News

‘Peace Cross’ is unconstitutional, court rules

Peace Cross, Bladensburg, Md. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

(RNS) — An old, rugged cross that has stood on public land in a Washington, D.C., suburb for almost a century has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (Oct. 18) that the so-called Peace Cross violates the establishment clause of the Constitution with “excessive religious entanglement.”

“The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” the court wrote in a 33-page opinion. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds.”

The cross is planted in the town of Bladensburg, a short drive from the U.S. Capitol, at the intersection of a state road and a federal road, and commemorates World War I veterans.

But the three-member court was not unanimous in its ruling. The dissenting judge, Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, wrote in his opinion that the establishment clause does not require “purging” religion from the public sphere, but requires only governmental  “neutrality” about religion.

“In my view,” the chief justice wrote, the court’s ruling ” … confuses maintenance of a highway median and monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.”

The suit against the cross was brought by the American Humanist Association and was supported by the Center for Inquiry and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, three national secularist organizations.

The defendant was the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and it was supported by the American Legion with amici briefs from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and a number of state governments.

“The court correctly ruled that the cross unconstitutionally endorses Christianity and favors Christians to the exclusion of all other religious Americans,” Monica Miller, senior counsel from the AHA’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center, said in a statement.

Roy Speckhardt, the AHA’s executive director, said his organization isn’t against veterans or religion.

“Instead of a Christian-only memorial, we want a universal monument that reflects the patriotic contributions of all our fallen heroes and heroines,” he said in an email. “We stand side by side with religious folks of all stripes that don’t want government to take sides on religion.”

Federal courts have not been consistent regarding crosses on public land. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled a 5-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve, also erected to honor veterans, did not violate the Constitution. But in 2012, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that said a cross on California’s Mount Soledad violated the First Amendment.

The defendants in the Peace Cross case may appeal to the Supreme Court.

About the author

Kimberly Winston

Kimberly Winston is a freelance religion reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

187 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Roll up your sleeves folks, here we go again, so trot out your arguments for or against. Wait a minute…let’s just hit rewind.

  • I HIT REWIND ON AN ARGUMENT — SEE BOTTOM
    Okay, below is a comment that I hit rewind on. Just start from the bottom and read up and backwards. Don’t read it forwards though! Maybe it is sort of like playing records backwards and causes one to read messages from a mythical underworld, so maybe don’t read it forwards, at least for any of those who might be religious and might believe in god/devil magic. For them it might have ‘real’ magical powers that sends them to a ‘real’ hell or infuse their ‘souls’ with ‘dark agents of misery and deceit’, something only a Latin Cross can ‘protect’ them from.

    .eussi lanoitutitsnoC a eb ton dna niaga ecno dnal cilbup no tup eb dluoc ti neht, htaed ot elpoep erutrot dna llik ot desu ssorc eht evah niaga ot dessap swal teg nac suoigiler eht fi ybaM .elpoep erutrot dna llik ot snamoR eht yb desu saw ssorC nitaL ehT

  • I recall my constitutional law professor calling the Establishment Clause jurisprudence an “intellectual disaster area.” Still, it’s a little unfair to say the courts “have not been consistent” on crosses on public land, at least for the cases you cited, when you don’t mention one central issue: ownership of the real property where the cross stands. The Mojave cross was ruled constitutional after the land was transferred to a private veterans group. The Mount Soledad cross remains on public land.

  • What next? Remove all Crosses, Stars of David, etc. from military headstones? The dissenting Judge seemed to have a good perspective on the issue.

  • Do you know if that would be an agreeable option with the plaintiffs in this case? (Transferring ownership of the land)

  • I am not sure. The plaintiffs might argue, as they have in other cases, that transferring ownership for purposes of keeping the statue there still constitutes government entanglement or endorsement of religion. They’d probably be more okay with selling the statue itself.

  • Actually I was glad to read this, analyze my conflicting reactions and make a conclusion. Fortunately or not, a couple of years ago, I found that I could no longer sing Onward Christian Soldiers – I do not like to see the cross/faith used in this way. ( I think I must have some Quaker leanings). However, I did gain some insight into the reflexive emotional appeal of the Confederate monuments for some folks based on my initial reaction to the article.

  • Totally different. Grave markers at federal cemeteries are all shaped the same – a neutral rectangle with a rounded top. There is space on each individual marker for a religious symbol chosen by the family. All religions are treated equally and the government does not choose one religious symbol to represent all soldiers. This is fine.

    There is simply no relationship between families chosing a symbol that represents their loved one and the government maintaining a 40 ft tall christian cross and pretending it represents all soldiers.

  • Not if they give preference to one religion. And not if they specify that the religious symbol be preserved.

    If they sell the land, the bidding must be fair and the land sold to the best offer.

  • Actually the Mt Soledad cross was transferred the the Mt Soledad Cross Society. I have to look at that thing every day.

  • Please stop using this lame, debunked argument about military grave markers. Gravestones in public cemeteries (such as Arlington National Cemetery) do not constitute a government endorsement of religion. The numerous gravestone options individually represent the private religious beliefs of the persons buried there, and those symbols are chosen by family members of the deceased, not the government.

  • Arbustin: Both property transfers (Soledad and Mojave) are also technically violations of The Establishment Clause as they give preferential treatment to one religious group via sweetheart land sales. These are, unfortunately, hard to fight in court.

  • Reflective thought quite often proves to be a boon for all, would that each of us would practice it more consistently.

  • That must have taken a bit of work, unless you have a program that reverses word input. However, it doesn’t make your argument any clearer or more compelling, let alone convincing.

  • NO SUPERNATURAL MAGIC REQUIRED
    > I typed something forward and then retyped it in reverse order (no prayers to Satan required or anything!) What does take a little work, though, is to learn to think critically [thinking about thinking while constantly examining the reliability of sources of belief] — would that each of us would practice critical thinking more consistently.

