Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

American Legion wins Cross case

DJDuck
DJDuck Member Posts: 5,970
edited June 2019 in Tug Tavern
American Legion 1 American Humanist Assn. o


7-2 Ginsburg/Wise Latina desert.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Bendintheriver
    Bendintheriver Member Posts: 7,061 Standard Supporter
    Oh that is going to piss off the democrats! Nothing comes between their religion of politics. They will continue to attempt to destroy history, eradicate the mere mention of God in public and topple statues until their liberal politics are the only religion left. They remind me of the Taliban toppling ancient statues.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GreenRiverGatorz
    GreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/731824045/supreme-court-cross-can-stand-on-public-land-in-separation-of-church-and-state-c

    I'm pretty firmly on the side of separation of church and state, but I have no problem with this. It's a 100 year old war memorial. Challenge those monuments as they're made, because yes, they shouldn't be religious and on public land, but that ship sailed a long time ago in this particular case.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,910 Standard Supporter
    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,235 Founders Club
    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/731824045/supreme-court-cross-can-stand-on-public-land-in-separation-of-church-and-state-c

    I'm pretty firmly on the side of separation of church and state, but I have no problem with this. It's a 100 year old war memorial. Challenge those monuments as they're made, because yes, they shouldn't be religious and on public land, but that ship sailed a long time ago in this particular case.

    Looks like a reasonable ruling and 7-2 is a nice margin

    Maybe just close the loop by maintaining the grounds with private funds. Set up a foundation. Plenty of people would donate

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GreenRiverGatorz
    GreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    RaceBannon said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/731824045/supreme-court-cross-can-stand-on-public-land-in-separation-of-church-and-state-c

    I'm pretty firmly on the side of separation of church and state, but I have no problem with this. It's a 100 year old war memorial. Challenge those monuments as they're made, because yes, they shouldn't be religious and on public land, but that ship sailed a long time ago in this particular case.

    Looks like a reasonable ruling and 7-2 is a nice margin

    Maybe just close the loop by maintaining the grounds with private funds. Set up a foundation. Plenty of people would donate

    Tons of options. The city could also just sell the 4'x4' parcel of land to any group for $1 so it's not on public land. There's so many easy solutions to this, but we have people out there who would rather sue and make a spectacle of it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GreenRiverGatorz
    GreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,910 Standard Supporter
    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,981
    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    There’s no mention of an Air Force in the Constitution either. It’s not a rule book; it’s an expression of principles.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,347 Founders Club
    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GreenRiverGatorz
    GreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    Who said it was in there? It was a line first uttered by Thomas Jefferson and has since been cited in numerous Supreme Court cases and used as precedent since then by plenty of majorities. Everson v. Board of Education (1947) was probably the most explicit in setting it forth.

    Anyways, you're hardly exploring new waters here. Most intro level poli sci classes would touch on this. Nothing is ever settled, even explicit Amendments, and there will never be consent with anything regarding the Constitution. But if you're trying to make the argument that the separation of church and state is not a founding principle of our country you'll find yourself in quite the minority in most legal circles. Unless you hang out with Jerry Falwell's legal team.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,235 Founders Club
    Don't establish. Don't prohibit.

    That's a separation. Its a protection quite honestly

    State established religions are a way for the state to kill people with God's approval. No thanks

    People of all religions and atheists died in our wars. Public money for the Crescent star or whatever our Muslims friends use? I have a feeling there could be an issue

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,910 Standard Supporter
    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GreenRiverGatorz
    GreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,910 Standard Supporter
    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    Hell no!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    RaceBannon said:

    Don't establish. Don't prohibit.

    That's a separation. Its a protection quite honestly

    State established religions are a way for the state to kill people with God's approval. No thanks

    People of all religions and atheists died in our wars. Public money for the Crescent star or whatever our Muslims friends use? I have a feeling there could be an issue

    The entire bill of rights is protection. People forget that. That’s what they like to forget.

    The constitution grants no rights.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GreenRiverGatorz
    GreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    Hell no!
    I've always enjoyed your honesty.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    Hell no!
    I've always enjoyed your honesty.
    You’ve always been one of my favorite posters.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,235 Founders Club
    MikeDamone said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    Hell no!
    I've always enjoyed your honesty.
    You’ve always been one of my favorite posters.
    Not a classy poster?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    RaceBannon said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    Hell no!
    I've always enjoyed your honesty.
    You’ve always been one of my favorite posters.
    Not a classy poster?
    Nebraska classy. Always well thought out posts.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,910 Standard Supporter
    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sledog said:

    GreenRiverGatorz said:

    Sledog said:

    Separation of church and state doesn't mean what many think it means.

    Okay I'll bite. Worst case we get some classic Sledog one liners. Care to expand?
    I'll bite, Show me that line in the constitution.
    What they (the founders) meant was they was not going to be an official "state" religion in the US, akin to the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in other places in Europe.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Crosses on memorials on government property gets a little murky, but I don't have an issue with it in this instance.
    Bingo! No state religion. That is it. Nothing else. All this I'm offended shoot needs to stop.
    So Supreme Court rulings and precedent set after 1789 don't mean anything?
    Hell no!
    I've always enjoyed your honesty.
    The court ous during way too much legislating from the bench.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter