Cross Removed! Town avoids lawsuit and follows the law

[Faun]

I'm not an atheist. Your ignorance defeats you again.

Then why do you care about a cross on top of a tree?

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

And putting a cross on a tree establishes Christianity as the national religion? Really?

Walk us through that

It says that the government is promoting Christianity.

What? Based on what? And that's your definition of "Establish" a religion?

For one, based on Supreme Court rulings which prevent cities from doing what that city attempted to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then why do you care about a cross on top of a tree?

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

And putting a cross on a tree establishes Christianity as the national religion? Really?

Walk us through that

It says that the government is promoting Christianity.

What? Based on what? And that's your definition of "Establish" a religion?

For one, based on Supreme Court rulings which prevent cities from doing what that city attempted to do.

SCOTUS got Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu wrong too, that decision needs to go.

Putting a Menorah on public land does NOT establish Judaism as the National religion.

 

[martybegan]

Then why do you care about a cross on top of a tree?

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

And putting a cross on a tree establishes Christianity as the national religion? Really?

Walk us through that

It says that the government is promoting Christianity.

What? Based on what? And that's your definition of "Establish" a religion?

For one, based on Supreme Court rulings which prevent cities from doing what that city attempted to do.

appeal to authority, try again.

 

[Faun]

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

I am a strict constructionist, and even i don't really get how a cross on a tree in a public square is establishment of religion.

It's a pity most progressives aren't this anal about the 2nd amendment.

Do you understand how a cross on a church establishes Christianity in that building?

No, being a Church establishes Christianity in that building. Crosses are the end result, not the fore result.

Nonsense. If there's no cross (or other religious markings) on a church, it's just a building with no identifiable religion. If I preach to guests in my house, that does not make it a church. Just as I thought, you don't get it.

Actually your house can be a Church, it depends on what religion you belong to. Hindus do most of their worship at home.

It can be, but it's not just because I practice my faith inside it. Churches proudly place religious symbols in prominent view to promote their faith to the public. They're free to do so because it's private property.

 

[Faun]

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

And putting a cross on a tree establishes Christianity as the national religion? Really?

Walk us through that

It says that the government is promoting Christianity.

What? Based on what? And that's your definition of "Establish" a religion?

For one, based on Supreme Court rulings which prevent cities from doing what that city attempted to do.

appeal to authority, try again.

Nope, don't need to because you don't like the answer.

 

[Faun]

Traditions are wonderful......(some of them)....but why should government (our taxes) pay for religious ones?

So if the people of the town paid for the cross, and then put it up there on their own, you would be OK with it?

Sure...on private land...as is done every year thru out the US.....sure.

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

Again you are confused. Not allowing the government to endorse religion is not endorsing atheism. It's endorsing religious freedom.

 

[martybegan]

I am a strict constructionist, and even i don't really get how a cross on a tree in a public square is establishment of religion.

It's a pity most progressives aren't this anal about the 2nd amendment.

Do you understand how a cross on a church establishes Christianity in that building?

No, being a Church establishes Christianity in that building. Crosses are the end result, not the fore result.

Nonsense. If there's no cross (or other religious markings) on a church, it's just a building with no identifiable religion. If I preach to guests in my house, that does not make it a church. Just as I thought, you don't get it.

Actually your house can be a Church, it depends on what religion you belong to. Hindus do most of their worship at home.

It can be, but it's not just because I practice my faith inside it. Churches proudly place religious symbols in prominent view to promote their faith to the public. They're free to do so because it's private property.

Yes, they are free to do so, but a cross does not a church make.

 

[martybegan]

And putting a cross on a tree establishes Christianity as the national religion? Really?

Walk us through that

It says that the government is promoting Christianity.

What? Based on what? And that's your definition of "Establish" a religion?

For one, based on Supreme Court rulings which prevent cities from doing what that city attempted to do.

appeal to authority, try again.

Nope, don't need to because you don't like the answer.

You can't go with "because the court says so" when we are arguing the why. That is the answer when arguing the how.

 

[martybegan]

So if the people of the town paid for the cross, and then put it up there on their own, you would be OK with it?

Sure...on private land...as is done every year thru out the US.....sure.

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

Again you are confused. Not allowing the government to endorse religion is not endorsing atheism. It's endorsing religious freedom.

How so? Atheists get what they want, no display of any religion in a public space. How is that freedom?

 

[OldLady]

Traditions are wonderful......(some of them)....but why should government (our taxes) pay for religious ones?

So if the people of the town paid for the cross, and then put it up there on their own, you would be OK with it?

Sure...on private land...as is done every year thru out the US.....sure.

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

The absence of Christian symbols does not equal atheism. If aetheism had a symbol, that wouldn't belong on the tree, either.

 

[Faun]

Do you understand how a cross on a church establishes Christianity in that building?

No, being a Church establishes Christianity in that building. Crosses are the end result, not the fore result.

Nonsense. If there's no cross (or other religious markings) on a church, it's just a building with no identifiable religion. If I preach to guests in my house, that does not make it a church. Just as I thought, you don't get it.

Actually your house can be a Church, it depends on what religion you belong to. Hindus do most of their worship at home.

It can be, but it's not just because I practice my faith inside it. Churches proudly place religious symbols in prominent view to promote their faith to the public. They're free to do so because it's private property.

Yes, they are free to do so, but a cross does not a church make.

Bullshit. A cross on a building establishes it endorses Christianity. A Star of David on a building establishes it endorses Judaism. A crescent moon and star on a building endorses Islam. That's why churches, temples and mosques proudly feature them.

That you can't understand something that basic explains why you can't understand the reason the government is not allowed to display such symbols of religion.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your question reveals your ignorance.

