Group may sue over cross

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokomai said:
So we are going to have freedom to erect only religious symbols on public land, and not non-religious symbols? That’s the point. You don’t get to decide what other people will do in expressing their beliefs. If you say a cross is ok, so is a hammer and sickle. Or a swastika, or a pentangle, or a statue of Satan.
Click to expand...
No, you’re just confusing the point of discussion.
 
Digitonomy said:
This is a common misconception. For most of our first century states, and by extension cities, schools, etc were free to establish a state religion. This all changed with the 14th Amendment, when our freedoms with respect to the federal government were expanded, making them freedoms with respect to the states as well.
Click to expand...
LOL…common misconception? What part of the First Amendment did I misquote? Since the clause does not mention the Legislative or Judicial branch, reading into the amendment something that is not there is not the court’s prerogetive but rather legislating from the bench (which is quite rampant of late). The language of the First Amendment was written that way for a reason… so that it would not be meddled with. And what was the real purpose of the 14th Amendment? To correct one of the courts biggest mistakes, proving that they can at times be flat out dead wrong.
 
Dale_M said:
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1925 (Gitlow v. New York) that the due process clause of the 14th amendment applied the provisions of the first amendment to each state and to any local government.
Click to expand...
Uh huh…and all of the rulings from the supreme court from that time to this, still cannot insert the words Separation of Church and State into the Amendment because it simply doesn’t use those words. Just the fact that the phrase was being used by the framers and was purposely left out is in and of itself very telling. The “provision” simply doesn’t say that.
 
bexdad said:
LOL…common misconception? What part of the First Amendment did I misquote? Since the clause does not mention the Legislative or Judicial branch, reading into the amendment something that is not there is not the court’s prerogetive but rather legislating from the bench (which is quite rampant of late). The language of the First Amendment was written that way for a reason… so that it would not be meddled with. And what was the real purpose of the 14th Amendment? To correct one of the courts biggest mistakes, proving that they can at times be flat out dead wrong.
Click to expand...
I won’t try to tackle all of that, but I’ll make two points:

  1. *]Congress was the legislative branch last I checked.
    *]The 14th Amendment doesn’t meddle with the 1st Amendment, it expands it. Freedom of the people from imposition of religion by the federal government is preserved as before, but now we are free from such imposition by state government and its subsidiaries.
 
Tenofovir said:
Aren’t you embarrassed to be siding with these fanatics? Do you think a rational, reasonable, sane person would worry about a cross atop a water tower?

Can you see that it is not religion which makes people stupid, violent and intolerant? Just perhaps stupid, intolerant, etc people could be religious or not, and still be nasty?
Click to expand...
I don’t side with these people, of course…but I prefer to be charitable and pray for their conversion and change of mind. God’s ways are not our ways. HE will ultimately decide whether these people deserve the “lake of fire” or not.
Not us.
I totally disagree with these people…but I hate their actions, not them. I hope for their conversion. Hate the sin, NOT the sinner.
In other words------------“Forgive them, Lord for they know not what they do.”
 
Tenofovir said:
Do you think a rational, reasonable, sane person would worry about a cross atop a water tower?
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is pitiful that atheists waste time and resources (and also those of other people who have to defend their municipalities from them) in such a petty, hateful manner.

I was just reading a story about a soccer player arrested in Saudi because his Christian tatoo was visible. Amazing to think some people in the West are starting to act like the mullahs. :rolleyes:
 
Digitonomy said:
I won’t try to tackle all of that, but I’ll make two points:

  1. *]Congress was the legislative branch last I checked.
    *]The 14th Amendment doesn’t meddle with the 1st Amendment, it expands it. Freedom of the people from imposition of religion by the federal government is preserved as before, but now we are free from such imposition by state government and its subsidiaries.
Click to expand...

  1. My bad…thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say Executive not Legislative…but the expansion you are talking about is way off target from the point you are trying to make. Your assertion about the 14th Amendment involves expansion of the 1st Amendments application. That has nothing to do with the discussion about what is being applied. It still comes down to Athiests claiming that a cross on a water tower or a religious symbol placed on the side of the road is somehow akin to them being dragged out of bed and forced to got to church on Sunday morning…which is ridiculous.
 
bexdad said:
the expansion you are talking about is way off target from the point you are trying to make. Your assertion about the 14th Amendment involves expansion of the 1st Amendments application. That has nothing to do with the discussion about what is being applied.
Click to expand...
The expansion I am talking about is in response to your post #34:
40.png
bexdad:
That doesn’t work either…the establisment clause doesn’t say “The government shall not…” or “the Courts shall not…” or City councils/employees or anything like that. It only says “Congress shall pass no law”. All the rest is not about what it says but what atheists think it should say.
Click to expand...
The point I am trying to make is that what the Constitution says about Congress now also applies to state and local governments.
 
_Abyssinia said:
The nation’s largest association of atheists and agnostics has threatened to sue the city of Whiteville after months of ignored complaints about a religious cross atop the town’s government water tower.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation says the cross, located on public property, is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

The organization threatens to seek a mandatory injunction to remove the Western Whiteville water tower cross, a judgment against Bellar and the city for attorney fees and other litigation expenses.

“This letter is my clients’ final demand that the cross be permanently removed from the Whiteville water tower,” Attorney Alvin Harris said in a letter on behalf of the foundation.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., has more than 17,000 members. Last week, the organization voiced complaint about a Bell County, Ky., school district hosting prayers at sporting events. It also has recently fought Bible distributions taking place on public school grounds in the South.

“They’re the terrorists,” Bellar said. “It’s not us.”

He said the city is not forcing its residents to attend church but that the city would probably lose the threatened legal battle.

“No court of final resort has ever upheld the government’s permanent display of a Latin cross on public land as constitutional,” Rebecca Markert, a Freedom From Religion attorney, said in a Dec. 8, 2010, letter to Bellar. “The inherent religious significance of the Latin cross is undeniable and is not disguisable.”

Bellar says a property owner has agreed to relocate the cross on private property near U.S. 64, a four-lane highway that Bellar says the cross would be more visible from.

“It will be a shallow victory for them if they win,” he said.

jacksonsun.com/article/20111004/NEWS01/110040323/Group-may-sue-over-cross

wreg.com/news/wreg-whiteville-to-remove-cross-from-water-tower-20111003,0,5501601.story
Click to expand...
The Mt Soledad cross litigation should hit the US Supreme Court soon. As it stands now, putting a cross on public property is unconstitutional. The latest ruling was this year.
 
Digitonomy said:
The expansion I am talking about is in response to your post #34:The point I am trying to make is that what the Constitution says about Congress now also applies to state and local governments.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that…but if it were true then it would be changing the clause, not simply expanding on it…The clause would then need to read “the government shall in no way endorse…” or something along those lines as opposed to “…shall pass no law”. Did the people of this town pass a law establishing Christianity? or did they just put the Cross up? Did they pass a law forcing people to worship at the cross? If not then the principle of the establishment clause (as it is written) hasn’t been violated…unless they amend it. It’s ironic that some athiests use public money and public property to mock an ridicule these same religious symbols and defend themselves under the same First Amendment. In a way they have that legal advantage since the atheist worldview is not considered a religion. It is still hypocrisy though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top