U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, in fact this is exactly what I was thinking while reading the posts. I also remember the outrage when some people wanted Wiccan symbols on tombstones in Arlington.
 
Last edited:
leaningright said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "a society that is free from religion." Do you think the extreme left wants to ban churches, synagogues, religious schools?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I already answered.

What were the dicussions of the special select committee?

I already answered.

You find that the federal monument violates the constitution and order the cross removed.
Click to expand...

Actually you have not answered the questions.

Where does it state that the government may not make an endorsement of religion in the Constitution?

What were the discussions of the special select committee? This is one of the places you will find the intent.

What was the context of the word "establishment" in 1789 in the context of the 1st amendment?

How do you apply this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." to a monument in California?

You could go even further and give me the details of the agreement made between Madison, and Ames and a few others during the convention regarding the establishment clause is you want. Or their discussions on those who do not believe in God would have no 1st Amendment standing. Or the difference between Madison's original 3rd Amendment regarding the establishment clause, and the ensuing changes made by the select committee, and why Madison did not object. That would be helpful.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Make a point or don't. I am not interested in playing games or answering your insincere questions.
Click to expand...

My point is the establishment clause did not originate in the first Congress, but earlier. The question is sincere, and if you knew the answer you would have answered rather than what you said.
 
leaningright said:
Rstring, please tell me where that cross on some hill in California does this? Or even a kids Christmas play in a school? I truly understand the thought behind what you write as I see that as what the early settlers to this country were escaping. I simply haven't seen it come even close to fruition in this country.

Oh, by the way, if I were dictator I might ban Catholicism as well. :)
Click to expand...

Leaningright, this is beneath you, even with the smiley. "Oh, by the way, if I were dictator I might ban Catholicism as well."
 
christiefan915 said:
I've read your posts and you seem pretty savvy so forgive me for thinking these aren't serious questions.

But in the event I'm wrong, here's some info for you. Introduction to the Establishment Clause
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It is a good general understanding of the establishment clause, but is lacking in areas. There was a gentleman's agreement between Madison, Ames, and others regarding a bill of rights, and specifically regarding the establishment clause. It was a theist based clause. Madison's original 1st Amendment, which was actually the 3rd Amendment, was based on an experience he had when he was younger about Baptists being jailed for violations against Virginia's Anglican church. His purpose was to grant freedom of religion so this did not happen again, and to prevent the federal government from having a national religion. I use national because that was the terminology Madison used in the amendment he submitted. But the amendment underwent revisions in the House select committee, and more revisions in the Senate, and after eight revisions, ended up with what we have today. The states were given twelve amendments, rejected two, and the 3rd became the 1st.
 
Truth Detector said:
You couldn't tower over an ant hill with the inept, uninformed and dimwitted arguments you make on this forum. You misquote the Constitution, fail to comprehend it and then fabricate hysterical claims like a jihadist.

You're a dimwit of epic proportions on the same low level as Evince, The Dude, Howie, Jarod, Christie and Zappas. You're part of the cabal of ignorance that infests this forum.
Click to expand...

TD I took you off ignore when I saw my name in your reply to someone.

You add absolutely zero to this forum. You're rude, insulting, bigoted and uninformed. Worst of all, you're B O R I N G. If we take all the nastiness out of every one of your posts, we're left with comments as flimsy and insubstantial as cotton candy. Maybe you think the "in your face" style of posting shows superiority but you're wrong. It just shows a paucity of intellect and a reliance on shock value.

You really are that tedious.
 
Asa said:
Thanks for the link. It is a good general understanding of the establishment clause, but is lacking in areas. There was a gentleman's agreement between Madison, Ames, and others regarding a bill of rights, and specifically regarding the establishment clause. It was a theist based clause. Madison's original 1st Amendment, which was actually the 3rd Amendment, was based on an experience he had when he was younger about Baptists being jailed for violations against Virginia's Anglican church. His purpose was to grant freedom of religion so this did not happen again, and to prevent the federal government from having a national religion. I use national because that was the terminology Madison used in the amendment he submitted. But the amendment underwent revisions in the House select committee, and more revisions in the Senate, and after eight revisions, ended up with what we have today. The states were given twelve amendments, rejected two, and the 3rd became the 1st.
Click to expand...

Can you suggest some writings on the above?
 
Asa said:
Actually you have not answered the questions.

Where does it state that the government may not make an endorsement of religion in the Constitution?

What were the discussions of the special select committee? This is one of the places you will find the intent.

What was the context of the word "establishment" in 1789 in the context of the 1st amendment?

How do you apply this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." to a monument in California?

You could go even further and give me the details of the agreement made between Madison, and Ames and a few others during the convention regarding the establishment clause is you want. Or their discussions on those who do not believe in God would have no 1st Amendment standing. Or the difference between Madison's original 3rd Amendment regarding the establishment clause, and the ensuing changes made by the select committee, and why Madison did not object. That would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have answered all of these questions. I will go over them once more for you since you are slow.

The establishment clause MEANS that the government may not endorse religion.

What were the discussion of the special select committee? You did not answer me. If you have point to make, do it! I am not interested in your stupid games.

The context is the entire "clause." "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN establishment of religion..." That's it. The jihadist theocrat keeps dropping "respecting an."

