Georgia School Board Unanimously Votes to Remove Scripture From Sculpture

MonumentDANIELSVILLE, Ga. — A school board in Georgia has voted unanimously to remove two Scriptures from a sculpture that sits outside of the field house at a local high school after a prominent humanist and atheist organization asserted that the use of the verses violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Madison County School Board voted Tuesday night following a nearly two hour hearing over the matter that drew approximately 150-200 area residents, many of whom were present to support the monument’s inclusion of the Bible verses. Three citizens spoke to the board to represent those who believed the sculpture should not be altered to appease those who take issue with the citation of Scripture.

As previously reported, the 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 district in regard to a monument that had been 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 contended 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 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,” wrote FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel in his letter to the district.

Monica Miller of AHA 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

On Tuesday night, the Madison County School Board considered whether or not the sculpture presented an issue and what its options were about the matter. According to the Madison Journal, school board attorney Cory Kirby opined that there were three possibilities: leave the monument as is, remove the Scriptures, or move the sculpture to private property.

Local resident Theresa Gordon asked the board not to bow to the demands of FFRF and AHA.

“We are not here as haters; we are here to love all,” she said. “It seems as if these [atheist] groups are here as haters, willing to spend millions to remove God from [our society], which means they are anti-christs by definition. They must have hatred in their hearts to fight so hard to remove Him from this small object that was placed for others to enjoy.”

“This is the South, the Bible belt of the world,” stated Jess Martin. “We cannot let them take advantage of our rights as a Christian nation.”

Approximately 17 area pastors gathered together as well and prayed as the hearing took place.

But ultimately, board member Robert Hooper made a motion to modify the monument, remarking that he did so “with great consideration and concern for all students.” His motion was seconded by board member Cindy Nash. Chairman Greg Wilkes then announced that Superintendent Allen McCannon would give the go-ahead for alterations following the board’s vote to remove the Scriptures.

Photo: My Fox Atlanta screenshot


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 Spineless gave in to The Useless.

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      The lawless were forced to give in to the constitution.

      • Carla Virga

        You are a useless idiot. The Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The sign does not establish a religion, and removing it prohibits the free exercise thereof.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          You are a useless idiot.

          You are a typical “loving” Christian.

          The sign does not establish a religion, and removing it prohibits the free exercise thereof.

          Using your logic, the school must allow any and all monuments with religious inscriptions, or they are prohibiting free exercise.

          But that’s not correct.

          • Carla Virga

            False argument. The school does NOT need to allow any and all… they can utilize common sense and allow only what is representative of this CHRISTIAN nation that is under attack by evil.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The school does NOT need to allow any and all… they can utilize common sense and allow only what is representative of this CHRISTIAN nation that is under attack by evil.

            Completely wrong. Public schools can’t promote Christianity.

          • jschlue2

            You show me in the Constitution where it states that. The last time I looked, the Constitution deals with congress making laws, and the schools are not congress, nor are they passing laws.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Since you’ve stated you don’t agree with legal precedence, it’s pointless to argue with you.

          • jschlue2

            I didn’t say I don’t agree with legal precedence – when it’s correct. Many in this country act as if judges can never be wrong. And it’s pointless to argue with you when you avoid the question – where does the Constitution say this monument is forbidden?

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            where does the Constitution say this monument is forbidden?

            The part about no establishment + the 14th amendment + incorporation against state governments.

          • Carla Virga

            Hogwash! It’s understandable Communists and other demons cannot tolerate people knowing there is a power higher than government and that everyone should love one another and not murder, steal, or covet anything that righteously belongs to others.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            As I am not a Communist, I guess I must be one of those “other demons”. As such, I can authoritatively state that you are wrong. We demons believe there are powers higher than government. However, we really don’t need religion to know that “everyone should love one another and not murder, steal, or covet anything that righteously belongs to others.”

            Did you need a religion to tell you that?

            And, by the way, the U.S. and other ‘Christian’ countries have used murder, stealing, or coveting anything that righteously belongs to others as a means to exploit 3rd world countries. Yea, even Pat Robertson.

          • erschroedinger

            Wow, how stupid.

          • jschlue2

            The 14th amendment has nothing to do with this. I’d like you, if you have the guts, to write out here, for all to see, the establishment clause, and then state how it applies to this case.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The 14th amendment has nothing to do with this.

            See? I told you it would be useless to argue with you.

          • jschlue2

            Ok, quote the specific part of the 14th Amendment that you believe applies, at the same time you quote the Establishment Clause (which you still have yet to do).

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I’ve already told you it would be useless to argue with you.

          • jschlue2

            And you’re still evading…

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            No, I’m telling you why it would be pointless. You’re a grown-up, you can learn about 14th amendment incorporation by the courts yourself. I’m not your tutor.

          • erschroedinger

            Look up “incorporation” — it’s been legal precedent for decades.

          • pastoredsmith

            So, Mr. constitutional lawyer, how does “equal protection” apply here? The 14th Amendment never replaced the First Amendment nor did it have anything to do with it.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Read up on how the 14th amendment applies the 1st to the states via incorporation.

          • pastoredsmith

            There is no establishment clause in the Constitution. It was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the First Continental Congress. The very idea of our government prohibiting the free exercise of religion was repulsive to them. Too bad courts are legislating their way through our freedoms, trashing them one at a time.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            There is no establishment clause in the Constitution.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

            See that clause? That’s the establishment clause. You can tell, because it’s a clause (a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate) that refers to “establishment”.

          • italylover2004

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – OR Preventing the free exercise of – or did you forget that part

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            OR Preventing the free exercise of – or did you forget that part

            Not at all. Free exercise does not include putting monuments on public school property.

          • erschroedinger

            Wow, your reading comprehension sucks. Read the first amendment. Move your lips this time.

          • pastoredsmith

            Almost as useless as arguing with a fool.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Congress means United States’ ‘lawmakers.’ For example, what if the president signed an Executive Order granting additional tax subsidies to schools that promoted Judaism? By your argument, that would be acceptable because it was not an act of Congress.

            Congress is a broad term that includes the Federal Government, as well as any governing bodies that fall within its jurisdiction, which includes all of the nation’s state and local governments. Remember, Federal Law trumps all local ordinances. Accordingly, the public education system that (1) receives state and/or federal funds, (2) utilizes a federal and/or state approved curriculum and (3) must offer education to any child within a defined geographical area of the United States or territory must abide by the US constitution.

            Hope that helped.

          • jschlue2

            Tommy, congress means the US Congress, as used in the establishment clause as well as throughout the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also, your executive order analogy is flawed because the president could not take such action without an act of Congress since it has to do with the national budget.

          • pastoredsmith

            There is no “establishment clause” in the US Constitution that prohibits religion! To do so would negate the First Amendment; a thing our governments across this land seem to forget as they trash our freedoms.

          • erschroedinger

            The clause prohibits gov’t endorsing or promoting religion.

          • pastoredsmith

            Convenient. You misapply the First Amendment just as SCOTUS did. The First Amendment does prohibit government form establishing a religion or promoting one DENOMINATION over another. (You should read your history book). But, it ALSO says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The forced removal of this monument is government suppression of free expression of religion.

          • erschroedinger

            What? SCOTUS is the one who decides how the first amendment applies, not you. You’re the same sort of yahoo who thinks he knows more science than the world’s scientists. Come back when you get educated.

          • Thomas Doubting

            Yes it says congress, and it applies to the whole first amendment including religion, speech, and press. Until the 14th amendment the states could violate all of these rights. The supreme court says the 14th requires the states to respect all civil rights as the federal govt. must. Also congress partially funds public schools so the point is moot.

          • erschroedinger

            Look up “incorporation” — the SC ruled a long long time ago the constitution applies to all levels of government.

            Did you drop out of school before taking civics?

          • Michelle Bowen

            Public schools should represent all religions. I am a Christian. I know there are muslims, Jews, Athiests, and so on at schools. There can be monuments for any of them I say. BUT there is no right to remove. SO long as the monument does not call for death…or hurt. Like say a monument from the Muslims to the Jews….nobody has any right to tell us what to believe and where to show our beliefs. The constitution allows for the showing of all religious content on such things as public schools and public in general. READ it carefully. ITS so obvious. So the Athiest haters are just that. I’m not arguing at you Ralph like the other guy who sadly mad a bad argument. I am making a point. We all have our beliefs. But in this athiest backed and based society right now. It used to be Christian when this country fell back away from God which is why we are where we are! I will never let the Athiest groups push me around!

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            BUT there is no right to remove.

            Yes there is, when it’s needed to make a public school neutral.

            The school probably could have decided to take on all monuments, but I don’t think that would work out too well.

            But in this athiest backed and based society right now.

            No, it isn’t. Christians are losing undeserved privileges.

          • Michelle Bowen

            We should have rights all of us not just Christians without these people opressing us…….I don’t understand how you can’t see that this is oprression.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I don’t understand how you can’t see that this is oprression.

            Does everyone have the right to erect monuments on this school’s grounds?

            No.

          • Michelle Bowen

            People have the right to errect them in memory of others, or as a sign of respect. Yes….absolutely. Apparently you believe the world should be flat and boring. Does this mean that none of the war mounuments should be out there? I mean after all its public space…how dare we clutter it?!?! (this is sarcasm incase you are stupid)

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            People have the right to errect them in memory of others, or as a sign of respect. Yes….absolutely.

            No, they don’t. If it was an actual RIGHT, people could not be refused for any reason.

            Schools can ALLOW some monuments, but not ones that violate the constitution by promoting religion.

          • Michelle Bowen

            So you’re saying if a Christian student lost their life and people were so very upset and they wanted to do a Cross in rememberance of them or something liek that you think its not right? I don’t care what the law says. I’m not arguing the law. I am arguing the ACTUAL moral cause. Geesh people think law means right or wrong. Of course you can’t possibly be thinking outside the Law so you can’t think for yourself. Because the law is full of drivvlee human interests….you’re a fool who falls under the assumption that it is morality. MORALITY! Its a big word for a small minded person I understand. I’m done arguign with an idiot. I’m right your wrong, thats all there is to it. I don’t need to talk to you anymore. All I can say is my argument is NOT BASED ON LAW! MORALITY! Not lawl! There is a HUGE difference!

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            So you’re saying if a Christian student lost their life and people were so very upset and they wanted to do a Cross in rememberance of them or something liek that you think its not right?

            Not on public school grounds, no.

          • pastoredsmith

            Yes, on public school grounds. Or in government owned cemeteries. Or in front of city halls or other government buildings. Or on football helmets worn by grieving students after a schoolmate dies. Or anywhere they want to. This was once a free country until atheists demanded their godless beliefs be accepted by all. Everywhere you manage to silence Christians, you preach atheism loudly.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Yes, on public school grounds. Or in government owned cemeteries. Or in front of city halls or other government buildings.

            Well, you’re wrong. Go ahead and try.

          • pastoredsmith

            And, you are the loving atheist who only wants equality? You and your cohorts at the FFRF are not bullies? Thank you for proving my point.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And, you are the loving atheist who only wants equality?

