Another ACLU outrage

[Guest Patriot]

The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was dedicated to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in a dedication bulletin by the grandmother of William J. Kellogg, President of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on Easter Sunday, 1954.-- [Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001), Documents on file with the US District Court of Southern California]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

YOU HAVEN'T WON. All that happened was that now the case goes to the Federal level.

[Guest Guest]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

Who knows, maybe it'll get blown up?

[Guest Guest]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

The case isn't over yet, stupid.

Patriots don't support a theocracy.

[Guest Guest]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

No case was won, the case just became federal.

[Guest Guest]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

What case was ruled in your favor? Oh that's right, NONE.

Back to your fool-aid dreams.

[Guest Twizzler]

More Loony Left logic; It's not hatred to try to remove a cross dedicated to our Korean War veterans

(that's been in place for 54 years), but it's hateful to be happy that it won't be removed.

What's hateful is the contempt and disrespect you show toward everyone who doesn't agree with your rigid, narrow and dogmatic view of the world and the people in it.

[Guest Twizzler]

You Loonies lost, get over it. The Patriots of the USA have won, the cross stays.

We're not loony, the battle is far from over and it will never be over as long as someone is trying to force a religion on the rest of us. If you stop trying to display religious symbols on public property, then this problem won't exist. I don't understand why you can't be content that you're free to worship in your religion. Why do you insist on forcing it on everyone?

[Guest 2smart4u]

We're not loony, the battle is far from over and it will never be over as long as someone is trying to force a religion on the rest of us. If you stop trying to display religious symbols on public property, then this problem won't exist. I don't understand why you can't be content that you're free to worship in your religion. Why do you insist on forcing it on everyone?

Here's a news flash for you, Twizzled brain. The Constitution says nothing about religious displays

on public property. (that's a Loony Left Kool-Aid dream).

[Guest Truth Squad]

Here's a news flash for you, Twizzled brain. The Constitution says nothing about religious displays

on public property. (that's a Loony Left Kool-Aid dream).

You would say that, because you don't understand the concept of a legal principle. Under the Constitution, the government may not make any law respecting an establishment of religion. If you could think, you would realize that this means the government may not promote a religion by putting its symbols on public property. That's one of many ways by which government makes a law respecting an establishment of religion.

That has been the law in our country ever since the 14th Amendment extended the establishment clause to the states. It wasn't until 1947 that these cases started appearing before the Supreme Court, but once they did, the law has always been clear.

So we have a choice between the most brilliant legal minds in America over the past sixty years . . .

. . . and you.

[Guest Guest]

Here's a news flash for you, Twizzled brain. The Constitution says nothing about religious displays

on public property.

It also doesn't say anything about right to privacy. So, post your medical records or STFU with your idiot logic.

[Guest History teacher]

Here's a news flash for you, Twizzled brain. The Constitution says nothing about religious displays

on public property. (that's a Loony Left Kool-Aid dream).

As a history teacher I have to agree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of

religious displays. Nor is there any mention of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the

Constitution. They are both a myth. The only mention of the word "religion" in the Constitution is

in the First Admendment which states: Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment

of religion. So all these nutty atheists need to shut up.

[Guest Actual teacher]

As a history teacher I have to agree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of

religious displays. Nor is there any mention of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the

Constitution.

There's also no mention of due process or the right to privacy. Guess they're myths too, no? History teacher my foot, maybe you're like Paszkiewicz, a "history" teacher. But more than likely you're just lying.

They are both a myth. The only mention of the word "religion" in the Constitution is

in the First Admendment which states: Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment

of religion. So all these nutty atheists need to shut up.

Give up your mythical (by your logic) right to privacy and I'd be glad to.

[Guest Truth Squad]

As a history teacher I have to agree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of

religious displays. Nor is there any mention of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the

Constitution. They are both a myth. The only mention of the word "religion" in the Constitution is

in the First Admendment which states: Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment

of religion. So all these nutty atheists need to shut up.

Thanks for your unbiased opinion, Mr. P. I'll translate what you just wrote for those who didn't understand it.

You don't like the fact that the Constitution erects a wall of separation between church and state. Therefore, you call it a myth.

Just like you call evolution a myth.

Just like the medieval church called the solar system a myth.

Science doesn't matter to you.

Law doesn't matter to you.

Actual history doesn't matter to you.

All that matters to you is what you choose to believe.

See the pattern, Mr. Super-Duper teacher-man?

[billydee4]

As a history teacher I have to agree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of

religious displays. Nor is there any mention of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the

Constitution. They are both a myth. The only mention of the word "religion" in the Constitution is

in the First Admendment which states: Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment

of religion. So all these nutty atheists need to shut up.

So now everyone who supports the constitutional idea of separation of church and state is a nutty atheist? No sane person would ever say that the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution. The same goes for "religious displays." The point is that the Constitution does not spell out specifics. It needs to be interpreted and the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to mean that the state cannot favor one religion over another. This includes not allowing school prayer, bible reading, and public displays of religious symbols. Their interpretation is the only one that counts, not yours, Mr Paszkiewicz.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

As a history teacher I have to agree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of

religious displays. Nor is there any mention of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the

Constitution. They are both a myth. The only mention of the word "religion" in the Constitution is

in the First Admendment which states: Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment

of religion. So all these nutty atheists need to shut up.

