Court rules cross on federal land is unconstitutional - Polidicks

I say we erect an obelisk there, like the Washington monument. Sometimes those are used as grave markers, which is what the cross is.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208341]No, it's more like that your argument is based on a different and "incorrect" view of the constitution.[/QUOTE] How is it a "incorrect" view, when it's a no bullshit reading of it, no where in the constitution; even with all its amendments; does it that states there's a right to privacy, there's no separation of church and state below the federal level, and there's no right to birthright citizenship for those born to parents who are not here legally All of these amendments related to these 3 supposed rights were interpreted as such long after the writers of the amendments at hand were long dead, and before any act of congress was passed creating these rights

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208458]How is it a "incorrect" view, when it's a no bullshit reading of it, no where in the constitution; even with all its amendments; does it that states there's a right to privacy, there's no separation of church and state below the federal level, and there's no right to birthright citizenship for those born to parents who are not here legally All of these amendments related to these 3 supposed rights were interpreted as such long after the writers of the amendments at hand were long dead, and before any act of congress was passed creating these rights[/QUOTE] it violates the state constitution you imbecile

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208458]there's no separation of church and state below the federal level[/QUOTE] Except when it's in the state's constitution. [QUOTE=Prismatex;27208479]it violates the state constitution you imbecile[/QUOTE] [B]And the federal constitution.[/B] It's on [U]federal land[/U] as of Aug 2006.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208458]How is it a "incorrect" view, when it's a no bullshit reading of it, no where in the constitution; even with all its amendments; does it that states there's a right to privacy, there's no separation of church and state below the federal level, and there's no right to birthright citizenship for those born to parents who are not here legally All of these amendments related to these 3 supposed rights were interpreted as such long after the writers of the amendments at hand were long dead, and before any act of congress was passed creating these rights[/QUOTE] yeah uh that's why we have a supreme court, they interpret the laws accordingly you wouldn't have the right to bear guns if we took a "no-bullshit" reading because the founding father's originally idea for the 2nd amendment was on a military basis but the supreme court interpreted it differently hence why gun bans were repealed

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208051]How can this be unconstitutional when the constitution only said the FEDERAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES can't pass LAWS explicitly dealing with religion? this is a STRUCTURE erected by a CITY This is like the right to privacy and birthright citizenship, the first being a reinterpretation of the right to refuse quartering to soldiers, and the other which states those born to parents under the jurisdiction of the United States have automatic citizenship, yet is applied to those who are born to people actively bypassing the US immigration process and laws[/QUOTE] Here's it in baby words just for you: Constitution says separation of church and state. Federal Land with Religion on It = Violation of Constitution Government =/= Religious

[QUOTE=thisispain;27208498]yeah uh that's why we have a supreme court, they interpret the laws accordingly you wouldn't have the right to bear guns if we took a "no-bullshit" reading because the founding father's originally idea for the 2nd amendment was on a military basis but the supreme court interpreted it differently hence why gun bans were repealed[/QUOTE] The no bullshit reading of it says [I]a militia[/I](now the National Guard under the Militia Act of 1903)[I] is required for the security of the united states, and that it's the right of the people to process and carry arms[/I]

the cross is more of a symbol of health american red cross then it is of religious stature

[QUOTE=doomkiwi;27208452]I say we erect an obelisk there, like the Washington monument. Sometimes those are used as grave markers, which is what the cross is.[/QUOTE] Don't bother, it's the "Yangtze Memorial" in Fallout, and it's dedicated to a fictitious war between China and the U.S.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208812]The no bullshit reading of it says [I]a militia[/I](now the National Guard under the Militia Act of 1903)[I] is required for the security of the united states, and that it's the right of the people to process and carry arms[/I][/QUOTE] Yep, so does that apply to Jim Bob who wants a gun? No, but we let it anyways so...

[QUOTE=Mr.Dounut;27208814]the cross is more of a symbol of health american red cross then it is of religious stature[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg/500px-Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg.png[/img_thumb] vs [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Christian_cross.svg/500px-Christian_cross.svg.png[/img_thumb] The latter is the type of cross that's being displayed. The difference is the proportions of the bottom leg.

[QUOTE=R3mix;27208504]Here's it in baby words just for you: Constitution says separation of church and state. Federal Land with Religion on It = Violation of Constitution Government =/= Religious[/QUOTE] The constitution does not have a separation of church and state ANYWHERE in it, only a ban on the congress from passing laws that directly effect religious organizations, and the equal protection of rights, a lowercase T on federal land doesn't effect anyone's equal rights fuck all, nor a creation of a establishment of church [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27208852]Yep, so does that apply to Jim Bob who wants a gun? No, but we let it anyways so...[/QUOTE] Jim Bob is a apart of the people, is he not? Why is he not entitled to process and carry arms like a third of the US population does?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208887]The constitution does not have a separation of church and state ANYWHERE in it, only a ban on the congress from passing laws that directly effect religious organizations, and the equal protection of rights, a lowercase T on federal land doesn't effect anyone's equal rights fuck all, nor a creation of a establishment of church[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment]The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, [B]or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.[/B][/url] It's not a fucking lower case t, it's a cross.

