Atheists, Humanists Demand Georgia School District to Remove Scripture from Sculpture

MonumentDANIELSVILLE, Ga. — A prominent atheist activist organization and a nationally-recognized humanist group are demanding that a Georgia school district remove two Scripture verses from a sculpture that sits outside of the field house of a local high school.

The Madison,Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the Washington, D.C.-based American Humanist Association (AHA) recently both sent letters to officials with the Madison County School District in Danielsville, Georgia in regard to a monument that was recently erected at Madison County High School.

In addition to the school logo and the slogan “Home of the Red Raiders,” the sculpture at issue contains two Bible verses: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” from Romans 8:31 and “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” from Philippians 4:13. The monument was paid for by private funds, but the identity of the sponsor has not been revealed.

FFRF and AHA contend that because the sculpture is placed on public school property, the inclusion of Scripture on the monument is a violation of the “separation of church and state” because it suggests that the school prefers Christianity over other religions—or Godlessness.

“The district violates the Constitution when it allows its schools to display religious symbols messages. Schools may not advance, prefer or promote religion,” the letter from FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel asserted. “The Bible verses on this monument violate this basic constitutional prohibition by creating the appearance that the school, and by extension the district, prefer religion to non-religion and Christianity to all other religions.”

“[T]he school’s prominent inclusion of Bible verses in a large permanent monument unconstitutionally ‘convey[s] a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored,'” concurred Monica Miller with AHA. “There is no question that the permanent monument placed on the school’s property is ‘state-sponsored’ and thus, prohibited by the Establishment Clause.”

Miller requested that the district “cover up the monument” until the Scriptures were removed, and Seidel likewise asked that officials “remove the Bible quotes from the monument and any other religious messages posted on district property.”

  • Connect with Christian News

According to local television station WXIA, Superintendent Allen McCannon has advised in response to the correspondence from the atheist and humanist groups that the school board and its attorneys are “investigating options available to it regarding the monument including, but not limited to, removal of the monument or modifying the monument in some manner.”

But many local residents state that the district should not cave to the demands of the organizations.

“If someone doesn’t believe in God, then why should it matter?” Christin Mitchell told Fox Atlanta. “I mean that’s just their belief, but if people do believe in God, they should be a able to put his name out there.”

“I think everybody ought to just leave it alone and let God run this earth like he does,” added Johnny Kinley.

A number of supporters in the community are expected to attend next month’s school board meeting to urge district officials not to alter the monument to appease the atheist and humanist organizations.

Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • James Grimes

    The Useless are at it again. This hate-filled terrorist group needs to be ignored.

    • Brian Westley

      Public schools can’t promote religion, not even your favorite one. Why do you call people trying to get public schools to follow the constitution “terrorists”?

      • James Grimes

        It’s not about the promotion of religion and it’s not about the Constitution. It about HATE. If the people of the community want the monument there, so be it. If not, then it should be removed. The people are sovereign.

        • Brian Westley

          It’s not about the promotion of religion and it’s not about the Constitution. It about HATE.

          No, it really is about the constitution. The one displaying hatred here is you, because you call atheists “terrorists” for wanting public schools to obey the constitution.

          If the people of the community want the monument there, so be it. If not, then it should be removed. The people are sovereign.

          So if the people vote 51% to enslave the other 49%, you’d be fine with that?

          You’re advocating tyranny of the majority, not constitutional rights. Constitutional rights can’t be voted away by the majority.

          • James Grimes

            Brian, you are entitled to your opinion.

          • pastoredsmith

            The FFRF is a terrorist hate group. Their main objective is to rid America of Christianity through intimidation and threats.
            It is not advocating tyranny to recognize the Christian heritage of the USA. It is heresy and lies to ignore it. The very reason you people (and us as Christians) have the ability to live in the USA and choose our religion is because of the Christian influence on the USA and its founding and its sustenance. Christians believe in freedom.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The FFRF is a terrorist hate group.

            Because they go through the US legal system…

            Try again.

        • Terance Schmidt

          Here in Madison county, I know Christian people who are afraid to speak against the statue out of fear of its supporters. There’s plenty of hate to go round. And yes, there are Christians who think that we should keep any religion or non-religion off of public property.

          I think that what many don’t understand is that the laws that prevent them from promoting their religion on public land also prevent anyone else from promoting their religion, or even non-religion, on public land. And some of us would be just as up in arms if a monument promoting atheism were on public property.

          The public school should be welcoming to everyone in our community. Equally. Not divided into first-class Christians and second-class – “the rest of y’all heathens”. And that’s what inevitably happens, and is already happening now. The teachers are reporting that the students are asking which side they’re on. Some in the community want to fire any teacher who is opposed. This monument was meant to promote Christian values, and is already doing the opposite.

        • Joesmirt

          Yea it’s about Christians hating the truth lol, gods not real and when you die you simply cease to exist.

          • James Grimes

            Why would you think that I would be interested in your pathetic comment?

      • Stuparu Tiberiu

        Constitution ”terrorists” ?! It is thanks to this constitution and these ”terrorists” that now you have the freedom of speech and the liberty of conscience ! If you want an atheist based system go live in North Korea or China ! Let’s see how good you’d feel in a stalinist-marxist-leninist society ! You are offended by christianity, but you stay silent against islam.It is so because you are a bunch of cowards who pee your pants if a muslim gets close to you! You bite christians because they are soft and peaceful and don’t blow you up like muslims do. If you want to erase christianity read this and know whom you must be thankful for your freedom ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29

        • Brian Westley

          You can’t read well, can you? I was asking James Grimes why he called atheists “terrorists” for wanting the constitution to be upheld.

          You are offended by christianity, but you stay silent against islam.

          Now you’re just lying about me.

          It’s ironic you’d cite Roger Williams, he was in favor of genuine religious freedom. Having a government-run school promote Christianity isn’t religious freedom.

          • Stuparu Tiberiu

            If you’d know some basic grammar,you’d know that you put a comma after such a linguistic structure : ” Why do you call people trying to get public schools to follow the constitution “terrorists”?’ -the correct understandable form is : ”Why do you call people trying to get public schools to follow the constitution ,”terrorists”? ”.Now that we cleared that part,on the subject of islam.I never heard about an atheist group trying to remove islamic clothing or islamic symbols from muslim shops or other buildings ! Roger’s Williams movement(the baptists ,which i am part of ) brought more to the world than hate filled atheism. I live in country were atheism was enforced for 50 years ! Churches and christians were persecuted and killed.My family was persecuted,my father beaten for his faith .I was persecuted and hated by atheists ! So why do you want atheism at the core of a society? Prostestant christianity fought slavery and communism,fought for freedom ! Freedom that such atheists as you ,want to steal from America.

          • Brian Westley

            Right, you couldn’t read my plain sentence correctly because I didn’t put in an extraneous comma.

            I never heard about an atheist group trying to remove islamic clothing or islamic symbols from muslim shops or other buildings !

            Look, you lied about ME, personally: “You are offended by christianity, but you stay silent against islam.”

            Stop lying about me.

            So why do you want atheism at the core of a society?

            I didn’t say that. STOP LYING ABOUT ME.

            I prefer religious freedom, which, in this case, means public schools stay neutral on religion instead of pushing Christianity.

            Freedom that such atheists as you ,want to steal from America.

            STOP LYING ABOUT ME.

            You’re just lying now.

          • Stuparu Tiberiu

            You represent the athetists at this moment, on this forum, so the question applies to you too ! Don’t take it too personally,just take it as serious question .Why don’t you target islam with the same ferocity as christianity ? There is no lie about you,I don’t know you personally and i asked you more important questions.

          • Yeltsew Nairb

            You represent the athetists at this moment, on this forum, so the question applies to you too !

            No, you lied about me.

            Why don’t you target islam with the same ferocity as christianity ?

            See? You’re lying about me yet AGAIN.

          • Stuparu Tiberiu

            You name backwards is funny ! You are the only atheist around here ,so you represent them indirectly.My original questions are too hard for a communist like you !

