Atheist Activist Group Seeks Removal of Christian Flag from School Board Meeting Room

FlagERWIN, Tenn. — A prominent atheist activist organization is seeking the removal of a Christian flag from the room where a Tennessee school board holds its public meetings.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a letter on Tuesday to the Unicoi County Schools Board of Education after it says that it received a complaint from a local resident that the group did not name.

FFRF asserts that the presence of the flag, a white and blue flag with a red cross first created in 1897 to honor the Christian faith, is unconstitutional.

“The Christian flag being displayed during public school meetings unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity,” the letter stated. “The cross has an exclusionary effect, making non-Christian and non-believing students, parents and residents of Unicoi County Schools political outsiders.”

The group therefore asked that the board take down the flag, which has been positioned in the room for the past year.

“The display of this Christian flag is a brazen affront to the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution,” the letter continued. “We ask you to remove the Christian flag from the board meetings immediately.”

As previously reported, officials with the Glencoe, Alabama Police Department took down their Christian flag earlier this year after FFRF lodged a complaint. Mayor Charles Gilchrist said that the threat of a suit is what ultimately resulted in the removal of the flag.

  • Connect with Christian News

“That would just about ruin us,” Gilchrist stated. “I have to look out for the best interests of the city.”

However, he said that he believes that the threat of suit is how the group strong-arms cities into compliance with their wishes.

“That’s what they do, they pick on these smaller towns that can’t defend ourselves,” Gilchrist said, noting that he personally did not want to remove the flag.

It is not yet known whether the Unicoi County Schools Board of Education plans to respond to FFRF.

“[L]et us not forget the religious character of our origin,” American statesman Daniel Webster declared during his famous “Plymouth Oration” in 1820, less than 50 years after the nation’s founding. “Our fathers were brought hither for their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political or literary.”


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
  • Mark Moore

    We need Christian principles in our government like slavery, keeping women silent in the company of men, torture if someone does not love you enough as Jesus plans to do to billions of people and most of all we want to follow in God’s footsteps of genocide, vengeance, execution of left handers, execution of adulterers, and those that plant mixed crops in their fields.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    It is shocking that any government official would think that it is constitutionally permissible for the government to endorse a specific religion, as was being blatantly done in this example. This is not a matter of a constituent being offended. It is a blatant violation of the law. Yet this happens all the time. The US constitution is very clear on this point, and localities that insist on putting up displays that mark their territory as belonging to one particular religion are going to continue to be sued, and when sued, they will lose the case. This is settled law. Get used to it.

    • afchief

      Oh please show me where in the 1st amendment does Congress = public school?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as interpreted by Everson v. Board of Education.

        • afchief

          Ahhhh….Mr. Make believe lawyer who does not know the law!!! I’m amazed at how many people don’t understand what the word “establishment” means. It means that Congress cannot ESTABLISH an official state religion to which all must adhere under threat of punishment by the state. You know, like Secular Humanism today. That was the state of affairs in Europe at the time of the founding of this country. Our Founders were determined that that would not happen here. Therefore we have ” Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

          It was never meant that a board meeting at a public high school couldn’t display a Christian flag. In fact, the Constitution guarantees that they can.

          The First Amendment has been tortured and twisted to fit a “Progressive” vision wherein they are the only “Higher Authority”.

          Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “In fact, the Constitution guarantees that they can.”

            Please cite where in the Constitution it says that an elected body is guaranteed the right to display a flag which represents a given religion.

          • afchief

            What part of the 1st amendment do you not understand???

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

            Are liberals really this stupid? Yes they are!!!

          • Chris

            “Do not judge or you too will be judged” Matthew 7: 1

            Could you explain how that applies to your words?

          • afchief

            Stating the truth is not judging!

          • Chris

            Calling people idiots and insane IS judging.

          • afchief

            Ok, how about their “blind”?

          • Chris

            Or how about your prejudice? We could discuss that.

          • afchief

            No they are blind and given over to a reprobate mind!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

            Romans 1:28 (KJV) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

          • Chris

            You’re just projecting again.

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

            You must be a liberal.

          • Chris

            Did your ‘gift of discernment’ tell you that? I’m an Aussie. As far as I’m concerned the left/right dichotomy is dead.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Why do you think quoting passages from a book of myths is relevant?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Can you explain why a quote from a book of fables & myths should be taken seriously?

          • Chris

            I can indeed. Because the people who are making these insulting remarks take it seriously.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            If someone chooses to make beliefs that others find ridiculous public, they have no one but themselves to blame if those beliefs are questioned, dismissed or ridiculed.

          • Chris

            Everyone has beliefs that others find ridiculous though.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Sure. And everyone else has the right to ignore, question, dismiss, or ridicule those beliefs.

          • acontraryview

            Nothing in there about a governmental body being guaranteed the right to display a flag which represents a given religion.

            The rights provided for by the Constitution apply to individual citizens. Not to governmental bodies.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! Who makes up government bodies? LOL!

          • acontraryview

            Citizens make up governmental bodies. However, when those citizens are acting in their official capacities, they are not allowed to endorse, promote, or make decisions based upon any specific religious belief. For instance, a Hindu County Clerk could not refuse to issue a business license for a steak restaurant based upon the Clerk’s religious beliefs.

