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

[DavidFirth]

Nah, all they require is a bit of psychological consoling, OR if this isn't their problem, then how about explaining why they need their religion displayed across secular America. Not that I expect a straight answer, but one would be nice.

.

Ah, I say they got no first amendment rights. Just line 'em all up and shoot 'em, that'll teach those pesky Christians not to put up crosses! We don't need no Ten Commandments, we'll do what we please!

 

[Skwim]

Ah, I say they got no first amendment rights. Just line 'em all up and shoot 'em, that'll teach those pesky Christians not to put up crosses! We don't need no Ten Commandments, we'll do what we please!

So much for Nice.

Have a good day.

 

[DavidFirth]

So much for Nice.

Have a good day.

Nice? Isn't that a place in France?

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Statue of Liberty has no religious connotation behind it. It is, ideally, the symbol of American ideals and values. A cross represents Christianity.

Are absolutely sure that the Statue of Liberty has no Religious connotation behind it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Statue of Liberty has no religious connotation behind it. It is, ideally, the symbol of American ideals and values. A cross represents Christianity.

Oh really, maybe you should take another look.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh really, maybe you should take another look.

I see the joy of pork products.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh really, maybe you should take another look.

Here you go, since you apparently are unaware the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of Liberty, and not one of religion:
Statue of Liberty - Wikipedia

Bartholdi and Laboulaye considered how best to express the idea of American liberty.[19] In early American history, two female figures were frequently used as cultural symbols of the nation.[20] One of these symbols, the personified Columbia, was seen as an embodiment of the United States in the manner that Britannia was identified with the United Kingdom and Marianne came to represent France. Columbia had supplanted the earlier figure of an Indian princess, which had come to be regarded as uncivilized and derogatory toward Americans.[20] The other significant female icon in American culture was a representation of Liberty, derived from Libertas, the goddess of freedom widely worshipped in ancient Rome, especially among emancipated slaves. A Liberty figure adorned most American coins of the time,[19] and representations of Liberty appeared in popular and civic art, including Thomas Crawford's Statue of Freedom (1863) atop the dome of the United States Capitol Building.[19]


Artists of the 18th and 19th centuries striving to evoke republican ideals commonly used representations of Libertas as an allegorical symbol.[19] A figure of Liberty was also depicted on the Great Seal of France.[19] However, Bartholdi and Laboulaye avoided an image of revolutionary liberty such as that depicted in Eugène Delacroix's famed Liberty Leading the People (1830). In this painting, which commemorates France's Revolution of 1830, a half-clothed Liberty leads an armed mob over the bodies of the fallen.[20] Laboulaye had no sympathy for revolution, and so Bartholdi's figure would be fully dressed in flowing robes.[20] Instead of the impression of violence in the Delacroix work, Bartholdi wished to give the statue a peaceful appearance and chose a torch, representing progress, for the figure to hold.[21]

If you notice, the word "liberty" appears there a few times. And here is the New Colossus, encase you're wondering about that:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

There is nothing about religion, but rather that American ideals and values were the "new world," and not of the "old world" so many were leaving behind when they came here.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Here you go, since you apparently are unaware the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of Liberty, and not one of religion:
Statue of Liberty - Wikipedia

If you notice, the word "liberty" appears there a few times. And here is the New Colossus, encase you're wondering about that:

There is nothing about religion, but rather that American ideals and values were the "new world," and not of the "old world" so many were leaving behind when they came here.

So you say, but still you haven't the least knowledge what the Statue of Liberty stands for and why the French give the Statue Liberty to the United States.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you say, but still you haven't the least knowledge what the Statue of Liberty stands for and why the French give the Statue Liberty to the United States.

I think you're wanting there to be more to the story than there actually is. The American Revolution inspired the French Revolution, Thomas Paine was a prominent figure in both, the two nations were very close allies (the American colonies probably would have lost had it not been for the aid given by the French), and the French gave the Statue of Liberty as a gift to America to commemorate freedom and liberty.

