Cross targeted by atheists will remain standing on Florida public property

[sneakypete]

What does that have to do with humanism?

@roamer_1

Uhhhhh......

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Uhhhhh......

What, you think that just because it has the word human in it it's immediately endorsable?

Put it this  way: liberals, marxists, and socialist all endorse humanism with the state being the optimal order of all things human. Still like it? Still want that imposed upon our children?

[sneakypete]

What, you think that just because it has the word human in it it's immediately endorsable?

Put it this  way: liberals, marxists, and socialist all endorse humanism with the state being the optimal order of all things human.

@roamer_1

Not true. In FACT,the core of leftism is to DEHUMANIZE the population to the point where "the state" is more important than the people.

Still like it? Still want that imposed upon our children?

"Hits fore de chil-runs!",huh?

As opposed to having YOUR religious views imposed on the children? What is the difference between a secular police state and a religious police state?

[roamer_1]

Not true. In FACT,the core of leftism is to DEHUMANIZE the population to the point where "the state" is more important than the people.

@sneakypete
Now you're catching on. Welcome to humanism.

"Hits fore de chil-runs!",huh?

Ultimately, he yes it is. My right to raise my children as I see fit, in a community that sees things as I do.

As opposed to having YOUR religious views imposed on the children? What is the difference between a secular police state and a religious police state?

Who is speaking of a religious police state? I am speaking of communities counties and states that are free to choose to govern as they will. I am not imposing a police state from 3000 miles away like you seem to be okay with. If you don't like it, move to another state. One that is more in line with the way you think. That's what Federalism is all about.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

So you are saying it is ok to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater?

From the federal government's standpoint, yes.  Which is why there is no federal law that outlaws shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  (See Amendment I)

[verga]

From the federal government's standpoint, yes.  Which is why there is no federal law that outlaws shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  (See Amendment I)

There aer limits on the 1st Amendment, ever hear of libel and slander?

[Hoodat]

There aer limits on the 1st Amendment, ever hear of libel and slander?

There is no federal law against libel or slander.  (See Amendment I)

[sneakypete]

From the federal government's standpoint, yes.  Which is why there is no federal law that outlaws shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  (See Amendment I)

@Hoodat

ROFLMAO! That's because it is a local matter,not a feral matter.  There is,IN FACT,laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. They are state and local laws,not feral laws.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

ROFLMAO! That's because it is a local matter,not a feral matter.

As is the cross in Florida.  Is is a local matter, not a federal matter.

[sneakypete]

As is the cross in Florida.  Is is a local matter, not a federal matter.

@Hoodat

Nope. Religious issues are more of a Constitutional issue,and shouting "FIRE!" is a public safety issue.

[mortarman]

Frankly as far as the issue of the cross an' any other religious symbols an' their display are concerned I feel the matter was settled on Dec. 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The gubmint does not have the right to establish a state religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.

 

[sneakypete]

Frankly as far as the issue of the cross an' any other religious symbols an' their display are concerned I feel the matter was settled on Dec. 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The gubmint does not have the right to establish a state religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.

 

@mortarman

I'm with ya on that one.

Of course the flip side is we also have freedom FROM enforced religion. They are two sides of the same "freedom coin".

[verga]

@mortarman

I'm with ya on that one.

Of course the flip side is we also have freedom FROM enforced religion. They are two sides of the same "freedom coin".

As far as I am concerned as long as your faith does not require you to harm the innocent of torture small fur bearing animals, knock your self out. But don't demand that I join it under penalty of death.

[Hoodat]

The federal gubmint does not have the right to establish a state federal religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the federal gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.

Just to clarify. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell the State of Florida what to to in the matters of speech, press, assembly, religion, or petition.  None.  Zero.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat
 Religious issues are more of a Constitutional issue,

No, they are not.  Amendment I states that the federal government should have zero involvement.  It should be left up to Florida.

[roamer_1]

Frankly as far as the issue of the cross an' any other religious symbols an' their display are concerned I feel the matter was settled on Dec. 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The gubmint does not have the right to establish a state religion. Nor does it have the right to prohibit the free practice of religion. If that religion includes the display of symbols, well the gubmint cannot prohibit it. It's right there in the country's operating manual. As far as I know, the country's warranty is still in effect.

