I did not intend to suggest that the rule was "neat" or "easy." The borders for this kind of thing are undoubtedly fuzzy, which is one reason why they keep cropping up in the courts. But that is the general principle: If it seems to be establishing a state religion rather than displaying a historical element, it's problematic. Thus, some but not all 10 Commandment displays do in fact get removed from public spaces.Far from wrapping up the distinction in a neat rule....
What else is new? We could say the same for freedom of expression, for segregation, obscenity ("I know it when I see it"), for all sorts of issues. The complexity in implementation, however, does not prove that the underlying principles are excessively complicated.The Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is as unclear and difficult as it gets.
It's in the nature of how that public area had been used as a "public forum" for years, and the cross was planted right next to a menorah set up by another group of citizens. Sorry, I forgot to mention that particular exception.And I wonder how you would fit Capitol Square Review Board into your rule about the Establishment Clause question turning on "part of a larger display," "primarily for historical ends," etc. The Court held that crosses the KKK was allowed to erect on public land across from the Ohio state capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, and yet they were neither part of a larger display nor displayed primarily for historical purposes. Tell us how that squares with McCreary County.
You're missing the point. Atheists are not "killjoys" because they don't want a state-sanctioned religion shoved down their throats. Nor do such ad hominems help your cause.Ah, what wit! Adultery has traditionally been a crime in most states....
Then this case should give you absolutely no cause for concern.My concern is the right of Americans to celebrate and promote traditional American culture and values in the face of harassment by America-loathing atheists who ironically call themselves "liberal."
Please, spare us the ad hominem attacks.What they really are is today Puritans--self-righteous, close-minded prigs who want to boss around everyone they think is less morally enlightened than they are.
Uh, no. In this case, and in many other cases, it's freedom of expression. Just look at... Capital Square.Right idea, wrong freedom. It's not the freedom of speech that overly strict interpretations of the Establishment Clause threatens, but the right to free exercise of religion.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIf a fire breaks out in the kitchen at First Baptist as the ladies in the flock are busily preparing for the church bake sale, shouldn't the city fire department just let it burn? After all a municipal government is only a creature of the state where it's located. And if the Establishment Clause means strict separation of church and state, we can't have the state government helping a church, can we?
He executed, persecuted and targeted Christian clergy because the Church doctrine wasn't compatible with Nazi ideology.
It is truly one of the most bizarre concepts to come out of this nation's political wrong-wing—the idea that the First Amendment is an excuse, or even a requirement, for this sort of censorship and suppression of the very things it was intended to protect.
Um, the Catholic Church vehemently supported Hitler until it became painfully obvious that he was out of his mind and going to lose. After the war, they smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. The churches in Germany celebrated Hitler's birthday every year. Yeah, these people look pretty persecuted, don't they?
View attachment 67171232
What, you mean like these?
View attachment 67171247View attachment 67171248View attachment 67171249View attachment 67171250View attachment 67171251
There are plenty of other examples. And don't make me pull out all of the Nazi symbolism found in German churches of the day either, I can do that.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
thatS correct, the 1st is a restriction placed on the federal government to make no LAWS concerning religion,
having a monument on a piece of property is not..... LAW.
Fenton needs to open his eyes.
Maybe if HE did 5 minute google searches instead of sticking to sites like conservapedia, he might learn something.
It is hard to fight indoctrination, Fenton, but you will find it is well worth the effort.
Hitler was a catholic christian.
He said it in his own words.
His armies all fought under the banner of god. Gott Mit Uns. As Cephus demonstrated quite clearly so even a 6 year old can understand, Nazi and christian symbolism were intertwined.
There is no way you can hide from that fact unless you are going to be willfully ignorant which is of course your choice. A sad choice to be sure but still a choice.
I agree with this, but... honestly, I'd rather not have stuff like that displayed on public property. I'd rather my government be 100% neutral. Want to display something? Hire a local photographer and get some shots of the local area.
And it's not just that the Nazis used Christian symbolism, the German Christians used Nazi symbolism. It wasn't just in Germany though, the whole of the Catholic Church was on Hitler's side, the Pope was openly friendly to Hitler and his regime. It doesn't matter what Christians, clueless and gullible, want to believe, we've got the proof.
From the Martin Luther Memorial Church, built in 1935. Hitler greatly admired Martin Luther and mentioned him in Mein Kampf as a great reformer.
View attachment 67171258
This is the baptismal font, picturing Hitler holding a Nazi stormtrooper hat.
View attachment 67171259
This is part of a stone relief, featuring the crown of thorns and a Nazi stormtrooper.
View attachment 67171260
A wooden frieze on the pulpit picturing Jesus standing next to a Nazi soldier, surrounded by Aryan women and children.
It's not that hard to understand. Hitler said he was a Christian, all of the rest of the Nazis said he was a Christian, the Catholic church said he was a Christian he described how his Christian beliefs caused the Holocaust, how, then, is he magically not a Christian? Because Christians are desperately trying to distance themselves from him? Deal with reality!
Whoa there. Sometimes you're a little too myopic. I didn't say anything about Congress making a law.since i am for the constitution, and the federal government was suppose to be restricted from violating rights via the bill of rights, and states were suppose to be involved in the life's liberty and property of the people, then it would be contingent on state constitutional law, not federal.
but the Constitution is very clear, "congress shall make no law".....
Whoa there. Sometimes you're a little too myopic. I didn't say anything about Congress making a law.
Ok, got'cha. I was just saying that I would prefer local and/or state government choose to not display such things even if they are technically allowed to.i did not say you did..
i wanted to convey, i am a firm believer in federalism.....i believe in that states should sovereign and independent states from one another, and the federal government [congress] out of matters of the people.
you are not trying to associate Nazis TO Christianity..are you?.......and that is again, that Christianity is tied to being national socialist.
or is it you mean the Nazis used Christianity for their purposes.
No, it's painfully clear that you're desperately trying to find some way around the reality that Christianity and Nazism were linked. You just don't want to admit it.
you are not trying to associate Nazis TO Christianity..are you?.......and that is again, that Christianity is tied to being national socialist.
or is it you mean the Nazis used Christianity for their purposes.
The nazi's used just about every doctrine to get their followers. They were close to communist to the workers (jobs for everyone, food for everyone), they were ultra nationalist to appease the old order and their german empire idiocy, they were all anti-jewish to appease both the church and the anti-semites, they were very protestant and pure when it suited their needs.
But most of all they were populist fascist, power was all he cared about and dominance over every aspect of life inside Germany and the countries they invaded for the good of Hitler himself.
But that is all getting way off the path in this issue.
Religion is all and fine and even governments being busy at promoting "good morals" is not a problem. But all this judge says is that putting this monument on the doorstep of city hall is going to possibly cause problems with non-religious or differently religious people and that the city should not have done it. If the city would have put this monument on government land in front of a church it would not be a problem as long as no government money was involved in making and placing that monument there.
Some people dislike being confronted with government de-facto promoting the Christian religion by way of the ten commandments. And this local government did and I think the city should have known better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?