            Yep. You’ll notice there wasn’t a monument with atheist sayings on school grounds. Or one for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

          • pastoredsmith

            I suppose your one atheist non-existent student at the school didn’t ask if he could put one there. And, I suppose you think that all government has always and will always be free of all religion? If that is the case, you are anti-American and would want to rewrite the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because they contain blatant Christian teachings and references? And, that explains why you fight so hard to have the crosses at Mt. Soledad and LasCruses, NM removed? You consider any public display of Christianity as a government promotion of religion. Therefore, you advocate forbidding its public practice outside the four walls of the church; specifically on publicly owned property. This land was founded for all to have freedom. And, each religion does. It is only God-hating atheists who want to destroy our country and turn it into an atheist nation depending on flawed human logic instead of the truth.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I suppose your one atheist non-existent student at the school didn’t ask if he could put one there.

            Probably not. So what?

            The school board could have tried to say their school grounds were a public forum, but they didn’t try that. They decided instead to just remove the bible verses.

            Sucks to be you, I guess.

          • pastoredsmith

            Actually, I love my life. I know the truth about God and love it. As to the what the school board did, that is because they are spineless and have fallen for the lies of your FFRF telling them they must remove the monument or face lawsuits.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The school board isn’t spineless for following the constitution.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            Can you be any more personally insulting?

          • pastoredsmith

            Wrong answer. Atheists want all religion and its free practice removed from all public places; except for their own godless, human-flawed logic religion.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Atheists want all religion and its free practice removed from all public places

            Now you’re just lying about atheists.

            Public schools belong to everyone, not just Christians.

          • pastoredsmith

            Really? The king of liars calling me a liar? Who threatens lawsuits all over the US? Who fights to kill all public reference to Christianity? Who teaches “godlessness” and demands that be the rule of public places of school and government? Who? Atheists. Yes, public schools belong to everyone. Bullying is not allowed on public school campuses. So, pack your bags, bully and get out.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Really? The king of liars calling me a liar?

            Yes, you’re lying. “Atheists want all religion and its free practice removed from all public places” is a lie.

            Who fights to kill all public reference to Christianity?

            Nobody. FFRF fights against government promotion of religion, but that doesn’t include non-government promotion of religion, like churches, people praying in public or wearing things that promote religion, or preaching on public sidewalks, or any number of other things that constitute public references to Christianity.

            See? Saying “all religion and its free practice removed from all public places” is a lie.

          • pastoredsmith

            Oh, I get it. Atheists want to promote only their own religion. That of godlessness. Would you deny that the basic tenant of atheism is “there is no god?” So, you are the liar here because it is the atheist FFRF who is bullying the FREE PRACTICE OF RELIGION in public. you would restrict Christianity (and other religions) to inside the four walls of the church and prohibit its public exhibition at other places? And what about private businesses? Should a Christian be allowed to practice his own religion at their place of business? Should a teacher be allowed to practice his / her own religion within the gates of the school? You are bullies! And, if you say you are not trying to accomplish these and a host of similar goals, you are lying.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Atheists want to promote only their own religion.

            A lot of atheists, including me, promote atheism.

            Would you deny that the basic tenant of atheism is “there is no god?”

            Close enough.

            So, you are the liar here because it is the atheist FFRF who is bullying the FREE PRACTICE OF RELIGION in public. you would restrict Christianity (and other religions) to inside the four walls of the church and prohibit its public exhibition at other places?

            Wrong. You didn’t even read where I JUST WROTE of some things that are perfectly legal, like “people praying in public or wearing things that promote religion, or preaching on public sidewalks, or any number of other things that constitute public references to Christianity.”

            I wrote that in the comment you are replying to, and you can’t even get that right.

          • pastoredsmith

            That’s because I don’t believe you. Instead of reading your misleading statements on these posts, I’ve been reading the activities of your FFRF and I know what you are up to. Your FFRF is trying to stop any and all practices of Christianity on public land, in government and in all public schools as though their first amendment rights must be left at the gate. “Free speech zones” and the like are the result of your FFRF’s bullying. I know what your FFRF is doing. You write intimidating letters threatening lawsuits. You sue schools and anyone who doesn’t bow and scrape to your demands. You call Christians bullies, yet is your FFRF doing the bullying. It is your FFRF that forces into intimidation people in any place in the US who dares practice their religion on government owned property as though they must become atheists to work there. It is rogue courts and the work of Madelyn Murray O’Haire and now her successors, the FFRF who are forcing their belief system on everyone in publicly owned places that is largely responsible for ruining our freedoms in this country. And, the very name of your organization says it all. Freedom FROM Religion. That is the opposite of the First Amendment speech of “freedom OF religion.” Tell the truth.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Hey, babble on.

          • pastoredsmith

            Yeah, you promote your religion of atheism through bullying. Your idol, Madelyn Murray O’Haire started it with threats of lawsuits if prayer wasn’t removed from public schools. You followed your heroine’s lead. Now, we have atheist public schools and atheist governments thanks to your FFRF and other atheists. By your own admission, you promote your religion of atheism. In schools, in city, state and federal governments and about anywhere you think you can threaten with a lawsuit and silence Christians. When you silence us, you silence all religions. Christians are tolerant, in spite of the constant barrage of hateful accusations to the contrary we get. If you were dealing with Muslims, many of your FFRF buddies would be beheaded in public. So, count your atheist blessings that you live in America; the land that tolerates even atheists. But, we are tired of your bullying and it must stop.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Your idol, Madelyn Murray O’Haire started it with threats of lawsuits if prayer wasn’t removed from public schools.

            Anyone who wants faceless school bureaucrats to write prayers for other people’s children to recite has no grasp or respect for religious freedom.

            Now, we have atheist public schools and atheist governments thanks to your FFRF and other atheists.

            No we don’t. That’s your imagination working overtime.

            By your own admission, you promote your religion of atheism.

            Well, it’s not a religion, but yes, I promote atheism. I have first amendment rights, and I use them.

            In schools, in city, state and federal governments and about anywhere you think you can threaten with a lawsuit and silence Christians.

            Only when they are misusing my government to promote their religion or otherwise violate the constitution.

            When you silence us, you silence all religions.

            You still have the same first amendment rights that I do. You don’t get to misuse the government to promote your beliefs, and neither do I.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            Oh, I just love it when you start foaming at the mouth. Then we know that all reason is gone and only prevarication and insults remain.

          • pastoredsmith

            Have you actually asked? And, atheist monuments stand stalwart in every public schoolroom in the USA that has cowered to the “neutral school” garbage that has been forced on us. A “religion neutral school” equals an atheist religion school.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Have you actually asked?

            No, I don’t live anywhere near this school.

            However, a parent of a student in the school complained to the FFRF, and they sent a letter to the school board, and the school board’s lawyer advised them that the bible verses have to go.

          • pastoredsmith

            I don’t believe you. Why should I take the word of an atheist who has no reason to tell the truth? According to your world view, you think the grave is the end. Why do you even bother to do this if you believe God doesn’t exist? The bullies here are you and your ilk at FFRF. If there is an actual person, name them. If it were a Christian, you wouldn’t hesitate to name them publicly.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I don’t believe you. Why should I take the word of an atheist who has no reason to tell the truth?

            I don’t care if a nutcase like yourself doesn’t believe me. In fact, it makes me feel better.

          • pastoredsmith

            The nutcase here is the bully who doesn’t believe in God. That would be the atheist.

          • pastoredsmith

            Making a public school neutral is making a public school an atheist school. It is the religious teaching of the Atheist Churches in America, and it has been shoved and intimidated to schools causing spineless Christians to back down rather than stand up to this bullying lobby. Christians are not going to lose our privileges because they are guaranteed by the Constitution; just as are the privileges of atheists. If you really wanted “equal access” and “neutral schools,” you would want to also allow the freedom to practice religion by school administrators, teachers and students. But, you don’t want that. You want atheist schools that are totally free of any religion except atheism.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Making a public school neutral is making a public school an atheist school.

            Nope. An atheist school would promote the idea that gods are myths. I don’t know of any public school in the US that does that (which would be unconstitutional in any case).

          • erschroedinger

            Public schools being the gov’t, they should represent NO religions.

          • pastoredsmith

            No, they can’t promote it. But, the First Amendment says they must ALLOW it. Allowing a Scripture in a public place is NO endorsement of religion if the school didn’t put it there.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            But, the First Amendment says they must ALLOW it.

            Ridiculous. You’re saying public schools must take on all monuments donated by outsiders.

          • pastoredsmith

            But, the First Amendment guarantees a Christian the right to PRACTICE his Christianity, even in public.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            But, the First Amendment guarantees a Christian the right to PRACTICE his Christianity, even in public.

            Sure. But nobody has a right to have monuments with their religious verses on public school grounds. That’s why there’s no first amendment violation here.

          • James Grimes

            Thank you, Carla. Unfortunately, you are trying to reason with a fool. He doesn’t belong here as it is.

            Ralph Fool, no need to respond. I’m not interested.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Ralph Fool, no need to respond. I’m not interested.

            The Georgia school board wasn’t interested in your opinion, either.

          • Jud Bennett

            Ralph. Don’t worry too much about James. He’s a pigeon.

          • MC

            Why, because he craps on you all the time and it’s funny?

          • Jud Bennett

            You’re funny MC. But why sink to your level.

          • pastoredsmith

            They will be interested in the barrage of complaints they get from Christians.

          • Michelle Bowen

            Thanks James too bad we can’t shut up the fool. Gah the world is too full of Ralphs for my liking……though my name isn’t Carla so I”m not sure you were even talking to me. LOL I still agree……..Ralph Spoilsport (his name says it all)) is foolish and pointless to tlak to.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”- Thomas Jefferson

          • beckiru

            Thank you… 🙂

          • Carla Virga

            THE
            ANTI-CHRIST

            ARE ON THE ATTACK

            http://fxn.ws/1ubqJ8T

            Why is Houston City Attorney David Feldman attacking
            Christians, their churches, their beliefs, and their faith? One
            would expect Jews to respect other people’s religions and First
            Amendment rights.

            “Separation of church and state” was never part of the
            founding documents. Rather, the Supreme Court justified its
            decision based solely on a few lines from a letter Thomas
            Jefferson wrote one or two decades after the Constitution was
            adopted.

            o Those short lines were taken out of context.

            o Thomas Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional
            Convention. He was not even in the United States at the time.
            He and John Adams had been sent out of the country to be
            ambassadors to England and France, possibly for the very
            purpose of silencing two of the strongest voices that were
            involved in the Declaration of Independence.

            o Why does the Supreme Court use Thomas Jefferson as the
            authority in this one decision, but ignore him in everything
            else, things he actually did say? Indeed, Thomas Jefferson has
            been viciously demonized and is even being removed from
            history books.

            o To the extent separation may have been a concept, it was
            to keep government out of the churches’ business, not the
            other way around, as confirmed by the First Amendment.

