- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Christianity wins in Florida
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:25 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:25 am to FooManChoo
The 11th circuit has been very bad lately (see felon voting) so good for one opinion. However, they screwed Fla over royally just a short time ago.
0
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:26 am to Kentucker
quote:Weak argument in this case.
Looking forward to the Muslim crescents on public property?
The analysis (basically) is that the historicity of THIS cross outweighs the religious factor.
If the city/county were attempting to build a NEW cross, your argument would make sense, and it would likely prevail.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:27 am to FooManChoo
quote:Why would a Christian CARE (one way or another) how another person chooses to seek the divine?
I get that there are other religious symbols in the world.
Why would a Christian look forward to any of them being displayed?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:28 am to FooManChoo
I asked if you look forward to seeing other religious symbols on public property. I did not state that you do. To be clear.
Let me ask you and other far right Christians this: Why is it even important to you that Christian symbols be displayed on public property? There is far more private property owned by Christians than there is public property. Why doesn’t that suffice?
Let me ask you and other far right Christians this: Why is it even important to you that Christian symbols be displayed on public property? There is far more private property owned by Christians than there is public property. Why doesn’t that suffice?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:34 am to Erin Go Bragh
quote:
I believe it would be far more likely atheists would go after Muslim or Buddist symbols before a Christian group would.
Atheists ie liberals are to gutless to go after the goat humpers. They are on the same team really. The anti-American team.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:35 am to Kentucker
quote:It is the nature of the human animal to try to force one’s worldview upon those who do not share it. Christian, Muslim or Zoroastrian. Does not matter.
Let me ask you and other far right Christians this: Why is it even important to you that Christian symbols be displayed on public property?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:36 am to Kentucker
quote:
Do you understand that the Constitution is above historical significance?
Good grief, did the ruling say that a Crescent cannot be placed on public property?
I think there have been plenty of examples of where other religions have been allowed to put something on public property when they challenged it...
This was a case for the removal of an object from public property...
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The analysis (basically) is that the historicity of THIS cross outweighs the religious factor
How does history add value? Especially to something that violates the Constitution? One could make similar arguments about other unsavory aspects of American history. Slavery, denial of voting for women and other horrors also had historicity.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:38 am to griswold
quote:
Atheists ie liberals are to gutless to go after the goat humpers.
Admittedly, I did not factor in their cowardice.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It is the nature of the human animal to try to force one’s worldview upon those who do not share it. Christian, Muslim or Zoroastrian. Does not matter.
You answered your own question above.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:40 am to Kentucker
quote:
Especially to something that violates the Constitution
Well, obviously this cross in this location must not violate the Constitution and it was ruled the historical significance of this cross was important enough to prevent its removal...
So, keep jousting at the windmills...
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:42 am to Kentucker
quote:Under modern 1st Amendment analysis, the cross probably WOULD have violated the Constitution when it was constructed ... and I agree with that analysis.
How does history add value? Especially to something that violates the Constitution? One could make similar arguments about other unsavory aspects of American history. Slavery, denial of voting for women and other horrors also had historicity.
The point of THIS decision is that public perception of THIS monument has evolved over time, to the point that it is no longer perceived primarily as a religious symbol, but rather primarily an historical monument re WW2.
I doubt that the same could be said of chattel slavery.
EDIT
If there is a public monument somewhere that incorporates a 100yo Muslim crescent, the same analysis would likely apply to it.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 8:46 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:42 am to Kentucker
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 8:44 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:43 am to The Maj
quote:
Good grief, did the ruling say that a Crescent cannot be placed on public property?
Exactly why I asked if anyone was anticipating the display of less accepted religious symbols alongside the crosses. It’s becoming common for a mess of religious symbols to be on public property. Do we really want that?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:43 am to FearlessFreep
quote:It's 4 blocks from me. Do you spend any time at the park? I walk a couple of dogs occasionally there...nice place!
Good to hear. It’s about a dozen blocks from me as I type this, I jog by it every other morning
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:43 am to cokebottleag
quote:Yes, my question to Foo was rather rhetorical.
You answered your own question above.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:45 am to Kentucker
quote:
It’s becoming common for a mess of religious symbols to be on public property. Do we really want that?
How is it possible that would bother you? Do you find it offensive?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:48 am to Kentucker
quote:The same way art adds value. It opens your mind.
How does history add value?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:50 am to Kentucker
quote:
Do we really want that?
This ruling had nothing to do with the placement of NEW monuments... Why is it so hard for your brain to process that piece of information?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:51 am to The Maj
quote:
Why is it so hard for your brain to process that piece of information?
Because a liberal's mind is unable to process beyond a predetermined outcome.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 8:53 am
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News