SCOTUS upholds cross memorial on public land

[ThunderCat98]

https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a majority opinion for himself and four colleagues that “when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing It may no longer appear neutral.”

“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” Alito wrote

This.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'm fine with that opinion as long as they are just as welcoming to monuments and symbols from any other religion that wants to put something on public land. Good luck with that.

 

[i am herdman]

I'm fine with that opinion as long as they are just as welcoming to monuments and symbols from any other religion that wants to put something on public land. Good luck with that.

I guess you missed the part about the passage of time.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I guess you missed the part about the passage of time.

Want to discuss some ancient religions, how weird they were (are), and popular they were? I guess they should qualify, too.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I'm fine with that opinion as long as they are just as welcoming to monuments and symbols from any other religion that wants to put something on public land. Good luck with that.

That's not within the scope of this ruling nor is it the point. I do agree with you on new monuments, as have the courts.

 

[i am herdman]

Want to discuss some ancient religions, how weird they were (are), and popular they were? I guess they should qualify, too.

that's not the point. the passage of time is on US parks/property.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

That's not within the scope of this ruling nor is it the point..

Uhh, yeah. That’s the point of me adding the “as long as they” portion. If that had been within the scope, there would have been no point of me mentioning that since it would have already been ruled on.

the passage of time is on US parks/property.

For a long time, public buildings segregated facilities based on race. Since it’s been done for a long time on public land, it should be allowed, right?

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Uhh, yeah. That’s the point of me adding the “as long as they” portion.

Uh, the "as long as they" gives the impression you believe the scope of this case and what you want are related issues...they are not, under this ruling, and that is the point of the ruling: historical shit is a totally different issue from new church and state shit. Obviously to you it is not. On new church and state shit, what is neutral: none or all? That's that issue (I support all, for both legal reasons and because I like to see the Religious Right pissed off). Apples and oranges.