            What we are witnessing is the same religious persecution
            that befell Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution.

            14th Amendment “Civil Rights” are being used to overrule
            Constitutional “Inalienable Rights.”

            Religious or not, every American should understand our
            country is founded on Christian principles. To defeat
            constitutional government, Gramechi and others determined they
            had to defeat Christianity, and that is exactly what they are
            doing.

            Think of the Anti-Christ not just as one person, but as a
            sect of people dedicated to eradicating Jesus Christ,
            Christianity, Free Will, Constitutional Government, and
            Inalienable Rights from the face of our planet, and from the
            human record.

          • Spartacus Maximus

            The delusion is strong in this one.

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, what we see all around us is progression…ok.

          • stop2wonder

            The country is majority Christian, but that is not the same as a Christian Nation. Otherwise we would also be a Woman Nation and a White Nation.

            Besides, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity, let alone it being our national religion. In fact, religion is mentioned only twice, and both times it’s preceded by the word “no”.

          • erschroedinger

            Sorry, pal, in no way is the US a Christian nation. Try reading the constitution.

          • jcmeg56

            @Spoilsport. Love is not stupid sentimentality. Sometimes it’s a ferocious lioness defending what she holds dear.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Sometimes it’s a ferocious lioness defending what she holds dear.

            Well, that’s not evident in this case.

          • pastoredsmith

            The ferocious lion here has been bullying atheists. We’ll see how much longer the sleeping giant called the Church takes before it awakens. I think not long now.

          • stop2wonder

            ” Christians are taking a lot of flack and in many cases actual persecution these days for standing up for the Truth.”

            Maybe, but this isn’t one of those cases. This is just a case of the majority losing some of its privilege that it’s so used to having because its not used to being opposed. No persecution here, just constitutionally protected equality for the minority.

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, being blessed as a nation was a privilege that Americans once were so very used to having. Thank goodness the godless twist the Constitution today so you can now be equally cursed. What a bunch of dimwits. Can’t even see the disaster their country has become right in front of their faces. Actually believe things are looking up! Absolutely surreal.

          • pastoredsmith

            It is you who are mistaken, Ralph, on a great many things. A typical loving Christian is not one who plays the part of a welcome mat and says, “atheists, please wipe your feet on my face.” A typical loving Christian says that the Bible says atheists are fools. Psalm 14:1. A loving Christian warns others of their impending future in Hell. A loving Christian is not afraid to publicly express his faith in God, nor to post it in a public place. And, welcome to America, where all religions (including the religion of atheism) are welcomed the same. Yes, atheists have the same rights as Christians; in fact, our “religion free” schools are teaching atheism. After all, the very definition of the religion of atheism is “freedom from religion.”

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Yes, atheists have the same rights as Christians; in fact, our “religion free” schools are teaching atheism.

            I don’t know of any public school in the US that teaches that gods don’t exist.

            After all, the very definition of the religion of atheism is “freedom from religion.”

            No, atheism refers to not subscribing to theism. The a- prefix means not.

          • pastoredsmith

            The forced silence of religion is the same as teaching nothing came from nothing.
            And, non-theism (atheism) is now a bona fide religion in the country. Congratulations. Your foolish group now has “churches,” complete with “clergy” and tax exemptions. Atheism is now a religion that is not only taught in public schools, it now is the rule of operation at them as well. That means that atheism is now the dominate religion in public schools. But, not forever.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The forced silence of religion is the same as teaching nothing came from nothing.

            No, it isn’t.

          • pastoredsmith

            Yes, it is. Atheism is “no religion.” The exact same as “religion neutral,” especially now that “no religion” (atheism) is now a religion.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            So by teaching that 2+2=4, without mention religion, math is promoting atheism?

          • erschroedinger

            I bet you cannot point to one public school that teaches atheism.

          • MC

            Atheism IS a religion.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Atheism IS a religion.

            No, atheism isn’t a religion, just as theism isn’t a religion. Theism is a tenet of many religions, and atheism is a tenet of a very few religions, but neither is a religion in and of themselves.

            However, in most legal situations, atheism is treated as a religion — for example, it isn’t legal for public schools to teach that a specific religion is true, or to teach that theism in general is true, or to teach that atheism is true.

          • MC

            The courts disagree with you.

            “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/

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The courts disagree with you.

            “COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION”

            No, they don’t. Read some actual opinions:

            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.

            First, “secular humanism” is not “atheism”. You might have noticed that one is a two-word phrase while the other is a single word.

            If you bother to read the actual court decision that the WND article talks about (but doesn’t name, because then people might see how dishonest the WND article is), you’d find out it’s “Kaufman, v. McCaughtry (2005)”, and you could read this:

            Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.  Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted);  see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970);  United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965).   We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.   See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).   Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

            The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).

            Like I said, atheism isn’t a religion, but for many legal purposes, it needs to be treated the same as a religion. Notice how the actual ruling says the same thing.

          • MC

            It’s a religion, you can’t say it’s a religion sometimes in certain situations. It’s a religion across the board and the courts have ruled it as such.

            “First, “secular humanism” is not “atheism”.”

            And as usual, you’re wrong.

            “First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality—something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview.[2] Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”[3]”

            “Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.”[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”[6]”

            “Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”[8]

            Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.”[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.”

            You have been refuted yet again.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            It’s a religion, you can’t say it’s a religion sometimes in certain situations.

            Legally, of course it’s possible. Corporations are sometimes people, legally, even though they obviously aren’t.

            “First, “secular humanism” is not “atheism”.”

            And as usual, you’re wrong.

            No, I’m right. That’s why there are two different words.

            Even if I grant that “secular humanism” is a religion, that doesn’t mean atheism is a religion. Not all atheists are secular humanists. They simply aren’t identical terms.

          • MC

            No, you’re wrong, you’re both atheists.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Here’s an article from the Council of Secular Humanism, which knows far better than you what Secular Humanism means:

            http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Far-More-Than-Atheism.aspx

            Secular humanism and atheism are not identical. One can be an atheist and not a secular humanist or humanist.

            Now, since there are atheists who are not secular humanists (as the Council on Secular Humanism has just stated), that means that, even granting your premise that secular humanism is a religion (which i don’t grant), since not all atheists are secular humanists, you have not shown that all atheists have a religion.

          • MC

            “Here’s an article from the Council of Secular Humanism, which knows far better than you what Secular Humanism means:”

            I already told you what secular humanism is, I got it from secular humanists who know what secular humanism means better than you.

            “Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, and Humanist Manifesto III in 2003. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.”

            ➽”Religious Humanism is without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a “higher” source of moral values.⬅︎ Some adherents would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without “belief” of any kind—knowledge based on evidence being considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of “religious knowledge” as knowledge gathered through nonscientific means is not accepted in Religious Humanist epistemology.”

            “Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us.”

            “Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists as “humanists not yet out of the church habit.” But Unitarian Universalists sometimes counter that a Secular Humanist is simply an “unchurched Unitarian.””

            “Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. ➽ As non theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.”⬅︎

            “But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

            SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine” and the “separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. ➽There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.⬅︎We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.”—Humanist Manifesto II

            “Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation.”—Humanist Manifesto I

            Secular humanists are non-theists, and what is the difference between a non-theist and an atheist? Nothing!

            “Question: What’s the Difference Between Non-theism & Atheism?

            Answer:

            In principle, there is no difference and should be no difference between non theism and atheism. Nontheism mean not believing in any gods, which is same as the broad definition of atheism. The prefixes “a-“ and “non-“ mean exactly the same thing: not, without, lacking.” —Austin Cline, Agnosticism/Atheism Expert

            You have been refuted yet again.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Hey chump, you totally ignored how I pointed out that even granting that secular humanism is a religion, atheism isn’t a religion since not all atheists are secular humanists.

          • erschroedinger

            I see. So quoting the opinion of people who don’t like secular humanism refutes somebody? Never took debate, did you?

          • MC

            Um, who’s quoting somebody who doesn’t like secular humanism? I quoted secular humanists, the secular humanist manifesto one and two, and The American Humanist Association, who’s motto is “good without God”. Never took reading comprehension, did you? Never took critical thinking, did you? Never took logic, did you? Never took debate, did you? Don’t bother responding, you’re not worth my time.

          • erschroedinger

            MC, this is simply a lie. The SC never ruled that way.

          • pastoredsmith

            Yes, they are. They have “churches” established nowadays, complete with “clergy” and tax deductions. At school, the forced “religion free zone” is atheism. After all, that is what atheism is. Teaching that “there is no god.”

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Yes, they are.

            “They”? I was talking about atheists.

            Now, some atheists belong to religions. You can be Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, and some other religions while being an atheist.

            That only shows that atheism per se is not a religion.

            At school, the forced “religion free zone” is atheism.

            Ridiculous. Teaching that 2+2=4 is not teaching atheism, even though gods are not mentioned.

            Teaching that “there is no god.”

            And public schools in the US don’t do this.

          • erschroedinger

            Like saying the absence of animals is a zoo.

          • MC

            And yet the courts deem it a religion.

            “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/

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION”

            Not exactly (WingNut Daily isn’t written by the sharpest tools), but in most cases it needs to be treated the same as a religion.

          • erschroedinger

            Ya know, a nutbag site isn’t a good reference. The SC never ruled secular humanism was a religion.

        • Tommy Ferrugia

          Actually, that’s absolutely incorrect. As you note, Federal law, which supersedes any state or local ordinance, prohibits establishing religion. Accordingly, publicly subsidized institutions may not endorse one religious faith (over another, or over none at all). By posting biblical scripture on a public facility, it’s. in effect, advertising/promoting the scripture as having a unique weight or truth. Clearly, that is not the case. There is no reason, at all, to believe that the anonymous Middle Eastern nomads who penned what has been mistranslated over centuries into today’s bible were any more ‘correct’ than Joseph Smith, Mohammed, L Ron Hubbard, or any of the countless charlatans claiming the voices in their heads were telepathic messages from space. There is nothing, at all, unique about Christianity. It is pure hogwash; just like every other principal that is accepted for no reason other than it’s what someone else (claiming divine inspiration) claimed to be true.

          On the other hand, individual citizens are, as you noted, permitted to exercise freedom of religion without fear of government intervention (to the extent that those beliefs don’t harm or prejudice others). Permitting someone to practice whatever religion he sees fit is NOT the same thing as allowing others to thrust their made-up beliefs upon the populace.

          Sorry 🙁

          • MC

            “There is nothing, at all, unique about Christianity. It is pure hogwash;”

            Then you should have no problem with the sculpture as you think it’s hogwash anyway. How can one be offended in any way by something they don’t believe in? That’s insane.

          • pastoredsmith

            Atheists hate God. They deny that, but they join the Freedom From Religion foundation and intimidate any Christian who dares stand up publicly. It is time for Christians to stand together and silence the bullies. yes, they have a right to their religion. But, they don’t have the right to demand theirs be the center of attention in all public arenas they call “religion neutral.” (What do you think “atheism” is?)

