Why do they care?

[davidtaylorjr]

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross

Athiests on this board and elsewhere often criticize people who oppose abortions and gay marriage saying that neither of those things harm them. Why then do they care about religious symbols? They don't harm the Athiest whatsoever. Pathetic really.

 

[Redress]

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross

Athiests on this board and elsewhere often criticize people who oppose abortions and gay marriage saying that neither of those things harm them. Why then do they care about religious symbols? They don't harm the Athiest whatsoever. Pathetic really.

Bad comparisons are bad. The atheist groups are upset because it is the government erecting a religious symbol, which raises constitutional questions.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Bad comparisons are bad. The atheist groups are upset because it is the government erecting a religious symbol, which raises constitutional questions.

No, actually it doesn't. That is just what they have turned it into.... :roll:

 

[head of joaquin]

No, actually it doesn't. That is just what they have turned it into.... :roll:

Talk about a pathetic argument.

As a Christian I don't want my government promoting my religion over another, or promoting any religion. It's bad for government and bad for religion, as the Founders wisely realized.

Fundies are so insecure about their religion (because in fact they're fake Christians and heretics) that they need government to promote their views. It's the only way anybody would listen to their ugly distorted view of Christianity.

 

[Gardener]

Why do people care?


One might just as easily ask that to those who devote an absolutely astronomical number of postings in such a very short time short time to the promotion of an extremist political agenda masquerading as religion.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Talk about a pathetic argument.

As a Christian I don't want my government promoting my religion over another, or promoting any religion. It's bad for government and bad for religion, as the Founders wisely realized.

Fundies are so insecure about their religion (because in fact they're fake Christians and heretics) that they need government to promote their views. It's the only way anybody would listen to their ugly distorted view of Christianity.

:roll:

 

[Redress]

No, actually it doesn't. That is just what they have turned it into.... :roll:

Actually, it does. Courts have ruled against government erecting religious symbols, so it is a potential establishment issue. I would suggest reading a bit on constitutional law. It is a fascinating subject.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Actually, it does. Courts have ruled against government erecting religious symbols, so it is a potential establishment issue. I would suggest reading a bit on constitutional law. It is a fascinating subject.

Right, that is what they turned it into not sure what was hard to understand about my statement. In other words, the courts got it wrong.

 

[Redress]

Right, that is what they turned it into not sure what was hard to understand about my statement. In other words, the courts got it wrong.

Well, that is an interesting opinion, but one not based on anything other than your wishful thinking.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Well, that is an interesting opinion, but one not based on anything other than your wishful thinking.

Actually it is based on the fact the Constitution does not mention religious symbols, prayers, or anything of the sort. It says Congress cannot make a law to establish a religion. A monument is not congress making a law or establishing a religion.

 

[kamikaze483]

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross

Athiests on this board and elsewhere often criticize people who oppose abortions and gay marriage saying that neither of those things harm them. Why then do they care about religious symbols? They don't harm the Athiest whatsoever. Pathetic really.

Should, then, a religious symbol placed in a government building or on its grounds....
A. Represent the beliefs of the founding fathers, or
B. Represent the beliefs of the people living in the community in which the building resides, or
C. Represent the beliefs of the official(s) who placed it there?

Just a question...

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross

Athiests on this board and elsewhere often criticize people who oppose abortions and gay marriage saying that neither of those things harm them. Why then do they care about religious symbols? They don't harm the Athiest whatsoever. Pathetic really.

It's because we believe in the constitution. There's supposed to be a separation between church and state. Personally, I couldn't care less what your religion is. However, the government should not be using tax dollars to erect religious monuments.

How would you feel if Princeton, NJ was erecting a 9-11 ceremonial mosque?

 

[head of joaquin]

Right, that is what they turned it into not sure what was hard to understand about my statement. In other words, the courts got it wrong.

So the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of atheists with an agenda?

This is how desperate fundies get.

By the way, the SC is the constitutionally provided manner for determining the constitutionality of laws. So it appears it's you who are rejecting the constitution, not atheistic justices.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

It's because we believe in the constitution. There's supposed to be a separation between church and state. Personally, I couldn't care less what your religion is. However, the government should not be using tax dollars to erect religious monuments.

