The cobra effect....
Twas a tough choice....<funny> or <informative>.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Cross STAYS - Sanity from the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Twas a tough choice....<funny> or <informative>.
Well, that's your "faith" for you. You see Ginsburg as "not a Supreme Court Justice," in your own words, and yet she IS, according to every law in your land, "a Supreme Court Justice."
Do all your beliefs have so little hold on reality?
But OF COURSE. We do pray for her. But, at this current time, she is more of a political Supreme Court Justice... that's all.
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Lazy irresponsible response.
The onus is on you to prove your claim. But since you cannot your statement is to be seen by your own words there as incredible.
The decision was in majority of 7 justices, two whom were crossovers as Liberals.Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, decided in favor of the cross to remain where it was.
Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland
"...
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a majority opinion for himself and four colleagues that “when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing It may no longer appear neutral.”
“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” Alito wrote
Alito also wrote that the Maryland cross’ connection to World War I was important in upholding it because crosses, which marked the graves of American soldiers, became a symbol closely linked to the war. "
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Lazy irresponsible response.
The onus is on you to prove your claim. But since you cannot your statement is to be seen by your own words there as incredible.
The decision was in majority of 7 justices, two whom were crossovers as Liberals.Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, decided in favor of the cross to remain where it was.
Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland
"...
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a majority opinion for himself and four colleagues that “when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing It may no longer appear neutral.”
“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” Alito wrote
Alito also wrote that the Maryland cross’ connection to World War I was important in upholding it because crosses, which marked the graves of American soldiers, became a symbol closely linked to the war. "
There is Google.
"The case would be different, in my view, if there were evidence that the organizers had “deliberately disrespected” members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently, rather than in the aftermath of World War I. See ante, at 29; see also Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 703 (opinion of BREYER, J.) (explaining that, in light of the greater religious diversity today, “a more contemporary state effort” to put up a religious display is “likely to prove divisive in a way that [a] longstanding, pre-existing monument [would] not”). But those are not the circumstances presented to us here, and I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns. Nor do I understand the Court’s opinion today to adopt a “history and tradition test” that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land."
"A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach."
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
No source link?
There was Google prior to you making your prior claim about the decision.
And that excerpt does not uphold what you stated in post #6.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
The source is the Supreme Court website
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
What part of "A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach.", didn't you understand?
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Link?
This decision was 800 pages in length. And the SCOTUS blog has multiple links to avail oneself of .
Please, proceed to copy and paste the source of that which you excerpted from, "the Supreme Court website".
Thank you in advance.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Google it.
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
I understand, "...would not necessarily be permissible under this approach."
One would have to understand the "approach" the claimants, the American Legion, made in this approach in order to comprehend that statement by the court.
A statement that is far and away removed from your statement: Reposted, the point at issue is in bold.
"They are letting the cross stay but they also that no other similar monuments will be entitled to protection, so people will not be able to build another cross monument on public land and expect that it is going to stay."
A contrast in terms there. A declarative followed by a supposition. Not at all what the court stated. Key words to consider: 'permissible under this approach'.
(Sic)"....
The state points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Van Orden, and in particular Breyer’s concurring opinion, as confirmation that the cross does not violate the Constitution. The cross was constructed for a “wholly secular” purpose, the state contends: When you look at its “dedications, its inscriptions, its context, and nearly a century of practice,” it becomes “abundantly clear that this monument was erected to serve—and, for 93 years, has served—as a secular commemoration of American servicemen in World War I.”
The American Legion argues that all of the Supreme Court’s establishment clause tests have a common theme that focuses on “the importance of historical tradition and an objective assessment of the government’s reasons for putting up the display” – a standard that the cross can clearly pass. But the Legion urges the justices to go further and adopt a less stringent test that focuses on whether a religious display is consistent with the country’s historical traditions; if it is, there would be no violation of the establishment clause as long as the government is not “exploiting the tradition to coerce religious belief or observance by” people who are not religious."
Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land - SCOTUSblog
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Your cop outs are boring. I did Google it. And I will say you got your excerpt from Politico. Not the SCOTUS site.
Politico Supreme Court rules government-maintained cross doesn't violate Constitution
"“The case would be different, in my view, if there were evidence that the organizers had ‘deliberately disrespected’ members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently, rather than in the aftermath of World War I,” Breyer wrote. “But those are not the circumstances presented to us here, and I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns….In light of all the circumstances here, I agree with the Court that the Peace Cross poses no real threat to the values that the Establishment Clause serves.” "
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I'm for separation of church and state, meaning I don't think the government should promote one religion over any others. That being said, I had no issue with the cross. As long as the government (both federal and local) provides equal time to other religions, live and let live. There should be no reason other religious symbols should not now be allowed.
lukethethird
unknown member
The Cross STAYS - Sanity from the Supreme Court
It appears there was no accounting for taste.
It appears there was no accounting for taste.
Neutral Name
Active Member
Can I ask, can they erect a statue of Mohammed or maybe of Brahma? It would only be fair to represent all religions.
Yes, on private land with private money.
This monument has already been there for a century and that puts it in a different category than new construction.
Tom
They can erect any representation. I wonder why they haven't?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Islam forbids the making of any statue of any animal or human. Brahma is God in Hindi, thus...
ahhhhhh! So they don't want to build a representation. Freedom in its ultimate form.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Apparently you aren't aware of case law precedent here.