          • MC

            I agree 100%! That’s why all Christians need to rise up and start donating to legal Christian organizations like ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM so we can sue the atheist organizations into bankruptcy!

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            That’s why all Christians need to rise up and start donating to legal Christian organizations like ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM so we can sue the atheist organizations into bankruptcy!

            What are you going to sue them for? You can’t just say you don’t like someone and file lawsuits against them, that’s barratry. You have to have a legitimate legal complaint.

          • pastoredsmith

            That is the irony of this whole debate, isn’t it atheist? There are many times the FFRF backs off when stood up to by entities that you are trying to bully into submission because there is nobody willing to actually go to court with you. It is your own ambitions that bring the threats and bullying tactics. Yes, there are often legal grounds to silence your threats. And there are many ways Christians can fight back by standing up with our school boards and others you bully. ADF is only one of many organizations. There is now the FFAF, too. Freedom From Atheists Foundation. BTW: I can’t depend on an atheist who doesn’t believe in God to be honest, but I will ask anyway. Do you actually have a student at the school in GA that would go to court and face the embarrassment of the whole ordeal just to get the monument removed, or is this a bluff based on a lie, like many of your other bluffs are? I think you lie and this was a bluff that the school board caved to. The best way for Christians to combat this is by exposing your FFRF as the bunch of no-moral-code to live by that you are. After all, since you refuse to acknowledge God, you also reject His law that commands us not to lie, so why should you ever tell the truth? No God, no morals. No morals, no believe.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The best way for Christians to combat this is by exposing your FFRF as the bunch of no-moral-code to live by that you are.

            And the best way to show how hateful people like you are, is to read what you write against entire classes of people. I suppose you hate Jews too, eh?

          • pastoredsmith

            Has anybody noticed that when an atheist uses up all their list of talking points and has nothing more to say, the next step is to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Spoilsport, your very handle indicates that you love to ruin people’s lives. You are the bully, not me. You are the hater, since you first hate God and try to explain Him away with your “logic,’ and then you hate anyone who proclaims Him. You mock and ridicule publicly those of us who know Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior. I love Jews. And, believe it or not, I love atheists, too. I love you enough to tell you the truth; although I know you will reject it and turn against me, as you have just proven. I’ll say it again, even though you have no real comeback for this one because you know down deep that it is true: You will stand before God one day and give an answer for your life. As it stands, the Bible calls you a fool because you swear there is no God. No amount of ridicule or bullying will stop true Christians from proclaiming the truth and standing for our rights that you people wish to destroy.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Has anybody noticed that when an atheist uses up all their list of talking points and has nothing more to say, the next step is to attack anyone who disagrees with them.

            Meanwhile, you jump right to that first thing, “pastor”.

          • pastoredsmith

            The more you spout your rhetoric, the more you prove my point. Since you have nothing credible to say and you have used up all your pre-arranged talking points, this conversation is over. I accept your acknowledgement of the white flag you raise. Good day, sir.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The more you post your hateful rants against atheists, the more young people leave your religion and become atheists, “pastor”.

          • pastoredsmith

            That’s where you are wrong. Your lies and intimidation tactics will backfire. You have nothing more to say and now you wish to intimidate, as you do best. GOOD DAY, SIR.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Your lies and intimidation tactics will backfire.

            My true statements and insistence on following the constitution seem to be working just fine, “pastor”.

          • pastoredsmith

            Not for everyone, “atheist.” Bullies cannot win over the long haul. Enjoy your moment in the spotlight.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Bullies cannot win over the long haul.

            That’s why undeserved Christian favoritism is losing, “pastor”.

        • erschroedinger

          Sure it does. One of the verses uses the name “Christ.” Are you contending “Christ” does not refer to Christianity?

      • MC

        The sculpture did not break ANY laws!

        • C.P. Steinmetz

          I didn’t realize how many attorneys or legal scholars post on this site. It is unnerving that their legal opinion flies in the fact of years of case law.

          Or maybe I misinterpret:

          “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

      • James Grimes

        You, Sir, are the fool we are told about in Proverbs 26:4.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          I’ll live.

          • jmichael39

            not really.

          • pastoredsmith

            Not forever. The God you don’t believe in will have the last word.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And Odin won’t be pleased with you, neither.

          • pastoredsmith

            Odin is in his grave. He is a false god. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is alive and well. So, I could care less what the false god you worship says or doesn’t say. But, you will care what God says.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Odin is in his grave.

            You think Odin actually existed?

            He is a false god. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is alive and well.

            Nah, yours is false too.

      • jmichael39

        You mean how this generation wants us to THINK of the Constitution. There is not one shred of evidence that the founders’ intention in writing the first amendment was for things like this to happen. The very fact that so many of own national monuments have similarly biblical references should be testimony enough to that fact.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          There is not one shred of evidence that the founders’ intention in writing the first amendment was for things like this to happen.

          Read Madison.

          • jmichael39

            well why didn’t you say so. Shall I just read EVERYTHING he wrote. Or do you have something particular in mind.
            Forgive me, but this getting more than a little annoying to sit here and attempt to engage in an intelligent debate when one side provides no reference, no citation, nothing to substantially support whatever it is you’re trying to convey.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Shall I just read EVERYTHING he wrote.

            Sure, it’s all public domain:
            http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1933

          • jmichael39

            Great thanks…in other words, you’ve heard somewhere that Madison said something that you think contradicts what I said a few posts ago and you’re too damned lazy to find it and cite, because you’re so full of yourself that you think everyone should just take your word on everything. Thanks for clearing that up. BYE.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Anyone the least bit familiar with Madison would be familiar with Memorial and Remonstrance, his position on how the 1st amendment prohibits congress from hiring chaplains, etc.

          • jmichael39

            Do you practice being an ass or does it come naturally to you?

            Anyone vaguely familiar with the protocols of debate understand that you don’t just throw own statements without substantive support.

            You don’t just throw out an authority as you support for your arguments without specifics.

            And you don’t reference an authoritative source without specifying what exactly you’re trying to use from that source.

            Perhaps you thinks its endearing to do that and then throw out insults when opponents want specifics, but frankly it simply makes you look like an ass.

            Now, with regards to Madison’ Detached Memoranda, unless you want to actually specify something from the document that you think supports whatever your argument is (you still have really specified that either)…I’ll just have to respond in general to Madison’s views.

            Did Madison actually oppose chaplains in Congress? Yes, and no.

            Madison’s religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison’s religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions.

            First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:

            “[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.”1

            (YOU SEE HOW THIS IS DONE?)

            Madison even desired that all public officials – including Bradford – would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony:

            “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”2

            Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

            “It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”3

            Third, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared:

            “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”4

            (Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates) 5

            Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.6

            Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.7

            Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. 8

            1Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772), in 1 James Madison, The Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 5-6 (New York: R. Worthington 1884).

            2Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).

            3The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the “Declaration of Rights” passed June 12, 1776).

            4The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 451, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C.: Gales & Seaton 1834) (June 8, 1789).

            5Debates and Proceedings 758-759 (1834 ed.) (August 15, 1789).

            6Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).

            7Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”)

            8James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).

            ALL this came as part of a larger essay at http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=105

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Do you practice being an ass or does it come naturally to you?

            Hey, that’s about your speed, isn’t it?

            Anyone vaguely familiar with the protocols of debate understand that you don’t just throw own statements without substantive support.

            Who’s having a debate? I’m just berating you.

            By the way, the real lawyer advising the school board disagrees with you. Maybe you could convince the school board that they should throw away money defending this.

          • jmichael39

            I give you credit for at least openly admitting that you’re not here to discuss anything.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            What’s the point? Your side lost, and you are trying to argue that decades of supreme court precedence is “wrong”. Why not contact the school board and give them your crack legal advice?

          • jmichael39

            What’s next, Ralph? “Neener neener” something about “pants on fire”. Are we not allowed to question the rulings of the Supreme Court? Maybe we should have never questioned Plessy. If you’re here to do little more than flip the bird at people you don’t like, piss off. If you want to engage an intelligent discussion/debate…give it a shot.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Are we not allowed to question the rulings of the Supreme Court?

            Sure you are. Just don’t pretend they don’t exist.

            And are you going to tell that school board that they’ll win a court fight?

          • jmichael39

            Who the hell is pretending they don’t exist? If we were pretending they don’t exist we wouldn’t be arguing against them and trying to get them overturned.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Who the hell is pretending they don’t exist?

            Well, when I wrote “The lawless were forced to give in to the constitution” and you replied with “You mean how this generation wants us to THINK of the Constitution”, it sounded to me like you were pretending that all those court rulings removing religion from public schools didn’t exist.

          • jmichael39

            operative word being “sounded”…pointing back to you prejudice in the matter.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You keep saying “bye” but keep replying. As the song goes, how can I miss you if you won’t go away?

          • pastoredsmith

            I prefer the Constitution itself. Read the First Amendment. The prohibition of government from interfering with the free practice of religion is there in black and white.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The prohibition of government from interfering with the free practice of religion is there in black and white.

            Are you saying everyone gets to put monuments on public school grounds?

          • pastoredsmith

            No, I didn’t say that. The First Amendment did. What you miss here, Mr. FFRF atheist bully, is that someone affiliated with the school; not a Wisconsin body of bullies, put it there.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            No, I didn’t say that. The First Amendment did.

            No, it doesn’t.

            What you miss here, Mr. FFRF atheist bully, is that someone affiliated with the school; not a Wisconsin body of bullies, put it there.

            That doesn’t matter.

      • alnga

        What law in the constitution prohibts the students from praying or for that matter prohibits some one to have a memorial built and gifted to the school? I have a copy in front of me and find no such doctrine. The godless have nothing to fear from those who believe.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          What law in the constitution prohibts the students from praying or for that

          I never said that. The constitution allows students to pray.

          for that matter prohibits some one to have a memorial built and gifted to the school?

          This isn’t a memorial, either.

          I have a copy in front of me and find no such doctrine.

          I’ve got the news article in front of me, and it’s about a monument on school grounds with bible verses on it.

          • pastoredsmith

            Yes, the Constitution ALLOWS and PROTECTS the right of Freedom OF Religion. Read the First Amendment. Yes, it is a monument with a Scripture verse on it. Your point? The school didn’t erect it. Only atheists who bully their way around want it removed. Not the general population, except for those cowards who would rather back down than to fight.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Yes, the Constitution ALLOWS and PROTECTS the right of Freedom OF Religion. Read the First Amendment.

            The first amendment also prohibits establishment of religion.

            Yes, it is a monument with a Scripture verse on it. Your point?

