"A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional…."

We are talking about a stand alone display

And King says sure.

It would appear to me that King and quidpro think the way to end this discrimination is to add on to it. I would end this discrimination by NOT discriminating in the first place

Clearly, thru the Establishment Clause, the Founders wanted the government to be religious neutral. How do we achive this neutrality? You and quidpro seem to suggest that to achive this neutrality the government should allow ALL religions to promote their beliefs on federal lands. I suggest the way to achive this religious neutrality is for the government to NOT allow ANY religion access to federal land to promote their beliefs.

"A decade ago, it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby."

King sez….."The Establishment Clause doesn't say anything at all about religious symbols being prohibited, ….." Except of course Buddist symbols.

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Does a cross in the Mojave Desert represent Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion ? No, it doesn't. It's just a cross out there in the Mojave. It's not a law. Nobody's freedom to practice their religion is being trampled upon because of a cross in the Mojave. I'm sure you know that. The Establishment Clause doesn't say anything at all about religious symbols being prohibited, because the writers of our Constitution would never have thought that to be improper.

Let's focus on the First Amendment. The prohibition against the "establishment of religion" is a prohibition against the establishment of a state church, such as the Lutheran church in Sweden or the Church of England. That is what the words mean and that is what the words were understood to mean at the time the First Amendment was adopted.

Furthermore, the prohibition of laws respecting the "establishment of religion" is to preserve the "free exercise" of religion which is mentioned in the next phrase. After all, if the US had an official religion (which it does not), then the right to free exercise would be impaired, at least for those who did not follow the "official" religion.

Yes, the cross is a symbol of Christianity. But the erection of a cross on government land does not "establish" Christianity" as the official religion of the US. No one is required to bow before the Mojave Cross. In short, it does not impair anyone's right to freely exercise their own religious beliefs, whatever they may be.

Frye and Balkanize have covered the Second Amendment. There is no need to repeat their points.

"Their idea of a militia was having a weapon at home." how do you know that?

"Your argument that police and standing armies provide that service, now, holds no water." So you think the Founding Fathers DID envision that the U.S. would spend $658 BILLION per year to police the planet?

It means what the Supremes think it means.

Either way, I am confident that the government will not be infrining on those rights. It would be bloody.

I think you are right…….the Founding Fathers would never have envisioned that the United States would spend $658 BILLION per year to police the planet. I don't think that they would want that.

This is an interesting method of framing….

"That introductory clause is subordinate to the right expressed in what follows."

That may be your view, but nothing in the amendment lends itself to your understanding.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

My frame….Q & A method….Q: Do the people have a right to bear arms and if they do, should the government be able to infringe on that right? A: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Q: For what purpose do the people have this right? A: Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

The milita part is not subordinate to the rest….it's integral.

"There was nothing "abominable" in the recent decision of the Court stiking down legislation in the District of Columbia that "infringed" this right."

Once again, that is your opinion. Here's my Roberts Court D.C. decision framed in Q & A form….Q: Do the people have a right to bear arms without government infringment? A: Yes. Q: For what purpose do the people have this right? A: For self defense.

The ruling in the D.C. case was abominable, because like Stephens (I think) said….the majority found words in the 2nd amendment that simply aren't there. That's what activist jurists do.

In a comment I mostly agree with, even N.E. Frye says this…." the clause that seems so important to you is called "precatory language", meaning it's not essential to the main thought of the sentence."

Do you actually believe that the Framer's simply threw in "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" for the hell of it? Of course you don't. If words mean anything…it does seem perfectly clear that the justification for Americans bearing arms was because of the necessity of a free state to have a well regulated militia. I mean, right?

First, Quid…

"Now turn to the First Amendment, and ask what religion is being "established" by the act of erecting a cross on government land in the desert to honor those who took up arms to protect this country?"

The Christian religion. For 20 centuries the cross has been the Christian symbol. During the great and mighty Crusades the cross was on the flag of those mighty Christian warriors. I don't think you are arguing that the cross is not first and foremost, a Christian symbol.

"Does the mere sight of this cross force anyone to convert to Christianity? Is anyone forced to support any church by the erection of this cross? Does the Mojave cross mean that the government has now adopted an official religion?"

Your first question here, sorry, doesn't apply to the discussion. Whether someone can be converted by viewing a cross is not germaine here. Second question….collectively, because it's on publicly owned land (which is the bone of contention) all Americans are participating in the establishment of the Christian religion because of the cross being planted on those public lands. Third…."adopting an official religion" is also not being argued here, although only erecting a cross on public lands could be interpreted as adoption of one state religion.

"A cross in a remote desert, meant to honor those who served in the armed forces, must be removed under a tortured reading of the First Amendment because someone of a non-Christian religion might be offended."

That is a red herring. It isn't that someone might be offended….that isn't it. It's illegal. It is a clear violation of the 1st to make a law establishing religion. The 1st doesn't say "because someone might be offended."

You also accuse others of a "tortured reading" of the 1st. Fair enough. People disagree about stuff. At the same time, it does seem like you only appreciate the freedom of religion part of the 1st while significantly downplaying the meaning of the government shall make no law establishing religion part. King does this too, here…"What has happened, as Quidpro so eloquently pointed out, is that the Establishment Clause has been perverted in order to censor religious expression in America."

No one….is censoring religious expression in America. That is a ridiculous thing to say. America has more forms of religious expression going on than any country. The federal government has bent over backwards, even allowing child abuse, in their honoring of religious freedom of expression. I know you guys know this.

What the 1st defenders argue, rightfully, is that government cannot pass laws (erecting crosses on public land) establishing religion. The government is mandated to stay out of the religion-promotion business.

Religionists can do whatever the hell they want to do on privately held turf. They just are not allowed to coax the government into doing any of it on public land. That's the argument.

Come on guys, those old boys couldn't see far enough into the future to realize that we would have to have standing armies to defend ourselves which they did not have, at all.

The only part of Amendment 2 that I argue about is that they didn't know about automatic shooting irons back then so I don't think they meant that the states had to allow people to carry automatic weapons. Whole different time but they just couldn't see beyond the point that everybody brought his own weapon to the war. That kind of thing ended during the Civil War when there were too many different bores to be satisfied so the government began buying the weapons as is still done.