    DON’T LET YOUR DOGMA LOOSE IN PUBLIC
    > Wasn’t really making an argument to convince, but pointed out that a religious death-cult using an ancient tool-of-death-and-torture as it’s main symbol is creepy, and that given the chance some religious people will tear away at healthy laws to delay/reverse advancement, progress and achievement if it conflicts with their dogma.

  • What’s next? Can I marry my dog? Oops, sorry, that was a nonsensical argument that’s been retired.

  • I thought that the Constitution allowed for religious expression…This shows hatred for Christianity and a lack of tolerance in, what I used to think, was a society which preached multiculturalism and diversity. Actually the roman crosses were shaped more like an X….The suit against the cross was brought by the American Humanist
    Association and was supported by the Center for Inquiry and the Freedom
    From Religion Foundation, three national secularist organizations. Can I now bring a suit against fat women wearing tights? After all they are more offensive than any cross.

  • Free exercise is for an individual; but the NO establishment clause applies to the Government. That is the difference. All rights have limits. Put a cross on your property.

  • My understanding is that the cross itself is owned by the private group, but the land under it remains federal property. Thus the litigation continues.

  • Suppose a religion worshipped sex, or even more specifically, the penis.

    Somehow, I think that you would object to the display of a penis ANYWHERE, let alone on public land.

    If you want to erect a cross somewhere, why not do it in your own, private, property? Why do you insist it must be on public property?

  • I am familiar with many monuments/statues commemorating WWI. They are statues of soldiers. Cemeteries have Stars of David as well as Crosses.

    I would prefer an obelisk giving the dales of the war (for the US) and the names of the locals who died. It would be nice to list the continents where battles occurred. That way the memory is better served for young people.

  • It shows a desire for equal treatment for all religions. Would you prefer they removed the Stars of David in WWI cemeteries because they are a sign of the hatred of Christianity? Don’t be so quick to feel persecuted/ Erect a memorial cross on a church’s property.

  • There is a Japanese penis worshiip cult. Also, in Ireland and India the ancients erected a penis stone and a vulva stone at opposite end of a field in order to fertilize it. Probably this was done many places but some stones survive in those two countries. Who knows maybe the revivers of the ancient Celtic religion would want to erect such stones on public land

  • Consult with a dog psychic to make sure your dog consents. And be sure to ask what religion the dog wants to be married in, or none maybe. Possibly dogs have their own religion and you might be a god in it. Only the psychics can know.

  • Arbustin: I don’t think anyone has been able to elevate a government sweetheart sale of land to a religious organization to SCOTUS.

  • Psychics claim to know an awful lot of things. Except next week’s winning lottery numbers. They never seem to be able to figure those out. Odd.

  • When judges and justices make it to the highest courts in the land without understanding of the word constitution, you know the end of civilized society is near at hand. The monuments are not the story, the real story is what is the driving force behind the scene.

  • I would posit that so called rationalists are no less guilty of the same tendencies you attribute to religionists, with an equal degree of fervor and dogmatism.

  • WE ARE ALL ANIMALS
    > Indubitably.
    >In general; to varying degrees; some more than others (on both sides), this must be true — all part of the nature of the human animal.

  • The problem CONGRESS had nothing to do with setting up or supporting this cross. BTW the “establishment clause” can not be found or supported by the Constitution. It is in fact a creation by anti-Christian bigots that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

    Actually there is no LAW that can RESTRICT religion unless it violates Common or Natural laws.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits CONGRESS from making of any law respecting an establishment of (a NATIONAL) religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    Do you even comprehend the meaning of “impeding the free exercise of religion,”?

    im·pede
    im’ped/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: impeding

    delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder

    The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.

  • Really you think the land sale had nothing to do with unreasonable atheists being offended by a piece of stone carved into a cross? The question is why atheists aren’t active in preventing islam being taught in our public schools?

  • The question is why atheists are so bothered by a Christian symbol when nobody else cares that it’s there?

  • Bob Shoemaker: Can you identify a case involving unreasonable atheists. Furthermore, ones who are offended.

    The FFRF is not comprised only of atheists. They aren’t unreasonable in identifying a violation of The Establishment Clause. Also, at no point have they claimed offense.

    The question is why atheists aren’t active in preventing islam being taught in our public schools?

    If a case is brought to their attention, they would take action. In most cases involving Islam that I’m aware of other legal groups have been contacted.

    Are you imagining that The FFRF has lawyers just driving around the country looking for these cases? They wait for members of the local community to contact them.

  • Yes I do know the FFRF is driving around the USA on the look out for any Christian symbol they can find and run through the court system otherwise they wouldn’t exist. You do know FFRF stands for Freedm from religion which is an anti-Constitution, anti-Christian bigoted fascist organization. BTW just because something offends you doesn’t give you the right to tear it down because there is no law that says you can’t be offended but if not for activist judges your foolish hate group wouldn’t exist. It is hilarious the your group give islam a free pass but attacks Christian symbols at every chance. Another proof ignorance is bliss.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    Yes I do know the FFRF is driving around the USA on the look out for any Christian symbol they can find and run through the court system otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

    Why would they need to drive around The US when there are hundreds of churches in Wisconsin displaying Christian symbols? It’s because they deal with government violations of The Establishment Clause.

    There’s no need to drive around when there are many citizens who know about religious rights that contact The FFRF when they spot a violation.

    You do know FFRF stands for Freedm from religion which is an anti-Constitution, anti-Christian bigoted fascist organization.

    I know what it stands for, but I’m not seeing how it’s anti-Constitution or anti-Christian. Could you elaborate?