            Or would you prefer that the Hindu clerk WERE allowed to refuse a business license for a steak restaurant based upon his/her religious beliefs?

          • afchief

            LOL! Show me WHERE in the 1st amendment it states that? LOL!

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

            Waiting……………………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can believe what you want about what the Establishment Clause was originally intended for. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of it is law, not yours (thankfully).

          • afchief

            Hey Mr. Make believe lawyer, when the founders wrote the 1st amendment, what was their intent for writing it? Why did they leave England? What were they trying to avoid in their new country?

            Do you need some help? Let me know!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            There are plenty of historical documents that lay out the Founders’ intents. But I’m not going to get into it because IT DOESN’T MATTER. This is not how our legal system works. We don’t decide cases by starting over every time at the original text of the Constitution and rewriting 200 years of case law. We argue that based on similar cases that have recently been ruled on, the correct decision is the one that most closely matches recent precedent.

          • afchief

            Well let’s educate the little liberal cranium!!! Shall we? I’m amazed at how many people don’t understand what the word “establishment” means. It means that Congress cannot ESTABLISH an official state religion to which all must adhere under threat of punishment by the state. You know, like Secular Humanism today. That was the state of affairs in Europe at the time of the founding of this country. Our Founders were determined that that would not happen here. Therefore we have ” Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

            As a frame of reference, people that belonged to a religion other than the “established” State religion were treated much the same way that Christians are treated by the PC police today. If you lived in a Catholic country you were Catholic, or else. A Protestant country? No Catholics allowed.

            Many people came here precisely because they were able to worship freely, without governmental interference. This was later codified in the First Amendment.

            The “no law prohibiting the free expression thereof” wording doesn’t get much attention. It doesn’t mean that you may practice your religion as long as you do it indoors and keep quiet about it.

            The First amendment was meant to protect religious expression from the Government, not to protect the Government from religious
            expression.

            It was never meant that a football coach at a public high school couldn’t join his players in a prayer before the big game or displaying a flag at a school board meeting or putting bibles in a dorm room, etc, etc, etc, In fact, the Constitution guarantees that he can.

            The First Amendment has been tortured and twisted to fit a “Progressive” vision wherein they are the only “Higher Authority”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again, there are many possible interpretations of what the Founders’ intent was. I’m sure historians can and have, and will continue to have, long, spirited debates about their intent. I, however, will not. I’m not a historian, and I don’t play a historian on TV. I’m not interested in their intent, no matter how much of a fascinating academic exercise it may be for some people.

            I’m a lawyer, and I’m only interested in what the courts have ruled, and this is how they have ruled. Anything else is an irrelevant, academic debate that has no present significance.

            So whether or not you think the Establishment Clause has been “tortured and twisted” by the courts, IT DOESN’T MATTER. The law is the law, regardless of whether you, or I, or anyone else is in agreement with it, and we must follow it. That’s the ONLY thing I’m concerned with.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal! Courts do not make law!!! So let’s try this again! Again, let’s try and educate liberal craniums. I know it is hard. Their cranium size is extremely small, but here goes; The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. Does that register? It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

            Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

            In fact, most of the thirteen states at one time had their own official churches/establishments of religion and five of the thirteen had their own at the time the First Amendment was ratified. When James Madison was writing the Constitution, no mention of a guarantee of religious liberty was at first included because he feared that states such as Massachusetts and Virginia, with their strong state churches, would otherwise not accept the Constitution. However, he was persuaded to include the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which he later supported, provided the final corrective to the situation. The last of the state religions was disestablished in 1833. They were disestablished not by the Supreme Court but by the states’ own free will. The states voluntarily gave up their establishments of religion in the name of freedom of conscience.

            As yet another proof that our Founders recognized God as the ultimate authority for our government and our society, consider the symbolism of the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. It shows a 13-step pyramid representing the 13 original states, placed under what the designer described as “the Eye of Providence.” The Latin words Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has favored our undertakings,” float above the scene. The seal was approved after six years of deliberation over various designs. Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson reported to the Congress that “The Eye over & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”

            If the doctrine of separation of church and state had been intended by the Founders to keep God and religion out of government, does it seem reasonable that such direct references to deity would have been approved for the official signature of our nation? Of course not!

            Thomas Jefferson saw that clearly when he wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Likewise James Madison: “The belief in God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources…” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”

            All were implicitly echoing the statement by William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, a century earlier: “Unless we are governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”

            The Declaration of Independence makes clear that God, not government, is the source of our freedom, our sovereignty, our equality, our rights, our justice and our human dignity. They are preexisting in us, before there ever was any government. So the Constitution does not grant any of that; it simply guarantees them for us and prevents government from interfering with it.

            Therefore it is perfectly legal, constitutional and (in the view of our Founders and Framers) right for citizens to publicly express their religion via prayers and symbols such as the cross, menorah, and others. That includes the military; one of George Washington’s first acts when he became Commander of the Continental Army in 1775 was to create the Chaplain Corps for the benefit of his citizen-soldiers. At the same time, Congress itself often held church services in the Capitol and also has had a chaplain since 1774.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not a matter of me being unable to understand what you’re saying. I UNDERSTAND the words perfectly well, you’re just wrong.