            The school boards’ lawyer advised them to remove the bible verses:
            http://ffrf.org/images/1madisonresponse.pdf

          • pastoredsmith

            But, atheists want “no religion,” meaning “atheism” to rue the day. Allowing the free practice of religion is exactly what the First Amendment means. And, when a person wants to practice their religion by bringing a Bible to school, that is prohibited; yet the same school is forced to omit anything referring to Christians and to leave their faith at the gate. That is NOT ALLOWING the free practice of religion. And, just because someone outside the school system erects (with permission) a monument with a Scripture verse or a Cross on school property is NOT an endorsement of religion. It is atheists who did this, beginning with Madelyn Murray O’Haire and presently with the Freedom From Religion Foundation that intimidates and threatens lawsuits. Bullies. Thugs. FFRF is a complete bunch of fools in action.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            But, atheists want “no religion,” meaning “atheism” to rue the day

            No, they want the government to not promote religion.

            Allowing the free practice of religion is exactly what the First Amendment means.

            Which does not include having public schools promote religion.

            And, when a person wants to practice their religion by bringing a Bible to school, that is prohibited;

            No, it isn’t. Now you’re lying.

            yet the same school is forced to omit anything referring to Christians and to leave their faith at the gate.

            Who’s faith? The “school’s”!? Public schools don’t have a faith. They’re public schools for everyone, not a particular religion.

            And, just because someone outside the school system erects (with permission) a monument with a Scripture verse or a Cross on school property is NOT an endorsement of religion.

            The real lawyer advising the school board disagrees with you. You can try contacting the school board and explain why they should listen to you instead of someone with actual legal training if you like.

            It is atheists who did this, beginning with Madelyn Murray O’Haire and presently with the Freedom From Religion Foundation that intimidates and threatens lawsuits. Bullies. Thugs.

            They’re bullies and thugs by threatening to have US courts review public schools to make sure they’re acting within the constitution?

      • Semp

        You’re dumb because your HIV meds have rotted your brain.

        When you expose yourself to little boys, they laugh at how tiny it is.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          I see you are fascinated by the thought of molesting boys.

      • The Last Trump

        Isn’t funny how Christianity and the Constitution coincided together for all these generations, until now. I guess this depraved and shameless, self-indulgent society of God haters doesn’t like to be reminded of morality.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          Isn’t funny how Christianity and the Constitution coincided together for all these generations, until now.

          Not at all. Christianity and the Constitution still are compatible, it’s just that Christians can no longer ride roughshod over non-Christians and instead have to get used to losing undeserved privilege and a level playing field.

          I guess this depraved and shameless, self-indulgent society of God haters doesn’t like to be reminded of morality.

          That’s not it at all. We don’t like people who ignore the constitution to impose their religion on everyone else.

  • pastoredsmith

    Cowards! If you cave to this demand, then I respectfully demand that your schools stop being “atheist zones!” (You call it “religion free zones.” It means the same thing.). It is time to get these people out of office! This story should be titled, “A vein threat from a group of atheist bullies causes Georgia school board to run for their lives.”

    • Erin Carol Ponzo

      I couldn’t agree any more

    • Carla Virga

      The entire school board are cowards who have sealed their fates. “But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” -Matthew 10:33

      • Tommy Ferrugia

        “Fee Fi F Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman!” – Jack and the Beanstalk.

        It seems we have much worse things to fear than plague sent from an invisible ghost living in space. There are GIANTS IN THE CLOUDS PEOPLE!!!!

    • XXDarrienX

      Cause paying a unwinnable lawsuit is such a smart idea instead of using their money for education.

    • AuggieEast

      Leaving the district liable to a huge lawsuit if the school does not give equal space to other religions or points of view would be highly irresponsible. And towards what end?.

      • pastoredsmith

        To what end? It’s called “Freedom OF Religion.” It is a First Amendment right. By making the school “religion free,” you actually are forcing another religion on our students. Atheism. Atheism is the teaching of “no religion,” and they now have churches complete with “clergy” and tax deductions. Throwing religion out of schools is not an option.

        • ActualDeadhead

          They don’t actually teach atheism. But, certainly, if you teach kids the scientific facts about the world, especially science, a number of them will come to the reasonable conclusion that all religions are hogwash.

          • pastoredsmith

            Thank you for agreeing with me, atheist. But, you are wrong in one aspect. The forced removal of all religion is the forced teaching of atheism. And, if all viewpoints are allowed, then more people than not will accept the real truth that atheism is hogwash and a total lie. Open your eyes, atheist. There is a God, and He knows you by name. One day, you will stand before Him. And, even though you don’t believe in Him, that doesn’t negate His reality. But, you already know that and simply wish to cloud the water with your whining and atheism.

          • ActualDeadhead

            But if this is allowed, when enough Muslims or whomever move into a town to be the majority, then they could change all this scripture into quotes from the Koran or whatever. How would you feel if this happened at your kids school?

          • pastoredsmith

            Is this your way of intimidating me? You think that we should be forced to accept the religion of atheism being taught at school, and the “fear” that Muslims “might” come and take over would intimidate us? No, it doesn’t. Welcome to America, atheist; the country that allows atheism to be a religion (you have “churches” now, complete with “clergy” and tax deductions just like a “real” church, so don’t tell me it isn’t a religion). You advocate the silence of Christians. We will never be silent. Especially with fools who think the only way to run a once free country is to do it with governmental oppression. Freedom OF religion is still the law of the land! Get used to it.

          • ActualDeadhead

            Your America is the old one that is dying off, and really only strong now in the South. My America is the new multicultural nonreligious, and pro-equality America that elected Obama and brought marriage equality to the brink of total victory in about 15 years. The demographics are on our side. Whatever setbacks you see currently are only temporary. The youth of today are by far the most secular ever. Even Mormon youth are leaving their churches in droves. You don’t have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            Just because you don’t believe in Allah, or Thor, :doesn’t negate His reality.” Care to withdraw that specious argument?
            I’ll open my eyes when you can show some – any – objective evidence for your God.
            In this case, as the good guys who favor the rule of law won, it isn’t us who is whining.

  • dawnrosanne

    This is terrible. The school dose not have to bow to the bully-tactics of the FFR Foundation and others. What about the rights of the Christian students at that school? It’s called Freedom of Religion, and its in our First Ammendment. The school needs to stand up to the bullies and stop this madness for the sake of their own student body and the families of the students as well.

    • Tommy Ferrugia

      No, they just have to abide by the Constitution. I know it’s hard to accept that your made-up religion doesn’t get special treatment over any other made up religion (or lack thereof). But nobody promised life would always seem fair 🙂

      • dawnrosanne

        No Tommy, you are incorrect. Jesus is as alive as you are! And the faith that I hold as a Christian, along with millions of others, while it deserves no “special treatment,” it also deserves not to be disrespected and marginalized. When the vast majority of a community, like those in Madison County, want their faith represented as scriptures on a sculpture, they should have every right to do so. The scriptures do not demean those of other or no faiths, they do not attempt to “convert,” students; rather they stand for truths that have transformed lives for thousands of years. It is sad you do not feel this way. I hope you will see the light and truth of Christ in your own life someday!

        • Cruz Gonzalez

          The sculpture was clearly favoring christianity over other religions. It’s disrespectful to children that attend that school that may be another religion. Keep all of your religious stuff in private schools.

  • MC

    “Three citizens spoke to the board to represent those who believed the sculpture should not be altered to appease those who take issue with the citation of Scripture.”

    Three? That room should have been packed with Christians! SMH…

    • James Grimes

      It should have been. There is a problem with “Christians” standing up for their faith. Most are afraid to. Shame on them.

  • Maranatha2011

    Considering the subject of this verse, does anyone else see the irony here? God haters certainly don’t want God to be for us, but the joke’s on them. He will always be for us, His own.

  • 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/

    If the courts state that atheism IS a religion, then why did their religion trump Christianity?

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      If the courts state that atheism IS a religion, then why did their religion trump Christianity?

      How is it “trumping” Christianity? Are they going to replace the bible verses with “god does not exist” or something?

      Why no. They are just going to remove the verses. That isn’t promoting atheism.

      • MC

        If it’s not promoting atheism then why remove the verses from a privately funded and donated sculpture? Why was it an atheist organization that complained to have it removed?

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          If it’s not promoting atheism then why remove the verses from a privately funded and donated sculpture?

          Because a public school can’t promote religion.

          Why was it an atheist organization that complained to have it removed?

          Because a parent of a student in the school informed the FFRF of the violation, and the FFRF’s legal department wrote to the school board.

          • MC

            “Because a public school can’t promote religion.”

            The government was not involved in the sculpture in any way. They neither paid for it or put it there.

            “Because a parent of a student in the school informed the FFRF of the violation, and the FFRF’s legal department wrote to the school board.”

            There was NO violation because the government was not involved in the statue in any way, nor was the government trying to establish a state religion.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The government was not involved in the sculpture in any way.

            Of course it was. It’s on public school grounds.

          • MC

            “Of course it was. It’s on public school grounds.”

            We have freedom to practice religion on public school grounds, the First amendment protects our rights. There was NO violation because the government was not involved in the sculpture in any way, it was privately funded and donated and the government wasn’t establishing a state religion.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            We have freedom to practice religion on public school grounds, the First amendment protects our rights.

            Which would mean that EVERYONE can put monuments on this school’s grounds.

            Somehow, I don’t think that’s accurate.

            Here’s the letter the FFRF sent to the school:
            http://ffrf.org/images/1madisongeorgia.pdf

            Here is the reply from the schools attorney, saying the verses will be removed:
            http://ffrf.org/images/1madisonresponse.pdf

          • Cruz Gonzalez

            Yes you (as in the students) have every right to practice religion on school grounds. Does this mean you can build monuments on it? No. The school had nothing to do with putting the sculpture there? Are you saying the school didn’t approve of it? That whoever donated it just put it there without telling the school board. If so, what’s to stop me from putting a monument that promotes atheism?

          • MC

            “Does this mean you can build monuments on it?”

            The school didn’t build the sculpture, it was privately funded and donated.

            “Are you saying the school didn’t approve of it?”

            Of course the school approved it, that’s how it got there in the first place. Show me a law that says a public school can’t accept a donation?

            “If so, what’s to stop me from putting a monument that promotes atheism?”

            The only thing stopping you or not stopping you is getting approval.

    • Doug Indeap

      It should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.

  • Jeffery Kinkead

    Our public schools are intolerant of Christianity:
    Public Schools Intolerant of Christians!: http://youtu.be/9zcdR-9MOWw

  • Maranatha2011

    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
    two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
    spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      You know, in light of that, I just never understood the Holocaust.

  • Bolvon72

    Such a good thing, and another brick in the foundation of precedence, really clarifying what the Constitution intended with the 1st amendment.

    • MC

      You have no idea what the Constitution intended with the First Amendment. The government didn’t fund nor put up the sculpture, the sculpture was privately funded and donated. The government wasn’t establishing a state religion.

      • Bolvon72

        It’s simple, it is on public grounds. The monument is exclusive to christianity and therefore promotes that religion over all others. A public school cannot be represented by such a thing. Like I said, this is only adding bricks to a rather strong foundation of keeping public office and facilities out of the religion business. A very good thing.