 

[Jose Fly]

Before you respond let me fix an error I made when I made my claim. I forget to put the words "in between" after the word somewhere.

That's fine, but I'm still curious where you see a theocracy outlined in our founding documents, especially given all the elements I mentioned that seem to clearly indicate a secular government was the intent.

It was practically a small book, I do not have time to read that much for a informal debate.

Again, we're attempting to discuss a legal question that courts have ruled on for decades. If you cannot do even the most cursory of reading on the subject (and you don't have to read the entire ruling to understand the basis for it....much of it is legal fluff), there's really no point in continuing.

I didn't ask for more, I asked for specific quotes instead of references to huge documents.
The way this is supposed to go is:

1. That you make a specific claim.
2. That you quote a specific sentence or paragraph that supports it.
3. Then you supply the link to the full document in case the other person wants to read more about it.

So you want me to do all the work it would take to educate you on the subject.

I absolutely believe that.

So I assume you will not be accepting any public benefits ever in your entire life?

I am not sure but I would bet that it is one of the two following reasons.

1. Jim Crow laws were found to be inconsistent with the constitution or at least it's foundation.

That's exactly the basis for overturning Jim Crow. Those laws violated the rights of blacks, even though they were reflective of the majority view, thereby negating your position.

2. That the majority changed their minds about race issues. I can give you many reasons why race people changed their mind about race issues if necessary.

Nope. The southern states were extremely angry at the court rulings. Does the name George Wallace ring a bell?

We were not discussing targeting anyone, there was never a law against being gay that I am aware of. If Christians became a minority they should not be targeted nor should their moral views become law in most cases. However if you want to discuss targeting I can give you many examples where the Christian minority has been targeted by a minority of liberal judges, just as Jefferson feared.

First, the Jim Crow laws specifically targeted blacks and relegated them to second-class status (at best). Second, it was just in 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional. And finally, if you want to cite examples of what you think is "targeting of Christians", then please do so.

I never said that amendment 14 had anything to do with that. Your the one who used amendment 14 to back up a claim you made. I simply showed it doesn't. You keep changing contexts based on convenience.

You changed from laws to rights for some reason (despite the amendment you chose using the word law).

So you're actually saying that laws have no bearing on a citizen's rights?

So let me restate my position.

1. In a democracy or representative republic the majority establishes what rights we have, or what laws follow from those rights.
2. Then those rights and/or laws are applied equally to everyone.

Except as we've covered, that's simply wrong. The history of Jim Crow laws and their popularity in the south directly contradicts your position.

BTW I noticed you did not respond as to whether our rights are objective or subjective.

Because that's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The separation of powers is irrelevant to the thread and all that is denied to the government by the actual binding documents is the establishment of a religion by the state.

*sigh*

For about the 10th time.....the purpose of citing the separation of powers is to illustrate how a legal concept can exist, even though it is not explicitly stated. The US Constitution does not specifically state that there should be a separation of powers between the branches of the federal government, yet we all understand that's how we're supposed to be set up. That's why the simple argument that because separation of church and state isn't explicitly stated in the US constitution, it doesn't exist, is a failed one.

No, I have been arguing that they should not that they are. The great evil Jefferson feared is coming to pass. Liberal judges are ruling in cases contradictory to the will of the majority.

Please show where the founding fathers meant for federal courts to simply go with majority views.

I heard the other day that in a state (Colorado I think) 4/5ths of the people polled wanted the traditional bathroom partitions left in place but a judged defied their wishes. A quasi oligarchy is being erected by secular leftists. The supreme court's greatest possible failure was said to make law from the bench yet that is exactly what Sotamayor said she intended to do. Secularists are doing exactly what the founders feared.

So again, the overturning of Jim Crow laws must have really irked you. Just as you lament above, the court's ruling contradicted what the majority wanted.

The civil war decided that power rests with Washington, not Alabama or Virginia. So local majorities do not prevail against the general majority.