        • James Grimes

          Thanks.

          • Stuparu Tiberiu

            My pleasure.I’ve suffered a lot at the hands of atheist communists and i’m sick of them trying to impose their evil system of values wherever they go.

          • Thomas Doubting

            Lots of people suffered at the hands of Christian Nazis. The fact that you have to equate atheism with communism shows that you are simply evading the fact that it is Christians forcing their belief on others here and not the atheists.

      • pastoredsmith

        Allowing others to exercise their freedom OF religion is NOT promoting it. Forced removals of such privately funded monuments is a violation of the First Amendment which NEVER granted the Freedom FROM Religion, but allowed for its free practice. If you review 200+ years of American History, it will be born out that Christianity has always been the preferred religion, even by those who hated it in the beginning, and America prospered in its wake. Atheists who demand the removal of Christianity are a blight on our freedoms and fools. (Psalms 14:1).

        • Yeltsew Nairb

          Allowing others to exercise their freedom OF religion is NOT promoting it. Forced removals of such privately funded monuments is a violation of the First Amendment which NEVER granted the Freedom FROM Religion

          Ridiculous. Are you saying people can DEMAND that they be allowed to put monuments on public school grounds or their first amendment rights are being violated?

          If you review 200+ years of American History, it will be born out that Christianity has always been the preferred religion

          If you review supreme court opinions, you’ll see that the government has to be neutral on religion, not play favorites, and when the constitution was being written, amendments to specifically promote Christianity were all voted down.

          • pastoredsmith

            Really? You are ignorant of American History. How do you explain the CHRISTIAN Crosses at cemeteries (including Federally owned ones)? How do you explain plaques and inscriptions of Scripture on Federal buildings put there in years past? How do you explain that public schools had Christian devotionals over the intercom until a single atheist complained and forced them off? How do you explain “so help me God” at the swearing in of Presidents, Congressmen and government officials all across the land? How do you explain that the Bible was the number one textbook in public schools until atheists demanded their removal in recent years? On and on the list goes. It is recently that atheists have bullied their way onto the public scene causing people to cower down in the face of threatened and sometimes executed lawsuits and threats of adverse action. Christians across the country are tired of being bullied. It is time to push back.

          • Yeltsew Nairb

            History. How do you explain the CHRISTIAN Crosses at cemeteries (including Federally owned ones)?

            People (or their next of kin) get to decide what to put on graves, including federally owned ones, and those include atheist, Wiccan, and several other emblems:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers

            How do you explain plaques and inscriptions of Scripture on Federal buildings put there in years past?

            You mean the images of Muhammad and Confucius (and many others) on the supreme court building?

            How do you explain that public schools had Christian devotionals over the intercom until a single atheist complained and forced them off?

            Simple. They were violating the religious rights of their students, and the supreme court correctly stopped that.

            How do you explain “so help me God” at the swearing in of Presidents, Congressmen and government officials all across the land?

            The very first law passed by the very first congress was the Judiciary Act of 1789, and that had the option to swear OR affirm, and explicitly stated that ‘so help me god’ is omitted for affirmations. The constitution has the presidents oath or affirmation, and does not include the phrase. Franklin Pierce affirmed, he didn’t swear.

            How do you explain that the Bible was the number one textbook in public schools until atheists demanded their removal in recent years?

            Stupidity, since the bible isn’t a textbook.

          • pastoredsmith

            Yeltsew, the more you spout, the more you show your ignorance; or your anger towards Christianity in America, whichever is the case. The Congress funded the printing of Bibles, and stood solidly behind the Bible for generations. It has only been over the last few years that this has changed. As to freedom of religion, yes, there are other religions represented in America. Welcome to the USA, where FREEDOM OF RELIGION is the law of the land. Nobody forces anyone to “be” or “follow” any religious teaching here. However, to negate or try to lessen the Christian influence over this country is just ignorant and wrong. If Christianity is crushed by government here, this country will fall; as it is in the process of right now. Christianity brings freedom. It brings the ability to love God and country. It has been Christian churches who celebrate “God and Country” through the years. Muslims publicly hate the USA; burn our flag and want to destroy us. Peaceful religions are welcome. Terrorists will be treated as such. I speak of defense, not aggression.

          • Terance Schmidt

            Speaking as someone who is fairly near atheist (actually a strong agnostic, which is to say that I don’t have a certainty that there is no god, but I don’t see any reason to believe in one either), my political stance as far as religion goes is that I desire that my tax money not be used to promote neither religion nor atheism. It’s also important to me that there be no sort of religious test to be a full and equal participant in our country.

            I don’t desire that the government crush Christianity, nor any other religion. Nor do I hear a desire for such among my atheist friends. I imagine you may see us as feeling that desire when we ask that religion be kept out of schools, government buildings and elections; but no, we just want religion kept in the private sphere.

            Perhaps I didn’t make it clear, but here in Madison county, named after James Madison, a deeply religious man who coined the expression “separation of church and state”, there are Christian friends of mine here who also are against the removal of the monument.

            Christians and atheists can live in peace. We desire the same things from each other. You wouldn’t want us to come into schools and put up monuments that say “There is no god, this is all there is”, and we desire that you not do likewise with your beliefs.

            The way I see it, if I were to promote my beliefs on school property that you helped pay for, forcing you to subsidise the promotion of a belief that you disbelieve, I would be stealing from you. Thomas Jefferson wrote likewise in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which James Madison promoted and likely contributed to.

            We would likewise sue a Muslim group if they tried to put up a monument with the Islamic confession of faith on it. The point at which we’d defend Muslims is the same point at which we would defend Christians, that is to say, when their freedom to practice their religion, not on public property but on the same terms as Christians, is threatened.

          • pastoredsmith

            Perhaps you are not friends with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. This is the atheist group who bullies their way into townships, schools, and about every other place where Christianity is flourishing in their attempts to legally silence Christians. These are the bullies that I speak of primarily. I would add the ACLU, PAW, and several other hate groups to that list.
            The so-called “separation of church and state” is NOT part of the Constitution. It was debated and rejected as part of the document for fear the phrase would become a strong arm for people wishing to silence religion, as SCOTUS has now reinterpreted it to be. The First Amendment allows the FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not the Freedom FROM Religion. It allows the public PRACTICE of religion, and anyone who wishes to silence that freedom strikes at the heart of the USA. Our religious freedoms are the very things that set us apart from other nations. You have the right to be an agnostic. Or an atheist. Or a Buddhist. Or a Muslim. Or nothing at all. And, those of us who choose to be one of those have the rights guaranteed us by the First Amendment to practice our religion OUTSIDE the four walls of the church! President Obama has made several references to our “freedom to worship.” That is bogus and very incomplete. It is NOT what the First Amendment says.
            Also, if we are to truly celebrate American heritage, it is impossible to do so without realizing the contributions made to this country by Christians. And, although this country was embroiled in slavery, it was Christians with morals who were finally successful in getting it defeated. It’s not about Democrats or Republicans or Christians or whatever religion is practiced. Today’s mantra is about abolishing Christianity because it has been the cornerstone of the USA. That is the problem.

          • Edward Silha

            Actually the constitution does guarantee individuals freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1#writing-USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZO
            The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

          • pastoredsmith

            The only freedom from religion guaranteed by the Constitution is that government will keep its nose out of it. Period. No “state run churches.” As to allowing people to practice their religion on public lands, there is no such thing in the Constitution. As I said earlier, it was discussed, but shot down by the founders. This concept is from a government that wishes to govern religion by tyranny. Only freedom of religion is in the Constitution, regardless of court cases to the contrary. The idea of “erect(ing) a wall of separation between church and state” is not in the Constitution at all.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The only freedom from religion guaranteed by the Constitution is that government will keep its nose out of it. Period.

            OK, great!

            This public school is run by the government, so to keep its nose out of religion, this monument needs to go.

            I’m glad you agree.

