Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Sparko]

Federal court rules World War I memorial cross must be torn down

Back in 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial in Bladensburg, Md., to honor the memory of 49 men who perished during World War I.

The 40-foot tall memorial became known as the "Peace Cross."

In 2014, the American Humanist Association -- a group that believes in "being good without a god" -- filed a lawsuit alleging the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional and demanding it be demolished, altered, or removed.

They alleged the cross carries "an inherently religious message and creates the unmistakable appearance of honoring only Christian servicemen."

1508345236795.jpghttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...torn-down.html

[Mountain Man]

All based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the phrase "separation of church and state" that Thomas Jefferson used in a private letter to assure a woman that the government was explicitly prohibited from interfering with religious expression.

"The only way to stop this evil scourge is for people of faith to stand together and fight back in the courts."

And what about the activist judges who only care about protecting the liberal agenda? I'm afraid there may be no refuge in the courts and that civil disobedience may be our only recourse.

[seer]

All based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the phrase "separation of church and state" that Thomas Jefferson used in a private letter to assure a woman that the government was explicitly prohibited from interfering with religious expression.

"The only way to stop this evil scourge is for people of faith to stand together and fight back in the courts."

And what about the activist judges who only care about protecting the liberal agenda? I'm afraid there may be no refuge in the courts and that civil disobedience may be our only recourse.

Right, the "separation" clause was about one thing and one thing only - Congress shall make no LAW. Having religious expression on public grounds is NOT that. I wonder if they will appeal this to SCOTUS.

[Cow Poke]

The only thing that's going to stop that is an honest-to-goodness Holy Ghost revival.

[rogue06]

The only thing that's going to stop that is an honest-to-goodness Holy Ghost revival.

Or Christ's return. The sooner the better.

[One Bad Pig]

Right, the "separation" clause was about one thing and one thing only - Congress shall make no LAW. Having religious expression on public grounds is NOT that. I wonder if they will appeal this to SCOTUS.

They'll probably ask for an en banc rehearing first, then appeal to SCOTUS. Jones Day is a pretty good law firm.

[rogue06]

Federal court rules World War I memorial cross must be torn down

Back in 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial in Bladensburg, Md., to honor the memory of 49 men who perished during World War I.

The 40-foot tall memorial became known as the "Peace Cross."

In 2014, the American Humanist Association -- a group that believes in "being good without a god" -- filed a lawsuit alleging the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional and demanding it be demolished, altered, or removed.

They alleged the cross carries "an inherently religious message and creates the unmistakable appearance of honoring only Christian servicemen."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24511[/ATTACH]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...torn-down.html

I would love to hear this court explain how this monument establishes a religion.

[Rushing Jaws]

I would love to hear this court explain how this monument establishes a religion.

Why would anyone think it honours only Christian servicemen ? Are Christians not allowed to erect public monuments unless they use non-Christian symbolism and iconography ? And do the objectors not see that they are imposing their own anti-religious convictions ? This intolerance of Christianity is incoherent.

[Sparko]

Why would anyone think it honours only Christian servicemen ? Are Christians not allowed to erect public monuments unless they use non-Christian symbolism and iconography ? And do the objectors not see that they are imposing their own anti-religious convictions ? This intolerance of Christianity is incoherent.

The monument is honoring a specific 49 soldiers. The county's ww1 casualties.

[Mountain Man]

And do the objectors not see that they are imposing their own anti-religious convictions ?

No, because when the Constitution says, "Freedom of religion," they hear, "Freedom from religion."

[Cow Poke]

No, because when the Constitution says, "Freedom of religion," they hear, "Freedom from religion."

Hence, the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

[firstfloor]

No, because when the Constitution says, "Freedom of religion," they hear, "Freedom from religion."

Freedom from religion is not a demand that one never encounter religion, religious believers, or religious ideas at all. Freedom from religion is not freedom from seeing churches, encountering people handing out religious tracts on the street corner, seeing preachers on television, or listening to people discuss religion at work. Freedom from religion is not a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, that religious believers never voice an opinion, or that religiously-inspired values never have any impact on laws, customs, or public policies.

Freedom from religion is thus not a social right to never encounter religion in public spaces. Freedom from religion has two relevant aspects: personal and political. On the personal level, a right to be free from religion means that a person has the freedom not to belong to any religion or religious organization.

The right to be religious and to join religious organizations would be meaningless if there did not exist a parallel right not to join any at all. Religious liberty must simultaneously protect both the right to be religious and the right not to be religious at all - it cannot protect a right to be religious, just so long as you pick some religion.

When it comes to politics, the freedom from religion means being "free from" any government imposition of religion. Freedom from religion does not mean being free from seeing churches, but it does mean being free from churches getting governing financing; it doesn't mean being free from encountering people handing out religious tracts on a street corner, but it does mean being free from government-sponsored religious tracts; it doesn't mean being free from hearing religious discussions at work, but it does mean being free from religion being a condition of employment, hiring, firing, or one's status in the political community.

Freedom from religion isn't a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, but rather that they not be endorsed by the government; it's not a demand that religious believers never voice an opinion, but rather that they not have a privileged status in public debates; it's not a demand that religious values never have any public impact, but rather that no laws be based on religious doctrines without the existence of a secular purpose and basis.

The political and the personal are closely related. A person cannot be "free from" religion in the personal sense of not having to belong to any religion if religion is made a factor in one's status in the political community.
Government agencies should not endorse, promote, or encourage religion in any way. Doing so suggests that those who accept the religious beliefs favored by the government will, by extension, be favored by the government - and thus a person's political status becomes conditioned on their personal religious commitments.

[Cow Poke]

This is not a post I could amen. Please try again.

[seer]

No, we just follow the Amendment as it was written, not how it was bastardized by liberal courts 200 years later.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

[firstfloor]

This is not a post I could amen. Please try again.