    BTW just because something offends you

    I’m not offended. A 1st Amendment violation doesn’t require a claim of offense. It’s just a religious symbol that’s installed in the wrong spot.

    doesn’t give you the right to tear it down because there is no law that says you can’t be offended but if not for activist judges your foolish hate group wouldn’t exist.

    The FFRF wouldn’t exist if theists didn’t use government resources and authority to violate The Establishment Clause. Stop violating The Establishment Clause and the religious rights of citizens and there wouldn’t be a need for The FFRF.

    It is hilarious the your group give islam a free pass but attacks Christian symbols at every chance.

    It’s hilarious that you think they haven’t dealt with Islamic violations of The Establishment Clause. You probably haven’t heard about those cases because Christian cases outnumber them a hundred to one.

  • BTW please point out where your erroneous “separation of church and state law” can be found in our Constitution. And a laws that states the religious symbols can’t be found on “We the Peoples” property? You do know “We the People” are our own Sovereigns don’t you? And above all please point where in the Constitution you have a freedom from religion?

    Have you studied the first amendment? I have. do you know what’s its original intent was? the context of the first amendment was denominations within Christianity. excerpt from

    Joseph Story was appointed to Supreme Court Justice by James Madison, the Father of our Constitution and also the fourth President of our country. Justice Story served from 1812 to 1845 as Supreme Court Justice. He was also a U.S. Congressman from 1808 to 1809 and a Harvard Law School Professor from 1821 to 1845. He comments on the First Amendment:“The real object of the First mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or
    Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.” [J. Story, III, Commentaries on the Constitution [section] 1871 (1833)]

    Let me restate what the Honorable Justice Story is saying in contemporary language.

    “The real intent of the First Amendment was not to approve or support, much less to advance Islam, Judaism, or other unfaithfulness, Atheism included, by submissively and willfully incapacitating Christianity, but to prevent all competition among Christian denominations for national government sponsorship and to prevent our national government from choosing one of these denominations to establish a national church.”

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    BTW please point out where your erroneous “separation of church and state law” can be found in our Constitution.

    It’s a phrase referring collectively to The Establishment Clause, The No Religious Test Clause, and the lack of any religion or deity being mentioned or installed as official in our government. Those three qualities are what Jefferson was referring to.

    And a laws that states the religious symbols can’t be found on “We the Peoples” property?

    Our government is prohibited by The Establishment Clause from endorsing or advancing one religion to the exclusion of others. The ruling in this case explains why the court decided that this monument was an unjust endorsement of a religion by our government.

    You do know “We the People” are our own Sovereigns don’t you?

    You seem to be using this phrase to inaccurately assert that you have rights to use and abuse government property, when you don’t.

    And above all please point where in the Constitution you have a freedom from religion?

    The Free Exercise Clause. A robust freedom includes a right to abstain from a practice. For example, you have a right to speak and a right to abstain from speaking.

    the context of the first amendment was denominations within Christianity.

    Yes. We started with 13 bickering colonies. When more religions were introduced to our secular nation, through the “crucible of litigation (as Justice Stevens said), the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

    “The real intent of the First Amendment was not to approve or support, much less to advance Islam, Judaism, or other unfaithfulness, Atheism included, by submissively and willfully incapacitating Christianity, but to prevent all competition among Christian denominations for national government sponsorship and to prevent our national government from choosing one of these denominations to establish a national church.”

    Yes. And?

    This action doesn’t incapacitate or make Christianity submissive to other faiths or beliefs. It removes a privilege, returning Christianity to an equal level of treatment by our government.

  • That’s what I thought you can’t point where in our Constitution the “separation of church and state” can be found therefore making your whole ridiculous rant moot. Next time please stick to the question being asked and try being honest next time. Now without giving more useless unfounded ranting can you tell us where the “separation of church and state” can be found and why is was expressed? Again try to be honest and deal with the subject matter rather than propaganda and/or your opinion?

    BTW this is and example of one of your blatant lies….”Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

    The court gave an opinion it does not have the authority to create law or alter law and the law states……..

    Actually there is no LAW that can RESTRICT religion unless it violates Common or Natural laws.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits CONGRESS from making of any law respecting an establishment of (a NATIONAL) religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    Do you even comprehend the meaning of “impeding the free exercise of religion,”?

    im·pede
    im’ped/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: impeding

    delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder

    The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.

    Do you comprehend regardless of a judges opinion there is no law the states or implies “freedom from religion” it states FREEDOM OF RELIGION. So whether you have a religion or not you can not infringe on the “freedom of religion” because it’s a protected inalienable God given right that is DEFINED in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. This protection is not up for debate by you or any other anti-Constitutional propagandist.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Oh, I thought you understood your own inquiry. My mistake (^_^)

    BTW please point out where your erroneous “separation of church and state law” can be found in our Constitution.

    That’s what I thought you can’t point where in our Constitution the “separation of church and state” can be found therefore making your whole ridiculous rant moot.

    I did. The phrase is a reference to several parts of The Constitution.

    Instead, you’re trying to ask an absurd question, akin to a square circle or married bachelor. In response to your absurd inquiry, I challenge you to find the exact words “freedom of religion” or “Jesus” in The Constitution.

    Do you even comprehend the meaning of “impeding the free exercise of religion,”?

    Sure. Our government also has no right to endorse or advance a religion, which it’s doing by maintaining this cross on public land. Thus, the government has been called upon to correct its own mistake.

    Removing this cross doesn’t impede any religion or the ability of any citizen to practice their religion.

    Do you comprehend regardless of a judges opinion there is no law the states or implies “freedom from religion” it states FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

    Apparently you don’t comprehend the full and complete scope of this particular right. As I’ve already said… “A robust freedom includes a right to abstain from a practice.” If you didn’t have a freedom from religions that you don’t wish to practice, then other citizen’s religious rights could impose religious restrictions on you regarding halal foods for example. I hope this better illustrates my point, but I suspect that you’re more interested in winning this discussion than honestly learning anything.

