It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OMG..Federal Judge Rules that displaying the HOLY CROSS is Unconstitutional!.

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

There ya go.

Or put a basket ball hoop on the front of it???


Or find out who filed the suit and put their favorite religious symbol next to it. That would shut em up.


Like a Satanic inverted cross or goat?
Perhaps a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What about a giant Koran?

See how it will spiral out of control?

That was the wisdom of the founders. Eliminate the debate, deny all support for all religions now and in perpetuity (since who knows what religious sects will be created in the future).




posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

There ya go.

Or put a basket ball hoop on the front of it???


Better yet, simply run lines of rigging from it since it does look like a ships mas with a single yard-arm. Make it a memorial for those lost at sea, regardless of their religious beliefs



Yeah..who could object to that? Especially in a Navy town like Pensacola!



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Such as in Islam; you're not allowed to depict the prophet Mohammed or draw any art whatsoever because admiring a painting of a tree is seen as the same as worshipping the tree and only God may be worshiped....but let's not go bat# crazy over it



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I always thought it meant not to use any kind of idols, graven images, statues, etc. to worship God because those start taking the place of what it means to worship God in the first place.

It takes away from God to worship some Idol and gives way to worshiping all manner of earthly things as well.

That's how I always understood it.


As a child, I asked that as an honest question in church. I was then unceremoniously escorted out and branded a "distraction". That was my first open eyed view of who were the "shepherds" and who were the "sheep".....since sheep do not question the shepherd.

I never looked back.




Was that a Catholic Church? Are you baptized &/or confirmed? I have had many face-to-face arguments with Catholic priests and Bishops over the years, I was also an ALPHA leader at one stage. I am officially excommunicated from the Church for disputing the resurrection and trinity in a public forum.

I have all the Catholic credentials one could ask for, even being headhunted after I left school to become a Priest - of which I seriously considered.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Then I fear that our Christmas Nativity scene in my Illinois town will not be installed this year. A lot of immigrants have moved here in recent years.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

There ya go.

Or put a basket ball hoop on the front of it???


Better yet, simply run lines of rigging from it since it does look like a ships mas with a single yard-arm. Make it a memorial for those lost at sea, regardless of their religious beliefs



Yeah..who could object to that? Especially in a Navy town like Pensacola!


Bingo!

Solved with about $100.00 in rope and a wonderful re-dedication ceremony that is open to all residents.

Naaaaah..... too simple. It'll never work.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

With all due respect I would rather not say specifics on that topic.

Besides, it is a bit off-topic (sorry OP).



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Sublimecraft

With all due respect I would rather not say specifics on that topic.

Besides, it is a bit off-topic (sorry OP).


Understood, I'm a nosy bastard at the best of times, just ignore me if it appears that I am speaking gibberish.




posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krakatoa

Then I fear that our Christmas Nativity scene in my Illinois town will not be installed this year. A lot of immigrants have moved here in recent years.



It could be. My old hometown went through a VERY public and difficult time on this about 4 years ago. The town had a massive influx of southeast asian immigrants, mostly of differing religions. Not long after, no more nativity, no more public school celebrations for religious holidays. I can understand it from a legal perspective. Times change, and the world must change based upon the shifting sands of time or be buried forever under those sands.

ETA:
Oh, and of it is placed upon private property, it would be perfectly fine. The solution was to have the nativity placed on the front grounds of the most central church in towns (which was next to city hall about 100ft from the original location). Solved the issue (after months of arguing, meeting, and legal fees). Again, too simple a solution for a government entity to grasp I guess.


edit on 6/21/2017 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


I don't understand why someone would move to Rome and not be willing to do what the Romans do. Nor do I understand how 1 person is legally enabled to force his/her will upon a million.

edit on 6/21/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krakatoa


I don't understand why someone would move to Rome and not be willing to do what the Romans do. Nor do I understand how 1 person is legally enabled to force his/her will upon a million.


It is not the person...not at all. It is the law.....period.