Then why don't courts conduct public opinion polls prior to making their decisions?

 

[1robin]

That's fine, but I'm still curious where you see a theocracy outlined in our founding documents, especially given all the elements I mentioned that seem to clearly indicate a secular government was the intent.

I see the symbols of religion (especially Christianity) suffused throughout the government and public spaces which indicate that the "tone" of the government was to be between a theocracy and a representative republic. When I see presidents and eye witnesses swearing in on bible's, both sides of congress and the military employing chaplains, and direct references to Yahweh in our capitol the idea of a separation or "wall" between church and state becomes absurd.

Again, we're attempting to discuss a legal question that courts have ruled on for decades. If you cannot do even the most cursory of reading on the subject (and you don't have to read the entire ruling to understand the basis for it....much of it is legal fluff), there's really no point in continuing.

That is not how debates work. I can throw books and personal letters at you faster than you can even look them up. Again, the formula for an online debate usually goes like this.

1. You make a truth claim. Some times you can stop at this point, but if the other person disagrees then you must move on to completion of the rest of these steps.
2. You supply either evidence or quote a passage from an article or book that supports your truth claim.
3. Then you give the link to the entire article or book in case the other person wants to read more than what you quoted.

My job used to be installing high tech evidence presentation systems in federal court rooms. I often had down time and would kill time be reading from the hundreds of law books in the judges chambers but I can't expect you to have done the same so I must follow the formula above as well. That formula also applies to science, history, philosophy, etc.........

So you want me to do all the work it would take to educate you on the subject.

That is simply the burden any truth claim comes with in a debate. If you remember, when you said I hadn't given any evidence I went back and copied all the evidence I had given recently in this thread and every bit of it followed the formula I laid out above. In a debate your not presumed to be right until you demonstrate (within the debate its self) that you are right.

So I assume you will not be accepting any public benefits ever in your entire life?

That does not follow from anything I or you have said but I will pretend it does for the heck it.

Public benefits is to broad a word. Lets limit this to welfare, food stamps, and things similar to them.

1. You can assume I do not plan to receive welfare or food stamps in my life.
2. That even if I did accept them I would get off of them as soon as possible.
3. That I would recognize how those give away programs prey upon our desire to take the easy way out and that I would fight that weakness and return to work as soon as possible.

I believe in a hand up not a hand out.

That's exactly the basis for overturning Jim Crow. Those laws violated the rights of blacks, even though they were reflective of the majority view, thereby negating your position.

Are you suggesting that the nationwide majority were for Jim Crow laws?

Nope. The southern states were extremely angry at the court rulings. Does the name George Wallace ring a bell?

Ring a bell, I met the man. Your being intellectually dishonest again. We do not make laws based on only what the south eastern majority think. As I have said a dozen times our government's laws are supposed to reflect those of the national majority, not a regional (even assuming it existed) majority.

First, the Jim Crow laws specifically targeted blacks and relegated them to second-class status (at best). Second, it was just in 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional. And finally, if you want to cite examples of what you think is "targeting of Christians", then please do so.

You switched contexts again. This particular argument was about homosexuality not race. This is going to get confusing because I am not for Jim Crow laws but I might be for anti-sodomy laws. I have never considered the legality of sodomy but I know for a fact that sodomy results in massive medical problems and costs. Also anti-sodomy laws are not anti-gay laws. They concern an act not an orientation.

So you're actually saying that laws have no bearing on a citizen's rights?

I have no idea how you got that from what you responded to. However I will say that court ruling and our inherent rights are two completely different things in many cases.

Until you stop dodging the question of whether our rights are subjective or objective I do not know in which context to consider points about rights. For the third time which one are they?

Except as we've covered, that's simply wrong. The history of Jim Crow laws and their popularity in the south directly contradicts your position.

You have not demonstrated that.

Because that's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Nope, there is precious little that's more relevant. I will give one last post to answer the question before I start deleting questions or claims about rights that you make.