 

The FEDERAL government has no such right. I do not believe that prohibition goes all the way to the ground. I don't think it can.

There is no moral neutral. If the government is not practicing one religion, it is practicing another, by the absolute definition.

[roamer_1]

@mortarman

I'm with ya on that one.

Of course the flip side is we also have freedom FROM enforced religion. They are two sides of the same "freedom coin".

There is no such thing @sneakypete

Bob Dylan got that right - You've Gotta Serve Somebody.
And you do.

[sneakypete]

There is no such thing @sneakypete

@roamer_1

That is only true if you are a natural slave.

Bob Dylan got that right - You've Gotta Serve Somebody.
And you do.

I serve me,and those few people I choose to pick as friends.

[Hoodat]

Amendment I does not grant rights.  It only places a restriction on the power of the federal government.

[sneakypete]

Amendment I does not grant rights.  It only places a restriction on the power of the federal government.

@Hoodat

Exactly. Government can only recognize pre-existing rights,they can't create them. They can restrict rights to a certain degree when it is in the pubic interest,though. Even then it is recognized as a restriction on rights,not a ban,

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

Exactly. Government can only recognize pre-existing rights,they can't create them. They can restrict rights to a certain degree when it is in the pubic interest,though. Even then it is recognized as a restriction on rights,not a ban,

Interesting.  SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights?  You can't have it both ways here.  The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.  Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory.  It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed.  (See:  Lemon v. Kurtzman).

I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I.  It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.

[mortarman]

Interesting.  SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights?  You can't have it both ways here.  The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.  Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory.  It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed.  (See:  Lemon v. Kurtzman).

I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I.  It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.

'xactly right. As I have said before. The Constitution is the operators manuel for the gubmint an' if those charged with running things fail to follow those instructions therein, they should be removed from that responsibility.

 

[sneakypete]

Interesting.  SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights?

@Hoodat

Don't be a fool. You know better than that,and you know that wasn't what I wrote.

You can't have it both ways here.

And I am not going to let you get away with playing the One Dimensional Game,either.  It's the old "Can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater thing.

The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.

That's not true either,and you know it. There are laws,and rightly so,that prohibit religious loons from putting boom boxes in belfry's and broadcasting religious sermons for everyone to hear,regardless of their religious viewpoints. Just like there are laws that keep fundies from harassing travelers in public places like airports.

But you just go ahead and claim the government does NOT have this right,and when you do so,let me know what neighborhood you live in so I can contact the nearest Mosque and tell them there is a neighborhood they need to reach out to with their calls to prayer.

 

Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory.  It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed.  (See:  Lemon v. Kurtzman).

Ok,you are insane. Thanks for clearing that up.

I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I.  It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.

Are you REALLY so feeble-minded that you think states have the right to ignore the Constitution?

[sneakypete]

'xactly right. As I have said before. The Constitution is the operators manuel for the gubmint an' if those charged with running things fail to follow those instructions therein, they should be removed from that responsibility.

 

@mortarman

So,you think states have the right to announce a state religion,make slavery legal,print their own money,etc,etc,etc?

[EdinVA]

Interesting.  SO if the federal government decides that outlawing free speech, prohibiting assembly, and banning the free exercise of religion are in the public interest, they can then toss the Constitution in the trash and inhibit these rights?  You can't have it both ways here.  The same First Amendment that prohibits the federal government from restricting free speech, inhibiting a free press, or banning assembly also prohibits the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.  Thus, the federal government has zero standing when it comes to banning school prayer, teaching theology in public schools, or declaring that evolution is a theory.  It is only because of the tyranny of the judicial branch that the First Amendment is no longer followed.  (See:  Lemon v. Kurtzman).

I strongly suggest you reread the first five words of Amendment I.  It places a restriction on the federal government ONLY - not state governments.

My understanding has always been that because the feds were funneling money thru the Dept. Of Education thru the states to the various school districts made the religious related conversations relevant.  Had it not been for the federal dollars, there would have been no issue.