[QUOTE=RichardCQ;27208873][img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg/500px-Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg.png[/img_thumb] vs [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Christian_cross.svg/500px-Christian_cross.svg.png[/img_thumb] The latter is the type of cross that's being displayed. The difference is the proportions of the bottom leg.[/QUOTE] Ok, and it's also a lowercase T, next?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208812]The no bullshit reading of it says [I]a militia[/I](now the National Guard under the Militia Act of 1903)[I] is required for the security of the united states, and that it's the right of the people to process and carry arms[/I][/QUOTE] I still say that since fully automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers didn't exist when the constitution was signed, the founding fathers obviously didn't intend for people to be allowed to own them I'm just kidding and I don't actually think this but it's neat how different interpretations are all equally valid

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208932]Ok, and it's also a lowercase T, next?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichardCQ;27208929] It's not a fucking lower case t, it's a cross.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208932]Ok, and it's also a lowercase T, next?[/QUOTE] no why would they have been holding easter services at a lowercase t

[QUOTE=Prismatex;27208947]no why would they have been holding easter services at a lowercase t[/QUOTE] He is probably the only person in the world to dispute over whether or not those crosses are actually lowercase letters. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] I'd even go as far to say that he will be the only person to ever argue it seriously.

[QUOTE=RichardCQ;27208929][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment]The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, [B]or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.[/B][/url] It's not a fucking lower case t, it's a cross.[/QUOTE] I know it's a cross, but it's also a lowercase t, so unless the Latin alphabet needs to be banned, what's the issue, it's just a combination of 2 geometric shapes, just like the swastika, based on a 2 pieces of wood some random faggot, and thousands of faggots before him was nailed to thousands of years ago by the Romans [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Prismatex;27208947]no why would they have been holding easter services at a lowercase t[/QUOTE] because christians are retarded like that [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RichardCQ;27208953]He is probably the only person in the world to dispute over whether or not those crosses are actually lowercase letters. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] I'd even go as far to say that he will be the only person to ever argue it seriously.[/QUOTE] I view a real cross as actually having Jesus on it, all other crosses are just posers

Haha lowercase T you guys are fucking nutty. It's quite obvious that this is a Christian symbol, trying to plead ignorance is extremely naive.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208977]I know it's a cross, but it's also a lowercase t, so unless the Latin alphabet needs to be banned, what's the issue, it's just a combination of 2 geometric shapes, just like the swastika, based on a 2 pieces of wood some random faggot, and thousands of faggots before him was nailed to thousands of years ago by the Romans[/QUOTE] Let's put pentagrams all over everything, it's just a geometric shape, it isn't even originally Satanic, and we'll see how many days it takes for conservatives to start complaining.

Well on one hand it doesnt really hurt anyone but on the other I can see the principle of not letting it be there.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27209016]Let's put pentagrams all over everything, it's just a geometric shape, it isn't even originally Satanic, and we'll see how many days it takes for conservatives to start complaining.[/QUOTE] It symbolizes the vagina, obviously something bad...

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27209016]Let's put pentagrams all over everything, it's just a geometric shape, it isn't even originally Satanic, and we'll see how many days it takes for conservatives to start complaining.[/QUOTE] We'll put swastikas on public buildings because it's originally just a hindu symbol meaning luck. We'll draw swastikas on all the republicans giving them luck in their next election.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27208942]I still say that since fully automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers didn't exist when the constitution was signed, the founding fathers obviously didn't intend for people to be allowed to own them I'm just kidding and I don't actually think this but it's neat how different interpretations are all equally valid[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't they want the people to have automatic weapons and rocket launchers? They were on level ground with the British military then with cannons and Kentucky rifles, why can't we be on a level ground with the British Military now? Considering a vast majority of the militia were armed with personal weapons all the way up to federalization in 1903 Also how did you get unbanned? I don't see any ban reduction on your record

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27209034]It symbolizes the vagina, obviously something bad...[/QUOTE] uh actually it's the five limbs of the human that doesn't make sense bro [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;27209051]why can't we be on a level ground with the British Military now?[/QUOTE] because that's just being insane

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27209008]Haha lowercase T you guys are fucking nutty. It's quite obvious that this is a Christian symbol, trying to plead ignorance is extremely naive.[/QUOTE] I wasn't being serious, but you fell for it anyway

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27208977]I know it's a cross, but it's also a lowercase t, so unless the Latin alphabet needs to be banned, what's the issue, it's just a combination of 2 geometric shapes, just like the swastika, based on a 2 pieces of wood some random faggot, and thousands of faggots before him was nailed to thousands of years ago by the Romans [/QUOTE] I've reread this about 20 times now. I have [B]no idea[/B] what point you're trying to make. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that you exist. Stop taunting me you demon of anticognisance.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;27209065]I wasn't being serious, but you fell for it anyway[/QUOTE] Wasn't overly funny but it's still irrelevant - I'm sure other people will use the argument anyway.

[QUOTE=Detective P;27207466]We had a big hoohah over this cross in class last year. A good week-long debate. I personally have no problem with it, but it's obviously in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, and unfortunately needs to go. Or, as I would prefer, the land should be sold to private owners and problem solved.[/QUOTE] They tried to do that and the people who wanted it removed said that the federal government would be in break of some other law. they really really really want that cross down.