Community Pushes Back as Atheist Activist Group Seeks Removal of Cross from Texas Park

Cross-compressedPORT NECHES, Texas — Residents in a Texas city are pushing back after a prominent professing atheist group recently sent a letter demanding the removal of a cross monument from a public park.

The cross at issue, a 10-foot cement monument, sits in Riverfront Park in Port Neches, and has done so for the past 45 years. But the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) states that it recently received a complaint from a “concerned citizen” about the presence of the cross.

“The government’s permanent display of a Latin cross on public land is unconstitutional,” its letter to Mayor Glenn Johnson reads. “The display of this patently religious symbol on public property confers government endorsement of Christianity, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.”

The organization then demanded the removal of the cross.

“We ask you to remove the cross from Port Neches Riverfront Park immediately or direct the display [to] be moved to a more appropriate private location,” it said.

On Friday, a number of residents formed a group called “Little White Cross Mid-County Texas” out of their desire to build wooden crosses as a show of support for the park display. While the original intent was just to make a few crosses for family and neighbors, the idea quickly grew, and according to the Beaumont Enterprise, over 1,000 people have already requested a cross to place in their yard.

Some offered to donate wood, time and finances for the effort.

  • Connect with Christian News

A Facebook group was also formed called “Port Neches Christians and Advocates for The Cross at Port Neches Park,” which organized a prayer rally at Riverfront Park on Monday. Hundreds attended.

“We stand united to fight for what our beliefs are,” organizer Sheila Ackley told local television station KDFM. “They’re our beliefs. They are our constitutional right to do so. If we don’t stand for it, it’s no more.”

“And it won’t be long and they’re going to take our churches away,” Ackley added. “It’s not going to be long and they’re not going to allow us to have our Bibles. And I was placed on this Earth by God to fight for him, and over my dead body.”

Mayor Johnson supports the display as well.

“I want to make it perfectly clear to the citizens of Port Neches specifically that this mayor and this city council will not fold, it will not bend, it will not roll over,” he told reporters. “We’re going to fight this all the way. And if it goes to court, then it goes to court. And we’ll fight it there as well.”

The city attorney is currently reviewing FFRF’s letter.


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
  • Rebecca

    So for 45 yrs atheists have “let” the cross be and went on with their lives, but current day atheists can’t tolerate it.

    • gatekeeper96740

      The times we live in ………..are getting darker.

      • Rebecca

        Those who don’t believe are doing exactly what the Bible says they will.

        • gatekeeper96740

          And i find myself amazed at the strong delusion they are under………..

          • Rebecca

            satan has them blinded.

          • Frank Dorka

            Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
            Delusion? Tell me of one instance of proof in your god. You can’t even offer credible hearsay. Believing in the supernatural, whatever form, is delusional.

          • Rebecca

            Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
            Delusion? Tell me of one instance of proof in your view of no God. You can’t even offer credible hearsay. Believing in nothing, whatever form, is delusional.

          • Frank Dorka

            Really, Rebecca?
            Even a good Christian like you cannot show proof of non-existence. Or were you home schooled?

          • Rebecca

            Believing in nothing, whatever form, is delusional.

          • Frank Dorka

            Believe in “nothing”? Christians seem to have that market cornered.

          • Rebecca

            You want proof? Why? You don’t believe, so why would proof change that?

          • Frank Dorka

            Look, if I can see proof, I will usually believe. Is it different with you? When presented with truth, do you instantly ignore it? (Most Christians do.)

          • Rebecca

            Share a truth you believe and let’s see? Make sure this truth you share can be proved without a doubt.

          • Frank Dorka

            I think you have done enough sharing for the both of us. That’s a truth.

          • Rebecca

            Didn’t think you would. Move along. Buh-bye.

          • Frank Dorka

            All this talk about fantasy has left me bored. I am dealing with the real world. It offers so much more than the supernatural.

          • Rebecca

            All this talk about your unbelief has left me bored. I am dealing with the real world. It offers so much more than your unbelieving one.

          • Frank Dorka

            ???

          • Rebecca

            🙂 I know, over your head. Not surprised.

          • Frank Dorka

            Over my head but not stuck in the clouds.

          • Rebecca

            Your head is stuck somewhere else 🙂

          • Frank Dorka

            Do you talk like that in Church?

          • Rebecca

            Unless you go to Church, it’s none of your business.

          • Sharon

            This world is far from the REAL ONE!!

          • Frank Dorka

            Unless I go to church, it’s none of your business.

          • Rebecca

            haha

          • daniel

            There is no such thing a proof… Evidence would be nice.

          • Rebecca

            Give evidence there is no God. You can’t.

          • daniel

            How do you give evidence that something doesn’t exist? Please give me evidence that unicorns do not exist?

          • acontraryview

            You can’t prove a negative, Rebecca.

          • daniel

            Ignorance of logic will not be tolerated. God shall punish those who can not think. If you can not think, you can not make the informed choice to believe. Your devotion is thus null.

          • Sharon

            Rebecca..this is not meant for you..just agreeing with you 🙂
            Bible: ‘It is a wicked generation that asks for proof’.
            If you had the ‘contact’ with the Lord, you wouldn’t need earthly proof as you would be ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ what He is saying to you..but those who are under the ‘conditioning’..that are playing right into the hands of the dark one, can’t ‘hear’ anything..and THAT is even written..ie..’but there will be those who will not have their eyes opened or be able to hear with their ears…’. Also written that there will be ‘mockers and scoffers’ in the last days and ‘there will be a great falling away’ (from God). Let me thankyou for confirming what the Lord said..how does it feel to have been written about all those centuries ago?? Do you know how He knew what these days would be like. Let me give you just one example..a little ‘hidden Knowledge’ that is in the Scripts. The verse ‘He BOWED the HEAVENS and come down..’. Many have heard that verse over and over but never really thought too much about it. Well..to ‘BOW’ is to bend..and the ‘HEAVENS’ is space..ie..SPACE BENDING..Time manipulation!! Then that opens up the verse ‘with the Lord a day can be a thousand years and a thousand years can be a day..’ MORE TIME MANIPULATION!! ..and don’t just say it is ‘interpretation’ as there is absolutely no other explanation for that verse..’He bowed the heaven and come down’…and here is the earth applauding Einstien when it was already written about centuries ago. There is a whole other world up there and a lot of hidden Knowledge that He said He would reveal..but..if your not interested..if you think it is too ‘uncool’ to believe then you are going to miss out. ‘Blessed are they that believe BEFORE they see’.
            ‘Call out to Me and I will show you GREAT and UNSEARCHABLE things that you do not know’. UNSEARCHABLE.UNSEARCHABLE!! Things that can not be proven by earthly means..things that are so much higher than what they know here on earth…and you are asking for measly ‘proof’??!!

          • daniel

            Proof of No God… Have you ever seen a unicorn? It is nearly impossible to prove something does not exist.

          • Sharon

            Bible: ‘It is a wicked generation that asks for proof’.
            If you had the ‘contact’ with the Lord, you wouldn’t need earthly proof as you would be ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ what He is saying to you..but those who are under the ‘conditioning’..that are playing right into the hands of the dark one, can’t ‘hear’ anything..and THAT is even written..ie..’but there will be those who will not have their eyes opened or be able to hear with their ears…’. Also written that there will be ‘mockers and scoffers’ in the last days and ‘there will be a great falling away’ (from God). Let me thankyou for confirming what the Lord said..how does it feel to have been written about all those centuries ago?? Do you know how He knew what these days would be like. Let me give you just one example..a little ‘hidden Knowledge’ that is in the Scripts. The verse ‘He BOWED the HEAVENS and come down..’. Many have heard that verse over and over but never really thought too much about it. Well..to ‘BOW’ is to bend..and the ‘HEAVENS’ is space..ie..SPACE BENDING..Time manipulation!! Then that opens up the verse ‘with the Lord a day can be a thousand years and a thousand years can be a day..’ MORE TIME MANIPULATION!! ..and don’t just say it is ‘interpretation’ as there is absolutely no other explanation for that verse..’He bowed the heaven and come down’…and here is the earth applauding Einstien when it was already written about centuries ago. There is a whole other world up there and a lot of hidden Knowledge that He said He would reveal..but..if your not interested..if you think it is too ‘uncool’ to believe then you are going to miss out. ‘Blessed are they that believe BEFORE they see’.
            ‘Call out to Me and I will show you GREAT and UNSEARCHABLE things that you do not know’. UNSEARCHABLE.UNSEARCHABLE!! Things that can not be proven by earthly means..things that are so much higher than what they know here on earth…and you are asking for measly ‘proof’??!!

          • Josey

            Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

            Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

            And not only does God declare He is God of all creation in all the things He has made, we as Christians walk by faith, not in the things seen. But those who do not believe God, He still holds them accountable by the glorious things He has created. You unbeliever are accountable and your words are spoken in vain for one day you will meet the Creator of all things.

          • singlemom_4

            Proverbs 3:7 and you’re right.

          • The Last Trump

            “DNA is an information code. The overwhelming conclusion is that information DOES NOT and CANNOT arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. INTELLIGENCE is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IS GIVEN.” (Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change).
            The evidence of design is all around us. Perhaps you would care to explain how THAT happened?

            And then there is that other minor point of history playing out exactly the way God revealed that it would according to HIS plan. You know, Christians leaving the faith, the world becoming bankrupt financially, morally and spiritually. Sexual anarchy. Israel reborn and surrounded by nations committed to her destruction. Guess you thought the stage being set for Armageddon was just another amazing coincidence in a steady string of amazing Biblical coincidences, huh? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
            Willfully blind much?

