• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Bladensburg Cross Unconstitutional?

I sort of suspected that you were an individual who enjoys the Supreme Court making law rather than the people through their elected representatives. You and the Supreme court should go elsewhere and start your own aristocracy.

Your words tell me that you failed basic Civics class. Enjoy your world, I prefer the real one.
 
why not? if they do does that mean Congress has established a religion???

No, jimmy, it does not "mean Congress has established a religion" It does mean however that some government agency is supporting one specific religion - the Church of Walrus Defecation.
 
What this will all boil down to is that Public lands will be devoid of ANY structure that isnt square and neutral in color and anyone can place whatever meaning they would like to apply to it. That solves the issue. But I'm sure even then that some educated over-thinking jack-hole with a lot of time on their hands looking to bring glory to themseslves in any way possible will stand up and say' A square is an insult to people who feel the circle is being ignored'.
America...land of the idiot, home of rediculousness.
 
No, jimmy, it does not "mean Congress has established a religion" It does mean however that some government agency is supporting one specific religion - the Church of Walrus Defecation.

is supporting establishing? is some agency congress? does supporting one mean you don’t support others?? Marxists need to destroy religion and family to kill another 120 million.
 
is supporting establishing? is some agency congress? does supporting one mean you don’t support others?? Marxists need to destroy religion and family to kill another 120 million.

You are babbling, jimmy. Please take some time off and gather your thoughts.
 
Your words tell me that you failed basic Civics class. Enjoy your world, I prefer the real one.
I dont want to beat a dead horse but you've got to be kidding me. I failed civics....and what facts allow you to spew that vomitice rhetoric?
Because I said that laws are made by the people through their representatives. Is there some other process guaranteed by the Constitution that I am missing.
Or are you attempting to say that bills are made into laws by the signature of the president. Hmmm, is that it?
What if he refuses to sign? Then what happens? The president just gets his way is that it? So no laws proposed by Democrats will be made into law with a Republican prez and vice versa?
You just shoot blank comments at people and they lay down and play dead so you can be the thread sheriff.
C'mon man, makes some democracy happen here. Lets see your civics expertise put to practice. Make everyone here your Constitutional bee-otches.:2wave:
 
It does mean however that some government agency is supporting one specific religion

for fourth time: Does Constitution prohibit this???Where????? Isn't learning fun?
 
for fourth time: Does Constitution prohibit this???Where????? Isn't learning fun?

1st AMNDT says that Congress cant make a law that holds up higher in regard(respects) one religion over all others in order to be a citizen or hold office or to enjoy the basic rights, privelages and protections of the Constitution afforded to all citizens.
This is what I believe it means. I believe it means this because of the circumstances the founding father were attempting to avoid for the new colonies. I could be wrong. I wasn't there
Of course someone else will come along and attempt to nit pick it and broaden its meaning so it stands for nothing
 
1st AMNDT says that Congress cant make a law that holds up higher in regard(respects) one religion over all others in order to be a citizen or hold office or to enjoy the basic rights, privelages and protections of the Constitution afforded to all citizens.

where does it say that??????????????
 
I dont want to beat a dead horse but you've got to be kidding me. I failed civics....and what facts allow you to spew that vomitice(sic) rhetoric?
The words you post are evidence of your lack of knowledge.

Because I said that laws are made by the people through their representatives. Is there some other process guaranteed by the Constitution that I am missing.
Depends upon the definition of "LAWS" in our modern world. The president's recent executive order appears to enforce actions by the executive branch which contradict those of the legislative branch - the peoples' representatives - by spending federal funds on a project for which said funds were not designated.

Or are you attempting to say that bills are made into laws by the signature of the president. Hmmm, is that it?
What if he refuses to sign? Then what happens? The president just gets his way is that it? So no laws proposed by Democrats will be made into law with a Republican prez and vice versa?
Do you consider a VETO to be a refusal to sign? "Then what happens?" A vetoed bill is returned to the Senate and the House for a second vote to either overturn or accept the president's veto. Both Democratic, and Republican, controlled Congresses have negated a presidential veto, rarely, but it has happened approximately 100 times since the first one in 1845.
"President George W. Bush vetoed 12 bills. Congress overrode four of them. Nearly all the overrides occurred during the final two years of Bush’s presidency. President Barack Obama vetoed 12 bills, only one of which was overridden."

You just shoot blank comments at people and they lay down and play dead so you can be the thread sheriff.
C'mon man, makes some democracy happen here. Lets see your civics expertise put to practice. Make everyone here your Constitutional bee-otches.:2wave:
"thread sheriff"???

Sadly the only people who believe I can make anyone my "Constitutional bee-otches." are those who know less than I do, as shown by their comments.
 
rhetorical (Websters College dictionary cir. 2001)- adj. 1. used for mere effect. 2. marked by or tending to use bombast. 3. of, concerned with, or being rhetoric.
 
where does it say that??????????????

instead of asking 'where does it say that?' a million times, why don't you express what you think says relevant to the OP.
Or stop asking questions and just let the Supreme court dictate your rights to you
 
instead of asking 'where does it say that?
why is that you imagine the 1st Amendment says things it does not say? Why cant you tell me where it says that??????? Because it doesn't say that?????
 
why is that you imagine the 1st Amendment says things it does not say? Why cant you tell me where it says that??????? Because it doesn't say that?????