How would you feel if Princeton, NJ was erecting a 9-11 ceremonial mosque?

Funny thing is that actually isn't in the Constitution..... :shrug:

 

[davidtaylorjr]

So the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of atheists with an agenda?

This is how desperate fundies get.

By the way, the SC is the constitutionally provided manner for determining the constitutionality of laws. So it appears it's you who are rejecting the constitution, not atheistic justices.

:spin: :alert

 

[kamikaze483]

So the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of atheists with an agenda?

This is how desperate fundies get.

By the way, the SC is the constitutionally provided manner for determining the constitutionality of laws. So it appears it's you who are rejecting the constitution, not atheistic justices.

I hate to agree with you, but you are absolutely right. The Supreme Court is "supreme." Whether a particular issue is constitutional is totally up to them. If they say it's not, then it absolutely is not.

 

[head of joaquin]

:spin: :alert

Art 3, section 2. Now spin away.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I hate to agree with you, but you are absolutely right. The Supreme Court is "supreme." Whether a particular issue is constitutional is totally up to them. If they say it's not, then it absolutely is not.

No, that is factually not true. If they say it's not that is their opinion that we unfortunately have to go by. That DOES NOT mean that it is what the Constitution ACTUALLY says.

 

[head of joaquin]

I hate to agree with you, but you are absolutely right. The Supreme Court is "supreme." Whether a particular issue is constitutional is totally up to them. If they say it's not, then it absolutely is not.

That's the system we have. It works very well, with a few exceptions (like Dred Scot), and those ultimately had to be dealt with politically, which is what a mature, democratic nation has to do sometimes. But the alternative is worse.

 

[Redress]

Actually it is based on the fact the Constitution does not mention religious symbols, prayers, or anything of the sort. It says Congress cannot make a law to establish a religion. A monument is not congress making a law or establishing a religion.

Your lack of knowledge of constitutional law is showing.

 

[kamikaze483]

No, that is factually not true. If they say it's not that is their opinion that we unfortunately have to go by. That DOES NOT mean that it is what the Constitution ACTUALLY says.

I think you are mistaken, sir, with all due respect. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ultimate authority as to whether an issue is "constutional." You may agree or disagree with their interpretation; however, their interpretation of what is and what is not constitutional determines what is or is not constitutional.

You can read up on this issue here.

Where does the Supreme Court get its source of authority

 

[head of joaquin]

I think you are mistaken, sir, with all due respect. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ultimate authority as to whether an issue is "constutional." You may agree or disagree with their interpretation; however, their interpretation of what is and what is not constitutional determines what is or is not constitutional.

You can read up on this issue here.

Where does the Supreme Court get its source of authority

Wait for it.

David is now going to give you the tea party myth that Marbury v Madison created an improper function for the SC and that the states are supposed to decide the constitutionality of laws. Wait for it!

 

[kamikaze483]

That's the system we have. It works very well, with a few exceptions (like Dred Scot), and those ultimately had to be dealt with politically, which is what a mature, democratic nation has to do sometimes. But the alternative is worse.

With the Constitution being a living document, it is actually true (based on the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court), that slavery was "constitutional" in 1857. It did not become unconstitutional until 1864 with the ratification of the thirteenth amendment. While you can disagree with the court's interpretation in Dred Scott, it is true that slavery was constitutional until 1864.

 

[kamikaze483]

Wait for it.

David is now going to give you the tea party myth that Marbury v Madison created an improper function for the SC and that the states are supposed to decide the constitutionality of laws. Wait for it!

Patiently waiting. Haha.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross

Athiests on this board and elsewhere often criticize people who oppose abortions and gay marriage saying that neither of those things harm them. Why then do they care about religious symbols? They don't harm the Athiest whatsoever. Pathetic really.

I seem to recall you arguing in the photographer/gay wedding thread that a person's personal religious faith shouldn't be infringed upon by others who don't believe as you do - why should the opposite not also be true and protected?