    It seems like you’re getting several arguments and the related terminology mixed up. What is your point regarding “freedom from religion” in relation to this cross on government property?

  • Bob Shoemaker: There’s an effort to give the impression that our secular government favors or endorses one religion or another. It’s disingenuous and deceitful and sullies the social contract of our country.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The question is… Why aren’t you bothered by our government exercising religious rights that are only recognized for citizens? By seizing these rights to impose one religion, our government maligns the religious rights off all citizens.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The problem is that you’re unaware of The 14th Amendment. It takes all prohibitions, including The Establishment Clause, and applies them to all parts of our government. …not just Congress.

  • BTW please point out where your erroneous “separation of church and state law” can be found in our Constitution.

    It’s a phrase referring collectively to The Establishment Clause, The No Religious Test Clause, and the lack of any religion or deity being mentioned or installed as official in our government. Those three qualities are what Jefferson was referring to.

    Again you claim something that only exists in a letter you snowflakes took out of context and attempt to say it exist somewhere within the law. But the fact is what that statement means is that a state has no right to stop any Christian sect from practicing their Christian religion in any state and the government has no right to impede in that inalienable God given right. Do you comprehend that fact. If not read the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Church and educate yourself on the facts instead of the propaganda you continue to propagate.

    And a laws that states the religious symbols can’t be found on “We the Peoples” property?

    Our government is prohibited by The Establishment Clause from endorsing or advancing one religion to the exclusion of others. The ruling in this case explains why the court decided that this monument was an unjust endorsement of a religion by our government.

    ********Let me correct your deception here it is not our government but only CONGRESS and only the FFRF is complaining and the fact is Congress has nothing to do with your problem with the cross or is affirming the Christian religion. So again show me where CONGRESS had anything to do with your bigotry over this cross?

    You do know “We the People” are our own Sovereigns don’t you?

    You
    seem to be using this phrase to inaccurately assert that you have
    rights to use and abuse government property, when you don’t.

    **********Your deception is foolish propaganda because our government is a representative government of the people not a dictatorship as you falsely propagate

    And above all please point where in the Constitution you have a freedom from religion?

    The
    Free Exercise Clause. A robust freedom includes a right to abstain
    from a practice. For example, you have a right to speak and a right to abstain from speaking.

    **********But again you lack any evidence of your claim in the law and you’re just bloviating about things that just don’t exist.

    the context of the first amendment was denominations within Christianity.

    Yes.
    We started with 13 bickering colonies. When more religions were
    introduced to our secular nation, through the “crucible of litigation
    (as Justice Stevens said), the Court has unambiguously concluded that
    the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment
    embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

    **********That’s another lie on your part because there was no bickering between any colonies but in fact only involved Connecticut.and the Danbury Baptists. Facts expose your propaganda. Google is your friend.

    “The real intent of the First Amendment was not to approve or support, much less to advance Islam, Judaism, or other unfaithfulness, Atheism included, by submissively and willfully incapacitating Christianity, but to prevent all competition among Christian denominations for national government sponsorship and to prevent our national government from choosing one of these denominations to establish a national church.”

    Yes. And?

    ********Did you notice it means those like you that target Christians and their symbols? You do know that all 13 States had a Christian sect as a state religion long before and long after the Constitution was ratified. Facts seem to elude you eh?

    This action doesn’t incapacitate or make Christianity submissive to other faiths or beliefs. It removes a privilege, returning Christianity to an equal level of treatment by our government.

    ********this is just more unfounded propaganda you propagate because Christianity was, is and always concerned treating other with respect but you make that more and more impossible by your constant unfounded claims and targeting

  • Congress had nothing to do with your obvious lie. However a state can do as it pleases with religious symbols. Why are snowflakes whining about this now when most have been there for 50-60 years? BTW who said the people that work for the government forfeit their religious protected inalienable rights……snowflakes that are thin skinned and have nothing better to do than be offended by things that represent a God you say doesn’t exist….hypocrite much?

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    ********Let me correct your deception here it is not our government but only CONGRESS and only the FFRF is complaining and the fact is Congress has nothing to do with your problem with the cross or is affirming the Christian religion. So again show me where CONGRESS had anything to do with your bigotry over this cross?

    Let me inform you of The 14th Amendment. It expands the scope and application of several government prohibitions, applying them to all parts of government.

    **********Your deception is foolish propaganda because our government is a representative government of the people not a dictatorship as you falsely propagate

    Don’t bear false witness. I made no such claim.

    **********But again you lack any evidence of your claim in the law and you’re just bloviating about things that just don’t exist.

    You lack any evidence of your claim in the law that you have a religious right to use property that isn’t yours. Nowhere does it explicitly say that members of any religion can install monuments on government property without approval.

    All of these things have been decided based on court opinion as the courts are the arbiters and interpreters of the law.

    ********Did you notice it means those like you that target Christians and their symbols? You do know that all 13 States had a Christian sect as a state religion long before and long after the Constitution was ratified. Facts seem to elude you eh?

    I’m not targeting Christian symbols. The Appignani Humanist Legal Center isn’t either. An old monument has been found that violates The Establishment Clause. It’s been addressed in court that the government needs to correct the issue. It doesn’t matter which religion it’s related to. Your persecution complex seems to blind you to these facts.

    This action doesn’t incapacitate or make Christianity submissive to other faiths or beliefs. It removes a privilege, returning Christianity to an equal level of treatment by our government.

    ********this is just more unfounded propaganda you propagate because Christianity was, is and always concerned treating other with respect but you make that more and more impossible by your constant unfounded claims and targeting

    Then tell me, how does removing this cross keep any Christian from practicing their faith or starting a new church if they wish?

