September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Abortion and the Malleable Conscience | Main | Ida Isn't a "Missing Link" »

October 21, 2009

Comments

I really don't understand how a cross constitutes a law, or what Congress had to do with this.

Agreed Dennis.
Did congress pass a law mandating a cross be put up? No. Permission for something is not the same as prescribing that it be done. Those are different things. Also why is the last part of the first sentence of the 1st amendment always excluded in these cases in editorials and the like. The last part reads "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So congress is bound not to either make law such as so and so is the offical church or religion of the land, but they are also bound to make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words when it come to the free expression of religion in the public square the message is clear. HANDS OFF GOVT!!!
The fact is that when religious liberty is squelched the rest of our liberites are right behind. That is a historical fact that has repeated itself over and over again. Don't believe it? It's already here and its name is political correctness. Anyone out there ever been sent to a re-education center I mean sensitivity/diveristy training at work? Get rid of religion and something else will rush in to fill the void and really even the athiests won't like it.

Are the cross headstones in Arlington National Cemetery next?

The matter was brought to attention when the National Parks Service refused to give permission for the erection of a Buddhist monument next to the cross. Because the NPS had also determined that the cross was not a historical monument, but was in fact a religious monument, the refusal to allow a Buddhist structure shows favoritism to one religion over another.

As the NPS is a branch of the USA government, this is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Furthermore, the lawsuit was brought forth by Frank Buono. Mr. Buono is a Christian, not an atheist.

These facts refute the points in Greg's comment.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salazar_v._Buono and the references therein.

Having a cross does not establish a religion.

Denying the Budhist monument doesn't establish a religion.

Even if having the cross and denying a Budhist monument is favoritism, it's not establishing a religion.

Showing favoritism might be unconstitutional but you're going to have to look somewhere other than the establishment clause.

According to a report I heard on NPR when this was first discussed in the Supreme court, places like Arlington are not affected since they display religious symbols from a variety of religions. Hence no one religion is "established."

What if this was not a Cross but some Muslim or other religious symbol instead? Shouldn't we be glad they are trying to remove it? Lets not have any religious symbols on public property.

i don't really care about crosses on public property. i also don't care if people are offended by crosses on public property. We don't have a right not-to-be-offended. The people can vote on it or the people's representatives can decide.

This is so trivial yet some idiot feels the need to sue.

>>"What if this was not a Cross but some Muslim or other religious symbol instead? Shouldn't we be glad they are trying to remove it? Lets not have any religious symbols on public property."

Had this nation's governing documents been founded upon the philosophy of Gautama Buddha, the assertions of the Koran, or out of homage to Vishnu, Krishna, or Brahma, et al,...it would be quite common to see symbols denoting this throughout our nation (and probably without the freedom to question it.) On the contrary, the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ as revealed to us therein held this influence; (although now the use of the cross as a memorial is likely merely traditional now.)

We are a melting pot...not a collage.

Whatever one's opinion on the matter (sorry Pro...I usually take your side), it is appropriate - and should be expected and anticipated - to use "rememberances" of Christianity throughout this nation in such a manner as a cross as a memorial or a manger scene for Christmas or a Ten commandments display on a courthouse lawn...while simultaneously rejecting the displays of other worldviews. Doing so "establishes" nothing in the way of coerced adherence to a particular belief system, and serves to provide an accurate vestige to our history and tradition...unless of course we want to cease being the United States of America, re-write the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. In this era, doing so isn't too far off the mark, either.

Those who, to this day, still claim we were founded on secular tenets (and that the Founders were all Deists) can genuinely be lumped in with the flat-earthers and people who thought Sea Monkeys were really primates.

The comments to this entry are closed.