          • Frank Dorka

            Puppies are cute, too.

          • Sharon

            Exactly..That is what God was explaining in the beginning of the Bible..ie..Adam was made from the eartly minerals etc but Eve was made differently..she was made from adam’s ‘rib’..ie..human DNA. Adam eve speaks of being ‘put into a deep sleep and having his ‘rib’ removed..than being closes up again. with that, the Lord made eve. Deoxy RIB onucleic acid. If you research (or seek, seek, seek), you will find out that the human ‘rib’ has the most DNA compared to any part of the body. Then the Lord goes on to have written..’You watched me in my mother’s womb..knitted together..every hair on your head has been counted…’.
            ‘Call NO one else father as I AM your ONLY Father’!!!

          • acontraryview

            You do realize that the story of Adam and Eve, in its concept, was a part of several religious beliefs that predate Christianity, right?

          • Sharon

            So does God ‘pre-date’ Christianity. It is written in many places before and after..just as the birth Of Jesus was written long before it happened. Even only centuries ago we have it woven through..ie..the story of king Arthur, he was a king with 12 around him..just as Jesus is seated on a throne with 12 elders around Him. The story of Hercules..his ‘father’ was one of the ‘gods’ and impregnated a human woman..just as Mary was impregnated with the Son of God. If you look at REV 12, you will see the movie ‘Terminator’..ie..the dark one coming through Time and going after the woman who was to give birth to a future king..the dark one wanting to kill her and the male child..the woman being taken ‘upon eagles wings’ (ie..a spiritual journey..just like in the movie when reece appeared to her) and being prepared for battle so she would not get swept away. Then the dark one going after her child. It is all there because the Lord is the Master of TIME, He can see something happening today and go back and have it written a thousand years ago. He even wrote that He ‘saw satan falling to the earth like lightening..’. Remember how the terminator hit the earth?? In lightening. Yes many of it is woven throughout history. Take the movie starwars in today’s Time frame. Then read the verse about the Lord seated on a great Throne with the elders around Him..’sitting in the great assembly amongst the ‘gods’ judging them’. Sounds like a scene of the galactic council right out of starwars doesn’t it?? Don’t think the Bible speaks of ‘others’ in the universe?? Here is just one verse…’Bold and arrogant are they that slander celestial beings, even though the angels are stronger and more powerful than they are…..’!!! Yes…soooooo much to know yet many are being led away from God..being ‘conditioned’ to be dragged away as He is the ONLY One who can protect from what is coming..and it IS coming!!!

          • acontraryview

            “So does God ‘pre-date’ Christianity.”

            I believe so.

            I’ll ask again: You do realize that the story of Adam and Eve, in its concept, was a part of several religious beliefs that predate Christianity, right?

          • jmichael39

            So what? Does it seem odd to you that multiple cultures throughout ancient history have essentially the same stories about the origins of man? You’re focused on the differences rather than the common elements…which says a whole lot.

          • acontraryview

            “Does it seem odd to you that multiple cultures throughout ancient history have essentially the same stories about the origins of man?”

            Not at all. It certainly does show, however, that Bible was not the first set of writings to put forth these type of stories. Thus to suggest that the Bible is the definitive and singular truth seems without merit.

          • jmichael39

            Do you understand what the bible even is? It is not one book. It is a collection of 66 different books. The oldest of those 66 books arguably go back as far as any ancient writing.

          • acontraryview

            “It is a collection of 66 different books. ”

            it is a collection of writings. The particular writings which were included were chosen by men in conformance with the message those men wanted to put forth.

            “The oldest of those 66 books arguably go back as far as any ancient writing.”

            Do you actually believe that? Please cite which writings in the Bible “go back as far as any ancient writing”.

          • jmichael39

            “it is a collection of writings. The particular writings which were included were chosen by men in conformance with the message those men wanted to put forth.” – I would be curious as to what you’ve read which lead you to conclude those were the reasons and purpose for choosing which writings to include in the Bible.

            “Please cite which writings in the Bible “go back as far as any ancient writing”” – The Book of Job is often considered the oldest book included in the Bible. As with any ancient text, there are debates regarding exactly when it was written. But a significant number scholars date it’s authorship as between 1350 BC and the end of the 2nd Millenium BC.

            The argument for this dating consists of the following:

            a. This was the view of the Talmud

            b. This helps support the accuracy of the conversations between Job and his friends; but this is not necessary since portions of Genesis were accurately transmitted by mouth until Moses wrote them down

            c. The addition of 42:16-17 could have been added shortly after Job’s death

            d. The lifestyle and longevity of Job are similar to that of the patriarchs found in Genesis

            e. The moving bands of Sabaeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15, 17) matches the early second millennium B.C.

            f. The literary genre of Job (below) matches that of the patriarchal era

            g. The name of Job is found in the Amarna letters (c. 1350 B.C.) and the Egyptian Execration texts (c. 2000 B.C.)

            h. Although the evidence does not demand a second millennium B.C. date, it certainly allows for it. “

            The earliest non-biblical tablets we have are from Nineveh and Nippur. These tablets have been dated as between 600BC and 2200BC. Not significantly different than the most common dating of the Pentateuch (the first five books in the Bible)…which is typically dated around the 15th century BC.

            The interesting thing about the tablets at Nineveh and Nippur is that they contain many of the same details regarding such things as the so-called flood that destroyed the earth. There are even significant affirmations between those tablets and the bible in relation to the earliest “pre-flood” kings. Some skeptics have somehow seen this as supposed evidence against the bible.
            However, while one can use that to argue against some supposed divine authorship of the books of the bible, since I’m not here to argue for such divine authorship, but rather simply the historicity of the 66 documents that make up the bible, I couldn’t care less about that issue.

            The fact that several completely separate ancient texts discuss some of the most significant elements of the Bible only affirms the historical significance of all those texts, including the bible’s documents. You can argue whether all those texts are full of ____ or not, but you can’t deny the historical significance of them…all of them.

          • acontraryview

            “I would be curious as to what you’ve read which lead you to conclude those were the reasons and purpose for choosing which writings to include in the Bible.”

            What do you believe was the purpose of the First Council of Nicaea in 325?

          • jmichael39

            I know what they did there. So answer the question.

          • acontraryview

            “I know what they did there.”

            To “know’ what they did there would require that you were either there, or that you have access to a transcript of the proceedings. Were you there? Do you have access to a transcript of the proceedings?

            My position is based upon historical documents which say that Constantine ordered the Council to reconcile the various teachings of different Christian sects at the time to come up with a single book of teachings regarding Christianity.

            What is your position based on?

          • jmichael39

            I don’t have to “believe” anythign. I’ve read the historical accounts leading up the canonization of the bible. I know the spoken reasons why they chose each and every document to go into the bible and why they rejected others.

            Your turn to answer the question presented.

          • acontraryview

            “I don’t have to “believe” anything.”

            Unless you were there or have a transcript of the proceedings, then you position is indeed based upon your believe regarding historical writings.

            “I know the spoken reasons why they chose each and every document to go into the bible and why they rejected others.”

            Do tell.

          • sTv0

            “The oldest of those 66 books arguably go back as far as any ancient writing.”

            Yeah! Older than, say…well, not the code of Hammurabi, or the I Ching, or The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria. Definitely not older than The Papyrus Ebers or the Precepts of Ptah-hotep.

            So, yeah, those 66 books are definitely old, but not older than other writings. So, checkmate, atheists!

          • jmichael39

            You’ll have to explain what game you were playing. Because it certainly has nothing to do with logic. All the datings for ALL those tablets are just as uncertain as the oldest writings in the Bible are. Gilgamesh Epic is dated anywhere from the late first millenium b.c. to 2200 b.c. That, fits within the range of time for the oldest books in the bible.

            And besides, so what if there are various versions of the creation or flood stories recorded in different cultures in ancient history. All that does it confirm the authentic nature of the historicity of those stories. It is was obviously accepted truth in multiple cultures as to those events (and others). From an academic and logical perspective, that simply affirms the broader acceptance of those stories. It doesn’t matter that details vary from culture to culture. Like I said before, by focusing on the differences you’re missing the significance of the commonality.

            That being said, I suggest you try a new game. Neither logic nor chess are in your wheelhouse.

          • sTv0

            “so what if there are various versions of the creation or flood stories recorded in different cultures in ancient history. All that does it confirm the authentic nature of the historicity of those stories.”

            And the Epic of Gilgamesh was written when, before or after the Hebrew version?

            Thanks. The view from the wheelhouse is lovely this time of year!

          • jmichael39

            if it weren’t for your arrogance, your ignorance would be your most prevalent character feature.

            We don’t know for sure. The tablets containing the Sumerian Epics’ version of the origins of man and the great flood are dated somewhere between 600 B.C. and 2200 B.C. The Mosaic versions were written between 600 B.C. and 1500 B.C. So it’s more likely the Sumerian version came first. But not for sure.

            And again, answer the question you quoted but ignored, so what?

          • sTv0

            “So it’s more likely the Sumerian version came first.”

            Yes, that’s what the experts say.

            Thanks for making my case for me.

          • jmichael39

            What “case” is that? That you’re arrogant fool?
            Answer my question…what difference does it make? which WRITTEN account is older?
            If you’re going to follow the Gilgamesh Epics, they also describe what the Bible calls the Tower of Babel. They call it, I believe, Etemenanki…which was built in the 6th Century B.C. and was, by certain writings we have, a replica of an original tower built a thousand years earlier.
            So if the supposed tower of babel, as the bible calls it, did exist, then the stories of all mankind being of ‘one blood’ (meaning we came from the same ancient parents), then it would make perfect sense that as societies separated and went their own ways, that they would carry with them the same ancient stories of the first man and woman, the flood and the tower…and that the details of those stories might easily be shifted as they’re passed down in time.

            so for the fifth time I ask, what different does it make which version of those ancient accounts was written down first…or more accurately, we have he most earliest transcript for?