          • pastoredsmith

            If the government wants to keep its nose out of it, then the statue is allowed. As is public volunteer prayer by those who practice the religion (yes, any religion).
            You people who want to silence Christians want to do so by tyranny. Stop the Christians, you yell. Silence religion! But, you fail to read the protections for religion in the First Amendment. You are not only ignorant as to American History, you are blatantly trying to “change” America into something it has never been. Christians are tired of it.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            If the government wants to keep its nose out of it, then the statue is allowed.

            Only if this is considered a public forum, in which case I suggest the school prepare for atheist and Satanist displays in the near future.

          • pastoredsmith

            It is called “public” school.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Exactly. A public school, not a school just for Christians.

            But not all public schools have public forums; in fact, I would bet that most do not.

          • pastoredsmith

            And, even on public school campuses, Freedom of Religion does not die at the gate. Stopping teachers from leaving a Bible on their desk violates their Freedom of Religion. The majority of a team who loves the idea of touching a statue on the way to a game; regardless of whether it has a Scripture verse on it is a violation of the First Amendment. Calling everything that is Christian in the name of “separation of church and state” is a violation of the First Amendment, regardless of what the sometimes rogue SCOTUS legislates.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I see you’ve given up trying to defend a permanent monument with Christian verses on public school grounds. Good call.

            A statue that doesn’t promote Christianity is fine.

          • pastoredsmith

            You make it up as you go. I do very definitely defend the right for the statue to be there. Forced removal of it constitutes a violation of the team’s First Amendment rights. Stop putting words in my mouth. I also believe other religions have the same privilege. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. Let the fools pray. It won’t do them any good anyway.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You make it up as you go.

            No, I’m just following court precident.

            I do very definitely defend the right for the statue to be there.

            Well, you’re wrong. It will be removed either by the school board or after a lawsuit.

            Forced removal of it constitutes a violation of the team’s First Amendment rights.

            A public school football team does not have a first amendment right to put a monument with religious verses on public school grounds. Each of them can put a monument on their own property, but public schools belong to everyone, not just Christians.

            I also believe other religions have the same privilege.

            You’re wrong there too. By the way, I thought it was a right, not a privilege, according to you. Those are two very different things.

          • pastoredsmith

            It wasn’t always a hostile environment such as exists today. It’s nothing short of tyranny. The bullying of atheists who hate Christianity are to blame for this. Intimidation, lawsuits, etc. have changed the landscape. We had devotionals on the intercom when I was in school…..and likewise since this country was first established. This is the destruction of the USA, plain and simple. Tyranny. Hitlerism. Nazism. Socialistic, Communistic purging of Christianity. It is Christianity, not “religion” that is hated in this country, and Christians have made this country the wonderful place it was before her demise.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            It wasn’t always a hostile environment such as exists today. It’s nothing short of tyranny.

            Ridiculous. Having public schools stay neutral on religion isn’t tyranny at all. But what you’re advocating is commonly termed “tyranny of the majority”, where the majority rides roughshod over everyone else.

            The bullying of atheists who hate Christianity are to blame for this. Intimidation, lawsuits, etc. have changed the landscape.

            No, it was the US court system and the constitution that did that.

            We had devotionals on the intercom when I was in school.

            In other words, government-run religion. What business does a public school have in preaching Christianity to non-Christian students? None at all.

            This is the destruction of the USA, plain and simple. Tyranny. Hitlerism. Nazism. Socialistic, Communistic purging of Christianity.

            I’ll play you my tiniest violin.

            It is Christianity, not “religion” that is hated in this country, and Christians have made this country the wonderful place it was before her demise.

            Like forming the Southern Baptist Convention, to preserve slavery.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            They tried to force me to say the Pledge of Allegiance (post 1957 version) because I refused based on the insertion of ‘Under god’ and would have said it if it was the pre-1957 version.

            Even then, in the dim 1990’s I believed in the separation of church and state even though at the time I was a devout follower of Elohim and his son, Yeshua. I refused the moment of silence based on the original wording of the law for a moment of prayer.

            I refused and caught flack for it because I did not wish to see the rights of others.. my friends that were Agnostic, Atheist, Wiccan, Hindu and a multitude of others forced into something that I myself found distasteful and disrespectful. Why are the rights of those that supported insertion of ‘under god’ based on anti-communist ideals and a moment of prayer more important?

            Go to your closet and pray.. remember who admonished that.

            Stop trying to make this country something it is not and never was founded upon. (The Treaty of Tripoli states this clearly).

          • pastoredsmith

            The Treaty of Tripoli is not the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. The people trying to force change in the US are atheists and agnostics mostly who are offended at the very presence of Christianity. Pilgrims and Puritans gave their lives to find freedom to practice their religion in public without fear. That is the USA. Anything else is something else all together.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The Treaty of Tripoli is not the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence.

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”

            Article VI, section 2 of the constitution.

          • pastoredsmith

            The Treaty of Tripoli says, in part, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” This is true. That doesn’t mean the Christian people and the precepts of Christianity were not deeply rooted in its founding documents and the driving principles behind the basics of government of the US. You would have to be blind AND stupid not to see that. But, you already know that. You just want to find some reason to negate Christian influence. It’s not working.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You just want to find some reason to negate Christian influence.

            No, I was just refuting your ignorant implication that treaties somehow aren’t the supreme law of the land. They are.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            “the pecepts of Christianity were … deeply routed in its founding documents and the driving principles behind the basic of government of the US.” I may be blind and stupid about many things, but it seems as though the Christian god and Jesus are conspicuously absent from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

          • pastoredsmith

            “I may be blind and stupid about many things, but it seems as though the Christian god and Jesus are conspicuously absent from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

            With every breath and every word, you atheists demonstrate your true ignorance of the USA and its founding. Clearly, you have not read the documents. You defer to quoting the ignorant liberal talking points from other idiots who have not read the documents either. That seems to be an identifying mark of liberals and other idiots these days. “You must pass the bill in order to find out what’s in it.” Well, these documents have been around for well over 200 years. The fault of not reading and knowing what is in them is yours. But, for your enlightenment, I invite you to read the following excerpts for yourselves. That is, assuming this is not too much reading for your educational level. Sorry, there are no pictures. Enjoy anyway.

            References to God in the US Constitution:

            “[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to
            the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others” (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244
            This is your so-called “separation of church and state” that is non-existent in the US Constitution. Rather, the document forbids preference of one denomination or sect over another and prohibits the government from sticking its nose in religion. Yes, it refers to the “Christian God” and His church.

            “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within
            ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it….”
            Why do you suppose that Sundays were set aside? Easy. It provided honor the Christian God in government.

            The dating of the document is clearly Christian:
            “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth….”
            If this was a sectarian document, they would have chosen to use the CE or BCE designation instead of the Christian dating method of AD. This, too was in honor to God.

            References to God in the Declaration of Independence:

            “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
            their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
            Just who is the Creator? Well, it is obvious. It is Jehovah God.

            We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of
            America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions … ” —Declaration of Independence
            (This reference was taken from Judges 11:27.)

            “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives…” —Declaration of Independence.
            What do you think “divine Providence” meant? I know this is way above your ability to comprehend, but “Divine Providence” was one of the oldest cornerstones of Christian teaching—it represented the heart of their belief in God, namely, that God was the ever-active, moment-by-moment governor of the universe.

            The Four Principles That Anchor the Declaration of Independence:

            1. All rights come from God.
            2. The purpose of civil government is to secure those
            rights.
            3. The power of civil government is given by the consent of
            the governed, each of whom is fully entitled to rule.
            4. The right to govern is forfeited by a tyrant to lower
            civil magistrates in order to restore the rule of law.

            All four of these principles are distinctly Christian.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            Try turning down the snark-o-meter a bit, will you. I don’t remember stating that you are quoting the “ignorant … talking points from other idiots.” You continue to call others names, like a petulant child. Surely you are older than 13.

            The point you seem incapable of grasping is that those are references to a Deist point of view – in other words, not your Christian God.

            As for your ‘distinctly Christian principles’, they are also distinctly principles from other philosophies also.

            Curiously, your Constitution quote comes from a ruling 100+ years after the Constitution, not the Constitution.

