Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Constitutional Case on Mt Soledad
#1
I wonder how the state will handle all the crosses at federal cemeteries? Down here, when we have a death on the road, we often place a small cross at the location, that would have to be stopped if this decision stands.

I get the view of no state support for any religion and agree with it, but, it seems this case isn't the state doing anything, it was old vets who did it on state property like us putting these little wooden crosses at accident victim's wreck spots. Sort of, Mt Soledad they did get permission, we don't ask.


http://aclj.org/mt-soledad-cross/federal...-torn-down
Reply
#2
(12-14-2013, 10:40 AM)Palladin Wrote: I wonder how the state will handle all the crosses at federal cemeteries? Down here, when we have a death on the road, we often place a small cross at the location, that would have to be stopped if this decision stands.

I get the view of no state support for any religion and agree with it, but, it seems this case isn't the state doing anything, it was old vets who did it on state property like us putting these little wooden crosses at accident victim's wreck spots. Sort of, Mt Soledad they did get permission, we don't ask.


http://aclj.org/mt-soledad-cross/federal...-torn-down

Patrick, your statement in, highlight above, is not technically correct. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids the State(note capital 'S' for Feds) from supporting a religion. It expressly forbids the feds from having an 'officially' sanctioned church. This was placed there to combat England's 'official' Anglican Church.

The State is allowed to support Christianity in general, which would include Roman Catholics, Baptists, SDAdventists, etc, etc. Just as long as they don't promote one over the other. The intent of the Framers has been misconstrued for so long that it is stretched out of shape.

Now, if you mean 'Church' to include All sects of Christianity, the State has the right to promote them, as long as one sect is not placed over the others. I personally don't view 'Church' as being all sects, lumped together. The Roman Church, through their own corrupt ways, helped splinter a unified church. And there has never been an official reunification since.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
The state can't make a law "respecting the establishment of a religion". Court cases in the 20th century consistently have applied that to conduct of various governments using state assets to assist a faith, school teachers as state agents praying, etc.

So, I disagree with your take on the 1st, the state cannot and should not be involved in any religious affirmations at all and we shouldn't want it to, Caesar sucks, Christ is good.

The only beef I have with this decision above is the state didn't do this, citizens did and asked the state permission to. IF this stands, it seems to me all state owned cemeteries would have to remove all crosses, all Christmas and Easter parades using state highways must be prohibited, all military chaplains must be fired,etc.

It's a wrong decision catering to the anti Christ minority in our nation is all it is. There is no logical, legal basis for such a decision. IF the state had done it, the decision would be sound, IMO.
Reply
#4
Alright, lets look closer, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" They were referring to any religion, to include sects as well. But note that they also included the prohibiting of the free exercise of them. That means the State should either be neutral or encourage all. But not the prohibition of any one.

Do you disagree?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
That has to be qualified. You can't claim that just because you may be a Mormon, that you should be allowed to practice polygamy. The federal government has been involved in prohibiting the free exercise of that. Mormon or not, bigamy is still regarded as a crime.

An "establishment" of religion should include observances instituted by a church. So the federal government should have no involvement in sanctifying Christian holidays like Christmas. It also means the federal government should not be involved in making or enforcing any Sunday laws. However, the federal government does not have to go out of its way to prevent anyone from observing Christmas, nor does the federal government have any authority to tell anyone what day of the week they can take for a rest day, or close their business on that day.

Atheists who try to use the First Amendment to sue over the presence of nativity scenes on government property are just being mean-spirited; there is really no warrant for their extreme interpretation. The federal government can freely "host" any religious observance, as long as this is not denied to others. The government is intended to be the servant of the people, and facilitate the wishes of the people, whatever they may be.
Reply
#6
There is no conflict. The idea that render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, works equally as well in reverse. if the laws of the nation are fair and not arbitrary, then Churches can follow their own dictates - so long as they don't violate the law. If they care to, they can even violate the law so long as they are willing to pay the cost without complaint or reservation. If the laws can be proven to be arbitrary, then churches can get the law to fix itself and allow them their dictates.

Since a Sabbath day can be arbitrary, the usage can be fixed. Blue Laws that used to outlaw selling liquor on Sunday is arbitrary, and are falling. It doesn't matter if 51% of all churches believe Sunday or Saturday is the Sabbath. A single individual who holds differently nullifies them all.
Reply
#7
John,

No, I entirely agree with the amendment. Religion is not the purview of the state at all in any form or fashion. It also can't interfere with the free exercise thereof of any faith.

That's ideal, it does interfere and has at times pushed one over another. That's why there are Christmas things in your town and not Vishnu things on the light poles.

It's why ObamaCare can force a Catholic to assist what they consider is murder. It's why some Indian pagan religions are prohibited from exercising their religious desires.

Ron,

I agree anyone who gets tore up about a manger scene has some serious psychological problems, but, that doesn't matter here. The state cannot support Christianity and we should not want it to. Caesar is not Christ. Christ doesn't need Caesar,Caesar is bad, Christ is good, keep this separated is my view.
Reply
#8
Saying the state cannot support Christianity does not mean the state has to interfere with or oppose Christianity.
Reply
#9
(01-16-2014, 11:22 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: Saying the state cannot support Christianity does not mean the state has to interfere with or oppose Christianity.

The founding fathers did not want a parallel to the Church of England in America. Atheists have been pushing their religion in the public square ad nauseum.

