maineman
Banned
we'll just have to agree to disagree. definitely.
U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
we'll just have to agree to disagree. definitely.
It says, "respecting an establishment of religion." It clearly does not mean that they are prohibited from ESTABLISHING a religion and nothing more.
Madison, the author of the first, and Jefferson, who authored Virginia's bill for Establishing Religious Freedom which was the model, were both clearly attempting to establish freedom from religion. Jefferson wrote of his intent...
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
It really sucks for you that are such an idiot obviously bamboozled by frauds like Barton.
Last edited:
Socrtease
Verified User
I am a HUGE proponent of separation of church and state but his is just stupid. I live in Las Cruces NM. Las Cruces means "the Crosses" in Spanish. one story is that it got it's name because it was a cross roads during Spanish colonialism and the other is when a group of Spanish missionaries came through here there was a large burial ground where a previous group had been buried after they had been killed by a native tribe here. Our city is called The City of the Crosses and our city emblem is 
A guy here in town sued to have that logo changed. Luckily we had a smarter federal judge than California.
A guy here in town sued to have that logo changed. Luckily we had a smarter federal judge than California.Attachments
Wrong again shit-for-brains; from your own quote it clearly states "establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise of". I don't know where you get "OR" out if it or claim "establishment" equals "endorsement."
You're either very stupid and do not comprehend what you read, or English isn't your first language. So which is it? I'm thinking you're really THAT stupid and inclined to cluelessly parrot dimwitted leftist talking points like a trained circus monkey.
I did not quote the text.
It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "Establishment of religion" is clearly a noun phrase here. If it said "respecting THE establishment of A religion" you might have a case. But instead you are just lying and quoting the text in a dishonest way to drop context and obscure your lie. You are ignorant scum.
WTF are you talking about lying scum. I said nothing about "OR." The relevant clause says, "respecting an establishment of religion." You keep dropping the first two words to make it seem that "establishment of religion" is a verb phrase. It's not. It was not understood that way by the authors, supporters or courts. You are lying scum that does nothing but parrot the talking points of other lying scum.
That's a pretty nice talking point but I don't see much truth to that. That cross has been around since the 50's and it hasn't come down and forced someone to accept Christianity at gunpoint yet. I haven't seen it try to exalt any particular race. The number of black Christians is about the same or even greater than the number of white Christians. About 80+ percent if memory serves me right. And more go to church than any other ethnic group too, but I haven't seen us try to exalt them over others (part of what fascism is said to do...exalt a particular race)...but maybe I missed that one. I also haven't seen supporters of keeping that cross try to appoint a dictatorial type of leader (something else that is associated with fascism) but rather most of them seem support term limits (and happy they are there for the president right now
) and open elections, even if some are mistakenly on the side of voter ID. That is still far from "forcible suppression of the opposition," which is one of the key comments of fascism. So that statement looks nice and might rally the troops of the left but there is little if no truth to it.Here's the deal though: When folks start attacking (and this suit is nothing less than an attack) things that are important to people they're going to make noise. That is what is happening in this case. But this cross will go the way of the dodo bird and a little noise will be made as it goes. And eventually this society will become the bastion of secularism that the [extreme] social left wants. It is inevitable. And yes, that makes me sad.
Oh, i see, you are focusing on a typo. Damn you are stupid.
That's a pretty nice talking point but I don't see much truth to that. That cross has been around since the 50's and it hasn't come down and forced someone to accept Christianity at gunpoint yet. I haven't seen it try to exalt any particular race. The number of black Christians is about the same or even greater than the number of white Christians. About 80+ percent if memory serves me right. And more go to church than any other ethnic group too, but I haven't seen us try to exalt them over others (part of what fascism is said to do...exalt a particular race)...but maybe I missed that one. I also haven't seen supporters of keeping that cross try to appoint a dictatorial type of leader (something else that is associated with fascism) but rather most of them seem support term limits (and happy they are there for the president right now
Here's the deal though: When folks start attacking (and this suit is nothing less than an attack) things that are important to people they're going to make noise. That is what is happening in this case. But this cross will go the way of the dodo bird and a little noise will be made as it goes. And eventually this society will become the bastion of secularism that the [extreme] social left wants. It is inevitable. And yes, that makes me sad.
BRAVO!!!! ::clapping::
Another uneducated dullard who doesn't know the definition of pagan. But then, you're also the moron who can't distinguish between "to" and "too", "your and "you're" or "moron" and "more on"; how can we be shocked that you really are THAT stupid, THAT ignorant and THAT repugnant.