        • jschlue2

          Show me the part of the Constitution that limits a public entity from making displays of religion. And don’t quote precedence, because the precedence is NOT the Constitution, nor is it even remotely correct.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The courts follow precedence even if you don’t agree with it. I prefer to live in the real world.

          • jschlue2

            So that means we should just accept it, right? You still didn’t show where in the Constitution it says that this monument is not allowed – because you can’t.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            So that means we should just accept it, right?

            You can try to get the courts to reverse themselves; it just doesn’t happen very often.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            It’s interpretation. Obviously there are (and always will be) an innumerable number of legal challenges for which there is no SPECIFIC citation. I’m sure you will not be able to find a section of the any state law that says it’s illegal for a 42 year old white male to fill balloons with urine and lob them onto moving cars from a hot air balloon. However, I’m sure there are other laws that, when interpreted, would cover such actions.

            Federal law, which supersedes state or local ordinance, prohibits establishing religion. Accordingly, publicly subsidized institutions may not endorse one religious faith (over another, or over none at all). By posting biblical scripture on a public facility, it’s in effect, advertising/promoting that scripture as having a unique weight or truth. Clearly, that is not the case. There is no credible evidence suggesting that the anonymous Middle Eastern nomads who penned the myths that now form ‘the bible’ had any more insight into the universe than Joseph Smith, Mohammed, L Ron Hubbard, or any of the countless charlatans claiming voices in their heads were telepathic messages from a deity in space. There is nothing special about Christianity.

            Individual citizens may exercise freedom of religion without fear of government intervention (to the extent that those beliefs don’t harm or prejudice others). However, permitting someone to practice whatever religion he sees fit is NOT the same as allowing that person to thrust their beliefs upon the populace.

            Sorry 🙁

          • jschlue2

            There are no laws, Federal or otherwise, that prohibit the monument in question. If so, quote for us the specific law or statute that does, and I will challenge it in court because that law would be, under the establishment clause, unconstitutional. These atheists are challenging the monument and other public displays of religion on constitutional grounds, not on the basis of any particular written law.

            You said, “However, permitting someone to practice whatever religion he sees fit is NOT the same as allowing that person to thrust their beliefs upon the populace.” I suppose, then, you would support the court if it had told the atheists who posted the anti-Christian billboards in Time Square at Christmas to remove them because they were, as you stated, “thrusting their beliefs upon the populace”.

          • Lucius Whitman

            A PUBLIC school is a government institution, and subject to the Constitution. A private billboard is not.

          • jschlue2

            I was referring to his contention that “thrusting their beliefs upon the populace” is wrong, but nice try.

  • Jeffery Kinkead

    According to Obama we are not a Christian nation anymore.America the ungodly: http://youtu.be/Er5bvvHhSNg

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      This never was a Christian nation. Explicit amendments favoring Christianity were proposed to the constitution, but they were all voted down.

      This is a nation with religious freedom.

      • Crystal

        That’s where you’re wrong… our Forefathers came to this country to get away from religious persecution, we are very much a Christian nation! You Atheists may succeed in blotting God out of our Government and our schools, and we all see the damage that’s causing, but that’s only temporary! Sadly though, you’ll pay for all eternity for that!

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          our Forefathers came to this country to get away from religious persecution, we are very much a Christian nation!

          No, they rejected calls to make this a Christian nation. We have religious freedom instead.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            What idiot told you that?!

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            These idiots: The Treaty of Tripoli/

            “It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.” [emphasis mine

            As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;


            Wikipedia

          • Crystal

            Yeah, and look where so-called religious freedom has gotten us! Homosexuality and other perversions, the violence of Islam, and violence in general has increased greatly since the world has decided we no longer need God… you’re so right, freedom from religion is just working out so peachy, the world is a much gentler and loving place…

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            If you want a theocracy, try one of those Muslim countries.

            I prefer religious freedom, particularly as it helps fighting against religious fanatics like yourself.

          • Semp

            Pedophile
            Assho[e
            B=tch
            Pasny
            Trailer trash loser.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I almost feel like not reporting your comment, as it illustrates how hateful some people can be.

            Almost.

        • BarkingDawg

          “our Forefathers came to this country to get away from religious persecution.”

          =========

          Then why are you persecuting those who do not share your religion?

          • Crystal

            That’s the problem when one states Biblical fact, those who don’t believe in the Bible feel persecuted…

          • BarkingDawg

            biblical fact?

        • Tommy Ferrugia

          “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”- Thomas Jefferson

          “In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.”- Ben Franklin

          “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it”- John Adams

        • Lucius Whitman

          Funny how those who state this never mention who they were being persecuted by…which would have been other Christians.

          • Crystal

            No, it was the King of England, who placed himself at the head of the church and restricted religious freedoms and wanted to take Christianity in a different direction then our Forefathers wanted to go.

          • supermark99

            “and wanted to take Christianity in a different” – bingo! persecuted by other christians

      • jmichael39

        The so-called “Christian Amendment Movement” began during the Civil War..NOT during our Founding.

        Now, to address your statement. There is an inherent logical fallacy in your statement…that a Christian nation is not a religiously free nation. There is only logic to that statement if you, or any person, equates a “Christian nation” with naming Christianity and the religion of our country to the exclusion of all others. That is what is inherently wrong.

        Our founders never thought that way. To our Founders, they were adamant in prescribing and encouraging at adherence to the Christian faith. That much is clearly evident in numerous actions of theirs. Actions which focused solely upon the Christian religion and not other world religions. Their intention, as many of their writings will attest, was essentially three-fold

        1) that no religion or denomination should be favored over another in one respect…identifying that religion or denomination as the official religion or denomination of the country. No more than that.
        2) that religion, specifically the Christian religion would be encouraged within our nation…though not one denomination over another. This is evidenced by the fact that so many actions taken by the founders post-constitution showed deep government interaction with Christianity. From inscriptions on buildings, to oaths, to how money from the public treasury was spent…and much more. No such actions were ever taken in favor of any other religion at all.
        3) that the government would have no authority over religious affairs except in matters where those actions adversely affected a person’s life, liberty or property. In other words, the church wasn’t gonna get away with killing, imprisoning or stealing from people.
        The problem is not what the founders intended. That is crystal clear. The problem is how the past 2-3 generations have warped the first amendment and a simple letter to the Danbury Baptist Church to mean something completely different. The sad irony of this is that, while the founders had essentially created a country based up Christian principles, because it was also a country where people of any faith were free to practice their faith as they wish as well, it was also a country where NO religion was given unfair advantage over another. Now, by these warped interpretations of the First Amendment, we essentially have a country that gives pure and unhindered liberty to only one religion…,the Humanist/Secularist/Atheist religion. They get unfettered access into our schools and into the corridors and chambers of our political arenas while successfully shunning all other religions.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          The so-called “Christian Amendment Movement” began during the Civil War..NOT during our Founding.

          Amendments were also proposed when the constitution was being written. They were voted down.

          • jmichael39

            Are you planning on providing citations for this? References? Something? Anything? Or are we supposed to just take your word on this? I ask because my research shows no such thing. Obviously, I have not scoured the entire internet. So there could, just as obviously, be some citation of this out there somewhere. If so, it would serve to a logical discourse that you provide such references.

            I do know that some who suggest that the Founders were not such spiritual men use the Convention itself as ‘proof’. They argue that because the Convention was not opened in prayer, but in fact, opening prayer was rejected, that this must prove the Founders were not so interested in bringing God into our country. Of course this belies the hundreds ,of other actions by the Founders that would show that they DID want God into our country. But that’s not the point I am bringing up.

            One author, Mark Waldon Whitten, brings up this issue of opening prayer at the Convention and Franklin’s famous address to the attendees when they had reached an impasse over state representation. He would like us to believe that the attendees didn’t welcome the idea at all and in fact, never voted on it.

            Yet, General Dayton, a member of the Convention and later Speaker of the House had a different recollection of the Franklin speech,

            “The doctor [Franklin] sat down, and never did I [General Dayton] behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of the address! Nor were the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance.”
            Franklin did write later that except for three or four delegates, no one agreed with his call for prayer. And several more days did pass before it was again brought up…this time in an effort to assign someone to be the Convention chaplain and to lead the Convention in prayer each day.

            One person who DID object was then Speaker, Alexander Hamilton who suggested that he would not support any such “foreign aid” (meaning Divine aide). Dayton recalls what happened next.

            “Washington fixed his eye upon the speaker [Hamilton], with a mixture of surprise and indignation, while he uttered this impertinent and impious speech, and then looked around to ascertain in what manner it affected others. They did not leave him a moment to doubt; no one deigned to reply, or take the smallest notice of the speaker, but the motion for appointing a chaplain was instantly seconded and carried; whether under the silent disapprobation of Mr. H___, or his solitary negative, I do not recollect.”

            So while Mr. Whitten would like us to believe, by no other source presented than his word and a misquoted piece of Franklin’s writings, one thing, the evidence of Convention’s own official papers released to the public in 1818 and the writings of another Convention delegate paint a wholly different picture.

            Therefore, provide us with pertinent references to support your claim, or you’ll simply have to forgive us for placing validity on your words.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Are you planning on providing citations for this? References? Something? Anything?

            Maryland Delegate Luther Martin’s notes on the writing of the constitution.

          • jmichael39

            You don’t like being specific do you? Does it threaten your sense of self worth or something silly like that?

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You don’t like being specific do you?

            I was specific enough to spell out that I was referring to the time of the writing of the constitution, yet for some reason you decided I was talking about something 80+ years later.

            Your whole premise of how the founders wanted your god in everything runs right up against what they actually wrote in the constitution. If they wanted Christianity to have any special status, they certainly knew enough to write it that way. They didn’t. You can also check out what Madison and Jefferson wrote about the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom.

          • jmichael39

            80+ years later? Illiterate AND an ass…what a wonderful combination.

            Your understanding of my premise exposes your gross inability to view anything outside your clouded prejudices. I never said or intimated that the Founders wanted Christianity in everything. My premise is that our Founders had no problem allowing religion (and specifically the Christian religion) to have a direct and open infusion in any area of our society…especially the public and political arenas. Unlike today, where people like you think that the notion of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Jefferson’s “separation of Church and state” implicitly rejects the injection of ANY religious influence in any public or political arena.
            In fact, it is my argument that the ongoing attempts by secularists/humanists/atheists to completely remove all religions from the public and political arenas has, in fact, established a national religion…that of secular humanism/atheism.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            80+ years later? Illiterate AND an ass…what a wonderful combination.

            What are you babbling about now? I was talking about the writing of the constitution, and you were talking about the civil war. That’s about an 80 year difference. Moron.

            it is my argument that the ongoing attempts by secularists/humanists/atheists to completely remove all religions from the public and political arena

            Yeah, well, atheists aren’t doing that. Idiot.