          • sTv0

            You made a claim. It was refuted.

            “The oldest of those 66 books arguably go back as far as any ancient writing.”

            No, they don’t. There are more ancient writings, and you’ve provided some of that evidence, yourself.

            You tried to stretch the truth to fit your own narrative, and you got called out on it.

            “…then it would make perfect sense that as societies separated and went their own ways, that they would carry with them the same ancient stories of the first man and woman, the flood and the tower…and that the details of those stories might easily be shifted as they’re passed down in time.”

            You do realize that you’re making the case for the absurdity of the whole of the claims of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, by the way)?

          • jmichael39

            How simply laughable…

            My “claim” was that some of the oldest writings in the Bible are “arguably” as old…

            Your so-called refutation is that “most experts” endorse the claim that certain ancient writing “most likely” came earlier.

            Perhaps the English language is a bit difficult for you to comprehend, being from Moronovia and all. But that’s hardly a refutation of anything.

            “You do realize that you’re making the case for the absurdity of the whole of the claims of Christianity” – do tell. This should be fun. First you bastardize the English language and now I’m wholly expecting your bastardization of the concept of logic. But please do tell.

          • sTv0

            You know, jm, here’s how I figure it: the longer we discuss this, and the more ground you are forced to give, the more times you’ll issue ad homs and, hence, the quicker the admins will ban you.

            (“we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior.”)

            Is that where you want to take this?

          • jmichael39

            Thank you for finally being honest. At least you admit now that you’re not even remotely here to participate in any form of logical debate, but rather to simply annoy people sufficiently to get them banned from the site. How pleasantly trollish of you. But not unexpected. Especially in light of the reality that your so-called refutation of my ‘claim’ just sunk into an abyss.

          • sTv0

            Look, I’m not sorry you’re not happy about losing this debate.

            Not my problem. You made the claims. They are not true. And you said that yourself.

            Geez. You Christians. So sensitive! And hurling invectives at people just because you were wrong. Name-calling like “ignorant” and “arrogant” and “trollish”.

            How adult of you.

          • sTv0

            “so what if there are various versions of the creation or flood stories recorded in different cultures in ancient history…”

            And the Epic of Gilgamesh was written when, before or after the Hebrew version?

            Thanks. The view from the wheelhouse is spectacular these days! 🙂

          • sTv0

            “…but Eve was made differently..she was made from adam’s ‘rib’..ie..human DNA…”

            So, Eve was transsexual?

            Got it.

          • Sharon

            Here is what earth science is up to..’Scientists Make History By Genetically Modifying Human Embryos’
            God is the Creator of science..He is the Top Step and sooo far advanced beyond the earth’s minute knowledge. He can do anything to human DNA..yes..even modify it to suit what He wants. No, she was not transsexual. He doesn’t say that man laying with man and woman laying with woman is an abomination and then go and create people that way. No one is created that way..it all happens afterwards for whatever reasons of that individual.

          • sTv0

            “No, she was not transsexual”.

            But both you and the Bible said Eve came from Adam’s rib, and Adam was male, so she had male DNA, and since your god changed her to female, then she had to be transsexual.

            And that makes Adam gay.

            So, it really *was* Adam and Steve.

            Checkmate, Atheists.

          • Sharon

            Cor: I gave you milk, not solid
            food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

            Matthew: “Do not give dogs what is
            holy, and do not throw your pearls (Wisdom) before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

            6Yet we do speak wisdom among
            those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of
            this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the
            hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom
            which none of the rulers of this age has understood;

          • sTv0

            “Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.””

            So, let me ask you, Sharon: would you take part in a stoning of a neighbor, perhaps a non-believer like me?

          • Sharon

            If you knew the Bible you would know that the old laws are null and void now..THAT is why Jesus came to earth..to make a new covenant. The ‘eye for an eye’ is no more as it is now ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Ignorance brings up the old ancient laws just to try and have something to hide behind..”oh..well how about stoning the harlot huh??’ Oh PLEASSE!! Jesus Himself said ‘NO’ when he protected Mary Magdalene!! Oh catch UP!!!

          • sTv0

            Well, I put my stock in faith in Jesus when it comes to “knowing the Bible”. Why? Because, well, he should know, amirite?

            So, this is what he said about the “old laws”:

            ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

            So, Sharon, who need to catch UP, now?

          • Sharon

            Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.’
            Keep reading my friend because he has also warned that ‘Lack of knowledge will not save you’!!

          • sTv0

            So, then what you’re saying is that the Bible contradicts itself?

            Thanks for making my point for me.

            Bye!

          • Sharon

            So that’s the best ‘last straw’ you can come up with to hide behind and ‘bye’ your easy way out??. No, not a contradiction..just like the other verse they hide behind..ie.’.turn the other cheek’. Sure, the Lord says if someone is trying to start a fight etc., turn the other cheek..ie..walk away..BUT..He also says that ‘if someone is sinning against you, then you are to be active in resolving it’. Now, you would say ‘but he said to turn the other cheek blah blah blah’ without reading further into His Wisdom and commands as a whole picture. Just like the people said to Him (trying to catch Him out in something..ha..just like you are now), ‘You have commanded not to work on the Sabbath yet here you are healing people’. His response was to the effect of ‘if there was a lamb drowning down in a well..Would I not save it’? What He is saying there is also that we are to use our common sense also in that He would not condemn us for saving a life but having to go against one of His commands. It is obvious that you are fighting something inside of yourself..and that you DO know the Truth and are struggling so are fighting against it. That means that the Lord may just be calling you as we speak..just surrender the pride and go with it..you WILL NOT be made a fool or regret your decision..and He will show you things that you did not know existed..and He will also show you ‘what’ was making you run from the Truth. Let me say just this..if I were to snap my fingers and the host that our beings are in (human bodies) were to just drop away, you would be astounded at what lays behind some of them and will ‘see’ just what was lying to you…ain’t pretty believe me..the walking dead have nothing on these things.
            So instead of saying ‘bye’ to me, I will say it to you..leaving you with a verse the Lord asked me to give you..ie..
            Verse: ‘be aware of who you entertain as you may be entertaining one of my angels unawares’
            Bye..hope to see you there 🙂

          • sTv0

            Sharon,
            Think about what you wrote in your earlier posts. You fabricated outrageously untrue things about DNA, yet you’re not a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist. You know little about science, yet you pretended that you do.

            So you lied about what you know.

            Then, you quoted scripture, and I quoted scripture, and those quotes are contradictory…and everybody can read the contradictions that are so common in your bible.

            So, you don’t know scripture, either. So, you lied about your knowledge of that.

            Why? What purpose is served?

            If your god is so all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good as so many of your fellow Christians claim, why must you lie about him?

            Could it be perhaps that he doesn’t exist? Because, if he does exist, he’ll be sending you to hell because you’ve sinned against him.

            Maybe you’re better off believing in another god, one who is more benevolent, less violent and more loving than the god of the bible…and taste great with a salad and red wine.

            I suggest the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Sauce Be Upon Him).

            Peace.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice, Trump. And that was actually one more reason than he asked for. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            “The evidence of design is all around us.”

            Even if that were true, how is it that the Christian god is definitively the one who did this?

          • The Last Trump

            Great question!
            And once you start looking into THAT, all doubt is permanently erased.
            Happy researching pilgrim! 😉

          • acontraryview

            “Great question!”

            Which apparently you are unable to answer.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh.
            You weren’t even going to check it out? Not even a little bit?
            Shocker.
            Troll on, partner! Troll on.

          • acontraryview

            Check out what? You didn’t provide an answer for me to check out.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh, I’M responsible to find you all the answers and provide you with YOUR salvation!
            Hee, hee! You trolling clowns never change. Priceless!
            I’ll be right over to mow your lawn and take out your garbage too.
            Start holding your breath any time.
            Boy, today’s self absorbed, self entitled, finger pointing lazy liberals sure aren’t good for very much are they folks? Such a waste of potential.

          • acontraryview

            You have no such responsibility. i asked a question. You did not answer it. Nothing more to it than that.

          • The Last Trump

            Pretty sure I did, Muffin.
            Guess you just didn’t like the work involved for you in my answer, huh?
            No worries. Nobody here is surprised. Common response from trolls.
            You’re not fooling anybody bud. You’re not here looking for ANY evidence of God. You’re here to push a contrary view. Remember? Exactly.

          • acontraryview

            Pretty sure you didn’t, Muffin. Telling me to do research is not providing an answer. It is simply saying that you can’t provide an answer, or are to lazy to do so.

          • The Last Trump

            Uh huh. I’m the lazy one! 😉
            So how far did you get with that research?
            Please keep us posted.
            Oh, you’re already finished!?
            Boy, that didn’t take long did it? Guess it wasn’t really very important.
            Shocker.

          • acontraryview

            “Uh huh. I’m the lazy one! ;)”

            Well at least we agree on that.

            “So how far did you get with that research?”

            You provided no answer to research. Shocker.

          • The Last Trump

            Wow. You’re still here arguing about nothing!
            And still haven’t bothered to look for any answers to your “questions”!
            Ahhhh yes. Of course. You’re one of THOSE. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            And you still haven’t answered my question. Ahhhh yes. Of course. You’re one of THOSE. 🙂

          • jmichael39

            I suppose the best answer is the one that Paul gave in I Cor. 15…when he referenced the importance of the resurrection of Jesus. No one can deny that if Jesus really did rise from the dead that you have to give some serious considerations to the claims Jesus made about himself…the claims that got him crucified.

