers the constitution.
"I don't have guns so who cares if they take American's guns away I mean it doesn't bother me right"
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21631772]Yes, but people own land within the cities and that constitutes private property. If the veterans bought the land they could put all the crosses they want on it. However, being government-owned land, any monuments on it have to be secular. And a cross isn't secular, it's a christian icon. Perhaps pagan if you want to stretch.
Unincorporated land is another issue as well. If this was just a random spot out in the desert not technically owned by anyone I'd (and most atheists would) be fine with it. I mean, who hasn't seen a cross along the side of the highway marking where some jackass got drunk and drove their truck into a tree?[/QUOTE]
I agree, but at the same time, I think this is a bit out of proportion. As long as government money isn't spent on religious iconography of any sort, it's less of a big deal. Although, this would be better on private land.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21617300]First Amendment.
A Christian-oriented war memorial is respecting an establishment of religion in this case because it is public lands.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]
They didn't make a law on it, sounds fine to me. Stop acting like an overly sensitive atheist.
[QUOTE=Luxo;21634445]They didn't make a law on it, sounds fine to me. Stop acting like an overly sensitive atheist.[/QUOTE]
Not all veterans were Christian.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21634848]Not all veterans were Christian.[/QUOTE]
Obviously the ones who put this up were.
[editline]03:35AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21632351]It doesn't bother me, it bothers the constitution.
"I don't have guns so who cares if they take American's guns away I mean it doesn't bother me right"[/QUOTE]
How does this "bother the constitution"? Congress did not make a law respecting a certain religion, so I don't see what the government has done except not be super atheist.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;21635685][B]No part of the First Amendment outright states that church and state must be separate organizations, just that no laws can favor a certain religion.[/B]
Say, for example, there is a fictional country that the First Amendment applies to. It is run by a Christian government, but there are no laws for Christianity or against any other religion. As against human nature as that sounds, there is absolutely [I]nothing.[/I]
It is possible for the most common religion of a country to be, for example,[B] Christianity, and the entire country run by a Christian organization[/B], but as long as there are no LAWS saying that Christianity is better or worse than any other religion, it's not violating the First Amendment even though it [I]is[/I] a unified Church and State.[/QUOTE]
Ahahahaha, the miracle of circular thinking.
[url]http://i43.tinypic.com/rj010l.jpg[/url]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - Hezzy))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Stany01;21635932]Ahahahaha, the miracle of circular thinking.
[url]http://i43.tinypic.com/rj010l.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
What? He just made a great argument and you insult those who died at Normandy...
I should probably report this post for flame, but whatever.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21635522]Obviously the ones who put this up were.[/quote]
So all the Veterans that died should be remembered as Christians? Ye-No.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21636052]So all the Veterans that died should be remembered as Christians? Ye-No.[/QUOTE]
1. The vast majority are.
2. Then go make a Star of David for the Jews, a Crescent and Star for the Muslims, and a platform with nothing on top of it for the Atheists.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;21637980]:shivdurf:
I wasn't saying that I agreed with the law, America's practices, or that church and state seem unified in America. I'm not even religious. I just made a legal argument. [B] You can't just twist that to say [I]I'm a moronic Fox News viewer that jacks off to nuclear bombs.[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
I just did.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;21635685][B]No part of the First Amendment outright states that church and state must be separate organizations, just that no laws can favor a certain religion.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hmmmmmm, no laws favor a certain religious thinking... that's pretty much secularism.
Also it would bug me less if they gave the property to a veteran or something.
[QUOTE=Luxo;21634445]They didn't make a law on it, sounds fine to me. Stop acting like an overly sensitive atheist.[/QUOTE]
You're interpreting the definition of law too narrowly. If having a religious monument on public land is legal, then there is obviously a law somewhere respecting an establishment of religion.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21636145]
1. The vast majority are.
2. Then go make a Star of David for the Jews, a Crescent and Star for the Muslims, and[b] a platform with nothing on top of it for the Atheists.[/b][/QUOTE]
Or a tombstone?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21639476]You're interpreting the definition of law too narrowly. If having a religious monument on public land is legal, then there is obviously a law somewhere respecting an establishment of religion.[/QUOTE]
No there is not. Show me this law please. One that congress made.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21639476]You're interpreting the definition of law too narrowly. If having a religious monument on public land is legal, then there is obviously a law somewhere respecting an establishment of religion.[/QUOTE]
And you're interpenetrating it too broadly.
But to settle these kind of debates we have these people who interpret the Constitution for us. OH HEY WHAT DO YOU KNOW!
[QUOTE=Lambeth;21639510]Or a tombstone?[/QUOTE]
Well IIRC, the Federal Government has Recognized this symbol for placement on Graves of Atheist Veterans
[IMG]http://intepid.com/res/744.gif[/IMG]
Also I better see a fucking Swastika for Hindu and Buddhism.
Meanwhile, Question Zeke, does this following page violate the Constitution since it uses federal funding for the display of Religious Icons?
[url]http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp[/url]
no
[QUOTE=Broseph_;21641369]
Meanwhile, Question Zeke, does this following page violate the Constitution since it uses federal funding for the display of Religious Icons?
[url]http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp[/url][/QUOTE]
No, because it is for informative purposes. It's not a promotion, advertisement, or endorsement.
[editline]10:12PM[/editline]
I was surprised to see Wicca in there actually. Neato.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21639476]If [a Action] is legal, then there is obviously a law somewhere respecting [the Action].[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck thought you this?
Simply because a Action is legal does not mean there's a law declaring it to be so, are you saying that if I invent a new Action tomorrow that isn't regulated or illegal under current law or affected by any Laws, there's somehow going to be a law automatically spawned the instant I invent it saying it's legal?
I'm sorry but Law isn't magical like that
[editline]10:15PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21641717]No, because it is for informative purposes. It's not a promotion, advertisement, or endorsement.
[editline]10:12PM[/editline]
I was surprised to see Wicca in there actually. Neato.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they added that back in 2007 after the Eleven Families of Wiccan Followers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan fought for it.
Zeke, you can no longer breathe because there isn't a specific law stating that you can.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21642090]Zeke, you can no longer breathe because there isn't a specific law stating that you can.[/QUOTE]
Section 7, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
[quote] 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.[/quote]
Not being able to breathe would be depriving me of the right to life.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.