          • jmichael39

            Read the damned thread, moron. I brought up the attempts post Civil War way back when you were suggesting there were amendments proposed to make Christianity the national religion….a claim which STILL have not substantiated. I brought up the era after the Civil War because that’s the first time I know of where there were some attempts to make Christianity the national religion. For which I asked you to provide some substantive proof that there were amendments proposed during the Convention. For which you simply said Luther Martin. For which I asked you to, AGAIN, provide some citations or references. Which you STILL have not done. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through this thread? Are you intimidated by having to actually go back and read a little.

            “Yeah, well, atheists aren’t doing that. Idiot.” – well you sure are trying. Which is what this entire article and discussion is about…efforts from Christians to stop your insane efforts to bastardize the first amendment and then LIE about our founding fathers’ intentions.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I brought up the attempts post Civil War way back when you were suggesting there were amendments proposed to make Christianity the national religion

            Hey moron, read what I actually wrote: “Explicit amendments favoring Christianity were proposed to the constitution”

            That is NOT the same as “make Christianity the national religion”

            It’s useless to argue with you when you can’t even get that right.

            Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through this thread?

            You need to be able to read what I write instead of what you imagine I wrote first.

            “Yeah, well, atheists aren’t doing that. Idiot.” – well you sure are trying.

            I’m not trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”. Idiot.

          • jmichael39

            “It’s useless to argue with you when you can’t even get that right.” – Now you’re bitching about specifics? You’re a laughable idiot. You STILL won’t provide evidence for these supposed amendments.

            “You need to be able to read what I write instead of what you imagine I wrote first.” – Consider you’re own violations of this nature, you can feel free to accuse me of this when you take the log out of your own eye…hypocrite.

            “I’m not trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”” – liar.

          • jmichael39

            Besides I thought you weren’t arguing? Oh wait, you said you weren’t ‘debating’…you’re fine with arguing. Not the formal sort of argument…mind you…just you being a vitriolic ass.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Besides I thought you weren’t arguing? Oh wait, you said you weren’t ‘debating’…you’re fine with arguing.

            Now you’re catching on. Slowly.

            Not the formal sort of argument…mind you…just you being a vitriolic ass.

            Sore loser.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “It’s useless to argue with you when you can’t even get that right.” – Now you’re bitching about specifics?

            I’m bitching about how you can’t even distinguish between “Explicit amendments favoring Christianity were proposed to the constitution” and “make Christianity the national religion”.

            “I’m not trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”” – liar.

            Where am I trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”? I’ve written elsewhere in this very thread that religious idiots like yourself can promote your religion on public sidewalks, have churches, etc.

          • jmichael39

            “I’m bitching about how you can’t even distinguish between “Explicit amendments favoring Christianity were proposed to the constitution” and “make Christianity the national religion”.” – You can’t even make specific citations and references and you feel like you’re in a position to bitch about the wording I used? Time to grow up, little man.

            “Where am I trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”? I’ve written elsewhere in this very thread that religious idiots like yourself can promote your religion on public sidewalks, have churches, etc.”

            To use YOUR means of answer such questions… the thread over there. That comment above.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You can’t even make specific citations and references and you feel like you’re in a position to bitch about the wording I used?

            Because you changed what I was referring to. A “Christian nation” amendment is a specific kind of amendment, and that is not the kind I was referring to.

            Time to grow up, little man.

            You’re the one who can’t tell the difference between “Explicit amendments favoring Christianity were proposed to the constitution” and “make Christianity the national religion”.

            They mean different things.

            And I’m not surprised you can’t back up your lie about how I’m trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”

          • jmichael39

            “Because you changed what I was referring to. A “Christian nation” amendment is a specific kind of amendment, and that is not the kind I was referring to.” – Again, unless and until you can find it within you pathetic little pea brain to actually make specific citation and references to substantiate your arguments, you’re in absolutely no position to gripe about the simplistic nuance between “favoring” and “establishing”.

            “And I’m not surprised you can’t back up your lie about how I’m trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”” – You’re simply the most self absorbed narcissistic person I’ve ever seen on here. You haven’t provided a single source to support a single thing you’ve claimed and you have the audacity to say that about me?! Goodbye…you’ve already said you’re not here to debate…only here to be an ass…so go be an ass…and leave the intelligent discussions to the rest of us. BUH BYE

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “And I’m not surprised you can’t back up your lie about how I’m trying to “completely remove all religions from the public and political arena”” – You’re simply the most self absorbed narcissistic person I’ve ever seen on here. You haven’t provided a single source to support a single thing you’ve claimed and you have the audacity to say that about me?!

            Because I haven’t written anything about removing all religions from the public arena, and have explicity written in this very thread the opposite.

            You’re just LYING.

            BUH BYE

            You keep saying that, but you keep babbling.

          • Doug Indeap

            The historical evidence is that the Constitutional Convention did not engage in any prayer following Ben Franklin’s motion. When Franklin made the motion for prayer, Alexander Hamilton and others objected, there was considered discussion, and ultimately the motion was dropped without a vote, and no prayers were ever held at the convention. Franklin penned a note at the end of his handwritten speech: “The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” Max Farrand, ed., 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 452 (1911).

            The contrary myth you summarize first arose in a letter written in 1825 by someone trying to paint Hamilton in a bad light for political reasons. That myth is thoroughly debunked in Chris Rodda’s book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/).

          • jmichael39

            You link doesn’t work, So you’ll forgive me if I have no means of testing the source for your claim. Be well.

          • Doug Indeap

            Fixed. It turns out that parentheses and periods mess up a link.

          • jmichael39

            thanks for fixing. I will make the attempt to find access the citations from the article and attempt to see how they reconcile with the citations I’ve seen that bring about different statements. I hope you’ll do that same…as I added the citations to my earlier post on the matter. Thanks for a civil discourse. Be well. Going to bed soon myself.

      • Semp

        F ggot

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          I see you have no arguments, only mindless insults.

    • Tommy Ferrugia

      “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”- Thomas Jefferson

      “In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.”- Ben Franklin

      “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it”- John Adams

      Tell us again how we are NO LONGER a ‘Christian nation?”

  • dawnrosanne

    I found all the members of the school board on the school’s website. Please, contact them and ask them to reconsider their decision! Also, send an email to the school administrator, Dr. McCannon. I could not find his email, but you can fill out an info form on his page on their website and send it that way. Here’s the link to the school board members: http://www.madison.k12.ga.us/administration/boardofeducation/boe-members/

    • beckiru

      Yes, because spending school district funds on lawsuits is in the best interest of the kids… Not. Get over it and go to church if you need to see bible quotes. Or have you tried just opening a bible?

      • dawnrosanne

        You are incorrect Becki. The group that I mentioned in my comment, Alliance Defending Freedom, would represent the school board AT.NO.COST.TO.THE.SCHOOL.BOARD or the tax payers. It’s made up of lawyers that do pro bono work to support the cause of religious freedom across the United States. I love going to church, and I love my Jesus, and I will never “get over it.” 🙂 I hope you will see the truth of Christ someday!

        • Lucius Whitman

          No one cares what you believe, or how you personally choose to express it. But, a public school is a government institution and does not enjoy that freedom.

          If you truly think about it, and consider the history of religions that were intertwined with national governments, I would think you would be glad that ours is prohibited from doing so.

        • C.P. Steinmetz

          And when they lose, will the ADF pay the opposing side’s legal fees, and the school board would have to? Sure.
          And it is nice that you love church and your Jesus. Also, some of us hope you will see the truth of reason, science, and evidence.

          • dawnrosanne

            CP–have you ever read the book, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict?” It’s a true story about an athiest who is out to disprove that Christ ever existed, or if he did, he never rose again. I’d encourage you to read that book. There is way more evidence for Christ’s existence than there is not, AND because God created science, reason, rational thought, and so much more— and because the evidence of His handiwork is on display in glorious ways throughout creation (including man whom He created in His image), we are without excuse.

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            No I haven’t wasted my time. You can look at the following and see why :

            http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

            “because God created science, reason, rational thought, and so much more”, etc. Isn’t that what you are trying to prove? Just stating it as a fact isn’t persuasive.

  • Crystal

    What’s next?? Are they going to go after Christian schools and their mottos?? This isn’t about the kids, equality or separation of church and state… It’s about a hatred of God! They’re doing the devil’s work, and he is busy, he knows his time is short!

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      Are they going to go after Christian schools and their mottos??

      No, just keeping government school neutral on religion.

    • BarkingDawg

      “What’s next?? Are they going to go after Christian schools and their mottos??”

      =============

      No, private schools can do whatever they like.

      It’s public schools that have to remain secular.

      But you knew that, didn’t you?

    • Tommy Ferrugia

      Except for the fact that the devil is a made up character who does not actually exist, you have a point!!

      • Crystal

        My, my, Satan’s busy….

    • SpeakTruth

      Nope, not going after private schools, private residences, private churches. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and ALL of the religious people in this country can still pray anytime, anywhere. It has merely been judged unconstitutional for a government or government official to endorse any one particular religion. Crystal, you should be happy about this. If a Muslim teacher prayed with your children in her class, you would have grounds to sue. Do you truly want any religious monument or religious quote in your child’s school? The Quran has many “interesting” verses. Isn’t it a protection for all of us that we can teach our children ourselves and that government stays out of religion?

    • Cruz Gonzalez

      Christian schools can do whatever they please. They can go aheadand teach chlidren their spooky fairy tales. However, a public school shouldn’t favor any one religion over all of the others. Atheists don’t believe in god so how can we hate him? The devil is just as made up as god.

      • Crystal

        Well Satan’s got you right where he wants you… Satan’s more successful in deceiving you if you don’t believe in him.

  • Michelle Bowen

    Cowards! If either of them groups came up here and bothered my hometown I’d be in their stupid faces. They hate Christians and Christ. They will do anything to remove us from the schools, shy of kicking our kids out! They will never be happy. I pray one day tehir eyes are open before…it is too late….Judgement will come…we all know God’s judgement will come.

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      We all do not “know God’s judgement will come.” Some of us don’t think any ‘judgment’ is coming, others think that Thor will be mighty upset at people.

    • SpeakTruth

      No one is “bothering” anyone’s hometown, ma’am. If your public schools are free of religious monuments, and the teachers in your schools are not praying to Allah with your children, no one cares. No one wants to remove any person from schools. To the contrary, the more educated people, the better!
      “We all know god’s judgment will come” – I assume the “we” are evangelical Christians? Christians have been waiting on the “judgement” for over 2000 years. I’m guessing another 2000 will pass uneventful.

      • Ralph Spoilsport

        I’m still waiting for the great prophet Zarquon…

    • Cruz Gonzalez

      They hate christ? How can they hate him? Either they believe
      a) Christ was an everyday man that lived and died some 2,000 years ago.
      or b) Christ never existed.
      If they believe that Jesus was indeed a man, they have no reason to hate him. if they believe that Jesus never existed, how can they hate him? They are removing religion from schools because it doesn’t belong there. We are very happy thank you very much. And billions of people have lived and died expecting for Jesus to return in their lifetime. I’m guessing that you will too.