          • acontraryview

            “if Jesus really did rise from the dead”

            That’s a big if. There is no proof that he did.

          • jmichael39

            Is it? Would you like you debate the evidence? Or have you already made your conclusions without ever having even reviewed the evidence?

          • acontraryview

            Evidence? You mean the stories in the Bible? Or did you have other ‘evidence’ that Jesus rose from the dead?

          • jmichael39

            “You mean the stories in the Bible” – well, that’s a nice attempt at poisoning the well without even attempting to identify the historical relevance of what’s contained in the documents included in the Bible. If all you’re prepared to do in this debate is to summarily dismiss the historical relevance of the contents of the various books of the Bible simply because they’re religious in nature, you’ve already lost the debate. Not even because the historicity of the documents in the Bible even necessarily contradict any assertion of yours, but merely because such a summary dismissal lacks intellectual or academic credibility.

            That being said, I am more than willing to discuss the historicity and contributive nature of the documents in the Bible in understanding ancient history. If that’s what you’d like to do.

            I’m also prepared to present non-biblical and even secular evidence surrounding the resurrection account.

            Please note I am not going to tell you what conclusions to come to from the evidence. I can only presume you’re intelligent enough to make your own conclusions once you have evaluated the evidence. However, if all you’re prepared to do is make assumptive conclusions without any discussion about the evidence. then this will be a very short debate because I’m not interested in ‘debating’ with someone uninterested in actually being rational and intelligent.

          • acontraryview

            “If all you’re prepared to do in this debate is to summarily dismiss the historical relevance of the contents of the various books of the Bible simply because they’re religious in nature”

            My suggesting that the writings of the Bible do not provide reliable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is not a dismissal of the historical relevance of the Bible. With that said, the writings in the Bible describing that a person died and then rose again, are not a proof source. Just as the writings in Greek mythology do not serve as a proof source that Icarus actually flew too close to the sun.

            “I’m also prepared to present non-biblical and even secular evidence surrounding the resurrection account.”

            Please do.

            “because I’m not interested in ‘debating’ with someone uninterested in actually being rational and intelligent.”

            Neither am I.

            Will you also be discussing the historical evidence for Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Baal?

          • Sharon

            Do you believe that they cloned a sheep from DNA?? Do you believe that invitro is possible?? Well, what would you say if I told you is was already written about over 2 thousand years ago??

            That is what God was explaining in the beginning of the Bible..ie..Adam was made from the eartly minerals etc but Eve was made differently..she was made from adam’s ‘rib’..ie..human DNA. Adam eve speaks of being ‘put into a deep sleep and having his ‘rib’ removed..than being closes up again. with that, the Lord made eve. Deoxy RIB onucleic acid. If you research (or seek, seek, seek), you will find out that the human ‘rib’ has the most DNA compared to any part of the body. Then the Lord goes on to have written..’You watched me in my mother’s womb..knitted together..every hair on your head has been counted…’.

            ‘Call NO one else father as I AM your ONLY Father’!!!
            ..and about invitro?? Well, here is the verse..’and the BARREN woman will have SEVEN in the womb..’ I believe we have come far enough to know what that is saying. It was only about 50 years ago that one was reading that verse and thinking ‘what’?? It is now understood because we are IN THE END TIMES so maybe start asking Him for some help as it will be too late VERY SOON!!

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            That is so cool! I never knew that about the DNA in the ribs.Thank you for sharing that with us. Wow we are learning more now than in the past. Yes we are in the end times.

          • JGC

            Actually, rib bones aren’t a very good source of DNA. From 100 grams of rib bone the best yield you’ll achieve is about 13 micrograms of DNA. You can easily get 300 micrograms of DNA from 10 grams of human blood.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            I have trouble believing you. But I am still Praying for you.
            Shalom <

          • JGC

            So it actually was “Adam and Steve”? After all, if Eve were Adam’s clone Eve would have been a male, possessing both an X and a Y chromosome.

          • Sharon

            Here is what earth science is up to..’Scientists Make History By Genetically Modifying Human Embryos’
            God is the Creator of science..He is the Top Step and sooo far advanced beyond the earth’s minute knowledge. He can do anything to human DNA..yes..even modify it to suit what He wants. So no, she was not transsexual because He doesn’t say that ‘man laying with man and woman laying with woman is an abomination to God’ and then go and create people that way. No one is created that way..it all happens afterwards for whatever reasons of that individual.

            Here is a verse to think about now..’I will take your seed and spread it throughout the land…’. Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it??because we have come far enough to know what it means. 50 years ago they would have been scratching their heads.
            I’m not commenting on this thread again so there is no need to reply to me as I won’t respond.

          • JGC

            “God is the Creator of science”

            Your evidence that god exists, and that he is the creator of science, would be what, exactly?

            “even modify it to suit what He wants”

            But not create it from scratch, apparently, or there would have been no need to start with a sample of Adams rib and make modifications afterward.

            “So no, she was not transsexual because He doesn’t say that ‘man laying with man and woman laying with woman is an abomination to God.”
            It was indeed the human authors of Leviticus who said this, to condemn participation by Jews in non-Jewish rites of worship that included temple prostitution.

            “No one is created that way..it all happens afterwards for whatever reasons of that individual”

            Evidence to support this claim, especially in light of the body of evidence to the contrary (e.g., the fact that the neuroanatomy of transgendered individuals is seen to differ from that of cis-gendered individuals)?

            “50 years ago they would have been scratching their heads.”
            I think they understood the use of ‘seed’ as a metaphor for descendants 50 years ago.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            These Atheist laugh now. but the day is coming their laughter will turn to tears.They will see the very one who blinded them.And see the one they Rejected.

        • acontraryview

          Wouldn’t that be true for every religious belief?

    • Josey

      Yes, since obama has showned his lawlessness it has emboldened atheists to follow in his footsteps, they know they have his backing. We are living in the last days,”this generation shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled”, Jesus matthew 24:34 What generation was Jesus talking about in this chapter, the endtime generation and we are it, the signs are evident of this. Wake up church of the Living God! Even so, Come Lord Jesus!

      • acontraryview

        So you have a specific date? I’d like to plan something. Maybe a nice brunch. I do love brunch!

        • Josey

          ah, aren’t you the funny mocker that the bible talks about and no man knows the hour or day except for God, that is why it will take people like you by surprise if you do not wake up and heed God’s words concerning it. Jesus said if the thief had know what hour his house had been broken into he would have been up waiting on the thief. This is why God has given those of us who believe signs and commanded us to stay awake and WATCH!

          • acontraryview

            So you don’t have a date and have no idea if we are living in the “end times” or not. Got it. Thanks.

            Surely you are aware that people have been saying that “we are living in the end times” every since the Bible was written. The authors of the Gospel felt certain that Jesus would return in their lifetimes.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Just so you know, Rebecca, I am a former Old Atheist. We would NEVER have stooped so low as to demand a cross be removed. We actually understood the meaning of the word “tolerance.”

      The New Atheists refute themselves by evangelizing their religion and pretending that objective moral values and duties exist when, on their view, the universe is just going to die a slow cold dark death, and the removal of all of the crosses in the world will have no ultimate purpose or meaning or morality – in fact no one will even be around to even know that it ever happened IF atheism were true.

      New Atheists are the goose steppers of atheism. We (former) Old Atheists would have had nothing to do with them. I praise God He rescued me from the gates of Hell before the New Atheists really kicked in – although their idiocy would probably have converted me to Christianity anyway. 🙂

      And that is the upside: their bully tactics will bring many of those who are on the fence to Christ.

      • Sharon

        Have made me smile..just at the mere fact that you mentioned the Word ‘rescued’!! I praise God also!!! 🙂

      • Cosmic Mastermind

        In the old days people in America were too timid to speak out. the internet has changed that. I’m not particularly bothered by the presence of a cross in a public park in a mainly Christian Country, but it shouldn’t be there and now someone is bothered by it, and they have a right to demand it be removed.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          There is no right to not be offended in America. If there were, then all atheists in America would have to be locked up. 🙂

          We were not at all timid – I can assure you. Ever hear of the 60’s?!? 🙂 We merely understood the meaning of the word “tolerance.”

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            We’ve been here before; Ten Commandments vs Statue of Baphomet. If you can have your Cross, then in the name of the Holy Whore of Babylon, I can place the symbols of my faith – or non-faith – in that same public park.

            And even if Christianity was the official State religion of America, what would happen if Baptists were allowed to put up a monument in a public park but the local Catholics were not?

            You are free to preach on public land, but you don’t get to “own” that public land; it belongs to everyone, not just your own group.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are free to move to this town and attempt to get your Satan statue put up. The citizens of this town own the park, not you or the Freedom From Thought Foundation. 🙂

            Once again, thank you for showing that the New Atheists are the modern-day goose steppers of atheism – completely intolerant to anyone’s views but their own.

            We (former) Old Atheists had much more class. We knew that a cross was not going to harm us, and we were not so thin-skinned as to believe that if it offended us we had to act like it was Vietnam or the Civil Rights Movement.

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Do you mean all the citizens of that town, or just the ones who are Christians?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            All of the citizens. If the Satanists are the main element to a town, they are free to pursue a statue of Satan. Does not offend me in the least.

            It’s not Vietnam, Civil Rights, or the holocaust of our age, abortion.