It reveals your claim that removing the cross enforces atheism is moronic. And It reveals you think there's no difference between "establish" and "enforce."

It forces the common areas to be hostile to religion, so atheists win, assholes that you are.

I'm not an atheist. Your ignorance defeats you again.

Then why do you care about a cross on top of a tree?

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

I am a strict constructionist, and even i don't really get how a cross on a tree in a public square is establishment of religion.

It's a pity most progressives aren't this anal about the 2nd amendment.

It isn't but butt hurt is butt hurt. There are 100's of Christian religions and the tree and the cross promotes any religion.

 

[Faun]

Sure...on private land...as is done every year thru out the US.....sure.

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

Again you are confused. Not allowing the government to endorse religion is not endorsing atheism. It's endorsing religious freedom.

How so? Atheists get what they want, no display of any religion in a public space. How is that freedom?

The public gets what it wants. Non-Christians don't have Christian symbols shoved down their throat... non-Jews don't have Jewish symbols shoved down their throats... Non-Muslims don't have Islamic symbols shoved down their throat... etc....

 

[bodecea]

Sure...on private land...as is done every year thru out the US.....sure.

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

Again you are confused. Not allowing the government to endorse religion is not endorsing atheism. It's endorsing religious freedom.

How so? Atheists get what they want, no display of any religion in a public space. How is that freedom?

Let's put up Muslim Cresent Moons in public places during Ramadan so we don't promote Atheism.......Ok?

 

[martybegan]

So if the people of the town paid for the cross, and then put it up there on their own, you would be OK with it?

Sure...on private land...as is done every year thru out the US.....sure.

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

The absence of Christian symbols does not equal atheism. If aetheism had a symbol, that wouldn't belong on the tree, either.

Why not? So is Atheism a religion then?

 

[martybegan]

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

Again you are confused. Not allowing the government to endorse religion is not endorsing atheism. It's endorsing religious freedom.

How so? Atheists get what they want, no display of any religion in a public space. How is that freedom?

The public gets what it wants. Non-Christians don't have Christian symbols shoved down their throat... non-Jews don't have Jewish symbols shoved down their throats... Non-Muslims don't have Islamic symbols shoved down their throat... etc....

I'm not Jewish, and passing by a Menorah being lit in a public square is not having it "shoved down my throat"

Going to court, on the other hand, to render the commons sterile so some butthurt twat doesn't have to see a cross is having their beliefs shoved down my throat.

 

[martybegan]

Well there's that added condition I knew you would go for.

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?

So people should cower in a closet out of sight of those poor poor fragile atheists when they want to pray or worship?

How is displaying something religious on public ground an endorsement of a religion?
How else do you endorse a religion? Of course it's an endorsement. It's why churches put crosses on their buildings and on top of their roofs. It is their symbol. When a town uses that symbol, it is a full endorsement of that specific religion and it does not belong on government trees. Not that it doesn't belong anywhere, not just on a government tree.

So then government gets to endorse atheism, right?

Again you are confused. Not allowing the government to endorse religion is not endorsing atheism. It's endorsing religious freedom.

How so? Atheists get what they want, no display of any religion in a public space. How is that freedom?

Let's put up Muslim Cresent Moons in public places during Ramadan so we don't promote Atheism.......Ok?

if done tastefully, and if a majority of the population in the locality is Muslim, I don't have an issue with it.

 

[martybegan]

No, being a Church establishes Christianity in that building. Crosses are the end result, not the fore result.

Nonsense. If there's no cross (or other religious markings) on a church, it's just a building with no identifiable religion. If I preach to guests in my house, that does not make it a church. Just as I thought, you don't get it.

Actually your house can be a Church, it depends on what religion you belong to. Hindus do most of their worship at home.

It can be, but it's not just because I practice my faith inside it. Churches proudly place religious symbols in prominent view to promote their faith to the public. They're free to do so because it's private property.

Yes, they are free to do so, but a cross does not a church make.

Bullshit. A cross on a building establishes it endorses Christianity. A Star of David on a building establishes it endorses Judaism. A crescent moon and star on a building endorses Islam. That's why churches, temples and mosques proudly feature them.

That you can't understand something that basic explains why you can't understand the reason the government is not allowed to display such symbols of religion.

Those are mere symbols, what goes on in the places is what establishes the religion.

Just like some butthurt twat suing over a single cross on a tree in a park is the symbol of the asshole atheist, and their desire to sanitize religion out of any public arena.

Except islam, they are too chickenshit to take on Islam.

 

[martybegan]

It forces the common areas to be hostile to religion, so atheists win, assholes that you are.

I'm not an atheist. Your ignorance defeats you again.

Then why do you care about a cross on top of a tree?

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

I am a strict constructionist, and even i don't really get how a cross on a tree in a public square is establishment of religion.

It's a pity most progressives aren't this anal about the 2nd amendment.

It isn't but butt hurt is butt hurt. There are 100's of Christian religions and the tree and the cross promotes any religion.

For progressives its all about their butthurt being more equal than anyone else's butthurt, AND WE WILL SUE TO GET OUR WAY!!!

 

[bodecea]

Because I care deeply about the Constitution and my personal religious freedoms.

And putting a cross on a tree establishes Christianity as the national religion? Really?

Walk us through that

It says that the government is promoting Christianity.

What? Based on what? And that's your definition of "Establish" a religion?

For one, based on Supreme Court rulings which prevent cities from doing what that city attempted to do.

SCOTUS got Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu wrong too, that decision needs to go.

Putting a Menorah on public land does NOT establish Judaism as the National religion.

So...work on it the same way that American citizens worked on getting Plessy overturned.....unless you want to go the "Dred Scott" route. Just read up on Korematsu....fascinating case.