The United States Constitution, the basic and supreme law for everyone in the country, all citizens, regardless of religious belief. That is what prevents it from being done. It is not personal or persecuting any one religion. Ideally it should be equally applied to everyone....and all religions.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


In my Chicago suburb of 68,000 the town commission decided many decades ago that the Nativity scene would be placed in the city park. To date, no one has legally objected. But this Federal Judge in the Pensacola case has set a precedent.

I wonder if kneeling and reciting a Christian (or any other religious) prayer on a city park bench would get you fined, if someone recorded and reported it?



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   
What a shame. The cross is the only bulwark against the minaret.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krakatoa


In my Chicago suburb of 68,000 the town commission decided many decades ago that the Nativity scene would be placed in the city park. To date, no one has legally objected. But this Federal Judge in the Pensacola case has set a precedent.

I wonder if kneeling and reciting a Christian (or any other religious) prayer on a city park bench would get you fined, if someone recorded and reported it?


No. Personal expression of religion is also protected in the Constitution. What is forbidden is the government from taking sides regarding religion. The government MUST be neutral in that area. It protects you from being forced to pay or support a religion that you do not follow. If none are allowed, then it is neutral. Personal expression also cannot be prevented. Having a religious symbol placed upon public land is not personal expression.

Again, it is not personal at all. It applies to ALL religions equally (at least it should).



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
What a shame. The cross is the only bulwark against the minaret.


That too cannot be placed upon public land either. And if it was, could also be challenged and removed under the same precedent.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TheTory
What a shame. The cross is the only bulwark against the minaret.


That too cannot be placed upon public land either. And if it was, could also be challenged and removed under the same precedent.


It's been there since the 40's. It's to strip away the history and culture of the city for the sake of 4 pious citizens. It's a shame.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TheTory
What a shame. The cross is the only bulwark against the minaret.


That too cannot be placed upon public land either. And if it was, could also be challenged and removed under the same precedent.


It's been there since the 40's. It's to strip away the history and culture of the city for the sake of 4 pious citizens. It's a shame.


Is it on public or private property?
If public, then it can be challenged in court, legally.
If private, nothing can be done, period. If it could, then someone could prevent a cross appearing in a church yard too.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: carewemust

Aren't all these Religious Monuments in places just "Idol Worship" anyway???? I didn't think that was even allowed.


Its a cross, its not really worshiped I wouldnt expect.

It certainly shows Gods love to man but not the love of Gods church to others.
Money better spent on a soup kitchen, something more practical than a monument



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust


What's next? No audible prayers allowed in public? It seems that the U.S. is heading down that slippery slope doesn't it?


-CareWeMust


I suspect they are trying to anticipate the kinds of problems we've had in some parts of Europe.

Yes, praying in public was not banned, and that is how hundreds of muslims can take over a street in the middle of the day, blocking all traffic and pedestrians to do their prayers.

If you want to have the right to inhibit that, you'd have to make it universal- no praying in public regardless of which religion you belong to.

If the state does not make effort to separate itself and religion, then many actions can be countered with the accusation that it is only prosecuting non-christians because they are non-christians.

It is important that the government remain neutral when it comes to religion.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: carewemust


What's next? No audible prayers allowed in public? It seems that the U.S. is heading down that slippery slope doesn't it?


-CareWeMust


I suspect they are trying to anticipate the kinds of problems we've had in some parts of Europe.

Yes, praying in public was not banned, and that is how hundreds of muslims can take over a street in the middle of the day, blocking all traffic and pedestrians to do their prayers.

If you want to have the right to inhibit that, you'd have to make it universal- no praying in public regardless of which religion you belong to.

If the state does not make effort to separate itself and religion, then many actions can be countered with the accusation that it is only prosecuting non-christians because they are non-christians.

It is important that the government remain neutral when it comes to religion.


But, isn't blocking traffic for any reason illegal? Lat I checked it was, at a minimum, jay walking. And if you fail to move at the request of a LEO, it is resisting...and then you can be arrested and forcibly removed.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join