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

[USFREEDOM911]

Another empty headed idiot who hasn't read the Constitution or have a clue as to what it means.

It isn't "endorsement" of religion you moron, it is the "establishment" of religion.

Now please tell me how erecting a cross to memorialize veterans is the "establishment" of a religion by Government. God you people are dumb.

And you are absolutely correct.
It doesn't say the government can't support a religion, it just says it can't make a religion mandatory.

 

[The Dude]

And you are absolutely correct.
It doesn't say the government can't support a religion, it just says it can't make a religion mandatory.

You are a dumb, Jesus freak

 

[Callinectes]

Hallelujah!!! All our problems are solved!!!

 

[Timshel]

And you are absolutely correct.
It doesn't say the government can't support a religion, it just says it can't make a religion mandatory.

It says the government can't support a religion.

 

[evince]

some peoples dont much understand the constitution.


I thought they claimed to be all constitutiony?

 

[Truth Detector]

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

No dimwit; I wasn't insinuating that at all. But as typical, when a brain dead loony tune makes dimwitted Constitutional claims that aren't factual, predictably they run to strawmen and outrageous fabrications.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

How is that possible moron; the cross is in California. Now you're not merely uninformed, but ranting stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

They go way further than that. Juxtapose it against the outrage over the NYC Muslim community center.

Another dimwit who pretends 9-11 never happened.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

Dear moron; how doesa cross on a hill intimidate? God you're one dumb MoFo.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

BINGO!!!!

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

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.

 

[Truth Detector]

I would suggest you pick up some books on the Founding Fathers. They wanted their new union to be nothing like England, King George and the Church.

This is amusing; a dimwit lecturing someone well versed in our Constitution and it's history.

I would suggest you get a brain.

 

[Truth Detector]

And you are absolutely correct.
It doesn't say the government can't support a religion, it just says it can't make a religion mandatory.

To be more correct, the Government cannot establish a State religion. But there never was this mythical "wall of separation" of religion FROM state. Such rhetoric is the special brand of stupid liberals love to wallow in. You cannot have Governance in a vacuum of moral laws guided by religious principles.

But that is the world Progressive Liberalism wishes to drag all nations; into a communal Marxist utopia bereft of religion, morality and responsibility.

 

[Truth Detector]

It says the government can't support a religion.

No it does not; it says government cannot "establish" a national religion.

Dimwit.

 

[Truth Detector]

some peoples dont much understand the constitution.


I thought they claimed to be all constitutiony?

Yes; we call them Democrats and Liberals. They wallow in a special brand of stupid and elect inexperienced,inept economically stupid hyper partisan dimwits as Presidents.

 

[Asa]

It says the government can't support a religion.

It does? Where does it say that?

 

[Asa]

some peoples dont much understand the constitution.


I thought they claimed to be all constitutiony?

You must understand it well. Who wrote the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment? What did Ames have to do with it?

 

[The Dude]

Judge said down with paganism!

 

[Asa]

Judge said down with paganism!

He stayed his own ruling.

 

[Timshel]

No dimwit; I wasn't insinuating that at all. But as typical, when a brain dead loony tune makes dimwitted Constitutional claims that aren't factual, predictably they run to strawmen and outrageous fabrications.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.

Sure that's not what you meant.

You haven't offered any support for your constitutional claims. Your ignorant opinion is based on half of the clause.