  • Bob Shoemaker: Incorrect. The courts agreed that this is a violation of The Establishment Clause. I’m just explaining how they came to that conclusion.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Congress doesn’t have to be involved as The 14th Amendment modified The Establishment clause. Now it applies to all parts of US government.

    The courts are probably addressing it now because a local citizen, aware of the potential government conflict, notified The Appignani Humanist Legal Center

  • BTW please point out where your erroneous “separation of church and state law” can be found in our Constitution.
    That’s
    what I thought you can’t point where in our Constitution the
    “separation of church and state” can be found therefore making your
    whole ridiculous rant moot.

    I did. The phrase is a reference to several parts of The Constitution.

    ****** so then you admit you lied again and the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution but in fact is only found in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist church.

    Instead,
    you’re trying to ask an absurd question, akin to a square circle or
    married bachelor. In response to your absurd inquiry, I challenge you
    to find the exact words “freedom of religion” or “Jesus” in The
    Constitution.

    **********What I did was expose you are a liar and deceiver and yes the Creator that gave us our inalienable protected rights is found in the 1st two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence known as the CREATOR found in John1 in the bible.

    Do you even comprehend the meaning of “impeding the free exercise of religion,”?

    Sure.
    Our government also has no right to endorse or advance a religion,
    which it’s doing by maintaining this cross on public land. Thus, the
    government has been called upon to correct its own mistake.

    *********** Again I expose you deception the 1st amendment says ONLY CONGRESS has no right to support a specific Christian sect. But a state government is free to do as they please supporting a Christian sect but not force that Christian religious sect onto other Christian sects. And again history proves that fact because every one of the 13 states had a state Christian religion set up long before and long after the the Constitution was ratified.

    Removing this cross doesn’t impede any religion or the ability of any citizen to practice their religion.

    Do
    you comprehend regardless of a judges opinion there is no law the
    states or implies “freedom from religion” it states FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

    Apparently
    you don’t comprehend the full and complete scope of this particular
    right. As I’ve already said… “A robust freedom includes a right to
    abstain from a practice.” If you didn’t have a freedom from religions
    that you don’t wish to practice, then other citizen’s religious rights
    could impose religious restrictions on you regarding halal foods for
    example. I hope this better illustrates my point, but I suspect that
    you’re more interested in winning this discussion than honestly learning
    anything.

    **********Your seeing a Christian symbol or whining about that symbol doesn’t force any religion on anybody but those that are weak minded. BTW there is no law that give you a right or or protection to not be offended about others peoples property.

    It seems like you’re getting several arguments and the
    related terminology mixed up. What is your point regarding “freedom
    from religion” in relation to this cross on government property?

    **********It’s not me that has a problem comprehending what the law actually states but rather you. If it will help you to comprehend the truth of the matter let’s just start all over with the 1st amendments first three words Congress shall not shall we?

  • The 14th amendment does no such thing because it gives specific limitations to only Congress. You do know what’s found in the Constitution only limits the federal government power and in no way grants, creates, or alters our inalienable rights? And the 10th amendment gives the states all other rights that are not found in the Constitution? I think not.

    The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system.

    BTW Congress doesn’t have the authority to apply the limitations to the states that are put on them by the Constitution otherewise the 10th amendment would be void.

  • Instead of confusing you with several facts I’ll make is easy for you and discuss one thing at a time shall we? Let’s start at the first three words of the Constitution “Congress shall not.” what do you think that means?

  • I already proved what you think is in the Constitution is just not there. Because the first three words in the 1st amendment are “Congress shall not”.

  • The fact is the Constitution is only meant to LIMIT the federal governments authority and powers by “Congress shall not” not the states per 10th amendment

    The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Incorrect. The Constitution defines our government and recognizes rights of citizens.

    Amendment 14… which falls after 10… modifies The Establishment Clause in a way that expands the scope and application of the prohibition to all parts of government.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The proof that your interpretation is in error is the Supreme Court’s decision conflicting with your opinion. As I’ve said to you in other threads, The 14th Amendment expands the scope and application of The Establishment Clause to all parts of our government.

  • Bob Shoemaker: I think that’s irrelevant as The 14th Amendment expands the scope and application of The Establishment Clause to all parts of US government.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Incorrect. The 14th Amendment modifies all citizen rights and all government prohibitions. Expanding them in application and scope. In the case of The Establishment clause it’s now applicable to all parts of government including schools, state government, and the military.

    I’m pretty sure that The 14th Amendment was ratified after The 10th Amendment, so your point is moot.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The government is giving preferential treatment to one religion, which violates The Establishment Clause as it establishes one religion as preferred by our government. To violate this clause I need not be offended or directly have a religion forced upon me.

  • Bob Shoemaker: I’m not. I’m opposing usage of government authority and resources to endorse or advance a religion in violation of my religious rights.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The only ones who complain misunderstand their religious rights, thinking that they have a right to install religious monuments on government property.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    ****** so then you admit you lied again and the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution but in fact is only found in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist church.

    No, I pointed out that you asked a flawed question. I did accurately point out which parts of The Constitution were referenced by the phrase “separation of church and state”

    **********What I did was expose you are a liar and deceiver and yes the Creator that gave us our inalienable protected rights is found in the 1st two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence known as the CREATOR found in John1 in the bible.

    The DoI is a divorce letter for the head of a church and nation. It is not a structural document for our nation.

    *********** Again I expose you deception the 1st amendment says ONLY CONGRESS has no right to support a specific Christian sect. But a state government is free to do as they please supporting a Christian sect but not force that Christian religious sect onto other Christian sects. And again history proves that fact because every one of the 13 states had a state Christian religion set up long before and long after the the Constitution was ratified.

    As I’ve pointed out in other comment threads, The 14th Amendment expands the scope and application of The Establishment Clause beyond Congress to all parts of US government.

