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 02-25-2016, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,140 posts, read 1,793,602 times
Reputation: 2134

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColaClemsonFan11 View Post
has*

Clearly you are void of common sense which must be why you are trying to fight that stance so much.
Things must be so nice in your world. People who disagree with your stance obviously have no common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:22 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,517,198 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCxpBrussel View Post
I agree with you. The cross is stupid and should never have been there. It smacks of an evangelical trying to thumb their nose at the secular constitution. Whoever approved this should lose their job for incompetence. Building crosses into public buildings, visible or not, is the antithesis of common sense.
I don't agree with your reasoning here but let's just say that person does loose their job and the City of Seneca said they will, moving forward, recognize this issue and no longer approve any such memorial and instead place a marking or something non-religious. So this won't happen again moving forward, but this memorial is already in place. In that hypothetical situation, do you think they should still take this one down? I mean however you look at it and whether the city was right or wrong, whats done is done. The memorial is there. If moving forward this doesn't happen, do you let it stay or demand it be taken down as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:23 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,517,198 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
Things must be so nice in your world. People who disagree with your stance obviously have no common sense.
Yeah I enjoy it! Its not a bad world to live in my friend
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
1,710 posts, read 1,508,551 times
Reputation: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColaClemsonFan11 View Post
I don't agree with your reasoning here but let's just say that person does loose their job and the City of Seneca said they will, moving forward, recognize this issue and no longer approve any such memorial and instead place a marking or something non-religious. So this won't happen again moving forward, but this memorial is already in place. In that hypothetical situation, do you think they should still take this one down? I mean however you look at it and whether the city was right or wrong, whats done is done. The memorial is there. If moving forward this doesn't happen, do you let it stay or demand it be taken down as well?
If something is found to be illegal, how can it be allowed to continue? There is no other situation where the argument would be to allow something adjudicated to be unconstitutional to persist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 06:40 PM
 
7,938 posts, read 3,188,904 times
Reputation: 5450
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
You're wrong on so many levels Ziggy100. You have no idea who the complainant is.

Let's make the Constitution a popularity contest. That'll fix things.
No I don't but it's a fair bet he's not a Constitutional lawyer who ended up with a job at water plant. He is a selfish idiot who is only thinking of himself. I don't have to know him to figure that much.

So far you've done a poor job at even proving this is a constitutional issue at all. Crosses are allowed in Arlington, Christmas trees are lit at the White House, Ten Commandments monuments are allowed at Capital buildings, and nativity scenes are allowed at local courthouses, yet a small town water plant can't have a memorial? Where do you think this is really headed? I get the impression you don't actually find this offensive at all and that you're simply taking a gamble at how you've been interpreting the Constituition.

What's funny is the guy who first complained about the Ten Commandments monument has now guaranteed its existence and provided a legal model for every other state capital to put up their own monuments that he no doubt still finds offensive regardless of the ruling. And to top it off, he's been forever described by the SCOTUS as an "unreasonable observer".... Ouch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 06:57 PM
 
7,938 posts, read 3,188,904 times
Reputation: 5450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColaClemsonFan11 View Post
I don't agree with your reasoning here but let's just say that person does loose their job and the City of Seneca said they will, moving forward, recognize this issue and no longer approve any such memorial and instead place a marking or something non-religious. So this won't happen again moving forward, but this memorial is already in place. In that hypothetical situation, do you think they should still take this one down? I mean however you look at it and whether the city was right or wrong, whats done is done. The memorial is there. If moving forward this doesn't happen, do you let it stay or demand it be taken down as well?
Worst case scenario would be a bronze plaque added to clearly identify it as a memorial. Nobody would get fired, the mayor gets reelected in a landslide, and even bigger crosses added everywhere (with secular plaques to point out no religious intent) just as a middle finger to the religiophobic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,140 posts, read 1,793,602 times
Reputation: 2134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Crosses are allowed in Arlington-Crosses are not the only thing allowed at Arlington. There are quite a few,including Wiccan, Heahten, and Atheist. That this has been pointed out to you by me, and another poster, indicates you just don't want to listen. Below is the list.

Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers - National Cemetery Administration


Christmas trees are lit at the White House-The Christmas tree has been determined by the USSC to be non-secular. The link I posted for you the other day explained this. Now you're 0-2.

Ten Commandments monuments are allowed at Capital buildings-Again, determined by the USSC to be non-secular. the Ten Commandements are used by Judaism and Christianity. This too has been explained to you before. Do try to keep up. 0-3.

(N)ativity scenes are allowed at local courthouses- A Nativity scene, once again, ha been determined by the USSC to be non-secular. MIllions of American's who profess no faith celebrate Christmas. But again, this has been explained to you before. 0-4

(Y)et a small town water plant can't have a memorial? Where do you think this is really headed? I get the impression you don't actually find this offensive at all and that you're simply taking a gamble at how you've been interpreting the Constituition.

The USSC has, consistently, ruled against symbols that directly reflect a religion. The cross is the principle symbol of Christianity. How difficult is that for you to differentiate from all the other things you listed.

What's funny is the guy who first complained about the Ten Commandments monument has now guaranteed its existence and provided a legal model for every other state capital to put up their own monuments that he no doubt still finds offensive regardless of the ruling. And to top it off, he's been forever described by the SCOTUS as an "unreasonable observer".... Ouch.

But not for the reason you think. Read the decision. It simply does not support your interpretation. I've posted the explanation above, but you haven't read it the other times, so I won't think you will now.

I've provided factual links to USSC decisions. You've cited emotion. Let me know how that works for you.
Goodbye Ziggy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,140 posts, read 1,793,602 times
Reputation: 2134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCxpBrussel View Post
If something is found to be illegal, how can it be allowed to continue? There is no other situation where the argument would be to allow something adjudicated to be unconstitutional to persist.
In the real world, it can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
2,202 posts, read 1,424,799 times
Reputation: 1363
This is how the majority responsedsto a minority group within this scenario .......no. Any other problem? By the way Senaeca is a nice town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 08:24 PM
 
7,938 posts, read 3,188,904 times
Reputation: 5450
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
Goodbye Ziggy.
Since your values are apparently only determined by legal interpretations of what is secular, which means when this is thrown out, you'll have to humbly switch positions.

Just how many Jews and Muslims do you know put up a Christmas tree? It's considered secular because majority says so.

You're still failing the Ten Commandments test. Including 2 religious faiths doesn't make it secular. By that rationale Seneca needs to simply add a Star of David somewhere. It was made legal because "reasonable observers" get it. The monument is even covered in scripture.
A nativity scene is just as Christian as a cross, if not more. Nice attempt at secularizing that one. If you haven't noticed, a cross is a very popular memorial. Do you really think all those crosses on the side of the road are only for devout Christians? Ever notice you don't ever see another religious memorial on the side the road? A cross does represent both Catholics and Protestants though, so I guess it passes the two religions makes it secular rule.
Either way, it's just a water company not the government. They simply just need to believe in clean water at affordable prices. If you feel they're imposing their religion on you in the most obscure way possible, use well water.

You've provided nothing factual, just slim interpretations the court uses to keep the majority happy. Even Supreme Court cases are usually judged by a very slim majority opinion after deliberating for months and even then it's predominately based on the political leanings of the court at any given time.
Until you produce a legal precedent regarding water companies and memorials imbedded in hidden walls you've got nothing but opinions.
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