U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2016, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,162 posts, read 1,805,104 times
Reputation: 2169

Advertisements

It isn't about harm Ziggy. It's about the Constitution as the constructors wanted it. Read Jefferson's stuff on religion.

I'm not anti-Christianity. I'm pro Constitution. Using your logic: it's just common sense that people don't need AR-15s to defend their homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2016, 03:24 PM
 
7,957 posts, read 3,203,739 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
It isn't about harm Ziggy. It's about the Constitution as the constructors wanted it. Read Jefferson's stuff on religion.

I'm not anti-Christianity. I'm pro Constitution. Using your logic: it's just common sense that people don't need AR-15s to defend their homes.
I'm getting your a Constitution purist, and apparently liberal, but read Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Memorial cross at a water plant? Doesn't sound like Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion, but it does sounds the city is being challenged for the "free exercise thereof".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,162 posts, read 1,805,104 times
Reputation: 2169
I've only ever voted Republican for President.

The Constitution is'n't liberal or conservative. It's just the Constitution. Placing a cross within the form of a building favors 1 religion over others and that doesn't pass the test.

And I'm far from a Constitutional purist like Scalia. But 200 years of judicial review must mean something to you, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 04:57 PM
 
1,496 posts, read 1,520,128 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
So, your definition of common sense trumps the Constitution of the United States. Will Seneca be seceding soon?

So, basically, you're saying stay out of our business because the majority of people in Seneca want it? Have you conducted a survey of Seneca residents to verify this position. The reason groups exist to protect the Constitutional rights of the minority is due to people just like you. "It's OK that we do it because most of us want it". Reality, thankfully, doesn't allow that. And it really doesn't matter what the mayor of Seneca, SC says either. It isn't legal under standing case law. And that just isn't those dang liberal USSC justices either.

There are still, unfortunately, small enclaves in SC that would favor segregation. Should they be allowed? Most of the residents want it?

The bolded part made me laugh. It's basically saying, I see it this way, how can anyone else not? The only thing you missed was a Clintonian, "rational person". They were big on that.
I think you missed my point here and slight sarcasm. Never once did I say if the majority of Seneconians are okay with this than its okay (although I dont think that is so ridiculous), I was attempting to bring to the forefront how this is simply the FFRF stirring the pot where they can. They know dang well this isnt an endorsement of religion by the state, no one thinking logically would. All they are attempting to do is take advantage of a constitutional law that is meant to protect the freedoms of all.

Look, this is just simply not a big deal and even worse, its putting a family who has been through a lot through even more by using their father's memory as a debating point just to get news coverage. I am very thankful that the Mayor of Seneca is dismissing this complaint so we can all move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 05:13 PM
 
7,957 posts, read 3,203,739 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
I've only ever voted Republican for President.

The Constitution is'n't liberal or conservative. It's just the Constitution. Placing a cross within the form of a building favors 1 religion over others and that doesn't pass the test.

And I'm far from a Constitutional purist like Scalia. But 200 years of judicial review must mean something to you, right?
So what was Jefferson so worried about?

You're really reading a lot into one sentence that summarizes separation of church and state and freedom of religion in 16 words.
So there's a grey area. If a cross means a lot to Christians in a memorial, and nothing to a non Christian, why bother to even entertain the intrepatation that negatively effects the most amount of people?

Last edited by Ziggy100; 02-24-2016 at 05:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,162 posts, read 1,805,104 times
Reputation: 2169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColaClemsonFan11 View Post
I think you missed my point here and slight sarcasm. Never once did I say if the majority of Seneconians are okay with this than its okay (although I dont think that is so ridiculous), I was attempting to bring to the forefront how this is simply the FFRF stirring the pot where they can. They know dang well this isnt an endorsement of religion by the state, no one thinking logically would. All they are attempting to do is take advantage of a constitutional law that is meant to protect the freedoms of all.

Look, this is just simply not a big deal and even worse, its putting a family who has been through a lot through even more by using their father's memory as a debating point just to get news coverage. I am very thankful that the Mayor of Seneca is dismissing this complaint so we can all move on.
The bolded part is the Clintonian tactic to which I earlier referred:

How can people not think like me? It's simple common sense.

It isn't simple common sense. How do you know there are people in Seneca that aren't bothered by the cross and afraid to come forward? You don't. You simply dismiss their right to be offended. You go further to dismiss this as "not a big deal". Sure, it isn't to you. Everyone thinks like you? The person who complained may actually work in that facility. Then I can guarantee they wouldn't want to come forward. The mayor of Seneca can't simply dismiss this. If someone is willing to pursue this legally, it won't be over. I'd expect the ACLU would take an interest if it is simply dismissed.

Additionally, the feelings of the family, though sad, are no consideration of the law. The law does not do emotion.

Finally, I am truly sorry that someone lost their life, but someone in the Seneca government should have been smart enough to ask if the cross was a good idea. Would a plaque not have served the same purpose?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,162 posts, read 1,805,104 times
Reputation: 2169
Ziggy100, I'd suggest some research into Jefferson. The law has developed through many USSC decisions over 200 years. In the beginning of the US, the Baptists were not a very popular group in the Northeast. They went against the prevailing religious thought of the day. (Roles are somewhat reversed today.) Jefferson took their concerns about not being recognized in Connecticut seriously. His response to their concerns is below.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.



Here is a really good link that discusses the use of religious symbols on public property. Note that some things are allowed, while others are not. This is based on the USSC determination between religious and historical.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2007/0...s-displays.pdf

Last edited by m1a1mg; 02-24-2016 at 07:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,162 posts, read 1,805,104 times
Reputation: 2169
Also Ziggy, the court has always deferred to allowing memorial crosses acknowledging fallen service members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 03:48 AM
 
7,957 posts, read 3,203,739 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
Also Ziggy, the court has always deferred to allowing memorial crosses acknowledging fallen service members.
If that link was supposed to reinforce your point, it's not doing well. The term "reasonable observer" appears all over SCOTUS rulings. That kind of flies in the face of your biggest argument.

Basically it's only a violation of it endorses one specific religion by the state. It's even pretty lax in that the state can even accept monotheism in general. But this is a memorial. It's not even visible to the public. It's probably "offensive" only to a disgruntled water employee who is very well aware it's a memorial. If you can have a Ten Commandments monument legally displayed at the entrance to a state capital building, then a small memorial on a wall to a water plant not even visible to the public has no chance of being removed by a court.
It's obvious the entire premise of the lawsuit is to simply breed hate and discontent and nothing else. The SCOTUS use of "a reasonable observer" in rulings is to avoid removing every monument in the country because any crazy whacko could claim anything has religious significance that offends them.

Hopefully the good that comes out of this is a ruling that sets precedents that allows this sort of thing everywhere to remain unchallenged and take away some revenue from lawyers who otherwise are just wasting money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Murrica
3,162 posts, read 1,805,104 times
Reputation: 2169
I've previously pointed out, and used your own link, to show why the USSC allowed the Ten Commandments to stay. Sorry if you can't accept their reasoning.

You, like the other poster, have decided this isn't worth worrying about based on your judgement. Wow. The majority of Americans are in favor of gun control. Shall we go there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top