            So, along with no direct mentions of Christianity or the Christian God in those two documents, and the Treaty of Tripoli, a reasonable person would have to conclude that while the country may have been overwhelmingly Christian, it is not and never was founded upon Christianity.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            If the monument stands then I will gladly support and give my money to fund a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an obelisk to Baphomet, a giant paque of the Wiccan rede, a Testament of Islamic Faith, a Mandala and *any* other religious entity that desires one on the same land with the same predominance. Allow one religion.. all them ALL, no exception.

          • pastoredsmith

            And, I say, go ahead. It will show the babbling nonsense of all those false religions. But, that is the real problem, isn’t it. A public display of false religions will only serve to demonstrate their fake, facade of hopelessness.

          • pastoredsmith

            And, I say, “let them put up their statues to their false gods or to the devil himself.” It will only serve to demonstrate to the public how ridiculous false religions are and point people to the One True God; Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and the Gentiles.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            Your god isnt the only god out there in my belief so to each their own. Would you stop me from putting up a statue of Hecate at the school?

          • pastoredsmith

            I do not worship “a god.” I worship THE God of the Universe. You know, the God who created all there is. So, if you want to put up a statue of your false god, go ahead. You will serve only to demonstrate to the public that your “god” is powerless and fake. Only Jesus can satisfy your soul and save you from hell.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            I could argue the same that your god is false too. It is a matter of perspective and faith. I am quite satisfied and as a member of the clergy I cannot and will not state that your god does not exist because that would be rude, thoughtless and hurtful.

            I have no concept of your hell and respect Yeshua as a great teacher that so many do not follow anymore but claim his name. Love thy neighbor has fallen by the wayside in a lust for dominion.

            By the way, Hecate is a Goddess, not a god. She is the guardian of the home, protector of the newly born and a keeper of magick.

          • pastoredsmith

            You could argue, but you can’t prove your point. There is more physical evidence that God and His Son Jesus Christ are exactly who they say they are and that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God than there is that George Washington was the first President of the United States. I will not be “rude, thoughtless {or} hurtful” deliberately, but I will stand up for the truth of the One and Only God of the Universe. And, I’ll also say that you are right that many no longer follow Him. The reason is defined in one word. Sin. Sin separates man from God. It has separated man because sin is “pleasure for a season.” But, there is hell to pay. I would recommend that you read the Bible….not selectively, but cover to cover. It is very eye opening. You are in our prayers.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            You did say my Gods are false, that is exactly my point. There is evidence of a man named Jesus from Nazareth was crucified but the name Jesus was as common as David or John now. There were many men named Jesus at that time. I respect that man in the Bible but i do not know if he was a son of the gods. I claim it is a possibility. I know that Elohim once had a wife as written on the route between Egypt and Judah I do not dispute Elohim’s existence but I cannot see that he is the only god out there and would not insult you by saying that he does not exist.

            I have read the Bible and the Apocrypha why does Elohim say ‘Let US make him in OUR image?” why is is stated “Though shalt have no other Gods before me?’ there are plurals.

          • pastoredsmith

            It is amazing how other religions use parts of the Bible and adapt them to fit their own agendas. So many “recreate” God in their own image. His name is JESUS CHRIST, the Messiah. Yeshua Hamashiach in the Hebrew. There is only one, and He is it. And, there is only ONE God, not multiple “gods.” Elohim never had any wife! That is preposterous. To answer your last question, it is because God created man in His image; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The trinity. The Godhead. And, the proper quote of Exodus 20:3 is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Referring to idols. Any other god is a false god, and an idol.

          • Kiska Jolene Lucas

            Your insults continue, I have been kind and yet you insist on being rude. I see your version of love and i reject it. If you are an example of your gods love I would loathe to see divinity by him in action.

          • pastoredsmith

            I’m sorry you are insulted when confronted by the truth. You sound like the kind of person who would be insulted by a fireman if he said your house was on fire and you didn’t believe it. You haven’t rejected me; you have rejected God. And, it is apparent that you simply refuse to hear and believe the truth. Please know that I will pray for you. Have a good day.

          • Lea

            You know, as hard as it is to allow these godless atheists to get away with their tyranny of the majority by the minority, it remains that if the christians are allowed to put up a statue then so are the satanists and muslims allowed to do their thing. It may in fact be a small price to pay, not being able to display our love for God in certain places, just so that these godless people cannot do so either. Then again, perhaps the fact remains that there are infiltrators into the american government, who are targeting christians using the laws that are based on the christian framework against christians. In the same way, muslims and atheists are subverting our democratic freedoms, but these things will pass too, evil intentions, no matter how mildly put forward, will always be exposed and collapse, at some point or the other.

          • Edward Silha

            Did you bother to read my post? It is not my opinion. It is an excerpt from a Supreme Court decision. So what do you believe:
            A. the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution?
            B. my post was not a copy of the Supreme Court decision?
            C. your opinion is more valid than that of the Supreme Court?

          • Titan000

            ”I don’t desire that the government crush Christianity, nor any other religion.”

            Certain secularists do.

          • Terance Schmidt

            Sure, and certain Christians want to turn the US into a theocracy (Dominionists). There will always be people who want to use the power of government to force everyone to believe as they believe. What we need to do is realize that the battle isn’t between Christians and atheists, but between people who believe in individual rights and people who want to tell others what to do.

            I think that the best way to preserve freedom of belief is to keep the government from having any power to promote any belief. So, no monuments on public property that endorse a religion or atheism.

          • Lea

            Perhaps a good idea would be for christians to stop paying taxes, and then see what happens to the minorities in america. Another thing that atheists are blithely unaware of is the consequences of their actions that are forcing christianity to withdraw from the public space, especially one as important as a school, and that is the great vacuum they are creating, into which islam is moving with ease, but especially satanism.

          • Terance Schmidt

            Are you trying to tell me that, somewhere in these United States, Muslims are now leading our kids in public prayer at schools, and that Satanists are opening up town hall meetings with prayer to the Dark Lord? Exactly how much Fox News have you been listening to?

          • Lea

            Not exactly, what I am saying is that Muslims are capturing your kids on the streets and other public places, and so are the satanists, since many of these children yearn for something greater than themselves, a natural human inclination.

          • Terance Schmidt

            “Capturing”? Assuming what you mean is “converting through civil discourse that doesn’t fall into the category of mixing church and state”, then that’s the same thing that Christians are allowed to do.

            So, are you proposing that preachers of Christianity should have some special rights that preachers of other religions don’t have? Because that’s exactly what the establishment clause forbids.

          • Lea

            Obviously you feel more inclined to protect the rights of freedoms, the same freedoms that arose from out of a christian framework, for islam and satanism, because you have fallen for the lie that all religions and cultures are equal. A basic observation of the difference between western european culture and islamic culture should clarify that for you. Perhaps read about the life of mohammad and the fact that satanism is based on human sacrifice, should also also help for you to understand the incredible differences between christianity and the rest. But you would deny your children that, and rather leave them vulnerable to these pagan death cults, than accept that christianity is the only religion that practises and preaches love and forgiveness, equality, freedom, human rights, etc.

          • Terance Schmidt

            Okay, so I’m gonna go ahead and say that the answer to my question about whether you think Christian preachers ought to have special rights that preachers of other religions don’t have is a very big “yes”.

            While I agree with pretty much none of what you’re saying, I’ll warn you about where that line of reasoning goes.

            It starts with “Christianity is the right religion, so we’ll give extra rights to Christians.” Then it goes to “no preaching religions other than Christianity”. The next bit gets a bit dicey, that’s when people start arguing about what version of Christianity is right. Baptist, Anglican, Catholic, Episcopalian?

            Shall we vote on it? Decide the one sect that we’ll make the official state church? Imprison those who preach any other sect? Congrats! Now we’re back to where the separation of church and state idea got it’s start, when Georgia was officially Anglican. Maybe this time it’ll be Baptist. At least until a majority of the population changes churches and make Baptists illegal.

