Another dimwitted loony tune who parrots the moronic talking points of the left like a trained circus monkey.
U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Another dimwitted loony tune who parrots the moronic talking points of the left like a trained circus monkey.
I certainly tower over pea brains like you. You focused on a typo of "or" that clearly should have been "of." If not then I have no idea what you are ranting about "OR" for.
Erupt? Here you go again after going all ballistic because I said "endorsement of religion" and ignorantly spouting off as if I had implied that was in the text of the constitution now you are going to claim I am erupting. Whatever, buddy.
You bring nothing of substance. It is quite clear the founders intended to build a wall of separation between church and state. Barton and his legion of lying scum will NEVER change that.
BINGO!!!! As a side note, I found that commercial stunning and in very bad taste; what CEO in his right mind would approve something that shallow.
Another right wing talking point from stormfront and David Duke.
And you seemingly believe it like you believe in God, with no reference to any facts but just based on faith.
They clearly intended to make us free from government sponsored/endorsed religion or government prohibitions against religion. That does not mean that one individual should be free from his neighbors expression of religion. They wanted us to be free to practice our faith and to be free form what so many on the [extreme] social right demand. A government endorsed religion backed by sponsorship and intimidation. Except of course for that favorite of the religious, John Jay, who wanted to ban Catholicism.
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.
So you want us to be more like the Arab nations?
You are an ignorant boob. There are secularists everywhere fighting against the oppression of the likes of you and your brothers in the Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood.
http://www.hofesh.org.il/english/
http://www.thenational.ae/thenation...al-of-islamism-fades-arab-secularism-can-soar
We know you would sell you children before you'd hate Obama.
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.
It is sponsored by the state and contributes to intimidation.
Personally, I don't see the wisdom in state speech on this topic or even in creating a venue for it. But if they insist it has to be content neutral. As the court ruled, this presents a very dominant display of Christianity. I don't think the rational answer is to erect a giant Star of David, Pentagram or Festivus Pole.
You take offense because of a transient commercial but disregard those who see some symbol that offends them every day because they are forced to contribute to its support.
You are confusing me. Was Jefferson involved? Was it Madison who wrote the establishment clause?
What was the meaning of the word "establishment" in the context of church in the 18th century? Did it mean something else?
This "wall of separation between church and state," who was it that intended to build this wall? Did they talk about it when they wrote the amendment?
Socrtease
Verified User
10 days to Festivus!
But can you answer my questions for now?
But who wanted a wall when the amendment was written? Who said wall? Who talked about the part of the amendment about the establishment?
Socrtease
Verified User
While I agree with this you also have to remember that at its inception the first amendment did not apply to the states and the founders did not intend that it apply to the states. Pennsylvania had a religious test for state office, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina all funded churches from the public coffers, and Blasphemy was forbidden in Delaware. States were not forbidden to "endorse" religious views until the 20th century.
It was a compromise indeed because of those colonies that were established by religions fleeing persecution, but, like the Baptist and their leader Isaac Backus of Colonial Massachusetts supported Jefferson's view and when the Federal is involved, it must be seperate.
Isaac Backus (1724-1806)
Baptist leader of Colonial Massachusetts; champion of religious freedom via separationism
[When] church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued.
-- Isaac Backus, in "An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty" (1773), quoted from Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004)
I thought this cross was on Federal property?
I think there may be a relationship between Backus of Massachusetts and Madison as young man in Virginia. But was this common cause between these two the basis of the establishment clause?