            You keep insisting that lawyers should care about the Founding Fathers’ intentions, or present legal arguments based on historical data. We don’t, and no matter how many times you stomp your foot and insist that something is so, it doesn’t become so.

          • Excelsior

            “It was never meant that a board meeting at a public high school couldn’t display a Christian flag. In fact, the Constitution guarantees that they can.”

            Ahhhh….Mr. Make believe lawyer who does not know the law, I see you have completely ignored the endorsement part of the establishment clause. Yes, the Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, but the supreme court proposed the endorsement test which decides whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion.

            That means that government or any government body or entity cannot establish OR endorse any religion. A school board displaying a christian flag at a board meeting is in fact an endorsement of religion which is a violation of the first amendment. The Constitution makes that illegal.

            The first Amendment doesn’t allow for it to be manipulated by your half-assed interpretation in order to fit your personal agenda.

            But thank you for proving your mental disorder.

          • afchief

            Show me how congress = any government entity? Show me how any government entity can make a law? Show me how displaying a flag establishes a law (religion)?

            Only Congress can make a state religion and they are forbidden to do so!!! The right to pray is unalienable. The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” The God-haters (and their cops) like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other. You still remember when marriage was marriage, don’t you?

            Sorry, but you are WRONG!!!

          • Excelsior

            You are wrong!! Look up GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION and shut the hell up already. You look like an ignorant jackass going on and on about congress. This has absolutely nothing to do with congress. Congress is not allowed to make laws establishing religion, state governments cannot endorse religion. Do you get it now? It’s really really simple.

            This is about a government body on the state level endorsing religion which is a VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. The fourteenth amendment make the establishment clause applicable to state governments. How do you not comprehend this? Do some simple f***ing research.

            How the hell do you not even know what endorsement of religion is anyway? That’s like middle school social studies.

          • afchief

            READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!! There is no law against hanging a Christian flag, displaying the 10 commandments or praying anywhere. There cannot be a law. The right to freely express one’s faith is an unalienable right. Unalienable means CANNOT be taken away. It’s like skin color, or height, or dare I say it, sexual orientation. You is what you is and it cannot be changed. That is what unalienable means.

            The right to pray is unalienable. The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” The God-haters (you) like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other. You still remember when marriage was marriage, don’t you?

            The courts and their legal miscreants have separated the terms. Establishment doesn’t trump free exercise. The school has every right to display a Christian flag if they so desire. Free exercise cannot be inhibited by lawyers or judges. If it is restricted, it is not “free” exercise. Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray, and they are expressly forbidden to do so. In case you’re interested, here is the pertinent section of the First Amendment:

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

            Displaying a Christian flag at a school board meeting or saying a prayer after a football game does not establish a religion. Only Congress can do that…but they can’t. If Congress can’t establish a religion, how can a school establish one?

            Only in America, with our un-Godly, un-righteous courts, could such a charade have been foisted upon us. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.

            Free exercise means free exercise. The School can display a flag or not display a flag. The same is true with every other public school. Free exercise! Not ACLU enforced “disestablishment” of Christianity.

      • acontraryview

        The issue is not a public school. It is an elected Board of Education. A governmental body.

        • afchief

          Yes, liberals are dumber than a box of rocks!!! Tell me where a Board of Education = Congress?

          Are liberals really this stupid? Yes they are!!!

          • Chris

            Do you really believe that Jesus would approve of your continuous stream of insults?

          • afchief

            I like playing with liberals, it’s a mental disorder!

          • Chris

            And your evidence for this is…?

            Please provide a scientific paper, not anecdotal.

          • afchief

            Sure I do!!!! LOL!

            Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. ‘‘The Liberal Mind The Psychological Causes of Political Madness’’ 2006

            pp 328-330:

            QUOTE

            The Values of the Liberal Mind

            Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

            What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are ”workers,” ”minorities,” ”the little guy,” ”women,” and the ”unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the ”root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: ”Big Business,” ”Big Corporations,” ”greedy capitalists, ”U.S. Imperialists,” ”the oppressors,” ”the rich,” ”the wealthy,” ”the powerful” and ”the selfish.”

            The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is ”In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

            It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error: Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

          • Chris

            An doctor writing due to political motivations is NOT scientific evidence. Try a peer reviewed journal instead of a politically inspired book.

            To quote one of the reviewers “Boy, was I looking forward to this book! As someone working in mental health myself, with conservative/libertarian moral philosophy, I was a fairly receptive target for Rossiter. An “open goal”. I was so, so disappointed. I opened the book, looking forward to a scientific/medical discussion, and found page after page after page of unsupported statements, and even when Rossiter threw in the occasional charity reference, it was rarely explicitly connected. I could give several lines of authors he did not include. The index was not an index, but a lazy grouping of authors and words. How on Earth, for example, can you write a book about “Liberals” and not cite a Clinton or a Pelosi or a Kennedy or a Biden or a Dukakis or a Carter? Where are the Friedmans and Rands and the many, many conservative authors and thinkers? Indeed, Johnson is mentioned, but not cited! It’s just an appallingly written book: from the writing style (turgid, repetitive) to the political referencing (almost non-existent), to the complete lack of cited psychological/psychiatric work (and from an M.D.!).”

