Can this trend be reversed? SJWs

[Blarg]

You wouldn't be if you and rallymo had self banned like you said you would. You are the victim of your own choices.

[Adam]

[Tank]

i stopped doing the flag salute with my homeroom a few years ago. not because of any reason other than the kids were bored reciting it, and that was only once a week.

[Brandon]

it would be rad if one of the kids kneeled. 

[Jason]

13 hours ago, Brandon said:

it would be rad if one of the kids kneeled. 

You mean the girl furthest to the right?

[Spirit]

On 10/19/2017 at 2:21 PM, Adam said:

 

I loath societal indoctrination.

 

 

[Spirit]

On 10/19/2017 at 2:10 PM, Blarg said:

If you look up the symbol for atheists you get a wannabe Star Trek logo.

Live long and prosper then decompose well.

 

It certainly looks like something.

 

[nate]

8 hours ago, calscuf said:

Please explain how this violates the Constitution.

It is a towering religious symbol on public land.

[mtangelsfan]

As opposed to a thousand religious symbols on public land

[nate]

Just now, calscuf said:

Go on...

It is a violation of the separation of church and state.

[nate]

34 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

As opposed to a thousand religious symbols on public land

You must be thick or not pay attention.  Arlington has religious symbols of all religions as well as non-religious.

This is a singular religion in a towering display.

[nate]

1 minute ago, calscuf said:

How so?

Because it is on government land

[nate]

2 minutes ago, calscuf said:

It is not unconstitutional, per se, to have a religious symbol on government land. 

It is when other religions and ideologies are not represented

[nate]

Well the FFRF and that judge seem to think so

[nate]

I agree, the judge that voted against is an idiot

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, nate said:

You must be thick or not pay attention.  Arlington has religious symbols of all religions as well as non-religious.

This is a singular religion in a towering display.

"Towering".   LOL

the only reason is because the men who are on that memorial identified with one religion.

[Blarg]

I am enjoying the argument between an athiest and a lawyer. One side is just playing the I hate your symbol so it must be removed because of my very basic knowledge of 9th grade Constitution studies, the other side has a bookcase of precedence law to refer to. Almost as entertaining as a Butter Bean fight.

 

[nate]

Just now, Blarg said:

I am enjoying the argument between an athiest and a lawyer. One side is just playing the I hate your symbol so it must be removed because of my very basic knowledge of 9th grade Constitution studies, the other side has a bookcase of precedence law to refer to. Almost as entertaining as a Butter Bean fight.

 

You missed the part where the FFRF is run by lawyers and that he is a personal injury lawyer not a con law lawyer.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how a giant religious symbol on government land is not a violation of the separation of church and state.  If they wanted a monument to these men they should have built a monument to them, not to Jesus.

[mtangelsfan]

Nate, since you keep using adjectives to describe the monument, I am curious how that matters

[Blarg]

Here is the problem with atheists wanting religious symbols removed because it offends them in some way. 

You don't believe in the existence of God so the imagery is as relevant as a statue of Mickey Mouse. You don't believe Mickey Mouse is a real person and as such doesn't affect your life. This monument has the exact same value to you. 

Try and get along with others, that should be the argument of true inclusiveness. Not forcing schools to not have Halloween parties because you don't like them, that's not honring anyones rights. Or tearing down 90 year old monuments because you found some clause to exploit, that is not honoring anyones rights, it's being a dick.

It seems people who don't have access to In N Out tend to be dicks. I think this is the real issue, not monuments.

[Blarg]

15 minutes ago, nate said:

You missed the part where the FFRF is run by lawyers and that he is a personal injury lawyer not a con law lawyer.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how a giant religious symbol on government land is not a violation of the separation of church and state.  If they wanted a monument to these men they should have built a monument to them, not to Jesus.

Been there, done that and people bitch that as well. 

[nate]

6 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Here is the problem with atheists wanting religious symbols removed because it offends them in some way. 

You don't believe in the existence of God so the imagery is as relevant as a statue of Mickey Mouse. You don't believe Mickey Mouse is a real person and as such doesn't affect your life. This monument has the exact same value to you. 

Try and get along with others, that should be the argument of true inclusiveness. Not forcing schools to not have Halloween parties because you don't like them, that's not honring anyones rights. Or tearing down 90 year old monuments because you found some clause to exploit, that is not honoring anyones rights, it's being a dick.

It seems people who don't have access to In N Out tend to be dicks. I think this is the real issue, not monuments.

Again, that doesn't matter because the government is not allowed to preach to us.

[Blarg]

See, Double Double deprivation. 

[Lou]

14 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Every law student takes an entire year of constitutional law.  My current ambulance chasing ways shouldn't detract from the fact that I have more formal education on the topic than most here.  But that really wasn't my point.  

The test isn't religious symbol + public land = you lose.  It never has been.

I was curious if you had an opinion, beyond black and white, of why this particular symbol violated the Establishment Clause, because that is what we are arguing: "Congres shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  

How does this violate the Establishment Clause?

May I answer? 

[Spirit]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

May I answer? 

 

You may.