*sigh*

Deleted based on criteria laid out in earlier posts.

Please show where the founding fathers meant for federal courts to simply go with majority views.

I already showed you that Jefferson feared this exact thing more than anything else. Do you need more than this? Are you not aware that most of our founders, framers, and early presidents stated that they feared internal threats far more than any external threat and courts contradicting the will of the majority being a primary reason for that fear.

So again, the overturning of Jim Crow laws must have really irked you. Just as you lament above, the court's ruling contradicted what the majority wanted.

You again, have not shown this to be true.

Then why don't courts conduct public opinion polls prior to making their decisions?

Because we are a representative republic. There has never been one, but I wish we were a direct democracy. The Achilles heal of a representative republic is that representatives govern to be re-elected, not for the greater good of the people. This tangent "if followed up" would require it's own thread.

 

[Jose Fly]

I see the symbols of religion (especially Christianity) suffused throughout the government and public spaces which indicate that the "tone" of the government was to be between a theocracy and a representative republic. When I see presidents and eye witnesses swearing in on bible's, both sides of congress and the military employing chaplains, and direct references to Yahweh in our capitol

So to summarize, your belief that the US was intended to be a quasi-theocracy is based on religious symbols and the use of Bibles in taking oaths of office.

That makes me wonder a few things.....if what you say is true, why didn't the founding fathers just write theocratic elements into the founding documents? Why didn't they just state it outright? And why would they prohibit a state religion and religious tests for office?

the idea of a separation or "wall" between church and state becomes absurd.

So when Jefferson stated that the intent of the 1st Amendment was to build a wall of separation between church and state, do you think he was lying?

That is not how debates work. I can throw books and personal letters at you faster than you can even look them up.

I guess you're more focused on trying to score debate points than I am. When I looked up and linked the ruling on the cross case from the OP for you, I was trying to help you understand the legal basis for the decision. You refused that help and have chosen to remain intentionally ignorant.

At some point (soon, because I'm quickly losing interest) you and I will go our separate ways. You will leave this discussion either more informed on this subject, or just as ignorant as when you entered it. The choice is yours.

Are you suggesting that the nationwide majority were for Jim Crow laws?

Jim Crow laws were state laws. I assumed you knew that.

We do not make laws based on only what the south eastern majority think. As I have said a dozen times our government's laws are supposed to reflect those of the national majority, not a regional (even assuming it existed) majority.

So in your view all states have to have laws that are reflective of the national majority opinion?

You switched contexts again. This particular argument was about homosexuality not race.

The legal concepts are the same.

This is going to get confusing because I am not for Jim Crow laws but I might be for anti-sodomy laws. I have never considered the legality of sodomy but I know for a fact that sodomy results in massive medical problems and costs. Also anti-sodomy laws are not anti-gay laws. They concern an act not an orientation.

You honestly don't think anti-sodomy laws were specifically targeted towards gays?

Until you stop dodging the question of whether our rights are subjective or objective I do not know in which context to consider points about rights. For the third time which one are they?

You need to explain why you think that's such a vital question.

You have not demonstrated that.

Are you actually disputing that Jim Crow laws were the majority view in the states in which they were enacted?

I already showed you that Jefferson feared this exact thing more than anything else.

Actually, what you showed was Jefferson fearing that the judiciary would become too powerful and unchecked, not that they might go against majority opinion. In the link you gave, neither the word "majority" nor "minority" appear at all.

Because we are a representative republic.

So? How does a representative republic prevent judges from conducting public opinion polls to decide how to rule? And that makes me wonder.....if what you say is true (that the founding fathers intended for judges to follow majority public opinion in their rulings), why have a judiciary in the first place? If all they were supposed to do is reflect majority opinion, they're just an unnecessary middle man. When a legal issue like the OP comes up, just conduct a public vote and let the majority decide.

Once again (as with your odd view that we're supposed to be a quasi-theocracy), your views on how the federal government is supposed to operate are directly contrary to how the founding fathers constructed it.