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Okay, so what if two-thirds of a town are white and one-third is black, and the white majority decides they want racial segregation?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Now, at last, we are talking Civil Rights – back to my roots! At least it is no longer faux outrage (or, more pathetically, real outrage!) over a cross – it is something real. You DO realize that the white supremacists were the same sort of bullies as the New Atheists? “Segregation of church and state,” hehe. 🙂

            BTW, MLK, Jr was a Bible carrying Christian. 🙂 (Oh, and you have obviously never been involved in civil rights issues. Nowadays, it is far more likely that the black minority would desire to segregate. Spend some time in the ‘hood for once. Is that a white hood on your head? :-))

          • ProudAmerican

            Pentagrams, a statue of Satan (I wonder if it was carved from a recent photo…), depictions of a 1st century popular Roman method of torture, a sacred geometric star with six points,goat sacrifices, walking around in mindless circles doin’ the Haj in Mecca, statues and paintings of Jesus that make him look like a white Northern European, grown men dressed up in medieval costumes with pointy hats, statues of gods with eight arms and the head of a giraffe,noisy and intrusive calls to prayer from the friendly neighborhood mosque, small funny looking skullcaps worn on adult men dressed entirely in black and people who dance in circles to make it rain are all rather silly and weird in one way or another to me. Does that make me an Old Atheist or a New Atheist? Is it a civil right to be free from exhibitions of nutty beliefs? It should be.

        • jmichael39

          why shouldn’t it be there? When and how did Establishment Clause become a restriction upon the states and local governments?

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Federal law trumps State law.

          • jmichael39

            What federal law are you referring to?

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            The First Amendment. Why would you think the Constitution is optional to individual States?

          • jmichael39

            Go on. What does it say exactly?

          • BeccaJoe

            Cosmic Mastermind is from England. But he/she likes to blather about the constitution as if he understands anything about it or our founding.

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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 park is public land, not private land. If it were privately owned then the owner could erect any religious monument he liked, but as public land, under Federal law, the park exists for the People of the United States, not just for the local residents who happen to be Christians; it’s not a park for Christians and not for that guy over there who’s an Atheist or that guy over there who’s a Pagan or that guy who’s a Hindu. It’s for everyone.

            You an preach in the park, and you can proselytize in the park, but you don’t own the park. It is not the personal fiefdom of the Christians of the town.

          • BeccaJoe

            Our constitution limits the federal governments intrusion into state affairs. This issue is a perfect example of something that ain’t the federal governments or the FFRF’s business. But the reality is that the federal government clearly does not have a problem with religious displays on public property. If it did than please explain all the following religious displays all over public property in Washington DC. If your contention is accurate, this should not have been possible. I really have to thank folks who have your mindset for going on and on about some non-existent violation of the constitution. It has given me the opportunity to post this all over this thread.

            “In the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress are statues of various figures with quotes. Religion is represented by Moses and Paul and the quote is “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” Science is represented with the quote “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” History is represented with “One God, one law, one element and one far off divine event, to which the whole creation moves.”

            On the outside of the Supreme Court there is a marble relief of Moses holding the 10 commandments. When the court is in session, a crier ends his call announcing the opening by saying “God save the United States and the Honorable Court.”

            There are several large paintings in the Capitol Rotunda. Among them is the Baptism of Pocahontas. There is also the Departure of the Pilgrims from Holland, which depicts them praying. There is an open bible in the painting which allays any doubt as to whom they were praying.

            In God We Trust is inscribed behind the Speakers rostrum in the House chamber. There is also a marble relief of Moses above the central gallery door. The Capitol building itself was used for religious services from its inception until after the Civil War. In 1867 the house chamber was the meeting place for the largest church congregation in America. There is even a prayer room in the Capitol building. A bronze design on the floor of the rotunda contains the 10 commandments. Our Declaration of Independence must cause some consternation to anti-religious zealots for containing the concept of unalienable rights being given to us by our Creator and prattling on about the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

            The Washington Monument is awash with carved tributes to God such as “Holiness to the Lord”, “Search the Scriptures”, “The memory of the just is Blessed”, “May Heaven to this union continue its beneficence”, “In God we Trust”, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

            There was an inscription cut into the marble facing of the state dining room fireplace in the White House which says “I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” The oath of office is taken with the President’s hand on the bible. There are times when Presidents have requested the bible to be open, with their hand touching scripture that has special meaning to them.

            I have barely scratched the surface of what is contained in and on government buildings.

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Yes, but most of those Christian artworks have been deemed “historical artifacts”, it doesn’t mean new ones should be allowed. None of that stuff should have been put in there in the first place; if you read any part of The Constitution you will perhaps notice that the men who drafted it went to some pains to completely avoid any reference to God, Jesus or Christianity.

          • namelessghost

            At the Supreme Court, Moses is not depicted as a religious figure. He is depicted as one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers including Menes, Hammurabi, Solomon, Lycurgus, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon. And the two tablets Moses holds in his arms are blank, without inscription. They are not the 10 commandments.

            Of the eight paintings in the rotunda, four of them depict scenes from the American Revolution (General George Washington Resigning His Commission, Declaration of Independence, Surrender of General Burgoyne, and Surrender of Lord Cornwallis). The other four depict the exploration and colonization of America (Embarkation of the Pilgrims, Baptism of Pocahontas, Landing of Columbus, and Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto).

            There is no “bronze design on the floor of the rotunda [that] contains the 10 commandments.”

          • jmichael39

            That’s fine. I’m not at all concerned about that. I am more than willing and capable of enlightening him regarding issues he’s not as knowledgeable of.

          • jmichael39

            Read what the first amendment says. Your answer is in the words of the amendment

      • TheCountess

        Proving the point of ‘seeking that which was lost’, applies to all, for none are righteous to begin with, no not one. And also, the reality that God is Who He says He is no matter what a person believes in with their own understanding. You came God’s way, and met the risen Lord. This is what all the hub bub is about. Coming to the Light. Coming to the Truth that God is God.

      • ProudAmerican

        One thing you can say about them Old Atheists is that they knew their place and kept their mouth shut like Jesus said they should. Now these modern New Atheists are just a bunch of rabble-rousers and trouble-makers just looking to pick a fight all the time. If you want them all to shut up and slink away in shame just tell them to “prove that God doesn’t exist”. Pure logic. Pure reason. Pure truth. Gets ’em every time. You also could just bulldoze all the Atheist Churches and Temples. That’ll teach ’em. They would have no place to not worship no God.

        • lupine3

          Typical ” loving Christian” way, deal with the “enemy” with violence. Atheists are not the enemy, they are just trying to live life devoid of religion and god and are only asking for the same rights that Christians have. How would you like it if your churches were bulldozed and destroyed? That’s a federal offense, by the way, so try it and see where it gets you. By the way, atheists don’t have churches or temples… a little bit of education, please.

    • Nofun

      Constitutional breaches have to be fixed sometime. You should want religious freedom more than anyone. The govt remaining secular ensures that.

  • daniel

    I hope that everyone who supports the cross will put one on their own lawn. No one should force someone to place one on their lawn. Crosses belong on YOUR property, not MINE (if I don’t want one). Do you OWN the park? No, It belongs to the City. YOU can not place a cross in the park, only those who OWN the park can. Those who own the park can not, because the constitution prevents them for doing so. The city attorney will end up telling the city council that they do not have a legal leg to stand on. They can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars losing the case and losing the cross, or they can decide to lose the cross. Why not take the cross and put it on private property across the street from its current illegal location?

    • Frank Dorka

      Save your money. Move it now. Avoid paying fines and court costs. We don’t mind if you do what’s best for ALL taxpayers. Admit defeat, it will save you in the long run.

    • BeccaJoe

      The constitution absolutely DOES NOT PREVENT them from placing a cross in a public park.

      • BarkingDawg

        If the city has decided that the park is an open forum, then a statue to Baphomet can be placed there, right?

        How statues of some of the Hindu Gods and Goddesses?

        Kokopelli?

        • BeccaJoe

          What “open forum”? The citizens of this small Texas town placed a cross in a park, which was their constitutional right. It is not unusual either since the vast majority of the citizens of the city are either evangelicals or catholic. If you want to try and get the support of the community to have a statue of baphomet or hindu gods and goddesses placed there as well, knock yourself out.

          • BarkingDawg

            If the town allows the citizens of one religeous group to put religious icons in the park, but not other groups, that is an impermissible restriction.

            If the town allows the cross, it HAS to allow all other forms of icons as well. This includes Hindu goddesses, satanist pentagons, benches with atheist inscriptions, etc.

            That is what an open forum is.

            Don’t complain when people want to do those things.

          • BeccaJoe

            We live in a pluralistic society. Not a secular humanistic one where it is everything or nothing at all. If a town wants a cross in their park but wants to defer from a hindu goddess, that is their right and their own darn business. Just as it is the right of a town in America, that might have a large Indian population, to put up a hindu goddess in their park while deferring on the cross.

          • BarkingDawg

            If a town wants a cross in their park but wants to defer from a hindu goddess, that is their right and their own darn business. Just as it is the right of a town in America.

            Nope. That would be impermissible under the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

            This is well settled law.

          • BeccaJoe

            The establishment clause does not disallow placing a cross in a public park. We have an establishment clause because our founders did not want a national church or religion to be established. Like they had in England with the Church of England. You do know it was treason to speak against the church or it’s head, the king. It was punishable by death. Kind of brings the establishment clause into focus.

            Our founders promoted religious freedom. Not secular tyranny.

          • BarkingDawg

            Under the establishment clause, if the city allows one religious viewpoint, they have to allow all be it Muslim, satanism, Hindu, Scientology, or atheism.