To break this down for the last time: READ the First Amendment. Then ask yourself 'why did they write the amendment like that? What was the reason for it being written?
I find it helpful to put things in context of time, place, and circumstance.
Almost all statements made by people have positive, negative or neutral inferences. For example 'Have a nice day'
And the recipient will receive the statement and place their perception of their own inference of what was said, for example ' did he just tell me to 'F' off?'
SO, when u keep asking 'Where does it say that?' and I say' Read the amendment', it should be obvious that you and I cant communicate what either of us means to the other because I can not convey to you what I mean by using my vocabulary and vice versa. However, I am long suffering.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....
At the time, England was ruled by a king. That King thinking himself to be Eminent, demanded that ALL good Englishmen shall worship in his way as prescribed by the English Catholic authority. But the colonialists knew that catholothism wasn't their cup of tea ( a historical pun). And P.S. if you were caught worshipping some other way or some other god, you could end up having a bad day at the tower of London. And if u did worship the right way, on the right days,with plenty of confession and cash, you could move up in the world and rarely, if ever, make a mistake that could be considered 'unlawful'. This was the 'law'.
So in a nutshell, be a good English catholic or be a peice of $#!t.
So now, what do you think the first part of the first amendment means and what does that give OUR government the authority to do and NOT do?
 
? What was the reason for it being written?

to prevent Congress from establishing a religion???????????? 1+1=2 and?????????????????????????

Did the cross indicate that the Congress had established a religion????? Isn't learning fun??
 
why don't you express what you think says relevant to the OP.

op asks in effect if cross indicated Congress had established a religion. What religion did it establish???? 1+1=2
 
op asks in effect if cross indicated Congress had established a religion. What religion did it establish???? 1+1=2

Nope, once again, not unexpected, jimmy is wrong. The Bladensburg Cross does not indicate that "Congress had established a religion", it does, however, appear to show that the town of Bladensburg does SUPPORT one religious faith.
 
, it does, however, appear to show that the town of Bladensburg does SUPPORT one religious faith.

1) what faith????? since cross is used by 100 of different faiths

2) does Constitution say Congress cant establish a religion or Bladensburg cant appear to support a faith???? Isn't thinking fun??? See why we say liberalism is based in ignorance?
 
1) what faith????? since cross is used by 100 of different faiths

2) does Constitution say Congress cant establish a religion or Bladensburg cant appear to support a faith???? Isn't thinking fun??? See why we say liberalism is based in ignorance?

jimmy, you are one fine example of deliberate blindness on the subjects of history, religion and constitutional law.

The cross is "used by 100 of different faiths"? What faiths would those be, other than Christianity?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
 
jimmy, you are one fine example of deliberate blindness on the subjects of history, religion and constitutional law.

The cross is "used by 100 of different faiths"? What faiths would those be, other than Christianity?

Constitution says congress cant establish a religion. What religion did Congress establish in Bladensburg???????????

Religion in the United States, Gallup, 18+ (2016) Protestantism (48.9%) Roman Catholicism (23.0%) Mormonism (1.8%) No religion (18.2%) Judaism (2.1%)

whcih of these did COngress establish in Bladeningburg???????????????
 
1) what faith????? since cross is used by 100 of different faiths

2) does Constitution say Congress cant establish a religion or Bladensburg cant appear to support a faith???? Isn't thinking fun??? See why we say liberalism is based in ignorance?

Constitution says congress cant establish a religion. What religion did Congress establish in Bladensburg???????????

Religion in the United States, Gallup, 18+ (2016) Protestantism (48.9%) Roman Catholicism (23.0%) Mormonism (1.8%) No religion (18.2%) Judaism (2.1%)

whcih of these did COngress establish in Bladeningburg???????????????


What's the matter jimmy> Why can't you answer a simple question? You wrote The cross is "used by 100 of different faiths"? I asked "What faiths would those be, other than Christianity?"

Truly is hilarious how you try so desperately to evade answering simple questions when the fallacies of your comments are noted. You asked "does Constitution say Congress cant establish a religion"? and your response is a very weak attempt to move the goalposts -- "whcih of these did COngress establish in Bladeningburg???????????????"

What does the number of those claiming a faith have to do with the discussion regarding a Christian memorial on public property? Are you trying to say that because Christians are a majority, their religious symbols should be paid for and maintained by taxpayer dollars?
 
You wrote The cross is "used by 100 of different faiths"? I asked "What faiths would those be, other than Christianity?"

dear, please remember your the liberal here. Constitution says Congress cant establish religion because that is exactly what they had done to such ill affect in Europe. None established Christianity which was not a religion but rather a name for a large group of religions. In Europe they established particular denominations within Christianity but never Christianity. Got it now?

So then,
1) a cross did not establish a religion, if it did, which one?
2) Congress did not build the cross 100 years ago let alone establish religion in Bladensburg 100 years ago or now
3) a cross is a symbol of a Christianity but not a symbol of a religion. 1+1=2
 
Back
Top Bottom