Thumbs Up: Court Rules the Old Rugged Cross Must Come Down

[Father Heathen]

Seeing you have no understanding what the founding fathers establish or what they Written.John Addams one of the founding fathers Written and all the founding fathers agreed with.
"That the Constitution was written for a Moral and Religious People and is unfit for any other people.

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli

Therefore your santanic temple is not included.

The irony is that the Satanic Temple is more "moral" than a lot of christian churches, given that they fight for people's rights, freedoms, and equality.

You really believe those founding fathers would approve of a santanic Temple, unto which those founding fathers were all Christians.
Go Figure

Nope. The Constitution makes it clear that the government cannot favor or promote any specific faith. The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid religious tyranny, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with The Constitution and simply installed a theocracy.

If you want to live in a theocracy, relocate to Iran.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I want you to put forth to show where the Government put that cross up.
That cross was put up a little over a hundred years ago.
By the people.

An American World War I monument was put up before the US entered World War I?

BTW: I clicked on the link in the article and got some details:

- the cross was completed in 1925.
- it was built using a combination of private donations (where the donors had to sign a statement of faith) and funds from the American Legion on city-owned land provided by the city.
- in 1961, the land and cross were transferred to a parks commission, a government entity that now owns and maintains the cross.

As of a matter of fact it does make any difference where that cross put at.

The Government can not make no law prohibiting the free Exercise thereof.

Therefore it doesn't make no difference where that cross is at.

Except it makes all the difference, and I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was a symbol of some other religion.

 

[Father Heathen]

Religious imagery on tombstones - and war monuments - is meant to denote the religious beliefs of the deceased who they commemorate.

A cross on a tombstone says "this soldier was a Christian." As long as the soldier really was Christian, fair enough.

A cross on a war monument says "all of these soldiers were Christian" or "these soldiers were in the army of a Christian nation" or "these soldiers died for the cause of Christianity." None of these messages are appropriate in a secular nation.

Religious imagery on a public monument is a government endorsement of religion. Religious imagery on one soldier's tombstone is not.

But they're part of a miscellany.

This is a humdinger and the maintenance bill is met by the public.

The solution is easy. Fans can move it onto private land and pay for its upkeep themselves.

(I speak as one who strongly favors keeping religious matters and images out of government schools; but I'm largely indifferent to them in adult contexts, unless they're noisy or intrusive or no one else is allowed to play.)

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that I find something that simply commemorates the dead less offensive than something that blatantly promotes a religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that I find something that simply commemorates the dead less offensive than something that blatantly promotes a religion.

I wouldn't say that it "simply commemorates the dead." I had a look at the decision (linked to in the article in the OP): donors who put up money to build the cross had to sign a statement of faith and there used to be religious services at the base of it (hopefully before it ended up in the middle of a busy highway junction).

 

[Faithofchristian]

An American World War I monument was put up before the US entered World War I?

BTW: I clicked on the link in the article and got some details:

- the cross was completed in 1925.
- it was built using a combination of private donations (where the donors had to sign a statement of faith) and funds from the American Legion on city-owned land provided by the city.
- in 1961, the land and cross were transferred to a parks commission, a government entity that now owns and maintains the cross.


Except it makes all the difference, and I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was a symbol of some other religion.

Ok, so actually that cross has nothing to do with Christians.

But all the more to do with WW1 who died in that War.
But still what is so wrong in Remembering those who gave their lives ?

Just another case of the Government wanting to erase history from the minds of people.
Take away history then what do you have. But for history to Repeat it's self again

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, people like you who hate the very idea of God's righteousness prevailing, of course.

Not as much as I hate Voldemort.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, so actually that cross has nothing to do with Christians.

It's a cross...

But all the more to do with WW1 who died in that War.
But still what is so wrong in Remembering those who gave their lives ?

Nothing. Which is why the cross is being replaced by different memorial.

Just another case of the Government wanting to erase history from the minds of people.

Literally only the shape of the memorial is changing.