            They can’t just allow a cross and nothing else.

          • BeccaJoe

            I have no doubt that you actually believe that. But the founders disagree with you. So I’m going to go with the founders. You know since they actually wrote the constitution.

          • BarkingDawg

            If they meant it amendment to be interpreted in a certain way, then why would have written it that way. The amendment is pretty straight forward.

            No government endorsement of a particular religion.

            If they allow the cross, but do not allow other religions monuments, that is an impermissible endorsement.

          • BeccaJoe

            Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

            Establishment is quite straight forward. They would not establish a national religion or church that one must tithe to or adhere to its doctrines. It protects religious freedom for all. The founders didn’t care whether a city put a cross up on state land. They didn’t care if the federal government put up a cross on federal land. If they did, our capital would not be awash with scriptural engravings, statues, paintings etc.

            The founders meaning has not changed. What has changed is the tyrannical men and women in this country who can’t stand religion at all. And Christianity in particular. And want to see all vestiges of it eradicated from their view. Even though that eradication means robbing their fellow countrymen of a natural right the founders took care to elucidate quite plainly in our constitution. We are a nation founded on pluralism. Not secularism.

          • Nofun

            The all works both ways otherwise it is not a wall. There are no special rights for Christianity.

          • BeccaJoe

            We aren’t asking for “special rights.”

          • Nofun

            Yes you are. You want the constitution to be ignored if a christian wants to push his religion onto to govt. I think you may be against that if it were muslims doing it.

          • BeccaJoe

            It is you and others with your mindset who are reinterpreting the clear language of the first amendment in order to tyrannically push communities, usually small communities, like Port Neches into removing a cross that they have every right to place there.

          • Nofun

            The court rules based on the constitution … does the fact they lost not suggest they were going against the constitution ….. or is it all a big anti-christian conspiracy.

          • BeccaJoe

            This case hasn’t gone to court.

            Do you honestly believe that all judges are unbiased? Because on this issue, any judgement that would go against the erecting of a cross on public land would be nonsensical to our founders and the intention of the first amendment.

          • Nofun

            No. But all judges have to uphold the Constitution, the Establishment clause and the precedents of law that have grown up around its.

            The founders intentions are clear as god, Jesus and Christianity were not mentioned in the constitution or declaration.

          • BeccaJoe

            They did not need to mention “god, Jesus and Christianity” to protect religious freedom. But we know that the reasoning behind the first amendment was to keep what they had in England from happening in the New World. Not to keep people from putting up a cross in a state park.

          • namelessghost

            “Establishment is quite straight forward. They would not establish a national religion or church that one must tithe to or adhere to its doctrines.”

            Indeed it is.

            Establish means to set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis, or achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for.

            A city displaying a cross in a public park fits the second half of that definition perfectly.

            And I’m certain that the First Amendment does not solely prohibit the creation of a national church… mainly because of the fact that Congress, when writing the Amendment in 1789, specifically rejected narrow language merely forbidding the creation of a national church.

          • acontraryview

            “The citizens of this small Texas town placed a cross in a park, which was their constitutional right. ”

            Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens have a right to place a religious symbol in a public park?

            “If you want to try and get the support of the community to have a statue of baphomet or hindu gods and goddesses placed there as well”

            Why is public support necessary? Are you suggesting that if I wanted to put a religious symbol in a public park and pay for it myself, that the community would be required to support that? How is that consistent with your views regarding the right of citizens to place a religious symbol in public spaces?

          • BeccaJoe

            ——“Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens have a right to place a religious symbol in a public park?”—–

            Where does it say they don’t?

            —-“Are you suggesting that if I wanted to put a religious symbol in a public park and pay for it myself, that the community would be required to support that?”—–

            What I am “suggesting” is that if the Port Neches Chamber of Commerce Beautification Committee wants to contact someone, let’s say Robert Bailey, and have him design a cross so that they can put it up in Riverfront Park, they have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.

          • BarkingDawg

            What I am “suggesting” is that if the Port Neches Chamber of Commerce Beautification Committee wants to contact someone, let’s say Robert Bailey, and have him design a cross so that they can put it up in Riverfront Park, they have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.

            You are wrong. As you will soon find out.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite where in the Constitution a right exists for citizens to put up a symbol of a religious belief in a public park. Got it. Thanks

            “they have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.”

            Again, you make the claim that they have a constitutional right to do so, but you are unable to back up that claim by citing how the constitution provides that right.

          • BeccaJoe

            So you can’t cite where the constitution DOESN’T allow for citizens to put up a symbol of a “religious belief” in a public park. Got it. Thanks!

            Again, you seem to be making a “claim” that the constitution forbids such a thing but are unable to back up that claim by citing where the constitution forbids it.

          • acontraryview

            You made a claim that they have a constitutional right to do so, yet you are unable to state where that right exists in the constitution.

            “you seem to be making a “claim” that the constitution forbids such a thing”

            Please cite where I made such a claim.

          • BeccaJoe

            I actually said “you SEEM to be making a claim.” You even quoted me. There is a difference between seeming to make a claim and actually making a claim. To “seem” means you are giving the impression that you disagree with my “claim.” And that you actually believe the constitution forbids the erecting of a cross in this cities public park. And yet there that cross is. In that park. Been there for 45 years.

          • Nofun

            All wrongs are eventually righted. The constitution is not ignored due to temporal concerns.

          • BeccaJoe

            The wrong is being done by those who are trying to eradicate the freedom that our founders recognized as our natural right.

          • Nofun

            You can have 1000 foot crosses in your own backyards why do you want to push them onto public land. When you push your religion on govt don’t be shocked there is a constitutional push back.

            No right is absolute and the constitution clearly states govt has to be neutral.

          • BeccaJoe

            The title of this article is “Community Pushes Back As Atheist Activist Group Seeks Removal of Cross…” It is those who have had enough of secular tinkering with the clear language of the first amendment who are pushing back.

            Our founders believed that natural rights are “absolute rights.”

            I am copying this by permission of the original poster “Unionville”.

            In the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress are statues of various figures with quotes. Religion is represented by Moses and Paul and the quote is “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” Science is represented with the quote “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” History is represented with “One God, one law, one element and one far off divine event, to which the whole creation moves.”

            On the outside of the Supreme Court there is a marble relief of Moses holding the 10 commandments. When the court is in session, a crier ends his call announcing the opening by saying “God save the United States and the Honorable Court.”

            There are several large paintings in the Capitol Rotunda. Among them is the Baptism of Pocahontas. There is also the Departure of the Pilgrims from Holland, which depicts them praying. There is an open bible in the painting which allays any doubt as to whom they were praying.

            In God We Trust is inscribed behind the Speakers rostrum in the House chamber. There is also a marble relief of Moses above the central gallery door. The Capitol building itself was used for religious services from its inception until after the Civil War. In 1867 the house chamber was the meeting place for the largest church congregation in America. There is even a prayer room in the Capitol building. A bronze design on the floor of the rotunda contains the 10 commandments. Our Declaration of Independence must cause some consternation to anti-religious zealots for containing the concept of unalienable rights being given to us by our Creator and prattling on about the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

            The Washington Monument is awash with carved tributes to God such as “Holiness to the Lord”, “Search the Scriptures”, “The memory of the just is Blessed”, “May Heaven to this union continue its beneficence”, “In God we Trust”, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

            There was an inscription cut into the marble facing of the state dining room fireplace in the White House which says “I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” The oath of office is taken with the President’s hand on the bible. There are times when Presidents have requested the bible to be open, with their hand touching scripture that has special meaning to them.
            I have barely scratched the surface of what is contained in and on government buildings.

            It has been said that a nations monuments and national symbols reflect the heart of the people. That is true of America. Notwithstanding the anti-Christian sentiment that has gripped the left. It is small wonder that many of our monuments memorialize our belief in and love for God.

            If our founders intended for this ‘separation” that you speak of, how were all of these things that I have listed possible?

          • Nofun

            None of that changes the constitution or the Establishment clause.

            The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

            “Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.”

            Legal Information Institute, Cornell University.

          • BeccaJoe

            Of course “none of that changes the constitution or the Establishment clause.” It clears it up. The founders intent with the establishment clause was to ensure that there would be no national church or national religion. Putting a cross up in a park is not establishing a national church. It’s not establishing a national religion. The founders knew this. That is why even Washington DC is overflowing with religious imagery.

          • Nofun

            It is allowing a christian symbol on govt land thus making govt favor Christianity which is against the Establishment clause.

            Does that clear it up for you.

          • BeccaJoe

            Why are there all those religious symbols, scriptures and iconograghy on and in government buildings in DC. How did those happen if “allowing a christian symbol on govt land” is against the establishment clause?

          • Nofun

            The interpretation allows some but overtly religious displays crosses the line. Always have. Always will.

            Stop playing the victim. No one is stopping you worshiping your faith construct.

          • BeccaJoe

            I am re-posting this. Please try to read it this time. How much more overt could religious displays be on and in government buildings then these.

            The only ones playing the victim are the FFRF and others with their mindset who get their panties in a twist over a cross in a public park. And try to push the demonstrably absurd claim that it somehow violates the establishment clause of the constitution. PLEASE READ THIS THIS TIME AND EXPLAIN HOW THESE THINGS WERE POSSIBLE IF OVERT RELIGIOUS IMAGERY SOMEHOW VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.

            “In the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress are statues of various figures with quotes. Religion is represented by Moses and Paul and the quote is “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” Science is represented with the quote “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” History is represented with “One God, one law, one element and one far off divine event, to which the whole creation moves.”