    **********Your seeing a Christian symbol or whining about that symbol doesn’t force any religion on anybody but those that are weak minded. BTW there is no law that give you a right or or protection to not be offended about others peoples property.

    I’m not claiming offense. Our government endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others does malign your religious rights and mine.

    **********It’s not me that has a problem comprehending what the law actually states but rather you. If it will help you to comprehend the truth of the matter let’s just start all over with the 1st amendments first three words Congress shall not shall we?

    Again, The 14th Amendment modifies The Establishment Clause of The 1st Amendment.

  • I made no “interpretation” but let’s go the beginning of your argument the 1st Amendment “Congress shall not”.

  • No it doesn’t because you need to start from the 1st Amendment to comprehend YOUR error. “Congress shall not”

  • Are you purposely being ignorant of the 1st Amendment where it states ONLY “Congress shall not” ?

  • The you need to prove Congress was involved in your insane claim. BTW have you read your state Constitution where the Christian God is mentioned?

  • Let me end your unfounded claims once and for all where did Congress get involved in approving any of the Christian symbols on states property’s?

  • Bob Shoemaker: You need to continue reading later sections. For example, The 14th Amendment modifies earlier amendments, including The 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

  • Bob Shoemaker: When they ratified The 14th Amendment, which modified The 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

  • Bob Shoemaker: You’re appear to be purposely ignorant of The 14th Amendment modifying The 1st Amendment.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Let’s continue to The 14th Amendment that expands the application of The Establishment Clause to all parts of US government, not just Congress.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Again, let’s continue to The 14th Amendment that expands the application of this clause to all parts of US government, not just Congress.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Correct. It doesn’t have to as The Establishment Clause now applies to all parts of US government.

  • Please state where YOU think the 14th amendment give CONGRESS more authority as you falsely claim and effects the1st amendment is some secret way? I can say the first paragraph nullifies you foolish claim. You do comprehend liberty don’t you?

    Amendment XIV
    Essays »
    Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Section 3

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  • Again how does the 14th amendment “modify” the first amendment when it states you or Congress has no right to deprive me of my liberties?

    Amendment XIV
    Essays »
    Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Section 3

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  • Yes lets examine you claim Congress is forbidden from creating a NATIONAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION SECT and the 14th amendment compliments the first amendment forbidding Congress from impeding our liberties mentioned in the 1st amendment……That “establishment clause”?

  • Bob Shoemaker: Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    Please state where YOU think the 14th amendment give CONGRESS more authority as you falsely claim and effects the1st amendment is some secret way?

    Incorrect. I didn’t say it expanded Congresses authority. I said that the prohibition applies to more than Congress. It now applies to all parts of US government including schools, state government, and military.

  • Yes you continue to make erroneous claims about the 1st amendment and 14th amendment and yet haven’t identified what YOU think they are?

  • Yeah I see you continue to make unfounded claims about the Constitution and yet I see nothing to validate those claims let alone those claims identified and where exactly those words can be found. You do comprehend the Congress can impeded my liberties found in the 1st amendment?

  • Bob Shoemaker: You don’t have a liberty to install a cross on public property, just like I don’t have a liberty or right to install a monument on your property.

    Again, our government is prohibited from endorsing or advancing any religion to the exclusion of other religions. This monument violates that prohibition, so it’s up to the government to correct the violation.

  • Bob Shoemaker: You don’t have a liberty or right to install a monument on government property, as it’s not your property.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The Everson v Board of Education decision solidified the incorporation of The Establishment Clause, applying it to all parts of US government.

    I’m really not understanding why you think that your religious rights extend to using government resources for your religious practices.

  • Bob Shoemaker: You keep assuming that my assertion is erroneous when national law is based on what I’m trying to teach you about. This case has been decided based on what I’ve told you, and nobody knowledgable in the field is questioning the decision. …well, nobody in the legal profession is really questioning this decision except those who have a clear Christian bias.

  • But again your opinion has no bearing on the Constitution and does not prove you “establishment Clause” even exists because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And please don’t go on your rant you have shown me where it is because your words are your opinion and not written in the Constitution.

  • The fact you can’t point to where your opinion is found in the 14th amendment makes your opinion invalid.

  • Then you need to specifically point to where your unfounded opinion is mentioned in the 14th amendment. Here I’ll even post the whole 14th amendment in case you can’t find it….

    Amendment XIV
    Essays »
    Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Section 3

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  • To expand something is to make it GREATER so please stop playing word games because my “comprehension skills” aren’t quite as lacking as yours seems to be eh? So again I’ll ask you to stop being obtuse and show specifically where your idea of where the 14th amendment expanded a federal contract to the states? But of course you won’t get past the first paragraph to find your “comprehension” ability challenged greatly.

    Amendment XIV
    Essays »
    Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Section 3

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5

    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  • Actually citizens do because the fact is there are CHRISTIAN BIBLE SCRIPTURES engraved on many FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS all over the Washington D.C. So yes we can put up Christian symbols anywhere in the USA we deem.

    Just to bring up actual facts to your attention……

    DID YOU KNOW

    As you walk up the steps to the back of the of the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world’s law givers and and Moses is in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view … It is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! The fact is Moses was not a secular law giver and yet he’s always displayed in the middle or very close to the middle and again Moses is not a secular law giver.

    DID YOU KNOW?

    As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. The lower portions of the doors are engraved with a symbolic depiction, two tablets bearing the Roman numerals 1 through V ans VI through X. They obviously represent the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments were written on 2 tablets of stone as what is found on the courtroom doors. However the Constitution was written on parchment on a single page.

    DID YOU KNOW?

    As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court Judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments! There is the Weinman letter that confirms this fact but has been challenged on it’s authenticity because they don’t have the original because it myteriously disappeared.

    DID YOU KNOW?

    There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington , D.C. Which affirms the other proofs on this page.

    DID YOU KNOW?

    Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1789 in which the signers of the Constitution were still around.

    DID YOU KNOW

    Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established Orthodox churches in the colonies.. This is also disputed but there is no evidence it’s not true.

    DID YOU KNOW?

    Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of Interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the rule of few over many.

    DID YOU KNOW

    All thirteen original states had an established Christian religion long before and long after the Constitution was ratified.

    DID YOU KNOW

    The Declaration of Independence speaks specifically about the Christian God CREATOR is the author of our inalienable rights that are PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment.

    DID YOU KNOW

    50 States have the Christian God mentioned in their Constitutions.

    How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 20 years in this Country is now suddenly wrong and Unconstitutional?

    Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on The Holy Bible and belief in GOD!

  • In the same vein you don’t have the liberty to tear it down it’s not your property…..see how foolish unfounded logic works? I am a tax payer therefore it is technically “we the Peoples” property because government can’t legally own property because they are SERVANTS of “We the People”.

  • Judges opinions have no effect on the Constitution. Where do you think these “government resources” come from? Does the government magically create them out of thin air?

  • The thing you don’t comprehend is you don’t have the authority to limit of effect my inalienable rights mentioned in the 1st and 14th amendment. So on that alone you are not a teacher nor knowledgeable on things written in plan English in the Constitution. You are welcome to forfeit your rights to the government but please don’t expect me to follow your poor bad example. As for trusting those that work for the government I never will especially those that sold your souls to them.

    This is a PDF file that will need to be opened to view.

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/DocumentsEssays/Bar%20Facts.pdf

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    To expand something is to make it GREATER so please stop playing word games because my “comprehension skills” aren’t quite as lacking as yours seems to be eh?

    You’re the one who misread my comment as expanding the authority of Congress when I clearly said that the prohibition called The Establishment Clause was expanded in scope and application to all parts of US government.

    So again I’ll ask you to stop being obtuse and show specifically where your idea of where the 14th amendment expanded a federal contract to the states? But of course you won’t get past the first paragraph to find your “comprehension” ability challenged greatly.

    The Everson v Board of Education ruling considers The Establishment Clause to be a liberty. Thus…

    “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    …applies this liberty to the state level.

  • Bob Shoemaker: I’m not telling you my opinion. This is court decision that I’m explaining to you.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Super. I’m not giving my opinion. I’m explaining the application of this constitutional clause in our legal system and how it binds our government.

    But again your opinion has no bearing on the Constitution and does not prove you “establishment Clause” even exists because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution.

    Really? You’ve quoted it several times, and now you’re claiming that the first segment of The 1st Amendment doesn’t exist?

  • Bob Shoemaker: I’m not tearing anything down. Our government is obligated to correct the violation tho.

    see how foolish unfounded logic works?

    Yes, you’ve been giving stellar examples for a while now.

    I am a tax payer therefore it is technically “we the Peoples” property because government can’t legally own property because they are SERVANTS of “We the People”.

    Feel free to test that by forcefully entering a restricted military installation.

  • You continue to make grandeur claims but as of yet HAVE NOTquoted verbatim exactly where these supposedly claims are actually found in the 14th amendment. Yes I did quote them to expose your lies and deceptions. Now that you admitted I posted them attempt to be honest and quote verbatim where the in the 14th amendment it states what you claim? That the Constitution includes the state governments. It shouldn’t be that hard for someone that thinks they have such superior understanding of the Constitution.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    Judges opinions have no effect on the Constitution.

    One of the powers of The Judicial Branch is interpretation and application of law.

    Does the government magically create them out of thin air?

    No, but our government is charged with overseeing them. The Constitution gives guidance and prohibits our government in executing this duty. One of the prohibitions keeps our government religiously neutral.

  • So a judge has the power to change the Constitution? But the fact is judges have made many mistakes doing just that “interpreting” the Constitution that is written in plain English. How about the Dred Scott decision where a judge “interpreted” the Constitution that was still written in plain English. Or perhaps women’s voting rights there are more but you’ll just make up more excuses eh? BTW the Constitution only keeps CONGRESS religiously neutral at least make an attempt about that fact.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    you don’t have the authority to limit of effect my inalienable rights mentioned in the 1st and 14th amendment.

    Why are you assuming that I’m trying? The accusatory tone of… well, every one of your comments, indicates that you think I’m trying to force something upon you. I’ve been explaining a fact regarding our national law to help you to better understand the reality of our legal system.

    You are welcome to forfeit your rights to the government

    Apparently you’re confused. I’m not a Christian trying to give up religious rights of citizens to government control in exchange for religious endorsement. I’m supporting government/religion separation, which keeps our religious rights safe from government imposition.

    As for trusting those that work for the government I never will especially those that sold your souls to them.

    I honestly have no clue which paranoid assumption has led you to state this non-sequitur.

  • Then please enlighten me again because you seem to making up all kinds of excuses that you did something you actually haven’t done. Please quote from the 14th amendment above where the states are now part of the Congress.

  • Please explain how a judges opinion in any way alters the Constitution? Because the fact is the Constitution provides that an amendment
    may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote
    in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

  • Again you refuse to quote where in the 14th amendment where the state government is now part of Congress?

  • You said:

    “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
    property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    …applies this liberty to the state level.

    How does that give you a right to tear down religious symbols on state ground? What protection do you need from religious symbols?

  • Sorry that would be the last place I’d go for legal advice knowing they’re anti-Christian bigots.

  • You mean the part where it specifically states Congress shall not? Perhaps you think it can be “interpreted as Congress and ALL STATES shall not? Is that what you’re assuming?

  • Obviously you don’t know that we are under Common law as well as Natural laws where there is things that are morally wrong? e.g. like yelling fire in a crowed place when there is no fire? What makes you believe there is a violation….who told you this fallacy?