I told you explicitly how it applies to the California monument. WTF? It means the monument has to be removed.

If you want to make a point about the debates in congress, do so. Quit pussyfooting around about it and making vague claims.
 
christiefan915 said:
Can you suggest some writings on the above?
Click to expand...

The Elliot's Debates regarding the the Articles of Confederation, the Journal of the Constitutional Convention, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.

The notes of the house select committee of starting on July 28, 1789

Omichund v. Barker as referenced by James Iredell at the North Carolina ratifying convention.

The Report of the House Select Committee.

There is also a good essay by Robert G. Nelson titled The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. This gives some good detail of the Gentleman's Agreement, and the provisions negotiated in 1787 that were exclusively theist in nature regarding the establishment clause.

And read the state's ratifying conventions notes regarding the establishment clause.

These may be little difficult to track down, I have had my copies for a long time. If you do track some of them down, it manifests the intentions of the establishment clause, and how far off we are today from its original intent, which started with Everson v. Board of Education, and that is a whole other animal that can be taken apart just as easily as the claims on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Yes, I have answered all of these questions. I will go over them once more for you since you are slow.

The establishment clause MEANS that the government may not endorse religion.

What were the discussion of the special select committee? You did not answer me. If you have point to make, do it! I am not interested in your stupid games.

The context is the entire "clause." "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN establishment of religion..." That's it. The jihadist theocrat keeps dropping "respecting an."

I told you explicitly how it applies to the California monument. WTF? It means the monument has to be removed.

If you want to make a point about the debates in congress, do so. Quit pussyfooting around about it and making vague claims.
Click to expand...

How did you write all that and not answer one question?

If you want to tell me what the establishment clause means, then give me the discussions between Madison and Ames, the discussion of the House select committee, and the discussion in the Senate, the discussion of the state's ratifying conventions that stated what their intentions were.
 
Asa said:
My point is the establishment clause did not originate in the first Congress, but earlier. The question is sincere, and if you knew the answer you would have answered rather than what you said.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The establishment clause was a product of the debates and that first Congress. It did not exist as it is prior to that.

I did not answer because I am not interested in playing games. It's insulting for you to jerk us around with questions to which you already feel you have an answer. Just make your point.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Wrong. The establishment clause was a product of the debates and that first Congress. It did not exist as it is prior to that.

I did not answer because I am not interested in playing games. It's insulting for you to jerk us around with questions to which you already feel you have an answer. Just make your point.
Click to expand...

It was agreed upon at the convention, and it existed in state constitutions. It was a product of the select committee and the Senate. And where in the debates did your version of its meaning come up? It didn't, but take a stab at it.
 
Asa said:
The Elliot's Debates regarding the the Articles of Confederation, the Journal of the Constitutional Convention, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.

The notes of the house select committee of starting on July 28, 1789

Omichund v. Barker as referenced by James Iredell at the North Carolina ratifying convention.

The Report of the House Select Committee.

There is also a good essay by Robert G. Nelson titled The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. This gives some good detail of the Gentleman's Agreement, and the provisions negotiated in 1787 what were exclusively theist in nature regarding the establishment clause.

And read the state's ratifying conventions notes regarding the establishment clause.

These may be little difficult to track down, I have had my copies for a long time. If you do track some of them down, it manifests the intentions of the establishment clause, and how far off we are today from its original intent, which started with Everson v. Board of Education, and that is a whole other animal that can be taken apart just as easily as the claims on this thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I made a note of these.

You can find a lot of these at http://oll.libertyfund.org. The essay The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause was by Natelson. I'm still looking for The Report of the House Select Committee.
 
Last edited:
Asa said:
How did you write all that and not answer one question?

If you want to tell me what the establishment clause means, then give me the discussions between Madison and Ames, the discussion of the House select committee, and the discussion in the Senate, the discussion of the state's ratifying conventions that stated what their intentions were.
Click to expand...

I will give you the cases. Everson vs BoE is a good start.

But, the debates show they intended to do more than prohibit congress from establishing a religion. If that's all they intended they would have stated it just that way.
 
Part of our constitutional history is, sometimes unfortunately, what the Supreme Court says about the Constitution, Our Supreme Court has stated that state sponsored religious displays amount to an endorsement of one religion over all others. That is why nativity scenes can no longer be displayed if they are sponsored by or on government property. I have never understood the need to have a nativity scene on a court house lawn or in front of city hall. There are even in small towns more than one Christian church that could put them on their property. The fact that Christianity is the majority religious belief does not bolster any argument. Religious freedoms are not subject to majority rule. If the were Jehovah's Witnesses would have had to continue saying the pledge of allegiance in school, Mennonites and Amish would still have to abide by compulsory education laws and Santeria churches could not sacrifice animals on their alters. All that being said, every time the left works so hard to remove a cross from something, a symbol that really doesn't proselytize, but sits silently usually in honor of something, they look like what the right says they are; haters of ALL religious things. Pick your fights, if your local school district is trying to reinstate prayer in school, dig in and contact the ACLU, but if there is a cross on the city logo, or God forbid, your city be named Santa Fe, San Antonio or Corpus Christi, go have a beer, glass of wine or shot of tequila and get over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top