            All that’s assuming that we manage to avoid what the founding fathers remembered from the Europe that they left, which had just had two centuries of Christians killing Christians in religious wars over which group better served “the Prince of Peace”.

        • Terance Schmidt

          pastoredsmith – No one is saying you can’t have privately funded monuments on privately owned property. It’s when it comes to publicly owned property that all of us pay taxes to maintain that we say “hey, let’s you and me keep our respective religions out of this”. The same law that prevents your religion being promoted in school also keeps the other’s guy’s religion, or even atheism, from being promoted in schools.

          For that matter, I know Christians here in Madison county who don’t want the statue there. Something about the idea of a graven image that all the football players touch “for good luck” just rubs their Christian sensibilities the wrong way. And now they’re the bad guy if they say anything about it.

          • pastoredsmith

            You are as wrong as it comes, Terance. Atheists are trying to eliminate Christianity from the public arena all together. But, they refuse to do the same against other religions. They wouldn’t dare sue a Muslim or a Hindu or an American Indian. It is Christianity that founded this country. Read the Mayflower Compact. Read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It is Christian principles that dominate these documents. It is Christian prayers that the US Chaplains program was established for. And, the truth is that under Christian majority in this country, other religions flourished in its freedom that are now being stolen. It is not about “say(ing) anything about it…” that makes the enemies of Christianity fight back. It is the attempted elimination of our way of life. It is the attempted silencing of Christians. Go ahead and deny it. Live in denial if you choose. But, that is exactly what is happening.

          • Yeltsew Nairb

            Atheists are trying to eliminate Christianity from the public arena all together.

            Stop lying about atheists.

            They wouldn’t dare sue a Muslim or a Hindu or an American Indian.

            http://www.aclu-mn.org/legal/casedocket/aclumnvtiza/

          • Joesmirt

            You have a persecution complex. If they put up Hindu or Buddhist scriptures it would still be against the constitution. It’s really hilarious that all the Christians think they are being targeted shut up

          • Titan000

            Where is the evidence of that happening?

          • Thomas Doubting

            Report any violations of church state separation to the Freedom From Religion Foundation FFRF.org. They will act against ANY violations that have legal basis. By the way preachers aren’t supposed to make lies up about people.

          • pastoredsmith

            FFRF are a bunch of bullies and thugs who sue townships, schools and now even private businesses if they dare demonstrate their Christian faith publicly. They do this because they hate God. They hate Christians and anyone else who dares stand publicly for their faith. They hate the First Amendment freedoms of religion. FFRF claims Christians who oppose them are haters, when the true source of hate comes from atheists who are hate filled, anti-God thugs.

          • KenS

            It doesn’t keep atheism out of the schools, the Theory of Evolution is none other than the theory of atheism

          • Joesmirt

            Wow, really lol. More like evolution is supported by every branch of science while creationism is nothing more than a 2000 year old allegory. Look up allegory if you have to lol

          • KenS

            Do your research on the founders of evolution, every one of them is quoted to say that they looked to evolution because they did not want to be held accountable for their sexual immorality to a Creator/God. If that is not a religion, then tell me what is.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            Unless you can provide those quotes, I can only conclude that you need to adjust your tinfoil hat.

          • KenS

            okay, Here goes, “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for, if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe – and this wold include my father, brother, and almost all my best friends – will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

    • Edward Silha

      If you visit ffrf.org and search for hate mail, you will find many instances where FFRF and the plaintiffs it supports have often received hate mail and threatening communications (phone, snail mail) in response to actions to enforce the strictures of the first amendment. Often the plaintiffs in these cases are granted the use of a pseudonym by the courts because the history of abuse and threats similar plaintiffs have been subject to in the past. The only “HATEFUL” statements you will find on the entire site are those that appear in mail the FFRF has received from “Christians”.
      You offer no evidence that FFRF is either hateful or terrorist. Therefore I must conclude that your opinion is erroneous.

      • James Grimes

        You are entitled to your opinion. I need to let you know that I have no tolerance for those Atheists who haunt this site. You may want to save yourself the effort of rebuttals as I would have no interest.

        • Edward Silha

          Since you offer no evidence that the FFRF organization is either terrorist or hateful, I assume that your opinion is unhampered by facts (i.e., just what you want to believe, no a conclusion reached by looking at the facts logically).

  • Carol Cantell Moorby

    The only thing that should be removed are those people who are complaining… Just move and go to a country where you can have no say!

    • Sheeesh

      We live in a country where everyone does have a say, which is exactly the point you fool!

    • Kiska Jolene Lucas

      A country based on religious law? Where the majority of the religious get to say what happens to the rest of the populace based on their beliefs alone? In most modern countries that practice this type of theocracy it is called Sharia.. is that what you want here where the majority gets their way and the minority are forced to convert, be 2nd class citizens or even die?

      If that is the case I suggest you fine a piece of land that is sustainable and fill it with people that believe *exactly* as you do and annex yourself. True patriots, real Americans that believe in the sovereignty of our country that is based upon enlightened principals will fight for others although they may disagree.

      If the rights of Christians were being infringed I would fight for you but it appears that it does not go the other way around.

  • Leslie Martin

    “Separation of church and state” does not exist in our Constitution. It comes from Thomas Jefferson and, if you actually take the time to read the context of it’s origin, means that the government will not establish an official church as England did. It does not, nor has it ever meant, to keep religion out of politics, nor politics out of religion. George Washington, himself, said, “You can’t have national morality apart from religious principal.” Madison, who co-chaired with Thomas Jefferson to establish a national day of prayer and Thanksgiving, said “We’ve staked our future in our abilities to follow the 10 Commandments with all our hearts.” Like it or not and whether you believe in God or not, we have a faith-based heritage. It’s just part of who we are as a country and with that alone, it should be allowed to stand. I believe that it goes both ways. If we had been a secular group and had something along that lines on a monument, I, again believe it should stand. I’m a Christian. When I see pentagrams or other religion-based symbols or mantras, I don’t get offended. Likewise, I don’t believe in unicorns and I certainly haven’t been offended by those who do or even turned off when I see a drawing of one. Leave it alone. Don’t look at it.

    • Charles Montgomery

      I agree 100% Leslie I was just about to write something similar. But I don’t believe I could have said it better myself.

    • Brian Westley

      “if you actually take the time to read the context of it’s origin, means that the government will not establish an official church as England did.”

      If you read what Madison wrote, you’ll see that it means a lot more than that.

    • Terance Schmidt

      The idea of “erecting a wall of separation between church and state” wasn’t Jefferson, it was James Madison, whom our county is named after. When Virginia was arresting Baptist preachers prior to the disestablishment of the Church of England, he saw that it was necessary to keep religion and politics separate for the good of both. And religion has done rather well in America as a result.

      • jmichael39

        That may or may not be true, Terance…but the reality is that when the Courts have addressed the concept (only twice prior to the 1940s) they have always addressed the concept as Jefferson spoke of it in that letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. So your point, though perhaps correct, is utterly moot.

      • jmichael39

        Oh and btw, Terance…despite the your claim that Madison was in favor of the sort of separation of church and state that we currently experience in this country, you would be better served realizing that none of Madison’s requests regarding the first amendment were implemented and no court until 175 years after the Bill of Rights ever remotely considered the separation of church and state to mean that religion was to cast out of the public square and political arena. In fact, far too many actions of the founders were completely contrary to that interpretation of the first amendment. Your only leg to stand on the completely contradictory interpretation of the First Amendment made by the courts after FDR successfully seeded the courts with activist judges.

      • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

        The declaration of Independence held that men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Unalienable rights are rights that are inseparable from God. In rebelling against the king of great Britain, the founders made it clear that God was the ultimate authority. The founders weren’t rebelling against higher authority, but a tyrannical one that usurped their relationship with God. The French revolution in contrast overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with the state. The atheist and the humanist think our country was founded like the French revolution. Not true. An atheist or a humanist should have no standing, because they are threatening our inseparable rights from God. While Madison did not want a state church, it does not mean God was not held as the ultimate authority.