          • Chris

            From another reviewer “I found the title alone to be suspect, so emailed the author to ask a few pointed questions. What I got in return was a babbling, incoherent rant about the evils of half the population of the world. He because very angry when it was pointed out to him that he is labeling people as ‘ill’ without anything from any diagnostic source and that his work did not seem to be peer reviewed.If you are of the persuasion to be completely and utterly right wing in combination with the belief that anyone who does not think your way, is mentally affected, then this book is for you.
            It is however not based on anything scientific or factual, whatsoever, for all its pretense to be.”

          • Chris

            When I read through the quote you provided I found I has been utterly mistaken. To claim that this guy was politically motivated was totally wrong. He is merely a bigoted hack. When a whole group is lumped together and people spoken of as if they all thought and behaved exactly the same then, as I’m sure you are aware, we are dealing with an out and out bigot.

            Allow me to give you an example “Like all other human beings, the modern Negro reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion.”

            Whoops. I mistakenly put negro in place of liberal. If he’d written that he would be a racist wouldn’t he? In fact if he wrote things like this about any group the author would have shown himself as a bigot. Yet when he writes like this about liberals it’s not bigotry? You’re joking right?

          • Chris

            I’ll quote from Rational Wiki since it sums up your ‘expert’ so well. 🙂

            Projection is the psychological phenomenon where someone denies some aspect of their behavior or attitudes and assumes instead that others are doing or thinking so. It is usually seen as the externalisation of a person’s negative traits, placing blame on an outside force such as the environment, a government, a society or otherpeople.

            Projection can also extend to philosophy and knowledge. This occurs when a person or small group of people assume that everyone else is working with the same ideas and/or information that they are. When this fails to happen, however, it can lead to pluralistic ignorance.

            A telltale sign of this is when a speaker says that “Everybody knows that…(a certain course of action)” is either beneficial or harmful, so society should avoid an impending catastrophe by following the course of action that the speaker proposes.

            Another common forum for projection is in internet arguments, where it is usually pathetically obvious to everyone except the projector. In that context, the phenomenon may be called mirror-imaging.

            Examples

            An adulterous husband may think his wife is sleeping around.

            Creationists assert that supporters of evolution are religious zealots, and religious (especially Christian) fanatics assert that atheism is a religion (while sometimes going so far as to say “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a personal relationship with Jesus”).

            Self-proclaimed “Ex-homosexuals” may state that all gays are empty, sinful shells of human beings that need repairing so they can be good, God-fearing straights.

            The Media Research Center and any other media watchdog that complains about the liberal media andpartisanship while being extremely biased and partisan themselves.

            Racists who claim that anyone who criticises them must also be racially prejudiced.

            Rare, but can actually happen if someone becomes sufficiently unhinged: a mother yelling at a childless friend about what a horrible mother the childless friend is.

            Lyle Rossiter, arguably holds a world record for this.”

            In other words your ‘expert’ is claiming that liberals are unhinged because he is.

          • afchief

            Yes, I strongly encourage all liberals to get therapy. I suggest starting with shock therapy. Then follow up with something out of A clockwork Orange. After that we’ll wing it.

          • Chris

            What you recommend is irrelevant. There is no recognized mental illness called liberalism. However your projection is showing again.

          • afchief

            People who live in liberal states search for psychologists on Google 50% more, per capita, than people from conservative states. Vermont has the most searchers for mental health help, at 74% greater than the national average, which makes sense, since it is a far-left state with a socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders, who likes to talk about the joys of rape. People in liberal Massachusetts and far-left New York search 55% and 56% more often for therapists as well (California, which you would expect to be worst of all, is “only” 41% above average). By contrast, in Idaho, (adjusted for population size), people search 51% less often for therapists, 34% less often in Wyoming, and 29% less in Oklahoma. There is also an astonishing 76% more therapists per capita in Blue States.

            If you read the Times article about this they will be quick to say that every one needs therapy in equal amounts and it’s just that the people in Red states aren’t getting as much. I have a different interpretation. People in Blue states are more likely to be liberals, and liberals are more likely to be mentally ill. Liberals suffer from:

            1) Phobias, such as fears that they are destroying the Earth (when in reality, they are only destroying America)

            2) Guilt, for being white or male or having a job or earning money

            3) Unhappiness with their bodies or sexuality, due to schizophrenia or gender identity disorder

            4) Greed and envy, towards other people’s property

            5) Anger towards people of different genders or races

            and so on.

          • Chris

            “People who live in liberal states search for psychologists on Google 50% more, per capita, than people from conservative states. ”

            Well that could mean they are sicker than those in conservative states. It could also mean that they are more aware of their own failings and taking advantage of the science while those in the conservative states are unaware. That would imply both are ill but those in the liberal states are less so since they can recognise it.

          • Chris

            “…since it is a far-left state with a socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders, who likes to talk about the joys of rape.”

            Um, Bernie Sanders, in a 1972 essay, wrote about rape fantasies. News flash. Some women and men have those fantasies. According to psychologists such fantasies are perfectly normal. After all, fantasies are fantasies. Reality is reality. They are NOT the same.

          • afchief

            That’s why they have been given over to a reprobate mind. It is quite obvious.

            Romans 1:28 (NASB) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • Chris

            “That’s why they have been given over to a reprobate mind. It is quite obvious.”

