Court Finds World War I Memorial Unconstitutional

[Chizzang]

This country got to where it is precisely because of the curt execution of our constitution and it's principals...
Because the rule of law was and is more important than "personal feelings"

As I read this thread I see a lot of "personal feelings"

Is that how you dismiss any views that are contrary to yours? Your opinion reflects "the rule of law" and anyone who disagrees with you or sees more nuance in it is doing so from "personal feelings"? I'm surprised you could even type that post, what with the condescension being so thick over there I would've thought the keys would be sticky. And when has our defense of the Constitution ever been "curt"? That's an odd adjective to throw in there, considering that Constitutional law reflects many years of developing thought and opinion. Heck, there was 50 years between Plessy and the Topeka cases on civil rights - was that "curt"? Maybe you have a different definition of the law than the rest of us do - probably because we're so weighed down by "personal feelings". Oh, and principles is spelled wrong. If you're going to pontificate to people you should at least get that right.

Right now, the SCOTUS has been very mixed on what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to monuments in the shape of a religious symbol on public land. Therefore, it's not crazy to think that there is a fair amount of gray area in that regard. There is no simple "rule of law" answer here. There have been cases where they have been unequivocal that a cross should come down, and in other cases they've been adamant that a cross doesn't have to come down. Although kalm doesn't like to have to think too hard on things, the intent of when this thing went up is a very valid point of reference, especially when trying to determine if this is an advocacy (which means intentional backing) of religion by the government. But that's just one component of a clearly unsettled area of law right now. I'm not sure we're any closer to a definitive answer on this, especially since no one case is exactly like another.

There's a difference between dismissing views and recognizing something as personal...
If only we as Americans actually believed in the things that got us this far

reading the Bible by the light of our burning Republic
I'm sure Jesus will save us from our complete dismissal of common sense
after all that is how you get to the promised land - by dismissing common sense



Thomas Paine / Common Sense
the creation of a democratic republic...

Notice it's called common sense
His distaste for Religions encroachment into the realm of reason and Republic was well documented
He's just about my favorite founding fathers
and probably the least tolerant of Religion creeping into politics

[JohnStOnge]

What gets me is this:

If we were operating in a vacuum where nobody had discussed this before we could present this language:



Then we could ask, "Is a local government or private entity putting a cross on public land a violation of that restriction?"

Or we could ask, "Is a public school principal in Shelby, Alabama, reading a prayer over the intercom a violation of that restriction?"

And the answer by any person who can read and understand English would be "no." Neither one of those things is a law made by Congress respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not even remotely arguable that they are.

Yet because the Supreme Court says so we buy that crap when it's obviously false.

Well thank god the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

But am I wrong in terms of what the language actually says? Are you going to argue that I am? Are you going to argue that, for example, a principal in Shelby, Alabama reading a prayer over the intercom is a law made by the United States Congress respecting the establishment of religion?

[kalm]

Well thank god the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

But am I wrong in terms of what the language actually says? Are you going to argue that I am? Are you going to argue that, for example, a principal in Shelby, Alabama reading a prayer over the intercom is a law made by the United States Congress respecting the establishment of religion?

No. I think you make a good point in regards to how it's written. Now how does that action jive with the Alabama Constitution as far as intent goes?