There is no 'Separation of Church and State'

[Billy the Great Khan]

This phrase has always pissed me off. People all over the country love to cry 'Separation of church and state' whenever they see a religious symbol somewhere on public property. In every single case I've heard the symbol Christian in origin, though I suppose other symbols have been fought against.

Anyways they always claim the Constitution prohibits such things. No, it doesn't. It prohibits congress from making laws favoring one religion or establishing a national church. However in order to show favor for towards one religion, you would have to deny another religion. The current Supreme Court case against the posting of a cross for WWI veterans is a perfect example. Opponents claim that it a christian bias.

Now This cross was erected more than 80 years ago, so no such complaints were heard of back then. But I'm willing to bet that if someone is so offended by the lack of another religious symbol, or even a none religious symbol, that they'd be willing to furnish the money to have one erected side by side with the cross, the VA, congress, or any other governing authority would ahve any problem with it.

And there in lies the heart of it all. America is by majority a Christian nation, so it would be natural that most people would have a christian symbol to mark their grave, even on public land. But that does not show a bias UNLESS a disfavor is shown to other beliefs.

/End rant.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You have an interpretation of the constitution in which there is no separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, however, did not. Who am I going to go with here? Tough choice.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You have an interpretation of the constitution in which there is no separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, however, did not. Who am I going to go with here? Tough choice.

You also have the false interpretation that congress can regulate anything even remotely doing with interstate commerce. But that doesn't make it anymore correct. Again in order to favor one, you must disfavor another.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You also have the false interpretation that congress can regulate anything even remotely doing with interstate commerce.

I agreed with Lopez.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You have an interpretation of the constitution in which there is no separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, however, did not. Who am I going to go with here? Tough choice.

do you agree that no court and no law has said such a thing.....in that, when a court did say that, it was dicta....and cited jefferson

what do you say to that?

 

[Timshel]

This phrase has always pissed me off. People all over the country love to cry 'Separation of church and state' whenever they see a religious symbol somewhere on public property. In every single case I've heard the symbol Christian in origin, though I suppose other symbols have been fought against.

Anyways they always claim the Constitution prohibits such things. No, it doesn't. It prohibits congress from making laws favoring one religion or establishing a national church. However in order to show favor for towards one religion, you would have to deny another religion. The current Supreme Court case against the posting of a cross for WWI veterans is a perfect example. Opponents claim that it a christian bias.

Now This cross was erected more than 80 years ago, so no such complaints were heard of back then. But I'm willing to bet that if someone is so offended by the lack of another religious symbol, or even a none religious symbol, that they'd be willing to furnish the money to have one erected side by side with the cross, the VA, congress, or any other governing authority would ahve any problem with it.

And there in lies the heart of it all. America is by majority a Christian nation, so it would be natural that most people would have a christian symbol to mark their grave, even on public land. But that does not show a bias UNLESS a disfavor is shown to other beliefs.

/End rant.

The park service denied a request to erect a Buddhist symbol.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The park service denied a request to erect a Buddhist symbol.

Would the park service have to pay for the symbol?

 

[Timshel]

Would the park service have to pay for the symbol?

Did they pay for the cross? They may have, but if that were the sole issue I am sure you could easily find someone willing to pay for it. It costs lss than a supreme court case.

Then comes the Westboro Baptist monument blaming WWI on homos, a wiccan symbol, a satanist symbol, on and on and on.

 

[president mike cole 2024]

yea i'm gonna have to agree that in order to favor one you would have to disfavor one

 

[president mike cole 2024]

But i wouldn't be surprised if the jackass in office now doesn't try to make Islam a national religion

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Did they pay for the cross? They may have, but if that were the sole issue I am sure you could easily find someone willing to pay for it. It costs lss than a supreme court case.

Then comes the Westboro Baptist monument blaming WWI on homos, a wiccan symbol, a satanist symbol, on and on and on.

As is my understanding, original WWI vet's erected the cross themselves. Now if cost is not the only issue, they may have a discrimination case, but there are still other things to consider, which fall outside my scope of understanding. I don't run a national park.

As for other monuments being erected, I doubt that such extremes would occur.

 

[Timshel]

As is my understanding, original WWI vet's erected the cross themselves. Now if cost is not the only issue, they may have a discrimination case, but there are still other things to consider, which fall outside my scope of understanding. I don't run a national park.

As for other monuments being erected, I doubt that such extremes would occur.

So, you must not be familiar with the Westboro Baptists.

Of course, they would occur without state intervention. Hell, I might pay for an atheist monument to the war dead all by myself. It's not as if the cost is prohibitive. The state is prohibiting it and that is why it violates the Constitution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

do you agree that no court and no law has said such a thing.....in that, when a court did say that, it was dicta....and cited jefferson

what do you say to that?

The writings of our founding fathers are often cited in constitutional law.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

But i wouldn't be surprised if the jackass in office now doesn't try to make Islam a national religion

Well that seems like a perfectly reasonable expectation to hold.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

So, you must not be familiar with the Westboro Baptists.

No, in all honesty, I'm not. And I could honestly care less. But that's just my opinion.

Of course, they would occur without state intervention. Hell, I might pay for an atheist monument to the war dead all by myself. It's not as if the cost is prohibitive. The state is prohibiting it and that is why it violates the Constitution.

Than it's a valid complaint. However that doesn't conclude that my point made in the first post is invalid, only that it does not apply towards the case. And if you wanted to build such a monument, I'm sure there would be much support.

 

[Epicurus]

Establishment clause, free-exercise clause.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The writings of our founding fathers are often cited in constitutional law.

i agree...tis why i believe the theory exists as more than just a theory

 

[zoombwaz]

Well that seems like a perfectly reasonable expectation to hold.

Especially considering 1) Obama isn't Muslim, and 2) even if he was, declaring a national religion is not among the president's Constitutionally granted powers.

Where do they come up with these ideas that have absolutely no connection to reality?

 

[DamnYankee]

Isn't there a National Cathedral? It seems to me that it's clearly Christian.

 

[Don Quixote]

This phrase has always pissed me off. People all over the country love to cry 'Separation of church and state' whenever they see a religious symbol somewhere on public property. In every single case I've heard the symbol Christian in origin, though I suppose other symbols have been fought against.

Anyways they always claim the Constitution prohibits such things. No, it doesn't. It prohibits congress from making laws favoring one religion or establishing a national church. However in order to show favor for towards one religion, you would have to deny another religion. The current Supreme Court case against the posting of a cross for WWI veterans is a perfect example. Opponents claim that it a christian bias.

Now This cross was erected more than 80 years ago, so no such complaints were heard of back then. But I'm willing to bet that if someone is so offended by the lack of another religious symbol, or even a none religious symbol, that they'd be willing to furnish the money to have one erected side by side with the cross, the VA, congress, or any other governing authority would ahve any problem with it.

And there in lies the heart of it all. America is by majority a Christian nation, so it would be natural that most people would have a christian symbol to mark their grave, even on public land. But that does not show a bias UNLESS a disfavor is shown to other beliefs.

/End rant.

wrong
a religious symbol on public is an endorsement of that religion by the public, usually a government institution and is forbidden by the first amendment

any religious symbol is no longer allowed not even a range of inclusive religious symbols because they do not include atheists and agnostics

the government needs to stay out of the religious business and impartially deny all religious and non-religious groups access to public property save protests which are covered by the first part of the first amendment regarding free speech