            Really? And what does a reprobate mind mean? Please support your interpretation with the meaning in koine Greek. Can’t do that? Then you’re basing your ‘interpretation’ on little except prejudice and ignorance.

          • Chris

            Oh and is it as ‘obvious’ as me being a liberal?

          • Chris

            Romans 1: 22-28

            22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

            28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.”

            So a few points:
            1) These verses are an attempt by Paul to explain the reason for homosexual desire.
            2) There is no indication Bernie Sanders is a homosexual.
            3) Paul explains homosexual desire by idolatry.
            4) Since science has proven that homosexuality begins in the womb then it follows that fetus’ must be worshiping idols in there. Tricky little things aren’t they?
            5) Why are you twisting scripture to your own destruction?

          • Chris

            This is what a trained theologian makes of Romans 1

            “Here Paul seems to equate homosexuality with ungodliness, wickedness, and idolatry. This wickedness expresses itself in a perverse confusion between creation (us) and creator (God). Paul makes no distinction between abusive or hierarchical homosexuality (e.g., pederasty) and so-called “loving” homosexuality. This is because Paul sees homosexuality as inherentlyexploitative (i.e., it requires an aggressor and a more effeminate partner). Paul says nothing about loving homosexuality because he denies that such a thing exists, not because he is unaware of the possibility. In fact, ancient writings demonstrate that the idea of a homosexual orientation existed in Paul’s time.

            The fact that the term homosexuality as such does not appear in the New Testament says nothing about its ethical propriety.There simply was no term available in Greek that referred to homosexuality specifically as a loving, committed relationship between equals. Because of this, one cannot make much of the absence of such a term. The proper interpretation of Romans 1 is that Paul is using homosexuality as such as an example of the “ungodliness and wickedness” of humanity.”

          • Chris

            It’s also nice to see that you’re prepared to ignore the commands of the one you claim to follow as long as you enjoy it.

          • afchief

            Jesus called Herold a “fox”. I’m sure that was a pretty strong term back then. He also called the Pharisees liars. Pretty strong terms back then!!

          • Chris

            “Jesus called Herold a “fox”. I’m sure that was a pretty strong term back then. ”
            Actually the term fox in the ancient world, like the modern world, could mean both sly and cunning. Jesus could have meant either or both.

            “He also called the Pharisees liars. Pretty strong terms back then!!”

            Jesus was also reputedly able to see into men’s hearts. In other words to know things about themselves they were trying to hide. Can you do that? No? Then why are you comparing the abuse you heap out to what Jesus did?

          • afchief

            Because Jesus has given me wisdom and discernment. I can spot a liar a mile away!!! And I will call them out!

          • Chris

            Bwahahahaha

          • Chris

            Evidence please. 🙂

          • afchief

            You are not a Christian are you?

          • Chris

            I’m a Zoroastrian.

          • Chris

            It should be pointed out that not all, or even most, Christian denominations accept the idea that God gives such gifts.

          • Chris

            I should add that Jesus when He spoke to Pharisees was speaking to religious people who did not take the commands of their own religion seriously. Sort of like yourself in that regard.

          • afchief

            The Pharisees and Sadducees were religious in appearance only.

            What should have Jesus called them? Mentally challenged?

          • Chris

            Afraid you don’t know anything about history. They were recognized religious groups within Judaism. But I’ve noticed a trend in your writings. Anything you disagree with you just dismiss as insanity. Why is that?

          • afchief

            Yes, there were, but they were only religious in appearance only!!

            Liberalism and homosexuality are definitely mental disorders. Read their posts! They are full of lies and propaganda!

          • Chris

            “Yes, there were, but they were only religious in appearance only!!”

            And your evidence for this is…?

            “Liberalism and homosexuality are definitely mental disorders. Read their posts! They are full of lies and propaganda!”

            I’m a layman and my opinion, like yours, is worthless in this area.

          • acontraryview

            A board of eduction does not equal Congress. It is, however, an elected governmental entity. As such. it is not allowed to endorse or promote any single religion.

          • afchief

            Really? The 1st amendment says ONLY “CONGRESS” cannot establish a religion!!!!

            Do I need to define Congress for you?

          • acontraryview

            The discussion is not about establishing a religion. The discussion is about a governmental body favoring, promoting, or endorsing a religious belief. The judicial rulings on this issue are clear. You are certainly free to disagree with those rulings, but they nonetheless do apply.

          • afchief

            Why are liberals so hard of understanding???? The only one who can favor, promote, or endorse a religious belief IS CONGRESS!!! Read the 1st amendment again. Then read again!! Then read again!!! Then look up the definition of Congress. Then let it sink in your liberal what Congress means!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “The only one who can favor, promote, or endorse a religious belief IS CONGRESS!!!”

            Really? Only Congress? So you can’t favor, promote, or endorse a religious belief?

            You may want to review the 1st amendment, as you are certainly able to favor, promote, or endorse a religious belief, within certain boundaries.

          • afchief

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

            What part of this do you not understand????

            Certain boundaries???? Where does it say that?

            Yes, more proof liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!! They can’t read or comprehend!!!

          • acontraryview

            “What part of this do you not understand????”

            I understand all of it. You, on the other hand, apparently do not, since you stated that only Congress can favor, promote, or endorse a religious, when that is not true. You are certainly free to favor, promote, or endorse a religious belief.