Darn, now the uneducated dullard will probably groan me again in his foolish third grade mental state thinking that I might care.
That's a pretty nice talking point but I don't see much truth to that. That cross has been around since the 50's and it hasn't come down and forced someone to accept Christianity at gunpoint yet. I haven't seen it try to exalt any particular race. The number of black Christians is about the same or even greater than the number of white Christians. About 80+ percent if memory serves me right. And more go to church than any other ethnic group too, but I haven't seen us try to exalt them over others (part of what fascism is said to do...exalt a particular race)...but maybe I missed that one. I also haven't seen supporters of keeping that cross try to appoint a dictatorial type of leader (something else that is associated with fascism) but rather most of them seem support term limits (and happy they are there for the president right now
Here's the deal though: When folks start attacking (and this suit is nothing less than an attack) things that are important to people they're going to make noise. That is what is happening in this case. But this cross will go the way of the dodo bird and a little noise will be made as it goes. And eventually this society will become the bastion of secularism that the [extreme] social left wants. It is inevitable. And yes, that makes me sad.
Certainly it makes you sad, you are a Christian and you like the idea of Christins being the dominate religion in the USA, but, we are returning, after the big Communist scare of the 50's to the secular nation which was the intentions of the Founding Fathers. You are still allowed to freely practice your religion, but hopefully, it will have less influence on my government.
The cross doesn't affect me personally, but there are those that object to it and therefore, it is right that it is taken down.
I don't think you know what you are trying to say because you're really incredibly stupid but fancy yourself as some kind of intellectual giant.
But it wasn't a typo claiming that "establishment" equals "endorsement" or your Constituional ignorance of the "establishment" clause that caused you to erupt ignorant about the Government endorsing religion.
As expected, when uneducated dullards are caught saying something stupid or false, they engage in the never ending circle of stupidity.
That's a pretty nice talking point but I don't see much truth to that. That cross has been around since the 50's and it hasn't come down and forced someone to accept Christianity at gunpoint yet. I haven't seen it try to exalt any particular race. The number of black Christians is about the same or even greater than the number of white Christians. About 80+ percent if memory serves me right. And more go to church than any other ethnic group too, but I haven't seen us try to exalt them over others (part of what fascism is said to do...exalt a particular race)...but maybe I missed that one. I also haven't seen supporters of keeping that cross try to appoint a dictatorial type of leader (something else that is associated with fascism) but rather most of them seem support term limits (and happy they are there for the president right now
Here's the deal though: When folks start attacking (and this suit is nothing less than an attack) things that are important to people they're going to make noise. That is what is happening in this case. But this cross will go the way of the dodo bird and a little noise will be made as it goes. And eventually this society will become the bastion of secularism that the [extreme] social left wants. It is inevitable. And yes, that makes me sad.
Supporters of keeping that cross tried to ban the building of a community center in NYC, get upset if you mention that Jesus or Santa were not likely fair skinned with blonde hair and blue eyes, picket funerals and have a history of terrorizing African Americans while wearing bed sheets . If you guys get to engage in wildly inaccurate generalizations then everyone might as well do it.
They go way further than that. Juxtapose it against the outrage over the NYC Muslim community center.
Last edited:
Dear dimwit; this nation never left being secular.
Dear dimwit; Communism was not a "scare", it was a threat to liberty and freedom.
Dear dimwit; just because the Constitution does not give you the right to NOT be offended. Read it sometime, it might do you sme good. That is, assuming you can read Andy comprehend. Based on your version of history above, I shan't hold my breath.
There might be some truth to this, but in the REAL world the chances of a nation of devil Worshipers is slim to none, and the Star of David is common in Israel and the Crescent in Arab lands. It is not the dominant belief in the US, that would be Christianity, and the Constitution is silent on religious displays if governments wish to display them.
Europe has them, Israel has them, Arab nations have them, and yet, I don't see anti religious dimwits clamouring for those to be removed.
You really believe that the founders of this country wanted a society free from religion? A society that respected nothing religious? A society where a bunch of guys shaking their balls in different colored shorts to the tune of a Jingle Bells is fine for a commercial during prime time, family TV? Or that a commercial for coffee would depict a woman with a tampon string over the lip of her tea cup and a tea bag string hanging out from her skirt is acceptable? I'd love to bring George, Ben, or even Thomas back here and ask them.
I believe they wanted to escape oppression of a government forced religion. I believe they wanted to escape it to be able to practice religion as they saw fit or to even be non-religious. I do not believe they envisioned the type of society that so many on the [extreme] social left want today. A society that is free from religion.
So we just have to agree to disagree on this one...as we often do.