  • BarkingDawg

    Smart move. They saved tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

  • Carla Virga

    God gives us what we need when we need it, and this came today from Kirk McKenzie:

    THE
    ANTI-CHRIST

    ARE ON THE ATTACK

    http://fxn.ws/1ubqJ8T

    Why is Houston City Attorney David Feldman attacking
    Christians, their churches, their beliefs, and their faith? One
    would expect Jews to respect other people’s religions and First
    Amendment rights.

    “Separation of church and state” was never part of the
    founding documents. Rather, the Supreme Court justified its
    decision based solely on a few lines from a letter Thomas
    Jefferson wrote one or two decades after the Constitution was
    adopted.

    o Those short lines were taken out of context.

    o Thomas Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional
    Convention. He was not even in the United States at the time.
    He and John Adams had been sent out of the country to be
    ambassadors to England and France, possibly for the very
    purpose of silencing two of the strongest voices that were
    involved in the Declaration of Independence.

    o Why does the Supreme Court use Thomas Jefferson as the
    authority in this one decision, but ignore him in everything
    else, things he actually did say? Indeed, Thomas Jefferson has
    been viciously demonized and is even being removed from
    history books.

    o To the extent separation may have been a concept, it was
    to keep government out of the churches’ business, not the
    other way around, as confirmed by the First Amendment.

    What we are witnessing is the same religious persecution
    that befell Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution.

    14th Amendment “Civil Rights” are being used to overrule
    Constitutional “Inalienable Rights.”

    Religious or not, every American should understand our
    country is founded on Christian principles. To defeat
    constitutional government, Gramechi and others determined they
    had to defeat Christianity, and that is exactly what they are
    doing.

    Think of the Anti-Christ not just as one person, but as a
    sect of people dedicated to eradicating Jesus Christ,
    Christianity, Free Will, Constitutional Government, and
    Inalienable Rights from the face of our planet, and from the
    human record.

    • XXDarrienX

      Might want to get your facts correct. – http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/houston.asp

    • Sha-wei

      Great insight, brother, but the scope of the “Anti-Christ” spirit goes deeper and extends farther still. But this was prophesied from the earliest years of the Church:

      “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come (‘…the day of the Lord is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it’) until the rebellion occurs and the MAN (and woman) OF LAWLESSNESS is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”

      “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” Is this not glaringly obvious from developments such as the following (and from those thus deceived)?

      “Off topic, but good news.
      Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming just became marriage equality states.”

      Children of lawlessness, repent and flee the wrath to come. Pray that the Merciful One will “open (your) eyes, that (you) may see”. SIN will NOT stand on that Day.

  • David Rivas

    Replace it with “Think before you Act.”

  • Lucius Whitman

    Every time something like this happens, and some clamor for the religious whatever to stay, I can’t help but wonder just what is going on in our school system to fail so many in the study of civics.

  • Jud Bennett

    There was another option. The inclusion of verses from all major religions with space reserved for inclusion of verses by minor religions that want representation. It still goes against the separation of church and state and wouldn’t stop the zealots from screaming that they’re being persecuted because their one truth verses aren’t the only ones represented, but it was another option.

    So pray for an end to the oppression so you can worship openly, display your religious symbols openly, hold your religious demonstrations openly, have media and buildings and events dedicated entirely to your religion, be able to post your religious opinion on public forums… Oh, that’s right. You already can.

  • BarkingDawg

    Off topic, but good news.

    Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming just became marriage equality states.

  • Natasha Haworth

    Its a public school. You need to keep your cult bs to your private school.

  • Tom Egelhoff

    You voted for them Danielsville. I would see about changing that the next time they are up for re-election. Sounds like a campaign issue to me.

  • alnga

    If we continue to give them the turf we will be turf less but certainly not Godless. What about their memorial to their god …that blank space at the end of the walk….?

  • Stephanie Miller

    If the words were negative there might be a reason to remove them, but they are positive, uplifting words. They only become “Christian” when someone believes them to be true words that point to the One, True God. If all those who think Christianity is outdated and worthless would just look at the words as they would any quote from a wise person then they should mean nothing to them and not be “offensive.” It’s only because the words “pierce the heart like a two-edged sword” that so many “non-believers” find them offensive. I do not believe in the gods or practices of many religions, but I can read or see the words written for instruction involved in those religions that are positive and uplifting without feeling one bit “offended” because I know in my heart there is only ONE God. Therefore I do not feel threatened. If only “non-Christian believers” could be as confident in their faith, or lack thereof, none of these passages would bother them.

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      “Offensiveness” isn’t the issue. Public schools can’t promote religion.

      • Stephanie Miller

        Is it promoting religion to have quotes on a wall that encourage and uplift? Would it make a difference if the words were not from the Bible, but from Confucius and had his name on it? I think not. I am a Christian and hearing someone say they do not believe does not offend me. That is your right. The Bible is only another book written by men, that only Christians believe was inspired and directed by God. Unless you believe it is divine scripture then it is nothing more than a textbook full of history, poetry, songs and wise quotes. You have to believe it have religious value for it to have such. Words on a wall are only words on a wall unless you believe them to be true. One of the ten commandments is to “Love thy neighbor.” If anything in the world is true – then we could certainly use more of that. Loving your neighbor whether you are religious or not involves allowing your neighbor to be whomever he/she is without making them feel “bad” for their beliefs. If encouraging love and believing “all things are possible” to young teens who live in what seems to them is a hopeless, loveless world is wrong, then by all means – take the writing down and spread more of that nothingness the world is offering.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          Is it promoting religion to have quotes on a wall that encourage and uplift?

          By having bible quotes, yes.

          • Stephanie Miller

            So you do believe the Bible to be divinely created? If not, again it’s just a book of history, poetry, songs and wise quotes that mean nothing. If it means nothing then how is it offensive? Again, teens need all the encouragement they can get. School shootings, drug use, teen pregnancy, graduation declines, all point to the fact that teens need something to hold onto other than smart phones. If a few words on a wall can change the world or cause all the kids to turn to religion then what are we waiting for? Let’s go out and put scripture posts on every wall there is. It just might save the world, or the life of one kid. If those scriptures have that much power why are we taking them down?

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            So you do believe the Bible to be divinely created?

            Of course not.

            If not, again it’s just a book of history, poetry, songs and wise quotes that mean nothing.

            It’s still promotion of your religion. Public schools are for everyone, not just Christians.

            Let’s go out and put scripture posts on every wall there is.

            Put it on every wall you own.

          • Stephanie Miller

            Because I’m Christian does not mean that I would take offense to writings of your religion, or even quotes from those you consider helpful in life as long as they are positive and uplifting that were placed on any wall at a school. In fact, I would welcome them. I read constantly to gather ideas, philosophy and wisdom from any sources – many totally not religious, or even Christian. Then I gather all that information together and decide what I will or will not believe. It is terrible that adults do not give the kids, who are much more world-wise than I was at their age, credit for having sense enough to make their own decisions once information is handed to them. I am not afraid to put the Bible to the test against any belief, or lack thereof in the world. Every person is going to make his/her own decision based on what speaks to him/her. So I still don’t see it as promoting religion, but as promoting exploration of life philosophy and values. I am not afraid of others’ beliefs, but apparently many, many fear the Bible.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Because I’m Christian does not mean that I would take offense to writings of your religion

            I don’t care. Public schools can’t promote your religion.

          • Stephanie Miller

            “The most fatal illusion is the settled point of view. Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anybody who has one.”
            ― Brooks Atkinson

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” — Mark Twain, on the bible.

          • Stephanie Miller

            So, again your quote proves that it isn’t really a religious book unless the reader believes it to be, which obviously Sam Clemens did not. But, even he knew it had some value – if for nothing more than the “good morals. Having good morals never hurt anyone. We could all use a good does of those. Goodnight.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            So, again your quote proves that it isn’t really a religious book unless the reader believes it to be

            That does not matter. Public schools can’t promote your religion.

          • Cruz Gonzalez

            The bible is a holy book to christians. It doesn’t matter if I don’t believe what it says to be true, it still promotes christianity.

          • Stephanie Miller

            It truly amazes me at the number of people who fear Christianity. I say fear because there is no other way to explain the hatred that appears to be focused at anything even remotely related to the Bible or Christianity. Fear breeds hatred, whether it be fear of being different or fear of personally falling for the “lies.” It would seem to me that as a nation we would all be united in doing anything that could help even one child make it through the rough teen years without becoming addicted to drugs, a lawbreaker, a teen parent, a drop-out, or even a member of a much worse gang called “suicide.” There is no doubt, certainly in the mind of anyone who is intelligent and pays attention to the behavior of teens, that all teens are searching for something – whether it be to fit into a group, feel accepted, or even to feel loved. In the life of every teen there is the opportunity to be drawn into a group that offers acceptance. We know what many of those groups are. They are called “gangs.” The gangs take teens down the road to practically every one of the four groups mentioned above, and some into the suicide or “murdered” group. If there was one chance in a million that having a simple little sentence on a wall at a high school could even remotely affect a teen and prevent them from joining any of those gangs or making any of the aforementioned life-altering, life-claiming mistakes it would seem anyone who is truly concerned about society and the life of a teen would band together and say, “Do anything, everything you possibly can to try to lead this teen into a life of love.” But, no, we are so determined to have our own selfish agendas met that we couldn’t really care less about mankind as long as what we want takes place. Take the writing down. It’s not going to change the lives of my family because regardless we’re going to be studying the Bible. But, it might change the life of a teen in your life. Won’t it be sad when all this is passed and one person who was against the verse because of their fear or hatred of Christianity has tragedy happen in their family, maybe even their own teen and they come to realize if that one verse was really that powerful, really could have done anything to change the choices that teen made, they regret having forced it to be taken down? Promoting religion you say? I say, one way or the other every action, whether leaving it up or taking it down, is promoting something. A prudent, wise person would choose to promote ANY kind of path for a better choice. You call it supporting religion. Whatever, I hope that helps you feel better when years down the road what little moral values society has left right now are gone and mankind fumbles around latching onto whatever momentarily gratification they can find.

          • BarkingDawg

            Bible quotes can be allowed if you have them along side quotes from the Koran, the Vedas (Hindu sacred texts), the Tripitaka (Buddhist canons), Thomas Payne, Joseph Smith, Bertrand Russell, L. Ron Hubbard, Richard Dawkins, etc.

  • Doug Indeap

    It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.

    Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf

  • OvertheSanJuanHill

    They can’t just remove the words. They were part of the sculpture when it was set. They have to remove the whole thing.

  • OvertheSanJuanHill

    The words were an original component of the piece. It’s unconstitutional to alter it. No one has that right.

  • OvertheSanJuanHill

    It’s like deleting verses from the bible. It’s not allowed.

  • gods need not apply

    ‘“This is the South, the Bible belt of the world,” stated Jess Martin. “We cannot let them take advantage of our rights as a Christian nation.”’

    “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”, Treaty of Tripoli

    What is so hard to understand about the separation of church and state? Would the people wanting the scripture left be so supportive of a pagan or Satanist holy verse being displayed?