https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117 Another blow to the radical atheists, and it wasn't even close. Ridiculous to think this cross somehow equates to Congress establishing a state church.
You should reread the case, it doesn’t establish religious monuments can be built on public land it rather that the monument had a “secular purpose and meaning”. Your cross has become so commercialized that it has no meaning. Your goal of christofacism still hasn’t arrived. And looking at membership declines it likely never will.
Just Google "cross tattoos" and we can see that the cross is such a diluted symbol in today's society that it really could mean anything.
Tell it to the radical atheists. We have separation of church and state, not separation of faith and state.
Red herring, I'm not advocating that. So tell me, what is my goal? No doubt to you, this cross is christofacism, whatever that is. I suspect it only exists on atheist forum fever swamps. Declines in the dying West, my faith is significantly growing, to say the least, globally. The US is only 5% of the world's population.
Oh, I'm sure they are - it's just that "meaning" is across the board - from just a design symbol to a statement of rejection to a statement of worship to whatever ...
I have to laugh at folks who claim in one breath that the cross has no meaning, but then they'll raise holy hell to have crosses removed
Many? You realize the small number of lawsuits or demonstrations compared to the tens of millions who voted for more liberal stances doesn't really qualify as "many" right. Less than 1% of a group doesn't define a group.
Yet the same group is quick to accept money that contains images of slave owners and religious references! Amazing how they have the ability to temporarily shut off their "Im offended" thermostat!
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is also Jewish, dissented, with Ginsburg writing that “the principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.” In all, seven of the nine justices wrote to explain their views in opinions that totaled over 80 pages. Shocking i tell you... /facepalm
Originally there was no greater shame than the cross said Pseudo-Mantheo: "Punished with limbs outstretched they [criminals in the Roman Empire] see the stake as their fate. They are fastened and nailed to it in the most bitter torment, evil food for birds of prey and grim pickings for dogs." Crucifixion in the Ancient World, p. 9, Martin Hengel, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1977. On just the word of the master and no evidence, a slave could be crucified. A Roman citizen could be hanged or beheaded, but not crucified. It was a hard world before electricity. In Rome all were crucified upon campus esquilinus (Esquiline Hill) in a large open space, and were kept up on the wood until just before ligaments and sinew weakened. Then they were chained together and dragged through the streets to the Tiber, where they were thrown in. Jesus turned the cross into redemption in Jerusalem.
Who says we are secular? We have never been a secular nation. Religion has always been a part of our country. The purpose of the 1st Amendment was not to outright ban religion from our Public lands or our Government, it was to prevent religion having absolute control of our Government. Laws created based on religious beliefs were expected. Our Founding Fathers came from a country where the Catholic Church almost had a strangle hold on the Governments of many European countries and our Founding fathers wanted to prevent that from happening here.
Maybe you should actually read it: “The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices to our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution,” he wrote." Nobody has a goal of "christofacism" whatever that is....Facism doesn't recognize religion.
The claim was that there are people who are both ambivalent to the cross yet claim to be offended by it's religious connotation. Ya can't have both of those happening at the same time. Thus, no, you didn't find them.
“The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent,” SCOTUS disagrees with you