Take away history then what do you have. But for history to Repeat it's self again

I'm willing to bet that you would not take the demolition of a historical Mosque to be the removal of history, would you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, so actually that cross has nothing to do with Christians.

Not true. It was illegally erected by Christians.

I asked what this cross had to do with your exercise of religion. Did you build it? Are you part of the group that worshipped at the base of it? Have you ever even seen it in person? Did you know about it before you read about it in this thread?

But all the more to do with WW1 who died in that War.
But still what is so wrong in Remembering those who gave their lives ?

Indeed: what's wrong with honouring ALL the soldiers who gave their lives and not just the Christian ones?

Just another case of the Government wanting to erase history from the minds of people.
Take away history then what do you have. But for history to Repeat it's self again

The ruling doesn't require the cross to be destroyed; just moved. Nothing is being erased.

 

[Skwim]

.

You know people will say, doesn't the Constitution say, Separation of church and State, I would like for people to show as to where in the Constitution said this ?

*sigh*

From Wikipedia.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] ”
Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

“ "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." ”

​

.

 

[Revoltingest]

.

*sigh* From Wikipedia.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] ”
Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

“ "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." ”

​

.

Your quote is only meaningful to those of us who favor originalism, ie, the intent of the framers.
Some don't care for that.....
- Strict Constructionists
- Living Document types
- Theocrats

 

[leibowde84]

I have to wonder when a thing begins to have heritage value, after all you presumably wouldn't take down the sphynx of Egypt and the Taliban were considered silly in the eyes of many western folk for their destruction of historical Buddha statues.
Maybe it has to have tourists to be worth saving *shrugs*?

Nope. It just can't violate the constitution of the country it is in. Egypt and ISIS are not subject to the U.S. Constitution. It's pretty simple actually. Keep religious symbols out of public land and buildings. Nuff said.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that I find something that simply commemorates the dead less offensive than something that blatantly promotes a religion.

Exactly. It leads to a question as to what about other memorials such as those erected at Arlington that bear imagery related with religion that honor the dead?

Where's does the line get drawn?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. It just can't violate the constitution of the country it is in. Egypt and ISIS are not subject to the U.S. Constitution. It's pretty simple actually. Keep religious symbols out of public land and buildings. Nuff said.

I'm OK with some religious stuff on public land, eg, aboriginal art on rocks.
Those are historically significant artifacts worth preserving, & there's no
constitutional conflict.
But when government has its own hand in placing it there, that must go.

 

[DavidFirth]

I'm OK with some religious stuff on public land, eg, aboriginal art on rocks.
But when government has its hand in placing it there, that must go.

No problem as long as the government stays out of the creation vs. non-creation debate.

 

[Revoltingest]

No problem as long as the government stays out of the creation vs. non-creation debate.

Aye, we agree it shouldn't be debated.
We're just detente-ing all over the place today!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

isn't this cross quite old, like nearly a 100 years. (I didn't read the news, just got a glimpse of something),

So? Occasionally, for various reasons, around here they tear down buildings that are older.

This kind of ideology is too reminiscent of the Muslim mind set -- which I detest.

For one, it isn't a "Muslim" mind set, and they too were outraged and grieving with the world when ISIS and the Taliban have destroyed ancient sculptures; for two, it isn't really the same thing, other than a monument coming down. The Founders were very insistent that America is secular and that the church does not belong in the state. They held more true to that than they did "all men are created equal." A nation shocked after the Civil War started to put god in the government, it was propaganda during the Cold War, and now we are starting to get our nation back on track and being secular like it is supposed to be. If it was a monument erected by the Natives, that would be one thing, and comparable to what ISIS did, but rather taking down a misguided state erected monument that doesn't reflect American values nor representative of what and who America is a whole.

 

[Phantasman]

"An old, rugged cross that has stood on public land in a Washington, D.C., suburb for almost a century has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (Oct. 18) that the so-called Peace Cross violates the establishment clause of the Constitution with “excessive religious entanglement.”

“The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” the court wrote in a 33-page opinion. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds.”

