Catholic college's new bridge too Catholic, neighbors complain

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyc176
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“While we recognize the importance of Villanova to our community and the notoriety it brings to Radnor, are there less ostentatious ways to reflect a Catholic institution?” said Roberta Winters, president of the League of Women Voters of Radnor, in an interview with The Inquirer.
Click to expand...
Yes, she’s correct. The cross is an ostentatious symbol! The Romans consciously designed it to be nothing less than a striking, attention-getting, in-your-face symbol of secular authority ruling over everything else. And then Jesus came along, and turned their symbol of their authority into a symbol of His authority. ‘Ostentatious’? Absolutely. Thank you for noticing… 😉
 
I’ve forecast this for some time: no longer enough that religious symbols be on private property; soon the ACLU legal eagles will find that religious symbols should no longer even be VISIBLE from public property, lest they “assault and offend” passers-by, the First Amendment notwithstanding. Just wait.
 
“While we recognize the importance of Villanova to our community and the notoriety it brings to Radnor, are there less ostentatious ways to reflect a Catholic institution?” said Roberta Winters, president of the League of Women Voters of Radnor, in an interview with The Inquirer.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of how secularists view religion. If they have to deal with religion, then they want it to be private, hidden, and vacillating.
 
There are a few points on this:

1. There is taxpayer money involved in this bridge project.
The article from the original post does mention that some people against the project are concerned about the public money that is going into the bridge.

2. The matter of public funds going into private universities and private organizations is a complex one.
I think it’s reasonable to at least bring these concerns to a hearing.

3. Similar concerns would likely be made if an Islamic university in the United States had a similar project.
It’s safe that the ones against the Villanova project would be against one from a religious school, and I think it would be also safe to say that at least a few Christians would join in such concerns.

4. One can question the legality of such a project without being a bigot.
It’s possible to want public funds separate from private projects without having a bias against one or more groups.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I’ve forecast this for some time: no longer enough that religious symbols be on private property; soon the ACLU legal eagles will find that religious symbols should no longer even be VISIBLE from public property, lest they “assault and offend” passers-by, the First Amendment notwithstanding. Just wait.
Click to expand...
Sadly in my own life I’ve seen how crazier ideas became the norm.
Mike_from_NJ said:
There are a few points on this:

1. There is taxpayer money involved in this bridge project.
The article from the original post does mention that some people against the project are concerned about the public money that is going into the bridge.

2. The matter of public funds going into private universities and private organizations is a complex one.
I think it’s reasonable to at least bring these concerns to a hearing.

3. Similar concerns would likely be made if an Islamic university in the United States had a similar project.
It’s safe that the ones against the Villanova project would be against one from a religious school, and I think it would be also safe to say that at least a few Christians would join in such concerns.

4. One can question the legality of such a project without being a bigot.
It’s possible to want public funds separate from private projects without having a bias against one or more groups.
Click to expand...
From the article it sounds like the state is only paying for the portion of the bridge that crosses their right of way. So it isn’t that the state is funding the portion that will display the crosses. The argument is literally you can’t use religious symbols if you connect to a public walkway.

These people are bigots because they specifically target Christianity. If the state uses images of crescent moons or five pointed stars on their property they don’t object. They don’t object to pagan gods displayed at congress or on the Supreme Court building. They only object to Christian symbols and thus are bigots.
 
exnihilo said:
From the article it sounds like the state is only paying for the portion of the bridge that crosses their right of way. So it isn’t that the state is funding the portion that will display the crosses. The argument is literally you can’t use religious symbols if you connect to a public walkway.
Click to expand...
I’m sure for some what you say is correct, but you can’t dismiss the concern some have in mixing public funds with private endorsement of religion. I, personally, am ok with the use of these funds for the Villanova bridge since it serves an infrastructure purpose and if that bridge contains religious symbols then so be it. But at the same time I always want governments to be careful not to use those funds for a primary purpose of endorsing religion (e.g. building religious monuments, upgrading church facilities).
These people are bigots because they specifically target Christianity. If the state uses images of crescent moons or five pointed stars on their property they don’t object. They don’t object to pagan gods displayed at congress or on the Supreme Court building. They only object to Christian symbols and thus are bigots.
Click to expand...
Among the figures of lawmakers seen on the Supreme Court frieze are Moses, Confucius, Solon (an Athenian lawmaker), Hammurabi, Menes, Lycurgus, Draco, Augustus, Justinian, and even Mohammed. You are correct that inside the Great Hall are depictions of Minerva, Zeus, Mercury, and Juno. The reason why no one objects to these depictions is that no one then or now used these to suggest that the government endorses these Greek/Roman gods.

I could fill this thread with examples of government officials in the U.S. pushing solely Christian representation and shutting out representation from other religions. These range from monuments, to courtroom displays of the Ten Commandments, to disgust when a governmental body allows for a non-Christian prayer to start a session (or even the mere suggestion that it should be allowed).

In short, to say that those concerned as to the mingling of public funds and private religious endorsement are bigots is to paint non-Christians inaccurately and with an overly broad brush.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
There are a few points on this:

1. There is taxpayer money involved in this bridge project.
The article from the original post does mention that some people against the project are concerned about the public money that is going into the bridge.

2. The matter of public funds going into private universities and private organizations is a complex one.
I think it’s reasonable to at least bring these concerns to a hearing.

3. Similar concerns would likely be made if an Islamic university in the United States had a similar project.
It’s safe that the ones against the Villanova project would be against one from a religious school, and I think it would be also safe to say that at least a few Christians would join in such concerns.

