Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The money lenders were in the market BY the temple.
From NIV:
John 2:15
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
The historical significance is it is in those courts that the weekly markets were.
Well I think the place right outside the temple is where people got ready to go into the temple to worship, no place for what was going on.
"The City of Pensacola in Florida is home to a wooden cross that has stood its ground for over 75 years. The cross is located in a public park, and was placed during 1941 when the nation was entering World War II as a gathering spot for prayer. The American Humanist Association claims that the cross is offensive and has sued the City to have it be removed."
If the cross was installed at city expense and maintained by the city it is at fault. If it was installed and maintained by someone else, there would only be a problem if the city denied other such organizations similar representation I would have to say. After 80 years, it must have some historical value
Freedom of religion allows the cross to be there. To remove it would infringe upon that established right.
The humanists and others could put up items of their own, if thhe don't want to feel left out. This is about inclusion and addition, not subtraction. But they are usually focused on infringing on others rights, rather than exploring their own. That's why they're rarely successful with their ventures. They have a very distorted view of the beginnings of our country, and basic liberties.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 06-08-2018 at 06:12 PM..
Freedom of religion allows the cross to be there. To remove it would infringe upon that established right.
The humanists and others could put up items of their own, if thhe don't want to feel left out. This is about inclusion and addition, not subtraction. But they are usually focused on infringing on others rights, rather than exploring their own.
So many problems would be solved if people pursued their own happiness instead of trying to ruin someone else's.
Freedom of religion allows the cross to be there. To remove it would infringe upon that established right.
The humanists and others could put up items of their own, if thhe don't want to feel left out. This is about inclusion and addition, not subtraction. But they are usually focused on infringing on others rights, rather than exploring their own. That's why they're rarely successful with their ventures. They have a very distorted view of the beginnings of our country, and basic liberties.
You didn't read the judgement did you? If you did, you would understand that the cross contravenes the First Amendment in a huge way, as SCOTUS rulings back from 70 years and forward have consistently stated.
Religious statues or other icons such as a cross can not be on public land... period. It's the law, even if you don't like it. Taxpayers who are Hindu, Atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologists, Shinto or any of the Native American religions can not be shoehorned into having to pay and support the erection of such an artifact on public land.
Regarding the comments directly above, I could care less about these matters. I don't need objects in public to do something for me. People can wrestle and fight over this stuff all day if they want.
By the way, there are plenty of religious statements on public land and in the hands of the public. Look at your damn money. All coins and bills have "In God We Trust" on them. If you don't like that, give them away or burn and melt them.
No mythical "law" (that you hint at) exists which will remove these statements. Nice try, but a fail.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 06-08-2018 at 08:40 PM..
You didn't read the judgement did you? If you did, you would understand that the cross contravenes the First Amendment in a huge way, as SCOTUS rulings back from 70 years and forward have consistently stated.
Religious statues or other icons such as a cross can not be on public land... period. It's the law, even if you don't like it. Taxpayers who are Hindu, Atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologists, Shinto or any of the Native American religions can not be shoehorned into having to pay and support the erection of such an artifact on public land.
Want to put it on private land?
Fill yer boots. No one will complain.
But they have no concern about paying to have it taken down so it's not about money.
Regarding the comments directly above, I could care less about these matters. I don't need objects in public to do something for me. People can wrestle and fight over this stuff all day if they want.
By the way, there are plenty of religious statements on public land and in the hands of the public. Look at your damn money. All coins and bills have "In God We Trust"on them. If you don't like that, give them away or burn and melt them.
I wish the ones making trouble over these things and taking cities, etc to court felt the same way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
