Atheist Group Seeks to Block Star of David on Holocaust Memorial

The FFR guys have completely missed the boat on this one, in my opinion. The PURPOSE of the holocaust was to eliminate all members of a particular religion. Removing the symbol of that religion takes the entire meaning and lesson out of the display. And it really wouldn't matter if the target of the Holocaust was Tutsis, Maoris, Jews, homosexuals or any other cultural minority subjected to preposterous maltreatment BECAUSE they are a minority. One of the hallmarks of the US Constitutional system and the Bill of Rights is to protect minorities from the rampages of majority mob rule.

Memorials like this serve a powerful cautionary purpose - if we ever stop fighting for the legal equality of all minorities, THIS is what can happen.

 

We were in WW2, and we have Jews living here?

 

Swell. Now all you need do is develop a glimmer of comprehension.

It says the establishment clause can't be applied against the states, and that no one is bound by unconstitutional SC rulings. You're welcome.

 

Should be easy to cite these findings.
Go right ahead.

 

The USA largely ignored the holocaust while it happened. Ohio's Jewish population isn't in the top ten states. Why there, and not New York?

 

The EC was obviously drafted, like the rest of 1A, to apply to the federal government exclusively. The only way it could conceivably apply to the states is via the 14A incorporation clause; but since the EC is not a privilege, or an immunity, or a necessary component of due process or of equal protection, it may not be applied against the states.

As for unconstitutional SC rulings, no one is legally bound thereby because no one under a constitutional oath has any authority to enforce them.

 

They need to stop being tightwads and spring for some plane tickets to the home country. All they are doing is littering our country with their propaganda fairy tales.

 

Here's one.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687
"About six million Jews died in the Holocaust."

 

The EC is more than a privilege or an immunity. It is a right.
When the SCOTUS rules, that is the authority.
Can you name an instance when a SCOTUS ruling was declared unconstitutional?

 

That doesn't say that in WWII that only Jews and a few Germans died.
What a ridiculous citation.

 

Can you say "legislation from the bench"? What an interesting concept. Do the SC justices make law? No. They only interpret law.

 

What it says is that the only people that mattered were the dead Jews.

 

So you just have a problem with where to put it, not to put it at all?

 

As an oppressed group atheists in that country are way too sensitive , i understand that but they have to understand that atheism does not have a cause or a purpose

 

No, it doesn't. That's complete nonsense, and completely untrue. It is an article specifically about Jews and the horrific murders of so many millions of them, so that is what it talks about. That is what it is supposed to talk about - that is its purpose as a document and a website - to remind people of the horror of what was done to millions of people on the basis of bigotry, and it is absolutely the right thing to remind people about that. It does not say or imply in any way that they were the only ones who mattered, or that any other deaths were relatively unimportant - that is just making things up to try to paint it as something it is not.

It is supposed to be about the murder of millions of innocent civilians (men, women and children) on the basis of bigotry, not about World War II itself. As intimately tied together as they are in the circumstances and regime that brought both about, the holocaust and the war are actually two different things. The holocaust was not 'an act of war', and not carried out as part of the strategy of war, but was a part of the 'social engineering' program of the appalling regime that caused the war to happen. Those who dies were the victims of 'genocide', not actually the victims of 'war' - they weren't combatants, they weren't innocent victims unfortunately caught in the cross-fire, they weren't civilians who happened to end up in the battle-zone, they were innocent people who were killed on the basis of the bigotry of their government (or the occupying force in their country). That website is about that genocide, not about the war fought against the regime who instigated it and carried it out, so what it obviously talks about is that genocide, not the war - that is what it is there for.

That website also talks about other groups who were victims of the bigotry and murder from that time and that regime, of course:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005219
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005200
It appears, of course, predominantly about the Jews because they were, of course, the group who suffered by far the most deaths. It does not, however, in any way suggest that they were 'more important' deaths than the deaths of the Roma, or the disabled, or any other groups. That claim is absolutely without truth or foundation.

 

"Hasidic Rabbis Block Atheist Billboards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJyAxSZH5x4

ironic that they also put one up in a Muslim community and have had no issues

.

 

I call a plague on all religionists who want to force their superstitions over a secular place. Backdoor methods included.

 

So the holocaust was a superstition?

 

No, it's a restriction on Congress, and on the federal government by extension. There is no right to live in a secular jurisdiction other than that implied by the right to migrate to another jurisdiction.

It makes no difference, since, as Hamilton observed in Federalist #78, SCOTUS "may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments"; and clearly that arm has no authority to enforce unconstitutional judgments.

 

What a peculiarly ignorant assertion.

 

you were the one that stated something about a superstition when all we were discussing was a monument. I was just trying to clarify what you were stating, hence the question. So I'll repeat the question, do have a problem with the monument itself, or where it is to be placed?

 

Correct.
That's exactly what I said.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason.
And I knew you couldn't come up with an instance.

 

No you fool.
It's an article about the Jews.
You are very sadly pathetic.

 

Regardless of the finer points of the interpretation of separation of Church and State...or Temple and State as it were

This is bad form...
So much for tolerance.

 

It can be called that for any number of reasons, but none of them have to do with its accuracy as a description of 1A-10A; and of course no one with a lick of sense would pronounce the establishment clause a right on the basis of a label that isn't even part of the text of the Constitution.