Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps they just don't like what it says...

Kinda like how they read the Bible.

[firstfloor]

Looks like a student's school paper. An SJW student. Looking for a cause.

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.
The Author,

Caroline Mala Corbin is Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches U.S. Constitutional Law I, U.S. Constitutional Law II, First Amendment, the Religion Clauses, the Free Speech Clause, and Feminism and the First Amendment. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment’s speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues.

Professor Corbin’s articles have been published in the New York University Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Boston University Law Review, and Emory Law Journal, among others. Her writing has also appeared in the online editions of the Harvard Law Review, California Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Texas Law Review. As well as writing for blogs such as SCOTUSblog, ACSblog, and Jurist, Professor Corbin is a frequent commentator for local and national media on First Amendment questions.

Professor Corbin joined the Miami law faculty in 2008 after completing a postdoctoral research fellowship at Columbia Law School. Before her fellowship, she litigated civil rights cases as a pro bono fellow at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and as an attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. She also clerked for the Hon. M. Blane Michael of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Professor Corbin holds a B.A. from Harvard University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She was a James Kent Scholar while at Columbia Law School, where she also won the Pauline Berman Heller Prize and the James A. Elkins Prize for Constitutional Law.

[Sparko]

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.
The Author,

Even worse. A professor of Law that writes like an SJW student. wow. bad, very bad.

She must be using her professor privilege to make a jackass out of herself.

[Cerebrum123]

What do you think reading is? I’ll tell you. It is a cognitive process of decoding symbols to derive meaning. What you are pointing to here is the unfortunate fact that trainee Christians cannot read the Bible. The reason of course is that a special interpretation is required to extract the meaning that Christians want to extract and the trainee therefore has to be indoctrinated in that interpretation. The meaning is manufactured by the faith and it can be rejected out of hand for that reason.

Yeah, the underlined is correct. Unfortunately over many years, and changing cultures meaning can become lost upon a "surface reading", which is why you go back and look at more than just that. There is a little something called "context" which you are apparently too lazy to understand.

[JB DoulosChristou]

firstfloor, out of curiosity: Do you happen to think that the existence of the monument in question is a violation of the First Amendment?

[ke7ejx]

firstfloor, out of curiosity: Do you happen to think that the existence of the monument in question is a violation of the First Amendment?

Smart money would say yes based on what I just read from him...

[One Bad Pig]

Smart money would say yes based on what I just read from him...

Keep in mind that the question is purely academic for him, as he lives on the other side of the pond.

[seer]

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.
The Author,

She is still an idiot - with letters after her name - which only makes it official. The fact is FF, the monument in question is not a violation of the First Amendment as written.

[EvoUK]

I’m not religious, and I’ll admit this freely. Contrasted to many other non-religious posters on here I largely don’t really have an axe to grind against the whole concept- I stay in the civics forum for a reason- to see the opposing side to my political viewpoint.

Perhaps because of that, I don’t really see the problem with a cross as a memorial. It’s obviously a religious symbol, you’d be daft to think otherwise, but the point of it- to commemorate those who fell in battle- is what matters, and it fulfills this purpose adequately.

[firstfloor]

firstfloor, out of curiosity: Do you happen to think that the existence of the monument in question is a violation of the First Amendment?

No. The architecture of war memorials surely reflect the sensibilities of the time when they were built. I do not think we are entitled to rewrite history just because our own sensibilities might be different now and I do not think that a 90 year old war memorial has anything to do with church/state separation as it is currently debated.

[ke7ejx]

Keep in mind that the question is purely academic for him, as he lives on the other side of the pond.

Thanks for the head's up! I wasn't aware of that!

[Cow Poke]

No. The architecture of war memorials surely reflect the sensibilities of the time when they were built. I do not think we are entitled to rewrite history just because our own sensibilities might be different now and I do not think that a 90 year old war memorial has anything to do with church/state separation as it is currently debated.

I amen'd that. I think.

But, for grins, do you feel that same way over the civil war monuments that are causing such hyperflatus from many?

[Mountain Man]

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.

This kind of argument is known as a kafkatrap.

Source: The Daily Bell

The term “kafkatrapping” describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.

The term derives from Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which a nondescript bank clerk named Josef K. is arrested; no charges are ever revealed to the character or to the reader. Josef is prosecuted by a bizarre and tyrannical court of unknown authority and he is doomed by impenetrable red tape. In the end, Josef is abducted by two strange men and inexplicably executed by being stabbed through the heart. The Trial is Kafka’s comment on totalitarian governments, like the Soviet Union, in which justice is twisted into a bitter, horrifying parody of itself and serves only those in charge.

Kafkatrapping twists reason and truth into self-parodies that serve victimhood ideologues who wish to avoid the evidence and reasoned arguments upon which truth rests. The term appears to have originated in a 2010 article written by author and open source software advocate Eric S. Raymond. He opens by acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect. But, he notes, “[g]ood causes sometimes have bad consequences.” One such consequence is that tactics used to raise consciousness can veer “into the creepy and pathological, borrowing the least sane features of religious evangelism.”

http://www.thedailybell.com/editoria...kafkatrapping/

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Or Christ's return. The sooner the better.

Too funny!

[stfoskey15]

To prevent CONGRESS from establishing a national religion by LAW. As you know many of the early states, like mine, had tax supported churches. States were free do do this or not.

Right. But the 14th Amendment made the 1st Amendment apply to the states as well.