4. One can question the legality of such a project without being a bigot.
It’s possible to want public funds separate from private projects without having a bias against one or more groups.
Click to expand...
Is there such a thing as a “Universal Atheist Symbol”.? If not, perhaps they should create one. Maybe, it is just too difficult to symbolically represent nothingness, and far too easy to spew vitriol against that which is openly and clearly representative of something very specific: Jesus Christ!

The “New Atheism” movement, with its shrill, militant, almost pathological hysterics against all aspects of religion, betrays in this very reality it’s very own pathetic truth: It lacks anything that could be considered substantially of any value or meaning. It exists simply in opposition; that is it sole function. it completely lacks everything. It is null.

Still, they get a constant hearing in the media. Draw your own conclusions regarding this fact. Powerful forces have always opposed Christ and His church. The modern age is no different. There really isn’t anything at all “new” about this “New Atheism”…is there?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I’ve forecast this for some time: no longer enough that religious symbols be on private property; soon the ACLU legal eagles will find that religious symbols should no longer even be VISIBLE from public property, lest they “assault and offend” passers-by, the First Amendment notwithstanding. Just wait.
Click to expand...
Only for white male Christians. See, all of this idealistic utopia ultimately takes a back seat to the interests of getting senior members of the Democratic Party elected.

That would include this bridge.
 
unafraid said:
Is there such a thing as a “Universal Atheist Symbol”.? If not, perhaps they should create one. Maybe, it is just too difficult to symbolically represent nothingness, and far too easy to spew vitriol against that which is openly and clearly representative of something very specific: Jesus Christ!

The “New Atheism” movement, with its shrill, militant, almost pathological hysterics against all aspects of religion, betrays in this very reality it’s very own pathetic truth: It lacks anything that could be considered substantially of any value or meaning. It exists simply in opposition; that is it sole function. it completely lacks everything. It is null.

Still, they get a constant hearing in the media. Draw your own conclusions regarding this fact. Powerful forces have always opposed Christ and His church. The modern age is no different. There really isn’t anything at all “new” about this “New Atheism”…is there?
Click to expand...
If this means a+ atheism, it’s routinely criticized in many ways by the big social media personalities who are atheist.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
There are a few points on this:

1. There is taxpayer money involved in this bridge project.
The article from the original post does mention that some people against the project are concerned about the public money that is going into the bridge.

2. The matter of public funds going into private universities and private organizations is a complex one.
I think it’s reasonable to at least bring these concerns to a hearing.

3. Similar concerns would likely be made if an Islamic university in the United States had a similar project.
It’s safe that the ones against the Villanova project would be against one from a religious school, and I think it would be also safe to say that at least a few Christians would join in such concerns.

4. One can question the legality of such a project without being a bigot.
It’s possible to want public funds separate from private projects without having a bias against one or more groups.
Click to expand...
👋

Actually, I am not a fan at all of public money going towards religion or the Catholic Church.

For one thing, people think it means the state gets a say in what the Church and its related institutions do.

The other is I don’t like the favorites game people in government play on this.

And no one is a bigot by any stretch of the imagination by pointing this out.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
I always want governments to be careful not to use those funds for a primary purpose of endorsing religion (e.g. building religious monuments, upgrading church facilities).
Click to expand...
If only atheists paid taxes then I would agree with you.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Among the figures of lawmakers seen on the Supreme Court frieze are Moses, Confucius, Solon (an Athenian lawmaker), Hammurabi, Menes, Lycurgus, Draco, Augustus, Justinian, and even Mohammed. You are correct that inside the Great Hall are depictions of Minerva, Zeus, Mercury, and Juno. The reason why no one objects to these depictions is that no one then or now used these to suggest that the government endorses these Greek/Roman gods.

I could fill this thread with examples of government officials in the U.S. pushing solely Christian representation and shutting out representation from other religions. These range from monuments, to courtroom displays of the Ten Commandments, to disgust when a governmental body allows for a non-Christian prayer to start a session (or even the mere suggestion that it should be allowed).

In short, to say that those concerned as to the mingling of public funds and private religious endorsement are bigots is to paint non-Christians inaccurately and with an overly broad brush.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I and lots of others believe these pagan images are an attempt to endorse a religion. I think that religion is Freemasonry. I wouldn’t even rule out some endorsement of good old paganism. At the very least it is all motivated at least by an anti Christian motive. I don’t see how the apotheosis of Washington is justified at all. The image in our federal congress shows Washington becoming a god. Are we supposed to just take that as a joke? Is it a joke even if it is in keeping with the paganism everywhere else promoted at the US capital? If it is a joke why couldn’t we justify Christian images the same way? It is just lawmakers having fun.

If endorsement is the criteria what exactly does that mean? How do we know when the government is endorsing something? It seems to me in a general sense the government endorses all kinds of things. Is endorsement bad in general or just endorsement of religion? And if just endorsement of religion why so? For instance I think it gravely wrong the government endorses abortion and same sex ‘marriage’. How can they do that but putting up a cross is a great injustice to all those who aren’t Christian?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I’ve forecast this for some time: no longer enough that religious symbols be on private property; soon the ACLU legal eagles will find that religious symbols should no longer even be VISIBLE from public property, lest they “assault and offend” passers-by, the First Amendment notwithstanding. Just wait.
Click to expand...
We likely won’t have long to wait. The ACLU has become a far-left group with its own special interest agenda. It no longer is interested in defending the First Amendment rights of the common American citizen. Quite the contrary.
 
I’m a liberal, and I probably favor separation of church and state as much as most liberals. But imo, the people who oppose these crosses are just too sensitive.
 
Well, didnt Christ warn us the times would come when we are hated just like they hated him?

In order for them to hate us, we must be saying and doing things they do not like or agree with. If we just give in or compromise on everything, of course they will not hate us, but will be laughing at us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top