            On the outside of the Supreme Court there is a marble relief of Moses holding the 10 commandments. When the court is in session, a crier ends his call announcing the opening by saying “God save the United States and the Honorable Court.”

            There are several large paintings in the Capitol Rotunda. Among them is the Baptism of Pocahontas. There is also the Departure of the Pilgrims from Holland, which depicts them praying. There is an open bible in the painting which allays any doubt as to whom they were praying.

            In God We Trust is inscribed behind the Speakers rostrum in the House chamber. There is also a marble relief of Moses above the central gallery door. The Capitol building itself was used for religious services from its inception until after the Civil War. In 1867 the house chamber was the meeting place for the largest church congregation in America. There is even a prayer room in the Capitol building. A bronze design on the floor of the rotunda contains the 10 commandments. Our Declaration of Independence must cause some consternation to anti-religious zealots for containing the concept of unalienable rights being given to us by our Creator and prattling on about the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

            The Washington Monument is awash with carved tributes to God such as “Holiness to the Lord”, “Search the Scriptures”, “The memory of the just is Blessed”, “May Heaven to this union continue its beneficence”, “In God we Trust”, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

            There was an inscription cut into the marble facing of the state dining room fireplace in the White House which says “I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” The oath of office is taken with the President’s hand on the bible. There are times when Presidents have requested the bible to be open, with their hand touching scripture that has special meaning to them.
            I have barely scratched the surface of what is contained in and on

          • sTv0

            You know, Becca, I’ve read through what you posted about the so-called religious symbols that you claim as evidence that we are a Christian nation, the talk of “god”, and “belief in god”, and “Moses” and “Paul” and “the bible”, “baptism of Pocahontas”, “god this” and “god that”…
            …and I’ve come up with one simple question:

            In all of this, where is Jesus?

          • BeccaJoe

            Please cut and paste where I said “we are a Christian nation”. I have said we are a pluralistic nation. Not a secular one.

            —–“the talk of “god”, and “belief in god”, and “Moses” and “Paul” and “the bible”, “baptism of Pocahontas”, “god this” and “god that”…—-

            I have mentioned the religious things that are found in and on government property to see how they were possible if our founders had intended a little cross in a public park to be unconstitutional.

            —-“In all of this, where is Jesus?”—
            .
            The biblical quotations from the old and new testament just doesn’t seem Christian enough for you eh?

          • sTv0

            “The biblical quotations from the old and new testament just doesn’t seem Christian enough for you eh?”

            Bingo! Go back and read everything about religion in govt that you wrote or cut and pasted. All of it. Then go back and re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

            Show where Christianity or Jesus or Christ is mentioned.

            Just one citation will do. Thanks.

          • BeccaJoe

            What are you talking about? Where did I say or imply that Christianity or Jesus or Christ is mentioned in the Constitution. Again, please cut and paste it.

          • sTv0

            Oh, wait. Is this your “dodge” defense or your “weave” defense?

          • BeccaJoe

            It would be you who are dodging and weaving. Where did I say or imply that Christianity or Jesus or Christ is mentioned in the constitution. Why haven’t you just cut and pasted it if I said it.

          • sTv0

            Excellent! This is your “weave” defense, then. Thanks. I needed to know so that I could prepare my arguments.

            You’re perfectly correct. Christianity or Jesus or Christ [are[ not mentioned in the [C]onstitution.

            However, here’s where you committed a fatal tactical error in your rush to force your ideology upon us: “The biblical quotations from the old and new testament just doesn’t seem Christian enough for you eh?” <—–cut and pasted, just like you asked! Yay!!!

            These are your words. You just gave the game away. Thank you for playing.

            Would you like to try again?

          • BeccaJoe

            I still have no idea what you are talking about. I am questioning the “logic” of those with the FFRF mindset when they say a religious thing in a city park is unconstitutional by asking if that is so, then how was it possible that so many religious things are found on government property in DC. And this is somehow “forcing my ideology” upon you?

            I think you need more time to prepare your “arguments.” Try to make them coherent.

          • sTv0

            Oh, I see. You’re now going to employ your “dodge” defense.

            Good. I appreciate your attempts.

            Your perspective is, shall we say, somewhat “deceitful”…?

            You just surrendered your position concerning religion in govt by displaying your true intentions, which is to say to try to “prove” that we are a Christian nation (even though you never actually used those exact terms…you implied it, got called on it, and now you’re trying to avoid owning it).

            It is fascinating, to coin a phrase, to watch Christians construct house-cards-arguments to support their wish-thinking that we are a Christian nation. Yes, we are predominantly Christian by population demographics (but that is slipping away, year by year, and the millennials are showing us the way), but no, we are not a Christian nation. You just said so in a previous post, but you then turned around and said, in effect, that we are.

            No Jesus. No Christian nation.

            Just a little deceitful, no?

            To the point of “religious things” in DC, they exist, yes, but not for the reasons you wish them to exist. Another poster has already refuted those claims, so I won’t bore our readers with a repeat of their well-reasoned and well-supported argument.

            This is just soooo much fun! Thanks! I’m enjoying the heck out of it!

          • acontraryview

            Asking a question is not making a claim. I asked you a question regarding YOUR claim that there is a constitutional right for citizens to display a religious symbol on public property. A question which you continue to fail to answer.

            I state with absolute certainty that there is no part of the constitution which specifically says that citizens may not display a religious symbol on public property. Nor is it necessary that it does in order for them not to be allowed to do so.

            So, now that we’ve cleared up your latest attempt at deflection, I’ll return to my original question: Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens have a right to place a religious symbol in a public park?

          • BeccaJoe

            Are you so myopic that you are unable to see my responses to barkingdawg and nofun? If I am trying to “deflect” I’m doing a poor job of it. However your “question” is the very epitome of deflection in light of those responses.

            We have a group of atheistic secular humanists who have taken it upon themselves to try and remove all vestiges of religious imagery from all public spaces. And they do it because they “claim” that it violates the “establishment clause” of the constitution. I think if you take the time to read my other responses on this thread I have been consistent at saying that “claim” is balderdash and I have given my reasons why it is balderdash. I will copy and paste my responses to the others if that doesn’t clear things up for you. But I have a feeling you’ve already seen them. I have a feeling you have no answer to them.

          • acontraryview

            “Are you so myopic that you are unable to see my responses to barkingdawg and noun?”

            It’s not a question of being myopic. I was having a conversation with you and I did not read your conversations with others. I would be most appreciative of your copying and pasting your comments to others that will show where the Constitution contains a right for citizens to erect religious symbols on public property.

          • BeccaJoe

            Which amendment are they using to disallow the cross?

          • acontraryview

            “Which amendment are they using to disallow the cross?”

            Is that question what you cut and pasted from your responses to others that you say supports your claim that the Constitution includes a right that citizens are allowed to place religious displays on public property?

          • BeccaJoe

            Don’t you know which amendment it is? It is the first amendment. I have used it in this thread. I didn’t think I would need to cut and paste it here. If they are using it to disallow the cross, why would I not use it to say it does allow it? Would you have liked it better if I had said there is nothing in the first amendment that is unconstitutional or precludes them from putting that cross in the park rather than:

            “they (the city) have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.”

            It amounts to the same thing. The FFRF are out of bounds. The city is on solid constitutional ground. That is, if they take this to court and it is heard before a judge who believes in the clear language of the constitution.

          • acontraryview

            What portion of the 1st Amendment, specifically, do you believe provides a right for citizens to place religious symbols on public property?

          • BeccaJoe

            So now we have come full circle again. Which part of it doesn’t allow the citizens to place “religious symbols on public property?” It clearly isn’t the establishment clause. There are a lot of religious symbols on federal and state land. Why is that? Why is it all of a sudden, in the twentieth century in particular, it is “unconstitutional.”

          • acontraryview

            The situation is clear. You made a claim that the Constitution provides a right for citizens to place religious symbols on public property. You continue to fail to cite your basis for that claim.

            We have not come “full circle” because you have never moved. You’ve just stood in the same place, ducking and weaving. If you have provided no proof of your claim, because there is no proof of your claim, and you know it. The Constitution provides no specific right.

            “There are a lot of religious symbols on federal and state land. Why is that?”

            In some cases it is because their existence on federal and state land has not been challenged. In other cases, it is because a single religion is not featured but, rather, symbols of many religions are present. Context is part of the equation.

          • BeccaJoe

            We most certainly have come full circle. I have not failed to answer your “question.” You are engaging in one of the oldest “tactical” arguments of all time. And you don’t like my answer because I’m not cooperating with you and answering it in the way you desire.

            I answered it thusly:

            —-“It is the first amendment……If they are using it to disallow the cross, why would I not use it to say it does allow it? Would you have liked it better if I had said there is nothing in the first amendment that makes it unconstitutional or precludes them from putting that cross in the park rather than:

            “they have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.”

            It amounts to the same thing.”—–

            You are continuing to use your “tactic” to save face because you have no good answer as to why it is unconstitutional for a cross to be in this city park when our nation is full of religious displays. Even on federal land. Many of which were placed while our founders yet lived. And even when other religious beliefs other than Christianity are not represented to counter it. So you “fail” in one of your explanations of “why” they exist. Their very existence also puts a stake in the heart of the argument that it is unconstitutional.

            Our constitution limits the federal governments intrusion in state affairs. This cross is not the federal governments business. It is not the FFRF’s business. It is Port Neches business.

            You say other religious displays exist because their “existence on federal and state land has not been challenged.”