    • Edward Silha

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1#writing-USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZO
      The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

      The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution of the U.S. The consequence of this interpretation is that people acting in their official capacity as government employees (e.g., teachers, judges) are not permitted to promote or inhibit religious beliefs or practices of individual citizens.

    • Joesmirt

      It’s an amendment to the Constitution, in other words it’s an edit. It is part of the constitution. The school property is government property and as such they can not favor any religion. It’s as simple as that. There is no debate.

      • Titan000

        Unless its an explicitly Christian school?

        • Terra Hailey Stockman

          Can you name any christian schools that are public government run schools and not private institutions?

          • Titan000

            None I can’t find them. As I said later in the thread. Christians shouldn’t take government funding.

          • Terra Hailey Stockman

            Exactly. It’s not legal for the US government to give any religious school funding. A christian school can have whatever religious monument they want because they are privately owned. Public schools are government owned, so that public school monument with bible verses is 100% illegal and it never should have been erected.

          • Titan000

            The thing is though Christians also pay taxes. Should they have a choice on what their money is spent on?

          • Terra Hailey Stockman

            Christians do have a choice in where their money is spent via their proxy representatives “elected members of congress” However our constitution explicitly protects the minority groups in our society from being dominated by the majority. A majority christian society does not mean that the public institutions run by the government is represented in a christian capacity. The framers of the constitution specifically didn’t want any religious majority to dominate the government. They left England specifically to escape religious persecution by the majority. However when they arrived they became all too willing to subjugate each other to that same shit, so a wall of separation between church and state was erected to prevent that from happening.

          • aservant

            No that is not the law. Never was. That assertion is a total fabrication.

          • Terra Hailey Stockman

            Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

            The centrality of the “separation” concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

            While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a “wall between church and state” or a “separation of Church from State”: their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: “Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia’s great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth.” Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that “There are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters.”

            In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court’s decision consisted of: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.”)

            As the Court stated: The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

            The court noted that it “is a matter of history that this very
            practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart,objected to the court’s embrace of the “wall of separation” metaphor: “I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”

            In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime “to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,” or “to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches” this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court’s opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated “the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas’ law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.” The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that “The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.”

            Justice Sandra Day O’Connor,
            Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?
            Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her opinion on the 2005 Ten Commandments ruling.

            In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries and related costs of teachers of secular subjects in private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court’s decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: “Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable,” the court wrote. “Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a “wall,” is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.”

            Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a
            three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the “Lemon Test”. First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion. (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church’s religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an “excessive entanglement” with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

            In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase “under God.” In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel’s ruling.

            The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

            When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.(See also: Creation and evolution in public education)

          • Terra Hailey Stockman

            TL:DR for the above link: You literally could not be any more incorrect in that statement Aservant

  • Charles Montgomery

    It is amazing how someone who doesn’t believe in something can get so offended by it. Just don’t look at it.

    • Sheeesh

      So you’re not offended by gay marriage?

      • Charles Montgomery

        What difference does it make?

  • bowie1

    I suppose we could tell our atheist friends to take a hike, get lost, you know ….I hear the weather is still nice this time of the year to get lost in the hills.

    • James Grimes

      You would have to use monosyllabic words for them to understand.

  • Sheeesh

    If this monument had Islamic or Hindu scripture on it, you’d all be screaming Bloody Mary to get it torn down. If you don’t see the difference, your brains can not grasp simple logic. Why doesn’t the church promote education…hmmm, I wonder. Why does religion have such a strong hold on places that lack education such as Syria or the state of Georgia, hmmmm… I wonder. Once again the Christians are claiming atheists are hateful but please read these comments and you will see otherwise. Good luck with that.

    • aservant

      who do you think was responsible for starting most schools and most hospitals in this country? It wasn’t the government.

      • Sheeesh

        “School” and education are unfortunately not one and the same in this country.

      • BarkingDawg

        The school district is a subdivision of the state government

        • aservant

          What does that have to do with it?

          • BarkingDawg

            It means that the establishment clause applies to the district as well.

      • James Grimes

        The Useless are afraid to answer your question. Christian hospitals and Christian schools have set the standard for those that are publically funded.

  • aservant

    This same group of trouble makers lost this argument a couple of weeks ago at a different Georgia High school. They send these letters in an attempt to coerce people to their depraved way of thinking, but more and more they are getting push back from districts that see through the threats. I think it time that citizens form groups to sue FFRF for damages caused by their threats and harassment. There are real costs involved when dealing with this nonsense and FFRF should pony up what they cost taxpayers in direct legal fees and lost time.

    • James Grimes

      Absolutely. It’s already in the works.

    • Joesmirt

      Yea you should be paying the ffrf legal fees for blatant disregard of the law

  • James Grimes

    Why is it that the Atheists haunting this site are so easily offended? They have an issue with Christians defending Christians’ rights and responding to this article from a Christian worldwide. As a rule, they quickly resort to personal attacks. For those reasons, I have no tolerance for Atheists. Proverbs 26:4 advises us on how we are to treat them.

    • Sheeesh

      You have no tolerance for anyone who isn’t exactly the same as you, isn’t that what you’re trying to say? Big surprise.

      • James Grimes

        LOL. I’m not interested.

        • Sheesh

          LOL. How very christian of you.

          • James Grimes

            Thanks. You are very correct. Proverbs 26:4 advises me not to engage with fools.

          • Verimius

            Proverbs 26:5 directly contradicts Proverbs 26:4, so pick and choose according to your preference.

            If you’re calling atheists fools, you’re in danger of hell fire. See Matthew 5:22

          • James Grimes

            ABSOLUTELY NOT! You need to spend more time studying Scripture.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            “but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

            So please enlighten us how it could be that Jesus statement could be “ABSOLUTELY NOT! Then tell us what “more time studying Scripture” will give us.
            And, if you look through these threads, it seems as though Christians take great offense – ‘terrorists’ ‘Communists’, versions of ‘America, love it or leave it’, etc.

            Isn’t it funny that the Treaty of Tripoli never seems to be brought up by those who claim Christian foundation for the U.S.

          • James Grimes

            “So please enlighten us how it could be that Jesus statement could be “ABSOLUTELY NOT!”
            ATHEISTS LOVE TO QUOTE SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT TO SUIT THE INVALID AND BOGUS POINTS THAT THEY TRY TO MAKE. DON’T TRY TO USE SCRIPTURE AS A WEAPON. YOU DON’T KNOW IT WELL ENOUGH TO DO SO. YOU WILL BE OUTGUNNED.
            “Then tell us what “more time studying Scripture” will give us.”
            FOR YOU, STUDYING THE BIBLE WILL ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. YOU WILL NOT APPROACH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND. INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR EXEGESIS, YOU WILL FORCE EISEGESIS ON EACH AND EVERY VERSE THAT YOU TRY TO MANIPULATE.
            Actually, your attempts to use Scripture against me is hilarious, but at the same time, it is pathetic. There will be no improvement to the miserable life you are leading when you attempt to insult Christians and to eradicate the ethical standards that have resulted from the Christian influence in this country. In other words, you are INSIGNIFICANT..

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            “So please enlighten us how it could be that Jesus statement could be “ABSOLUTELY NOT!”

            ATHEISTS LOVE TO QUOTE SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT TO SUIT THE INVALID AND BOGUS POINTS THAT THEY TRY TO MAKE. DON’T TRY TO USE SCRIPTURE AS A WEAPON. YOU DON’T KNOW IT WELL ENOUGH TO DO SO. YOU WILL BE OUTGUNNED.

            I am sure you are a legend in your own mind, but in all your shouting, you somehow neglected to answer the question. Care to try again. “but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

            So please enlighten us how it could be that Jesus statement could be “ABSOLUTELY NOT!

            “Then tell us what “more time studying Scripture” will give us.”

            FOR YOU, STUDYING THE BIBLE WILL ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. YOU WILL NOT APPROACH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND. INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR EXEGESIS, YOU WILL FORCE EISEGESIS ON EACH AND EVERY VERSE THAT YOU TRY TO MANIPULATE..