Oh look-another "expert' to conveniently defend 2Dim. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States are atheists? I bet they'll be surprised to hear that.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Here's a news flash for you, Twizzled brain. The Constitution says nothing about religious displays

on public property. (that's a Loony Left Kool-Aid dream).

There's plenty of legal precedent, dimwit. The fact is, your side has been defeated every time the Soledad case goes to court-they just refuse to comply with the court's decision. So sad that you need your idol to worship.

[Guest Guest]

There's also no mention of due process or the right to privacy. Guess they're myths too, no? History teacher my foot, maybe you're like Paszkiewicz, a "history" teacher. But more than likely you're just lying.

Give up your mythical (by your logic) right to privacy and I'd be glad to.

I agree with what you're saying, except due process is specifically "mentioned" in the 14th Amendment.

The religious right always has a convenient excuse to justify whatever it wants.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about a personal right to own a gun. The Second Amendment is specifically and explicitly premised on the necessity of a well-regulated militia - something that may have been true in 1789, but has absolutely no relevance today. Yet the radical right claims the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms. It doesn't. That's not what it says, and as these two centuries have passed, there are no militias any more. Can you imagine trying to ward off the terrorists with a militia? What nonsense.

The Constitution does use the words "separation of church and state" either, but the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. Therefore, the states may not make such laws either, since the Fourteenth Amendment became part of our Constitution and our system of laws in 1868. If neither Congress nor any state may make any law respecting an establishment of religion, that's just one of thousands of ways of saying that the government has to keep its nose out of religion. The point is that in America people are supposed to be free to worship as they see fit, and choose their religion. The government is not supposed to force it on them, and that includes not taking sides on religious issues.

To understand the principle, you have to be able to think, and you have to think objectively and honestly. The legal principle is clear. The radical religious right just doesn't like it.

[Guest Guest]

As a history teacher I have to agree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of

religious displays. Nor is there any mention of "separation of church and state" anywhere in the

Constitution. They are both a myth. The only mention of the word "religion" in the Constitution is

in the First Admendment which states: Congress shall make NO LAWS respecting an establishment

of religion. So all these nutty atheists need to shut up.

You're a history teacher? Really? What grade level? Your remarks sound just like Paszkiewicz. Are there really two of you who don't understand a damned thing about the Constitution and its relation to religion?

What about the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. or Ms. "History Teacher?" Does that have anything to do with the current law regarding church and state? Please justify your answer. It will be graded.

If you can answer the first question, try this one. What do you think "respecting an establishment of religion" means? That pretty broad language. Everything government does is based on its laws. So what's left out? Again, justify your answer.

No points for unsupported claims. In fact, you'll be marked off for them.

[Guest Patriot]

There's plenty of legal precedent, dimwit. The fact is, your side has been defeated every time the Soledad case goes to court-they just refuse to comply with the court's decision. So sad that you need your idol to worship.

President Bush (my hero) signed a bill transferring the Korean War Memorian (Soledad Cross) to

federal property. The Supreme Court ( the majority of which are Patriots) has agreed that the

cross will stay. Sorry , Autonomous Loony, game's over, you lose.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

President Bush (my hero) signed a bill transferring the Korean War Memorian (Soledad Cross) to

federal property. The Supreme Court ( the majority of which are Patriots) has agreed that the

cross will stay. Sorry , Autonomous Loony, game's over, you lose.

Damn you're an idiot. Keep your idol, I couldn't care less.

[Guest a proud american]

President Bush (my hero) signed a bill transferring the Korean War Memorian (Soledad Cross) to

federal property. The Supreme Court ( the majority of which are Patriots) has agreed that the

cross will stay. Sorry , Autonomous Loony, game's over, you lose.

As usual, your facts are incorrect. The Supreme Court has already rejected the case once and sent it back to the ninth circuit court. Justice Kennedy in 05 issued a stay until the land dispute was settled. Congress either was or is in the process of acquiring the land as a National Memorial.

I have searched the Supreme Court Docket from their current term back to 1999 and no where does this case appear as either being heard or argued or even been acceppted. Do some research and find out for yourself.

[Guest Guest]

President Bush (my hero) signed a bill transferring the Korean War Memorian (Soledad Cross)

The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was dedicated to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in a dedication bulletin by the grandmother of William J. Kellogg, President of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on Easter Sunday, 1954.-- [Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001), Documents on file with the US District Court of Southern California]

You will continue to be slapped in the face with reality every time you lie about this. Fair warning, jackass.

Repeat the lie and we will do this exercise again.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

It is obvious why Patriot cares so much about their graven image. The religious nutjobs (not that all religious are nutjobs-I'm making a distinction) keep losing all the important battles-forcing kids to pray during school, teaching creationism, forced birthing. He is obviously desperate to feel that his side is winning somewhere.

[Guest Patriot]

The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was dedicated to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in a dedication bulletin by the grandmother of William J. Kellogg, President of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on Easter Sunday, 1954.-- [Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001), Documents on file with the US District Court of Southern California]

You will continue to be slapped in the face with reality every time you lie about this. Fair warning, jackass.

Repeat the lie and we will do this exercise again.

Apparently you Loony Lefties can't handle the truth. In Oct. 2006, Bush signed into law , an order transferring

the Mt. Soledad Memorial into federal property. That was designed to protect the site from further lawsuits of

the Loony atheists. Just as Arlington Cemetery, with all it's crosses, is protected, so now will Mt. Soledad be

protected. I can't make this any simpler. I know you Loonys are intellectually challenged, so if you don't

understand this ask a republican to explain it to you.