            “Certain boundaries???? Where does it say that?”

            The existence of other rights creates boundaries on all behavior.

            “They can’t read or comprehend!!!”

            Odd comment coming from you considering how horribly misinformed you have shown yourself to be able the constitution and our laws.

          • afchief

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!

            The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. Does that register? It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

            Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

            In fact, most of the thirteen states at one time had their own official churches/establishments of religion and five of the thirteen had their own at the time the First Amendment was ratified. When James Madison was writing the Constitution, no mention of a guarantee of religious liberty was at first included because he feared that states such as Massachusetts and Virginia, with their strong state churches, would otherwise not accept the Constitution. However, he was persuaded to include the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which he later supported, provided the final corrective to the situation. The last of the state religions was disestablished in 1833. They were disestablished not by the Supreme Court but by the states’ own free will. The states voluntarily gave up their establishments of religion in the name of freedom of conscience.

            As yet another proof that our Founders recognized God as the ultimate authority for our government and our society, consider the symbolism of the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. It shows a 13-step pyramid representing the 13 original states, placed under what the designer described as “the Eye of Providence.” The Latin words Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has favored our undertakings,” float above the scene. The seal was approved after six years of deliberation over various designs. Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson reported to the Congress that “The Eye over & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”

            If the doctrine of separation of church and state had been intended by the Founders to keep God and religion out of government, does it seem reasonable that such direct references to deity would have been approved for the official signature of our nation? Of course not!

            Thomas Jefferson saw that clearly when he wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Likewise James Madison: “The belief in God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources…” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”

            All were implicitly echoing the statement by William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, a century earlier: “Unless we are governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”

            The Declaration of Independence makes clear that God, not government, is the source of our freedom, our sovereignty, our equality, our rights, our justice and our human dignity. They are preexisting in us, before there ever was any government. So the Constitution does not grant any of that; it simply guarantees them for us and prevents government from interfering with it.

            Therefore it is perfectly legal, constitutional and (in the view of our Founders and Framers) right for citizens to publicly express their religion via prayers and symbols such as the cross, menorah, and others. That includes the military; one of George Washington’s first acts when he became Commander of the Continental Army in 1775 was to create the Chaplain Corps for the benefit of his citizen-soldiers. At the same time, Congress itself often held church services in the Capitol and also has had a chaplain since 1774.

          • acontraryview

            If you are going to cut and paste an article by John White of the American Thinker, you should at least have enough integrity to cite the source, rather than attempting to pass it off as your own. That you did not, speaks volumes as to your lack thereof.

            Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible, removing references to miracles and other aspects of Biblical teaching. Franklin was a Deist, as were other founding fathers. A belief in God does not equate to a belief in Christianity, nor is it exclusive to Christianity.

            As for the musings of Mr. Smith, which you plagiarized, he is correct that it is perfectly legal and constitutional for citizens to publicly express their religion via prayers and symbols such as the cross, menorah, or others. But he is incorrect that it is also constitutional for the military, as an institution, to express a particular religious belief.

            Please, in the future, if you are going to cite the work of others, do not attempt to pass it on as if you wrote it. Have the integrity to cite the source of your cut and paste.

          • afchief

            Le’t read some history that liberals try to squash!!!

            In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

            The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

            Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

            Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1]

            However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

            Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2]

            In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

            Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

            [N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

            In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

            [O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

            I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

            Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

            It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7]

            Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

            [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

            Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

            Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

            Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]

            Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

            By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” [10] That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

            So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

            And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

            Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

            Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

            Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]

            That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

            [T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

            With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

            That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

            Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

            Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

            For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

            One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

            In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

          • acontraryview

            Obviously that information is readily available, as you were able to cut and paste it. And, again, without giving credit to the actual author.

            “In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

            And there you have it.

  • Rebecca

    As long as no other religious symbol is allowed in there, I see no problem with removing the flag.

  • D W

    Let us remember the words of President John Adams, one of the founding fathers, in the Treaty of Tripoli. “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

    • Nidalap

      Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

      John Adams

      • Rebecca

        Those in love with immorality want nothing or little to do with God.

        • Nidalap

          Very true…Of course, here lately, they seem to want no one else to have any dealings with Him either…

      • Michael C

        I consider myself to be a moral person.

        Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Scientology are all religions. Adherents to these religions would be considered “religious people.”

  • Emmanuel

    Hey Wisconsin retards, create a flag that represents your kind. a plain black flag will do.

    • gizmo23

      You have just insulted people with disabilities

      • Emmanuel

        LOL

    • Rob McClain

      Perhaps your school board would like to display an ISIS banner to honor your friends in the American Taliban?

      FFRF seeks a curtailment of Christian privilege, and the faster the better.

      Amazing how quickly the tide has turned against your silly muthology.

      • Emmanuel

        LOL, funny how millions go to church on Sunday. While your kind sit around doing nothing, thinking about nothing and being nothing.

        • Chris

          And your evidence for this is..?

    • Cady555

      How about using the American flag and state flag to represent all people?

      A religious flag represents only that religion and has no place in secular government.

  • afchief

    Tell the athesist to go pound sand!!!

    • gizmo23

      How about Catholics or jews? Do they count?