The cross is planted in the town of Bladensburg, a short drive from the U.S. Capitol, at the intersection of a state road and a federal road, and commemorates World War I veterans.
source​

Slowly but surely.

.

Physical things have no spiritual value. It's not THE cross, but a fake. Taking down the fakes increases the seeking of the Spiritual cross.

IOW, it's a good thing. Man did better before it appeared than after, as is evident today.

 

[Grandliseur]

So? Occasionally, for various reasons, around here they tear down buildings that are older.

For one, it isn't a "Muslim" mind set, and they too were outraged and grieving with the world when ISIS and the Taliban have destroyed ancient sculptures; for two, it isn't really the same thing, other than a monument coming down. The Founders were very insistent that America is secular and that the church does not belong in the state. They held more true to that than they did "all men are created equal." A nation shocked after the Civil War started to put god in the government, it was propaganda during the Cold War, and now we are starting to get our nation back on track and being secular like it is supposed to be. If it was a monument erected by the Natives, that would be one thing, and comparable to what ISIS did, but rather taking down a misguided state erected monument that doesn't reflect American values nor representative of what and who America is a whole.

Just watch out that this doesn't become a reverse witchhunt ! You said it yourself:

There's a butcher under your covers
Waiting for you to die
To tuck you in, and bleed you dry​

As you can see with regime changes, i.e. Trump <--> Obama, he is doing his best to destroy the legacy of Obama. The whole point of being president is not to try to undo the things done, but to establish whatever can be improved.

The Muslim also had a sort of regime change. Before they were happy for the ancient historical artifacts, now they must be destroyed - all in the name of Sharia Law. When you say that it is against the constitution, you forget that the constitution is older than some of those things, statues of the south, etc.
All I am saying, before you know it -- "There's a butcher under your covers!"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As you can see with regime changes, i.e. Trump <--> Obama, he is doing his best to destroy the legacy of Obama. The whole point of being president is not to try to undo the things done, but to establish whatever can be improved.

That doesn't relate. Trump didn't even have anything to do with it.

The Muslim also had a sort of regime change.

There is no "Muslim regime." Even during the days of the Caliphate they had different denominations much like Christianity.

Just watch out that this doesn't become a reverse witchhunt ! You said it yourself:
There's a butcher under your covers
Waiting for you to die
To tuck you in, and bleed you dry

Did you see the lights in the sky?
Before the death-ray beams burned out our eyes?
Do you remember what you did when you lost time?
Or how it felt when you were still alive?

They don't exist.
You don't exist.
We don't exist.
Because nothing exists.

Safety in numbers.
There's a butcher hiding under your covers
Waiting for you to die.
To tuck you in and bleed you dry.

Give no reaction to the sounds you've heard.
It's just a mind**** transmission from and alternate earth.
A message received from the depths of space.
With instructions to eliminate the human race.

It's killing time for those inclined.
To take apart the conscience of a diseased mind.
Tearing it down to reconstruct it online.
A world in reverse, Falling as we incline.

Don't believe anything they say to you.
You're just a nameless whore to be used and abused.
A mass execution, The final solution.
A secret invasion, A forgone conclusion.

 

[Grandliseur]

That doesn't relate. Trump didn't even have anything to do with it

Of course not. I am sorry that my thoughts are opaque. I simply am referring to what happens when those in power become extreme, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Trump. The thing about standing ramrod straight and saying, it is the law, is what got the Muslim to destroy the 'images' of the past. All the king, president, tyrant needs to do is to say 'its the law' when this law is of his or her implementation and a wrenching, forcing away of freedom of expression.

Already, the witch-hunt has begun for immigrants; if this shouldn't scare ordinary people seeing children removed from parents, then it is perhaps too late to scream 'Hitler'. One facet of society is already being attacked seriously. I see this thing with statues and what not as part of this tyranny of Religious fervor, be it atheistic fervor or what else.

I am just saying that once the witch-hunt begins from either side, be it Christian, Atheists -- the important parts may be lost in translation.