Well that is where dumbasses like your buddy Roy Moore come in to thw picture. Sorry, you won't be allowed ti turn this into a theocratic state.
U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Well that is where dumbasses like your buddy Roy Moore come in to thw picture. Sorry, you won't be allowed ti turn this into a theocratic state.
You are the one misquoting the constitution, jihadist. You have no argument. It's just idiotic ranting.
Last edited:
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
Hell, the Westminster Dog Show has smarter judges than the federal judges in California.
You're the uninformed dimwit who claimed that "endorse" was in the Constitution. Then when that was dispelled, you doubled down on stupid and claimed "endorsed" equaled "establishment."
My Constitutional “claims” is that it clearly states “establishment of religion”. How is my claim not supported or wrong dimwit?
Let’s review it again for the clueless:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
“Make no LAW”; how is a cross making law? It isn’t.
“Establishment of Religion”; how is a cross on a hill, or the Ten Commandments posted in a Government office “establishing a religion?”
Yes, you really are THAT stupid.
i didnt know europe followed the u.s. constitution
Sure makes me want to buy underwear at Kmart...not.
Another incredibly stupid claim; that a cross on a hill or posting the Ten Commandments in a building equates to a theocratic state.
No wonder an idiot like Obama can get elected when there are so many fools like you running around making utterly stupid comments and claims.
That wasn't my point. But thank you for trying to play.
Nope, dummy, I never said it says endorse.
Your ignorant claim rests on continuing to drop the prepositional "respecting an" and attempting to obscure that "establishment of religion" is obviously a noun phrase. I stated this before. Is it over your head, moron, or can you further the discussion. I am sure it must be over your head because you can't seem to figure out whether your argument is about the nature of "make no law" or your idiotic claim that "respecting an establishment of religion" could simply have been replaced with "establishing a religion."
Yes you did moron:
Post #12
Post #16
Actual clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
en·dorse·ment [en-dawrs-muhnt]
noun
1. approval or sanction: The program for supporting the arts won the government's endorsement.
2. the placing of one's signature, instructions, etc., on a document.
3. the signature, instructions, etc., placed on the reverse of a commercial document, for the purpose of assigning the interest therein to another.
4. a clause under which the stated coverage of an insurance policy may be altered.
DOES NOT EQUAL
es·tab·lish·ment [ih-stab-lish-muhnt]
noun
1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.
Now run along and bombard someone else with your ignorant nonsense and circle of stupidity.
Where did the establishment clause come from? What was its process?
You fail again idiot. That clearly was not a quote of the text of the constitution.
Yes, the establishment clause means that the government may not make an endorsement of religion.
That not the "actual clause" idiot. That's the entire amendment.
Establishment, in the context used, clearly is not a verb. The third definition is suitable. The endorsement comes in when congress makes a law "respecting an" ... establishment of religion.
The failure is all yours diwmit:
Post #12
Quote Originally Posted by Hasa Diga Eebowai
It has nothing to do with being leftist. They are intolerant of the violation of the constitution's prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
Post #16
Quote Originally Posted by Hasa Diga Eebowai
Dumbass, respecting an establishment of religion = endorsement of religion.
You really are THAT stupid.
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?
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?
Following Asa's (and I think Damo, that devout Christian, from earlier) comments, what law was made respecting an establishment of religion when a cross was erected as part of a monument in Califiornia? Word games all.
The failure is all yours diwmit:
Post #12
Quote Originally Posted by Hasa Diga Eebowai
It has nothing to do with being leftist. They are intolerant of the violation of the constitution's prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
Post #16
Quote Originally Posted by Hasa Diga Eebowai
Dumbass, respecting an establishment of religion = endorsement of religion.
You really are THAT stupid.
You are just repeating yourself, idiot. Maybe you can try to figure out what "clause" means in this discussion, try to understand what I am talking about with respect to "establishment of religion" being a noun phrase and then come up with a real response.