            Did you intend the humor? Christians – not unbelievers – are the people who ‘interpret a Bible or verses in such a way that it introduces their own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.’

            But, shouting aside, before you rupture an artery, would you care to answer, rather than dodge the question.

            Actually, your attempts to use Scripture against me is hilarious, but at the same time, it is pathetic. There will be no improvement to the miserable life you are leading when you attempt to insult Christians and to eradicate the ethical standards that have resulted from the Christian influence in this country. In other words, you are INSIGNIFICANT…

            It seems you didn’t read your own statements that it is the atheists here who cannot have civil arguments without being nasty and engage in personal attacks. Please climb down from your lofty pillar and answer the questions – civilly would be nice.

            You didn’t answer even one of the questions, and you pretended that this one didn’t exist: “Isn’t it funny that the Treaty of Tripoli never seems to be brought up by those who claim Christian foundation for the U.S.” Why did you choose not to even mention this?

            And a new question for your edification and enjoyment: How am I trying to “eradicate the ethical standards that have resulted from the Christian influence in this country?” Additionally, didn’t those Christian ethical standards include slavery, segregation, disenfranchising women, etc.?

            I look forward to your responses.

          • Dave Burrier

            Thank you C.P. for putting this creep, james grimes down. He is one of the worst excuses for a human being on this planet. He will never be capable of responding to your posts. He is filled with hate and intolerance. An IQ of about 60, maybe.
            Christian News should ban this person as being detrimental to their perceived christian values.

          • MC

            It’s clear you are filled with hate and anger, maybe they should ban you.

          • Dave Burrier

            I understand why you would think that. What you do not know is that I and many others have encountered mr. grimes in the past and he is exactly as I described. I have no problem with any Christian who posts civilly such as your self.
            If mr grimes were a typical Christian, your religion would be in worse shape than ever. He is hurting your faith. You and other Christians would do well to tell this weirdo to go away.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            You have surely thrown the gauntlet down.

            He will never be capable of responding to your posts.

            This is a testable hypothesis – we will all see how or if he responds.
            I did get tired of his form of ‘discussion’, and just wanted him to actually answer, rather than ignore difficult questions, or engage in ad hominem attacks.

          • MC

            No, because when you read the verse in CONTEXT and COMPREHENSION, you’ll plainly see that Jesus is talking about believers calling fellow believers fools, NOT non believers.
            .
            http://www.tektonics.org/lp/namecallfool.php

          • MC

            No, because when you read the verse in CONTEXT and COMPREHENSION, you’ll plainly see that Jesus is talking about believers calling fellow believers fools, NOT non believers.

            http://www.tektonics.org/lp/namecallfool.php

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            I find your interpretation interesting.
            Context: Jesus is talking to multitudes – Jewish male and female, one presumes – who came to hear him – not just believers. In the verse before the one in question, Jesus says: “21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:” Clearly, he is not just speaking just to fellow believers.

            <Comprehension: According to Strongs, the word brothers can have many meanings; not just the special pleading one you choose to use.

            So, the interpretation could be that:

            1. It is ok to call females ‘fool’, as they are not ‘brothers’.
            2. It is ok to call someone who is not your biological brother a fool.
            3. It is ok to call someone who is not a Jew a fool.
            And so on.to ludicrous.
            It doesn’t seem credible in total context or comprehension that Jesus was saying anything other than ‘Do not call anyone a fool.’
            Please feel free to point out the error(s) in my interpretation.

          • MC

            “According to Strongs, the word brothers can have many meanings; not just the special pleading one you choose to use.”

            It could but not in this context.

            “1. It is ok to call females ‘fool’, as they are not ‘brothers”

            Brothers means fellow believers in this context, so women are part of the Body of Christ.

            Galatians 3:28 (NASB)
            There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
            neither slave nor free man, there is neither ➜male nor female; for you are all
            one in Christ Jesus.⬅︎

            “2. It is ok to call someone who is not your biological brother a fool.”

            If that someone is not a fellow believer then yes, as this verse is in the context of fellow believers.

            “3. It is ok to call someone who is not a Jew a fool.”

            If that Jew is not a fellow believer then yes, as this verse is in the context of fellow believers. Remember, the Pharisees were Jews who didn’t think Jesus was the messiah, hence, they were unbelievers.

            Luke 11:40 (HCSB)
            Fools! Didn’t He who made the outside make the
            inside too?

            “It doesn’t seem credible in total context or comprehension that Jesus was saying anything other than ‘Do not call anyone a fool.’

            Maybe it doesn’t seem “credible” to you but it does to Biblical scholars, the ones who study the ancient biblical languages.

            The word for “Brother” in this verse is: Adelphos

            Adelphos

            “Definition: brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother

            having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman

            any fellow or man

            ➜a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection

            an associate in employment or office

            ➜brethren in Christ

            his brothers by blood

            all men

            ➜apostles

            ➜Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place”

            “4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family: Matthew 23:8; John 21:23; Acts 6:3
            Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.”

            “brethren of Christ is used of, a. his brothers by blood; see 1 above. b. all men: Matthew 25:40 (Lachmann brackets); Hebrews 2:11f (others refer these examples to d.) c. apostles: Matthew 28:10; John 20:17. d. Christians, as those who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly δοξα (which see, III. 4 b.) which he enjoys: Romans 8:29.Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.”

            “αδελφοτης, αδελφητος, ἡ, brotherhood; the abstract for the concrete, a band of brothers, i.e. of Christians, Christian brethren: 1 Peter 2:17; 5:9.
            Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.”

            “We must also consider the way Matthew 5:22 is formatted. In Hebrew poetry, it is ideas that are repeated, not sounds. The verse is a triplet, expressing the same thought in three different ways. It implies that anger and insults are both part of the situation.

            To angrily, insultingly swear at a brother is, indeed, grounds for judgment. Although Jesus and Paul both got frustrated with, and even angry with, their audience, they never insultingly condemned the nature of a person. We are all made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). To warn someone that he is acting unwisely and thoughtlessly is a gracious act (Galatians 6:1). To call someone race is to refute God’s nature in them.”

            “Please feel free to point out the error(s) in my interpretation.”

            I already did the first time, whether you want to believe it or not because it destroys your argument is irrelevant to the truth. If you were an honest person seeking honest answers you would simply say, “Thank you for showing me the truth on this matter”.

          • James Grimes

            Very well done; an awesome rebuttal. Thanks for sharing.

          • MC

            Thank you James! God Bless you and your family, Brother.

          • James Grimes

            No problem, Brother. If you keep rebutting the Atheists ‘ meaningless comments, you will join me on their hate list. I’m glad to see you have more patience with them than I do.

          • MC

            Yeah, I’ve been on their hate list for quite a while. The extreme trolls I don’t have patience for, you know, those hate filled militant new atheists? It’s probably why the new atheist movement is dying out.

          • MC

            James, check this out.

            “METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found. CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.”

            “Subjects with no religious affiliation were more often lifetime suicide attempters, reported more suicidal ideation, and were more likely to have first-degree relatives who had committed suicide than religiously affiliated subjects.

            The religiously affiliated and unaffiliated subjects did not differ in terms of gender, race, education, or income. Religiously unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, and less often had children. Religiously affiliated subjects reported a more family-oriented social network, reflected in more time spent with first-degree relatives. In contrast, most unaffiliated subjects (74.3%) reported more nonfamilial relationships (friends and others)”

            “The main finding of this study was that religiously affiliated subjects were less likely to have a history of suicide attempts, the best predictor of future suicide or attempts (31). Moreover, greater moral objections to suicide that may represent traditional religious beliefs mediated the protective effect of religious affiliation against suicidal behavior in a clinical sample of depressed patients. Individuals with a religious affiliation also reported less suicidal ideation at the time of evaluation, despite comparable severity of depression, number of adverse life events, and severity of hopelessness. Of note, suicidal ideation, a risk factor for suicidal acts, has been found to be inversely related to religion (5, 8–10). Therefore, religion may provide a positive force that counteracts suicidal ideation in the face of depression, hopelessness, and stressful events.”

