Posted on 09/10/2013 8:34:28 AM PDT by xzins
Seems to me that the city is about Boats, The Christian Faith, and Caring.
And for some reason boats don’t need to be purged.
The idea of caring doesn’t need to be purged.
But we need to purge anything about their Christian Faith.
Sounds like existence discrimination, not viewpoint discrimination, that we are dealing with here.
HA! I just thought of a defense:
"Whaddya talkin' about, 'Cross'? Its a plus-sign on the top right, and a minus-sign on the bottom left. What, are you anti-math too???!?"
Absolutely. It is a purge of Christianity from the USA.
This and the death of America are done deals.
Almost everything you observe will have the cross in it somewhere.
Streets intersections, etc.etc.etc.
I just called the City Manager and told them my idea. The young lady who took the call, was chuckling and said she'd pass the idea to the City's counsel. Imagine if this was a winning legal counter. LOL
I was just wondering, of course, if the town is an abortion provider, has a high divorce rate, or other things that the Lord who died on the cross hates. If so, remove the cross.
Send them to Yemen.
Let them work their magic there!!
What next? St. Augustine will be forced to change its name to Port Alinsky.
Or a sword through the back of the heart.
:>)
If sin is the basis for removing any trace of Christianity, then there will be no trace of Christianity.
"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."
I have a call into Mat Staver, the main switchboard operator at Liberty Counsel thought it was a terrific idea, and she put out an email to the Intake person who schedules phone meetings with Mat. This idea will be in his lap in the next 72 hours. Hooah, soldier!!!
yes I agree with you, and removed from the country....send them to Syria to fight bama boy’s war....
Christianity is in the hearts and minds of the people. No symbol required, just actions.
More specifically, as a consequence of generations of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution and its history, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, FDR's anti-religious expression activist justices got away with bluffing that it is unconstitutional for the states to address religious issues.
But the truth of the matter is that activist justices probably couldn't have picked a worse Founder to quote to justify their PC interpretation of the establishment clause than Thomas Jefferson and his "wall of separation." This is because Jefferson had actually acknowledged that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the states, regardless that the States had also made the 1st Amendment in part to clarify that Congress was prohibited from making laws to regulate religion altogether.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; …" --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
The way that activist justices easily pulled the carpet from under the Constitution-ignorant states to politically rob them of their power to address religious issues, the same power which allows states to authorize creationism being taught in public schools for example, is the following. Justices argued that the 14th Amendment (14A) applied everything in the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment's prohibition on Congress to make laws which regulate religon, to the states. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
The problem is that outcome-driven justices blatantly ignored that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that the 14A took away no state rights.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…" --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (See bottom half of third column)
So based on Jefferson's clarification of 10th Amendment-protected state power to address religious issues, and also Bingam's clarifications in general that the 14A did not take away such powers, the states still have the power to address religion imo, including putting crosses on city seals, regardless of Christian parents who aren't making sure that their children are being taught constitutonal law and likewise misguided atheists.
What a mess! :^(
The Florida State flag has St. Andrews cross on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
