-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Crosses on the Side of the Road
- Thread starter MichaelFJF
- Start date
k
reset
MethodMan said:
I understand not all have the same exact religious symbol on the markers, but I'm referring to the cross markers themselves. It seems strange to me to place a non-christian symbol on a cross marker...there is a clear act of conflict and in the very least, both faiths are being disrespected by the forced amalgamation via government property.
Upvote
0
k
reset
12volt_man said:
The government does not have to create a theocracy to violate the Constitution. Even though Washington is just a District, it is still Federal property, and as such, government property, and as such, cannot pass ANY law respecting the establishment of religion. Laws HAD to be passed to create the cemetary and afford the opportunity for religious symbols to be used as markers.
Upvote
0
Neverstop said:
That's not what I asked you. As usual, you're evading the question.
Again, what religion has the government established?
Yes, they did. Now would you please explain to us how this violates the law.
Upvote
0
k
reset
12volt_man said:
Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding. Maybe it will be clearer if I say there is no state religion and that one does not have to be created to violate the constitution.
The government has not established any religion in the form of a theocracy, but again, this is not a necessary condition to violate the Cons.
The laws passed respected the establishment of religion. Any specific religion is irrelevent. They could have made the markers w/ atheist icons...still would have been a form of religion
Upvote
0
Neverstop said:
If there is no state religion, then there is no problem.
How do you believe that the creation of Arlington National Cemetary violates the Constitution?
What is a necessary condition to violate the Constitution?
The laws passed respected the establishment of religion. Any specific religion is irrelevent. They could have made the markers w/ atheist icons...still would have been a form of religion[/QUOTE]
Upvote
0
k
reset
The creation of the cemetery itself does not violate the Cons...it is the use of religious icons within the cemetery.
As I've said, there does not have to be a state religion in order for there to be a violation. I.e. People not being allowed to buy alcohol because it is Sunday is a violation. It is a law that respects the establishment of religion.
As I've said, there does not have to be a state religion in order for there to be a violation. I.e. People not being allowed to buy alcohol because it is Sunday is a violation. It is a law that respects the establishment of religion.
Upvote
0
OK. How does the use of religious icons in the cemetary violate the Constitution?Neverstop said:
But how do these laws establish a religion?
Upvote
0
Neverstop said:
How does it establish a religion?
The problem is that the idea of respecting the establishment of religion (and, by the way, I asked you to explain to us what this phrase meant and you never did) is referring to the idea of Congress establishing a state religion, such as the Church of England.
Upvote
0
Neverstop said:
No it hasn't. You haven't explained one time how this establishes a religion.
Upvote
0
Neverstop said:
With the exception of "blue laws", which has nothng to do with the topic at hand, none of the examples you cite would hold up in court.
OK. In all fairness, that was an explanation. A weak explaination, but an explaination, nonetheless.
The problem with your explanation is that, in addition to no state religion having been established, you don't show what laws are based on religion, where crosses and veterans' cemetaries are concerned.
Upvote
0
Neverstop said:
Be that as it may, it's irrelevant.
Here is your statement from post #106. Notice that the answer doesn't appear in this statement:
Upvote
0
Ironically, I can see how the continual taking to extremes of this point of the constitution may have the opposite effect ie an amendment gets passed to make these types of symbols legal because people get fed up with this sort of time-wasting activism.
Honestly, how far will this go? Will US government endorsement of the Red Cross be illegal next? Will the US govt be forced to waste money digging up grave markers because someone decides to become offended?
Honestly, how far will this go? Will US government endorsement of the Red Cross be illegal next? Will the US govt be forced to waste money digging up grave markers because someone decides to become offended?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