There is a Swedish Church that is supposedly no longer the government church but somehow must operate according to dictates from the government. Gay Marriage, woman priests, etc...
Reply
#10
Ron,

Obviously true. Other than Obama's attempt to force Christians to pay for abortions against their will, I'm not aware of a state action that uses state authority to interfere in any Christian worship since 1900, are you?

Paul,

Good point. Most Americans probably think our original separation doctrine was based on observed Catholic-state nexus in Europe.

Wrong. It was driven by the Anglican's-state nexus right here in the colonies. Anglicans persecuted people like myself violently, especially in Virginia in colonial days.

It's a wise choice.
Reply
#11
Outlawing Christmas decorations on light poles, and manger scenes on the lawn of city hall, are examples of going too far to the point of the state interfering with the free exercise of religion. Those lands belong to the public, and usually the majority of the public are Christians. Moslems, Jews, and even atheists have the right to place their decorations and commemorations on public land as well. Only the intolerant oppose this. Other examples are the recent cases of public schools telling children to shut up about their Christian faith in classroom lectures, etc. There is no sane reason for this kind of tyranny, especially when no such restraint is placed upon Moslems, Wiccans, etc. It is just Christianity that is singled out.
Reply
#12
The state isn't a platform for Christian operations and should not be, the more we associate with Caesar, the less effective we are as agents for Christ. We don't need their da.mn lightpoles with their stupid snowflakes and reindeers anyway, that's nothing to do with Christ. We can put our Christ's manger scenes on our church lots and front yards freely.

Yes, there is more hostility here to Christ than than in 1980 and I agree the zeigeist would approve of any religion before worshipping Jesus, but, let's talk real persecution of real, private Christian worship or speaking about Christ freely.

The only examples I am aware of so far in this century is Obama's rule that Christians must pay for abortions and birth control. That's the sole violation of the 1st amendment relating to we Christians I know of.

In the past, the US has violated the 1st amendment a lot vis a vis some Indian pagan religions and still does.
Reply
#13
US Public funds can be expended for Anti-Christian 'ART' projects.

Quote:[Image: PissChrist.png]

US Public Funds can be expended for the promotion and advancement of Islam.

Quote:Islamizing the Public Schools | For example, several years ago seventh-graders at a San Francisco-area school were required to “become Muslims” for two full weeks as part of California’s world history curriculum. This included professing as “true” the Muslim belief that “The Holy Quran is God’s word,” reciting the Muslim profession of faith — “Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger” —and chanting “Praise be to Allah.”  Just imagine what would happen if a public school told Muslim students to become Jews for two weeks and recite the traditional Jewish prayer: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”


Quote:Texas public school students don burqas, learn that Muslim terrorists are freedom fighters | The incident occurred in a world geography class at Lumberton High School in the small town of Lumberton, Texas. The general topic of the class that day was Islam.An unnamed student informed WND that the teacher said, “We are going to work to change your perception of Islam.”“I do not necessarily agree with this,” the teacher also allegedly said, “but I am supposed to teach you that we are not to call these people terrorists anymore, but freedom fighters.”

On the international scene Sweden has been a refugee destination for Coptic Christians, Assyrian Christians from the Middle East for decades and Malmö the third largest city has no go zones for police & emergency services and has been experiencing a forced exodus of Jews. Guess why?

There are many more examples all equally troubling to me.
Reply
#14
Yes, the US government can conduct itself in an anti Christian manner. That's perfectly legal in that art case. Pretty bad use of taxpayer cash, but, there are only 1 million other examples of trash like that.

Yes, the current US government prefers Islam and protects Islam's image as best it can right now and I suspect this is a violation of the constitution, but, probably not a case the SCOTUS would accept because it's based on refusal to say "Islamic terrorism" or call some Islamic terrorism, terrorism at all. "Work place violence" instead.

The schoolbook trash also is probably illegal and probably could be eliminated. So is the special prayer area in the Minneapolis airport illegal because tax payers forked over for it.
Reply
#15
(01-17-2014, 05:37 PM)Palladin Wrote: The schoolbook trash also is probably illegal and probably could be eliminated. So is the special prayer area in the Minneapolis airport illegal because tax payers forked over for it.

How about the government putting in Islamic Footbaths and not Catholic Holy Water fountains at airports and public Universities?
Reply
#16
Yea, I meant foot baths in Minneapolis airport. Definitely anti constitutional. Should have been challenged and removed, IMO.

The thing is this Paul, I am a Christian believer, but, I don't want any state support for my faith or others. It is not the state's role at all.
Reply
#17
(01-17-2014, 06:37 PM)Palladin Wrote: I don't want any state support for my faith or others. It is not the state's role at all.

Agreed! Govt. education as part of history lessons should teach the broad spectrum of religions in school as they contributed to the development of different societies, civilizations, governments, science, art and in advanced courses morality, corruption, etc, etc... That's it.

I am a Lutheran but am not an evangelist.

However; my beliefs do have a strong influence on my thinking. For example: Dostoyevsky wrote Crime & Punishment. Some people believe Crime & Punishment is a good concept. I believe punishment should only be administered if a corrective behavior can be achieved. Otherwise I believe speed should be encouraged to enable individuals that cannot function peaceably in society to be ultimately judged & punished by our creator or isolated from society in the most minimalist cost effective dungeon until they can no longer reap misery on society.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)