            “Religiosity has been reported to be associated with lower hostility, less anger, and less aggressiveness (33, 34), which is consistent with our findings.”

            “Religious commitment promotes social ties and reduces alienation (33). We found weaker family ties in religiously unaffiliated subjects, and family members are reported to be more likely to provide reliable emotional support, nurturance, and reassurance of worth (37). Our finding is consistent with reports about less dense social networks among atheists (38), although whether distancing from one’s family facilitates disaffiliation from the family’s religion or vice versa is not known.”

            http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177228

          • James Grimes

            MC, I am aware of these studies. A good Christian friend, a psychologist, showed me this awhile back and we have had several long discussions about the findings. The Useless will never acknowledge this.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            You might wish to look at their analysis tables. In fact, ‘religious affiliation’ is not a statistically significant factor. In short, their conclusions are not supported.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            “According to Strongs, the word brothers can have many meanings; not just the special pleading one you choose to use.”

            It could but not in this context Ok, that is something to be demonstrated. Of course, your word alone isn’t sufficient.

            “1. It is ok to call females ‘fool’, as they are not ‘brothers”

            Brothers means fellow believers in this context, so women are part of the Body of Christ.

            That is an interesting statement. You just state as true that which you are trying to demonstrate as true.

            You continue cherry picking verses:
            Galatians 3:28 (NASB) And Jesus said this?
            1 Peter 2:17 (NASB) And Jesus said this?

            “2. It is ok to call someone who is not your biological brother a fool.”

            If that someone is not a fellow believer then yes, as this verse is in the context of fellow believers. Once again, you just state as true that which you are trying to demonstrate as true.

            “3. It is ok to call someone who is not a Jew a fool.”

            If that NON-Jew or Jew is not a fellow believer then yes, as this verse is in the context of fellow believers. Remember, the Pharisees were Jews who didn’t think Jesus was the messiah, hence, they were unbelievers. . And again, you just state as true that which you are trying to demonstrate as true.

            “It doesn’t seem credible in total context or comprehension that Jesus was saying anything other than ‘Do not call anyone a fool.’

            Maybe it doesn’t seem “credible” to you but it does to Biblical scholars, the ones who study the ancient biblical languages and the first century ANE culture.

            So, as logic fails, you resort to an attempted put-down.

            The word for “Brother” in this verse is: Adelphos Which you admit can have many meanings, not just your special interpretation. Other than your appeal to authority, you have in no sense demonstrated why your particular belief is correct.

            “Please feel free to point out the error(s) in my interpretation.”

            I already did the first time, whether you want to believe it or not because it destroys your argument is irrelevant to the truth. If you were an honest person seeking honest answers you would simply say, “Thank you for showing me the truth on this matter”. If you had even begun to show that, I certainly would have. And, somehow, your definition of ‘honest answer’ is very fuzzy.

  • Terance Schmidt

    I’m here in Madison county, and I’ll tell you what I see. I know a good Christian man, father of some boys, who is afraid to publicly state that he is not in favor of having this statue up. He’s afraid that his boys will be the target of bullying and derision from supporters of the statue if he speaks up, and not without good reason. It was meant to be a good thing, but it has become a source of division.

    It’s not just atheists and non-Christians who want this monument removed. It’s also Christians who see something wrong in a graven image that all the football players are expected to touch for “good luck” before they go out on the field. It’s parents who don’t want to see what’s already happening, of kids taking sides, for and against, and looking down on those who are against. It’s Christians who see that the atheists and non-Christians are the people who Christians are called to bear witness too, to bring to Jesus, who are being stumbled away from Christianity because of the hate they feel from the people who are up in arms about this.

    If you read what some of the supporters of the monument are saying, you’ll see hate, threats, calls for teachers to be fired, and for people who don’t like it to pack up and get out of Madison county. This monument was meant to promote Christian thought, and is doing the exact opposite.

    The monument was meant as a fine gift to our high school, and we should be thankful for the thought, but it isn’t a good idea at all, and we would be better off if it were moved to private property.

    • BarkingDawg

      Just remove the inscriptions.

  • BarkingDawg

    The school districts lawyers have no doubt informed the district that it will be cheaper to remove the quotes now compared to opposing the removal in court, losing , them having to remove it later.

    • James Grimes

      Not all school administrators are spineless.

      • BarkingDawg

        Those that fight against the US Constitution generally wind up out of work after the district winds up paying the settlement plus their legal costs and the other sides costs as well.

        • James Grimes

          LOL. Another foolish comment.

          • BarkingDawg

            Oh really?

            If a school district violates the constitution, do you expect them to purvis il in court ?

  • MC

    “COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION”

    “The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.’

    http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

  • MC

    ..

  • Titan000

    To take government money is to be beholden to the state. This is probably a blessing in disguise.

  • James Grimes

    Yesterday, Samaritan’s Purse, a CHRISTIAN relief organization headed by Rev. Franklin Graham, Sent 100,000 Tons of medical and related supplies to Liberia to combat the Ebola epidemic. I did a Google search to see if any Atheist organization had pitched in and could find nothing. For all the Atheists trolling this site, please tell us how useful you really are. It’s the Christians who pitch in in time of need while The Useless sit back on their behinds complaining about Christians.

    Check out http://www.samaritanspurse.org.

    • James Grimes

      No atheist rebuttals? I figured as much.

      • C.P. Steinmetz

        To paraphrase someone you know and love:

        “Why would you think that [anyone] would be interested in your pathetic comment?”
        As you can see, that is a rude comment that does not promote civil discussion.

    • James Grimes

      🙂

    • Jenny

      Sorry – atheists have to pay taxes.

  • DarkVaderGirl

    Atheists just need to stop and let the statue be

  • http://artravesupercenter.com/ AM CH

    Is this one of those times we shouldjoin together and fight back!?

    [Let them try telling that to a muslim referring to anything from a koran]~
    Fools dont realize or refuse to realize that it has been the Christians in America from the start that honored God that brought God’s blessings on America, that they are working so hard to remove.

    We are already seeing negative consequences in our country for the continual removal of God from being mentioned or revered or addressed in public.

    Since prayer was removed from schools, well just look at schools today – violence, bullies, lowered grades, disrespect, lack of patriotism as many dont pledge allegiance any more,

    Truth is absent from the ‘public square’- it is happening more every day.
    Why do Christians seem to think they have to cave into these kinds of threats instead of joining together and standing their ground? They only attack because they can bully Christians & that Christians will cave in~!

    What lesson is that to those of us who have children that still love and respect God?
    I saw the boy on TV today and admired his attitude but felt badly that school caved into the threats. If my kids were in that school system I’d organize Parents to fight those 2 groups back ! They arent even going to try. So sad.

    We are not told to be doormats.
    The cheek turned isnt always your own~!

    There is a time to fight and a time not to fight but not fighting for our God given rights to express references to our God can be tantamount to denying Him before man~

    These evil people who twist the law to impose their agendas are destroying the fabric of our nation and causing many of our youth to turn to away from God, as we appear weak or ashamed to be Christians.

    Meanwhile gangs, violence and broken families are the result as well as the rise of islam as there are no vaccuums in nature or in the spirit.

    We are entering into the time when the spirit will be withdrawn and evil will be allowed to rise and dominate for a whlle.

    As with the 5 wise & 5 foolish mentioned in the bible we need to take a lesson,
    We need to prepare and be prepared.

    Also as war & disease & terrorism rise the one taken and one left behind will begins to occur as many people will be dying very soon globally.

    We will have to rely on what we have already been taught in order to stay faithful during the evil days ahead.There will come the day to hide way a while but there will also come the day when we are commanded to stand up and profess our faith.

    If we cant stand up for our faith over simple things like a verse on statues how can we expect to stand when someone like ISIS or that guy in Moore Ok, wants to behead us?

    As for me and my house WE Will serve the Lord. Soon we will have to all prove it.,