  • Ummm you just made a fool of yourself and misquoted what I said and took what I said completely out of context. So now you proved yourself not to be trusted to have an honest conversation.

    Interpreters fall into two categories: those who seek to interpret the laws objectively with respect for the original meaning of the authors, and those who have an agenda.

    You obviously have an agenda.

  • Yes I agree you haven’t a clue on what the Constitution is all about. Because the cross you fear violates no law because Congress had nothing to do with it’s being where it is. Therefore you argument is moot.

  • Bob Shoemaker: It’s historical information. For example, the doors of The Supreme Court have ten Roman numerals for The Bill of Rights, not Mosaic law.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The court ruling, with citations and a logical breakdown of precedent, that says this is a violation.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    How does that give you

    Why do you think I’m doing it?

    right to tear down religious symbols on state ground?

    Why do you think it’s being torn down? I’ve mentioned several ways that this can be corrected.

    What protection do you need from religious symbols?

    Only the protection of not having our government give preferential treatment to one religion.

  • Really an after t was explained to you now you want to make another silly argument. The 10 commandments were written on two stone tablets and the Constitution was written on a 1 piece of parchment paper. Which part confuses you so?

  • When you prove Congress created a national religion through this cross they had nothing to do with the courts ruling is invalid.

  • Then all you need do is prove Congress created a national religion through this cross. It should be easy for someone that thinks they know the law.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Incorrect. That’s not the litmus for an Establishment Clause violation. I’ve already explained that state government is also bound by The Establishment Clause and there are more ways of endorsing or advancing a religion than creating a national religion.

  • Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until 1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875 and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until 1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have just been educated on real facts and actual, history. ,

  • Bob Shoemaker: As addressed in other comments to you…

    “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The Establishment Clause is treated as a citizen liberty, thus the prohibition is applied at the state level via this portion of The 14th Amendment. So state government is also not allowed to endorse or advance a religion to the exclusion of others.

  • Let me repeat actual facts….Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker: The part where tours explain that the information you expressed is flawed, erroneous, and conflicts with the accounts of the artists who designed most of the building’s displays.

    In this specific case the roman numerals are on record as representing The Bill of Rights.

    Read more at the website that I provided and I’ll discuss this with you.

  • Here are actual historical facts. Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian state religion until 1875 and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until 1868 nullifies any judges opinion on what some people are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    Ummm you just made a fool of yourself and misquoted what I said and took what I said completely out of context.

    Better than the butchering of my comments that you’ve tried to pass off as fact.

    So now you proved yourself not to be trusted to have an honest conversation.

    You’ve failed from your second or third reply to me. At no point have I pretended that I can trust you, that you’re honest, or that this is a real conversation. Your goal appears to be browbeating anyone who disagrees with you until they stop commenting. Repeating the same fallacious claims until you wear out your opponent.

    You obviously have an agenda.

    Yes, correcting erroneous and fallacious claims. BTW, pot, you’re calling the kettle black.

  • But you need to be educated on actual facts rather than a activist judges opinion…. Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history. CASE CLOSED.

  • Here’s actual factual factual evidence that proves you wrong….Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker:

    So a judge has the power to change the Constitution?

    Not what I said (^_^)

    But the fact is judges have made many mistakes doing just that
    “interpreting” the Constitution that is written in plain English.

    Agreed. Recognizing religious rights for citizens on both the state and federal level doesn’t strike me as a mistake. Keeping state and federal government from maligning citizen religious rights also doesn’t strike me as a mistake.

    BTW the Constitution only keeps CONGRESS religiously neutral at least make an attempt about that fact.

    I’ve already explained that your focus on Congress isn’t valid anymore. Please stop making a fool of yourself by retreating to this erroneous assertion.

  • Bob Shoemaker: No, it doesn’t. The pertinent court case that applied The Establishment Clause to states happened in the 1960’s.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Yes, I have in another comment thread. Do you have Alzheimer’s or some other mental impairment?

  • And how does a judges opinion change historical facts? Oh wait because they can depend on those like you to roll over and give up your rights/

  • No but I do have factual historical evidence that proves you and the courts wrong. Unless you actually think the courts are infallible like you? Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Misstatement of what I said, apparently in an effort to distract from your lack of a response. You’re the one that posted a non-sequitur.

    Because the cross you fear violates no law because Congress had nothing to do with it’s being where it is.

    That’s not the litmus for an Establishment Clause violation. Therefore your argument is moot.

  • Again I’ll let factual history speak for itself….Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  • So then I was right you can’t be trusted. BTW I already proved the “establishment clause” is a lie.

    Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until 1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875 and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until 1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker: So, as I asked before, how do you think states imposing a religion on citizens is a good thing?

  • Then please read this factual historical evidence…Knowing the state of New Hampshire had a Christian state religion until
    1877 and the state of North Carolina had a Christian religion until 1875
    and the state of South Carolina had a state Christian religion until
    1868 nullifies your opinion and the judges opinion on what you are
    deceived into believing there is such a thing as “separation of church
    and state” knowing the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You have
    just been educated on real facts and actual, history.

  • Bob Shoemaker: Everson v Board of Education
    Wallace v Jaffree
    Engel v Vitale
    Santa Fe v Doe
    Ahlquist v Cranston
    Abington School District v Schempp

  • It doesn’t change the facts I posted but only to them that roll over and give up your inalienable rights

  • And you’re still wrong. But at any rate I’m going to block you because of your foolish circular reasoning and dishonesty when I posted historical facts you choose to ignore. People like you are why the USA is so screwed up in this day and age.

  • Bob Shoemaker: That’s not your argument? Limiting The Establishment Clause to the federal level allows states to impose a religion on citizens. That’s what you’ve been arguing for days now.

  • Bob Shoemaker: You’re the one that keeps incorrectly repeating old interpretations of 1st Amendment law.

ADVERTISEMENTs