      • afchief

        Their not the ones who have their “panties in a twist”!!!!

        • gizmo23

          How do you know? Even if they aren’t part of this action don’t theg count?

          • afchief

            Only lying liberal atheists care. They have been lying about the 1st amendment from the get go!!

          • Excelsior

            Only lying conservative christians don’t care. They haven’t been able to understand the Establishment clause in the First Amendment from the get go.

          • afchief

            Poor liberals! They cannot read or comprehend!!! The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” You liars like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other. You still remember when marriage was marriage, don’t you? The courts and their legal miscreants have separated the terms. Establishment doesn’t trump free exercise.

            Only in America, with our un-Godly, un-righteous courts, could such a charade have been foisted upon us. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.

            Free exercise means free exercise!!! For anyone!!!

          • Chris

            Nor it seems can law schools which do not agree with you. Nor, it would seem do encyclopedias nor law books. In fact it seems that only theocrats agree with your interpretation of the constitution and even some of those don’t.

    • Excelsior

      Tell the christians who are intent on ignoring the First Amendment to kick rocks. It’s not the Atheists who are directly violating the US Constitution.

      Government endorsing a religion is just as illegal as establishing a religion according to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. It’s a mental disorder not to be able to understand that.

      • afchief

        Show me how you get and government out of the 1st amendment????

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

        Are liberals really this stupid??? Who is the only one who can make laws in our country? The legislative branches!!!!

        I can see liberals can read or comprehend!!!

        They can’t even read the second part of the 1st amendment “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

  • acontraryview

    It amazes me that there are still governmental bodies, which represent all the people of all faiths as well as those of no faith, that believe it is acceptable to display something which favors a particular religious belief.

  • bowie1

    The “cross” looks more like the Red Cross – a secular organization.

  • James Godson

    The original 13 colonies were founded by different denominations as sovereign ‘nations’ joined together for the general welfare and common defense. It is time to start new Christian nations inside the USA. Let those who do not believe in the Creator and His Son Jesus reap what they sow as God’s favor is poured out on those who come out from among them and be separate – read more at jcbooks dot org

    • Ralf Spoilsport

      So, will your Christian nation hang Quakers for belonging to the “wrong” version of Christianity, like the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did?

  • Becky

    “The Christian flag being displayed during public school meetings unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity,” the letter stated. “The cross has an exclusionary effect, making non-Christian and non-believing students, parents and residents of Unicoi County Schools political outsiders.”

    “The display of this Christian flag is a brazen affront to the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution,” the letter continued. “We ask you to remove the Christian flag from the board meetings immediately.”

    Here we go again. Idiots.

    They’re so quick to cry about the “Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.” But! They’re conveniently omitting an important portion of the clause. The government is prohibited from unduly preferring non-religion over religion also.

    • Ralf Spoilsport

      Did you have a point? Because removing a Christian flag is required to stop the government from unlawfully promoting Christianity and be neutral like it’s supposed to be.

      • Becky

        Removing the flag specifically because it’s a “Christian flag” is going against the constitution…preferring no religion over religion. Therefore, removing the flag isn’t being neutral, at all.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, what would religious neutrality look like, then?

          • Matthew Sturgis

            Lol.. Becky must be promoting “non-religion” anytime she is not promoting her religious belief. So, say for example, she is talking about what she ate for lunch, she is promoting “non-religion” – that’s according to her OWN logic.

        • Ralf Spoilsport

          Removing the flag specifically because it’s a “Christian flag” is going against the constitution

          That’s ridiculous — removing a flag that is unconstitutional to be there in the first place is being neutral. Using your “logic”, governments could put up all kinds of things that violate the constitution, yet it would violate the constitution to remove them.

          • Becky

            Read the clause…it says it clearly…the government is prohibited from preferring no religion over religion just as much as religion over no religion.

          • Ralf Spoilsport

            just as the government is prohibited from preferring religion over no religion

            So how do you intend to address a government school board preferring religion over no religion by displaying a Christian flag?

            I have the bright idea of removing it — do you have a different solution?

  • Excelsior

    Why do some christians still insist on violating the First Amendment? Endorsement of religion violates the US Constitution and lawsuits have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars because their government officials have decided to fight to keep their religious symbols in and on government buildings rather than comply with the law and take them down. History has shown that if you put up a religious symbol on government property and you refuse to remove it then you will be sued, you will lose, and your symbol will still be removed. The only difference is tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that is basically given away.

    • afchief

      Yes, liberals cannot comprehend!! Nope, it is quite clear. Shall I go get the definition of Congress for you?

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

      Shall I explain to you how laws are made in our country? Let’s look at Thomas Jefferson’s words that liberals like to distort!!!

      Here are Jefferson’s words to the Baptists in Danbury:

      “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

      Notice who Jefferson credits with having built the wall: “the whole American people.” Congress cannot build the wall separating church and state. It is not allowed to. Congress, in fact, “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That is what the amendment specifically states. According to Jefferson, it is the people who have built the wall of separation between church and state through the process of amending the constitution.[ii]

      • Excelsior

        Thank you for displaying your ignorance so you completely devalue your comment.

        Shall I explain to you the 14th amendment and its effects on the establishment clause? Shall I explain to you how the Incorporation Doctrine applied the Establishment Clause on the state level?

