- 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 8:51 am to Dale51
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:51 am to Dale51
quote:First, I think that Kentucker’s premise is false. I doubt that “many” new religious symbols are being erected on public property.quote:How is it possible that would bother you? Do you find it offensive?
It’s becoming common for a mess of religious symbols to be on public property. Do we really want that?
A handful? Sure.
The new ones are being erected as a finger in the eye of modern 1st Amendment analysis, and they are (correctly) being challenged. Yes, they ARE “offensive,” in the sense that they are an intentional violation of the Constitution. I could hardly care less about their substantive religious messages.
If you want a “public” monument to Jesus or Zoroaster or the FSM, buy a lot adjacent to the town square and build it. No skin off my nose.
0
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:52 am to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
My argument is that decisions such as this open the door for all religions to invade public spaces with their symbols. That’s the only decision that can be legal. To say that only a cross can be accepted is unconstitutional.
My question to far right Christians is: Will you be/Are you happy with seeing other religious symbols on public property?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:53 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.
Liberals don’t ever attack Muslim anything lol
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:54 am to Kentucker
quote:
To say that only a cross can be accepted is unconstitutional.
It DID NOT say that...
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
The legal argument may have said this but I can guarantee you that any Christian (most people also) that sees this cross does think about WWII first.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:57 am to Kentucker
Muslims don't go for public symbols of worship (except for mosques)
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:57 am to Kentucker
quote:
There is far more private property owned by Christians than there is public property.
Only a bit over 60% of this country is privately owned. Do you really think 66.666% of private property owners are practicing Christians when only 45% of adults in this country claim to be a member of a Christian church?
If practicing Christians really do own more private property than the amount of public property, perhaps we should all adhere to and encourage Christian beliefs, because they would seem to be really successful.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:58 am to Dale51
quote:
How is it possible that would bother you? Do you find it offensive?
If all religions can put their symbols wherever they want, then no, I don’t object. If only one can display, then yes, it’s unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:I want to expand upon this point, because it ties to Bobby Lee and his bros.
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.
One cannot seriously deny that MOST of THOSE monuments (the early ones, at a minimum) were constructed as a finger in the eye to the Yankees who took the slaves away from the people who financed and built the statues. (Admittedly, the later statues had different motivations).
But public perception of THOSE monuments has evolved over time as well. There is a GREAT BIG monument to one of my own ancestors in Houston, and it comes under fire every year. I don’t see it as a monument to slavery (the man never owned a slave), but rather a monument to the bravery and sacrifice men who defended their rights, as they understood them at the time.
Perceptions change. Both law and policy should take that into account in both instances.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 9:02 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:04 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
If practicing Christians really do own more private property than the amount of public property, perhaps we should all adhere to and encourage Christian beliefs, because they would seem to be really successful.
I didn’t say practicing Christians.
They are the least likely to want to force their views into the public sector. They are secure in their faith because they practice it. 
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Both law and policy should take that into account in both instances.
As a Constitutionalist, I can’t accept this. I don’t think perception should usurp the Constitution.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:08 am to Kentucker
quote:
As a Constitutionalist, I can’t accept this. I don’t think perception should usurp the Constitution.
Agree X infinity
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:12 am to Wtodd
all you had to do was link this to faux news and I knew it was a garbage article. once again, Christian terrorists think they are the only religion in this country and will stop at nothing to completely subvert our constitution. here's a video clip also from Pensacola a few years ago of Christian terrorists interrupting a city meeting's invocation by another religion...
enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eagy7Y9QVgo
enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eagy7Y9QVgo
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:12 am to Kentucker
quote:And I do not think you understand the Establishment Clause very well.
As a Constitutionalist, I can’t accept this. I don’t think perception should usurp the Constitution.
This is not a case about building a NEW Christian monument. If it were, there would be a STRONG argument against allowing it, unless the jurisdiction were also building similar monuments for all competing belief systems.
It is a case about DESTROYING an existing monument ... the primary perception of which is no longer religious in nature.
That is a VERY distinct and different analysis.
EDIT
This is from a person who is decidedly-NOT religious. I could probably be best described as an agnostic deist.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 9:14 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:13 am to Sobaka94
quote:
Christian terrorists
Tell me where Mohammed touched you
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:17 am to Wtodd
Mohammad?? hell, jesus was the nut that said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."
sounds like a child molester to me.
sounds like a child molester to me.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:18 am to Sobaka94
quote:
sounds like a child molester to me.
THAT'S how you interpret that?
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:19 am to Sobaka94
quote:
sounds like a child molester to me.
Get back to me when you find scripture where Jesus married a nine-year-old girl
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 9:20 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:21 am to Kentucker
quote:
Do you understand that the Constitution is above historical significance?
Freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:36 am to omegaman66
quote:Neither of which terms is found in the Constitution.
Freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News