        This means that the government, state or federal, cannot endorse any religion. You keep repeating up and down this comment section, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” but then you stop. If you kept going you’d mention the last century of Constitutional law about endorsement of religion.

        If you weren’t trying so hard to be intellectually dishonest you would add the part about endorsing religion which addresses this current situation. The board of education, a state level government entity, which must abide by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment as set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment, is violating the United States Constitution by flying a christian flag which is a blatant endorsement of christianity. This is a cut and dry violation. Precedent has been set and courts have consistently ruled that this is illegal.

        The First Amendment isn’t there for you to cherry pick for the parts that suit your agenda. Adding the part about Thomas Jefferson and his Wall of Separation speech, which I know well having been an American History major, was nice but is completely irrelevant because he was talking about federal government and not States’ rights.

        So for the last time, stop copying and pasting the part about congress making laws to establish a religion because that has nothing to do with this situation. This is about government endorsement of religion, which this is, which is a violation of the Constitution.

        • afchief

          Wow! More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!! The 14th amendment was placed into the Constitution to provide Freed Slaves with US Citizenship. Due Process Right before the Ratification of the 14th Amendment was not conferred to Slaves. The Equal Treatment was to confer Citizenship Rights to FREED Slaves. The Context of the Amendment was to Freed Slaves Rights, NOT to Homosexual’s Marriages or ANYTHING ELSE!!. That Power is left to the States under the 10th Amendment, as the States have never Enumerated that power TO the Federal Government BY Amendment. Not even the SCOTUS has the Power to even hear this case as the Power is left to the States.

          The First Amendment’s clause prohibiting an establishment of religion applied to the federal government, not the states. Does that register? It clearly says “Congress [not the states] shall make no law…” It was publicly understood and acknowledged that the Constitution was intended to govern the federal government itself, not the people. The states were to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit in their pursuit of happiness.

          Why didn’t the First Amendment apply to the states? Many of them already had establishments of religion. At the time of the War for Independence, Massachusetts had a state church, Puritanism (or Calvinism). Connecticut’s official religion was Congregationalism. Rhode Island’s established church was Baptist. Pennsylvania’s was Quakerism. Maryland’s was Roman Catholicism. Virginia’s was the Anglican Church of England (which, after the war, became the Episcopal Church of America).

          In fact, most of the thirteen states at one time had their own official churches/establishments of religion and five of the thirteen had their own at the time the First Amendment was ratified. When James Madison was writing the Constitution, no mention of a guarantee of religious liberty was at first included because he feared that states such as Massachusetts and Virginia, with their strong state churches, would otherwise not accept the Constitution. However, he was persuaded to include the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, which he later supported, provided the final corrective to the situation. The last of the state religions was disestablished in 1833. They were disestablished not by the Supreme Court but by the states’ own free will. The states voluntarily gave up their establishments of religion in the name of freedom of conscience.

          As yet another proof that our Founders recognized God as the ultimate authority for our government and our society, consider the symbolism of the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. It shows a 13-step pyramid representing the 13 original states, placed under what the designer described as “the Eye of Providence.” The Latin words Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has favored our undertakings,” float above the scene. The seal was approved after six years of deliberation over various designs. Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson reported to the Congress that “The Eye over & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.”

          If the doctrine of separation of church and state had been intended by the Founders to keep God and religion out of government, does it seem reasonable that such direct references to deity would have been approved for the official signature of our nation? Of course not!

          Thomas Jefferson saw that clearly when he wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Likewise James Madison: “The belief in God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources…” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”

          All were implicitly echoing the statement by William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, a century earlier: “Unless we are governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”

          The Declaration of Independence makes clear that God, not government, is the source of our freedom, our sovereignty, our equality, our rights, our justice and our human dignity. They are preexisting in us, before there ever was any government. So the Constitution does not grant any of that; it simply guarantees them for us and prevents government from interfering with it.

          Therefore it is perfectly legal, constitutional and (in the view of our Founders and Framers) right for citizens to publicly express their religion via prayers and symbols such as the cross, menorah, and others. That includes the military; one of George Washington’s first acts when he became Commander of the Continental Army in 1775 was to create the Chaplain Corps for the benefit of his citizen-soldiers. At the same time, Congress itself often held church services in the Capitol and also has had a chaplain since 1774.

  • Josey

    The truth remains, removing the flag or leaving it will never change a child of God’s belief in his or her heart who is the True Living God and that Jesus whose Name is above all Names and in whom there in no other salvation or way to God the Father reigns supremely and there isn’t a thing this unbelieving world can do about it! God is Sovereign over all! You can mock and scoff against Him but satan knows his time is short and he knows who is Victor over all and soon all unbelieving who do not repent and my prayer is that God by His grace save as many as possible!
    But all unbelieving, fear mongers, liars, drunkards, etc…shall have their place in the lake of fire where there will be gnashing of teeth and torment for all eternity, once a person has passed from this life to the next, they will be with Christ or will be in Hell where there is no second chances. Jesus is coming soon, now’s the time to get right with God, today is the day of salvation if you will hear His voice and not harden your heart, humble yourself and repent or be damned that choice God has left up to you. No eye has seen or ear heard the things God has prepared for those that love Him, glory to the Name of Jesus forever!