            Well the FFRF better get busy. Stop messing with the little towns in hopes that they’ll cave to their threats before it goes to court so they can claim some kind of victory. They should be going for the really big “egregious” religious displays. Like DC.

          • acontraryview

            “”It is the first amendment……If they are using it to disallow the cross, why would I not use it to say it does allow it?”

            Yes, you did say that. What you did NOT say, however, is what portion – what exact words – in the 1st Amendment provide the right of citizens to place religious symbols on public land. You haven’t, because you can’t, because no such right is contained in the 1st Amendment.

            “Would you have liked it better if I had said there is nothing in the first amendment that makes it unconstitutional or precludes them from putting that cross in the park”

            I would like it better if you said: “this is the portion of the 1st Amendment which provides the right of citizens to place religious symbols on public land” and then provided that portion of the 1st Amendment. But, of course, you cannot do so, as there is no portion of the 1st Amendment which provides such a right.

            “”they have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.””

            Please cite where there is a right in the Constitution that the actions of individuals are exempt from challenge or interference by others.

            “to save face because you have no good answer as to why it is unconstitutional for a cross to be in this city park”

            A plethora of judicial rulings regarding issues of this nature is the answer.

            “Many of which were placed while our founders yet lived. And even when religious beliefs other than Christianity are not represented to counter it.”

            Examples?

            “You say other religious displays exist because their “existence on federal and state land has not been challenged.””

            In some cases, yes. As we see in this instance.

            “Like DC”

            In what way is DC an “egregious” religious display?

          • BeccaJoe

            You said: “What you did NOT say, however, is what portion – WHAT EXACT WORDS – ”

            My reply once again is:

            You are engaging in one of the oldest “tactical” arguments of all time. And you don’t like my answer because I’m not cooperating with you and answering it in the way you desire. “EXACT WORDS” (eye roll)

            I answered it thusly:

            It is the first amendment……If they are using it to disallow the cross, why would I not use it to say it does allow it? Would you have liked it better if I had said there is nothing in the first amendment that makes it unconstitutional or precludes them from putting that cross in the park rather than:

            “they have the constitutional right to do that without interference from the federal government or the secular humanists of the FFRF.”

            It amounts to the same thing.

            You say:

            “I would like it better if you said: “this is the portion of the 1st Amendment which provides the right of citizens to place religious symbols on public land”

            My reply once again is:

            … our nation is full of religious displays. Even on federal land….Their very existence puts a stake in the heart of the argument that it is unconstitutional.

            You say:

            “Please cite where there is a right in the Constitution that the actions of individuals are exempt from challenge or interference by others.”

            You got me there. The FFRF do have the right to challenge things that get their panties in a knot. Things like a perfectly constitutional cross in a city park.

            You said:

            “A plethora of judicial rulings regarding issues of this nature is the answer.”

            They also have a plethora of dismissals and rulings against them. And a myriad of the aforementioned cave ins. But its looking like the tide is turning on the cave ins. Good news eh.

            I said concerning religious displays:

            many of which were placed while our founders yet lived. And even when religious beliefs other than Christianity are not represented to counter it.”

            To which you replied:

            “Examples?”

            The U.S Capitol Building.

            You said:

            “In what way is DC an “egregious” religious display?”

            I say:

            It’s not egregious to me. But it should be ground zero to the FFRF and their secular “panties in a wad” brigade. The issue for them is anything related to religion in a public building. Look at the hyperventilation over “In God We Trust” alone.

          • acontraryview

            Yes, when one says that a constitutional right exists, it would be reasonable to ask where the right exists in the constitution. For instance, if one said: “There is a right to bear arms” and someone asked: “What are the exact words in the Constitution that provide such a right?”. The person would reasonably respond with: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s called proving what you said. Something you have been unable to do regarding your claim.

            Let me help. Here is the text of the 1st Amendment:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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.”

            Please tell me what portion of the 1st Amendment provides the right of citizens to place religious symbols on public land.

            Is it the portion that prohibits Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?

            Is it the portion that prohibits Congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

            Is it the portion that prohibits Congress from making a law that abridges the freedom speech or the press?

            is it the portion that prohibits Congress from making a law that prohibits the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

            So which is it, Becca?

            “They also have a plethora of dismissals and rulings against them.”

            Really? Such as?

            “The U.S Capitol Building.”

            What religious symbols are part of the US Capital Building?

          • BeccaJoe

            —-“Please tell me what portion of the 1st Amendment provides the right of citizens to place religious symbols on public land.”—–

            I have already told you. What portion are the FFRF using to state unequivocally that placing a cross in a park is unconstitutional. That is your answer.

            I said “They also have a plethora of dismissals and rulings against them.”

            You said —–“Really? Such as?”—-

            The WWII memorial Statue of Jesus in Montana.
            Their “in God We Trust” on currency case.
            The Star of David at the Ohio Holocaust Memorial. The FFRF backed down on this one but I had to include it. What kind of heartless human being demands the removal of a Jewish religious symbol at a memorial that honors the memory of 6 million murdered Jews because they find it “exclusionary” and a “dishonor”. How do they live with themselves.

            The National Day of Prayer. The federal districts idiotic ruling was overturned on appeal.
            Texas Prayer Proclamations.
            Texas cheerleaders religious themed banners. Actually the school caved to the liberty loathers of the FFRF and the cheerleaders filed suit against the school and won.
            I have to include the American Atheists, the ugly stepsisters of the equally ugly FFRF, and their case against the Ground Zero Cross just for giggles. They claimed they experienced “depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish” – not from the devastating destruction of life caused by the terrorists on 9/11 – but as a “direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the cross.”

            —–“What religious symbols are part of the US Capital Building?”—-

            I’m sure you will demure, but I have no doubt you have already seen my post to several others concerning religious depictions in DC including the Capitol building and the Washington monument. I will attach it the pertinent portion to this reply.

            Let me ask you a question. Why didn’t the founders stop states from establishing state churches and state religions? If the establishment clause forbids something like a cross in a city park, one would think that they would have moved heaven to stop such a violation.

          • BeccaJoe

            There are several large paintings in the Capitol Rotunda. Among them is the Baptism of Pocahontas. There is also the Departure of the Pilgrims from Holland, which depicts them praying. There is an open bible in the painting which allays any doubt as to whom they were praying.

            In God We Trust is inscribed behind the Speakers rostrum in the House chamber. There is also a marble relief of Moses above the central gallery door. The Capitol building itself was used for religious services from its inception until after the Civil War. In 1867 the house chamber was the meeting place for the largest church congregation in America. There is even a prayer room in the Capitol building. A bronze design on the floor of the rotunda contains the 10 commandments. Our Declaration of Independence must cause some conster

            The Washington Monument is awash with carved tributes to God such as “Holiness to the Lord”, “Search the Scriptures”, “The memory of the just is Blessed”, “May Heaven to this union continue its beneficence”, “In God we Trust”, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

          • acontraryview

            “I have already told you.”

            No you haven’t. I provided you with a complete breakdown of the 1st Amendment. You have NEVER said which portion provides the right for citizens to place religious symbols on public land. You just keep trying to dodge the question. Unfortunate.

            “What portion are the FFRF using to state unequivocally that placing a cross in a park is unconstitutional.”

            They are relying on judicial rulings on the matter. Those rulings are based upon the establishment clause. So, tell me, how does the establishment clause provide a right for citizens to place religious symbols on public land?

            “The WWII memorial Statue of Jesus in Montana”

            The statue was already a part of the National Register of Historic Places. Not the same as the case we are discussing.

            “Their “in God We Trust” on currency case.”

            Not a religious symbol on public land.

            “The National Day of Prayer”

            Not a religious symbol on public land.

            “Texas Prayer Proclamations”

            Not a religious symbol on public land.

            “Texas cheerleaders religious themed banners”

            Was not pursued in Federal court.

            “case against the Ground Zero Cross”

            From the ruling: “the cross recovered from the rubble of the World Trade Center was more of a “genuine historical artifact” than a symbol of Christianity.” “an objective observer would understand the purpose of the display to be secular.” Completely different than a cross such as the one that is the subject of this article.

            “but I have no doubt you have already seen my post to several others concerning religious depictions in DC including the Capitol building and the Washington monument.”

            No, I have not.

            “Why didn’t the founders stop states from establishing state churches and state religions?”

            Because, at the time, the Constitution did not forbid it. Then along came that pesky 14th Amendment, which changed things.

          • acontraryview

            Is the faith of Christians really so fragile and weak that they feel it necessary to impose their religious symbols on property that is there for all people, of all faiths, as well as no faith?

            I can only imagine the squealing the would occur if a group of Muslim citizens decided to erect a giant Quran in a public park.

          • BeccaJoe

            —–“Is the faith of Christians really so fragile and weak that they feel it necessary to impose their religious symbols”—–

            When all else fails, hurl a bromide.

            I am going to start cutting a pasting what I have already stated to folks on this thread to answer your other bromide:

            We live in a pluralistic society. Not a secular humanistic one where it is everything or nothing at all. If a town wants a cross in their park but wants to defer from a hindu goddess, (or a giant “Quran”) that is their right and their own darn business. Just as it is the right of a town in America, that might have a large Indian (or Muslim ) population, to put up a hindu goddess (or a giant “Quran) in their park while deferring on the cross.

          • ProudAmerican

            The same reason black people are no longer 3/5ths of a human, the same reason people can’t own other people any more, the same reason women did not have the right to vote until the 20th century, the same reason we no longer allow signs saying “No Jews Allowed” in country clubs, the same reason you can’t write a deed that prohibits sale of land to a Catholic, the same reason Christian prayers are not permitted in a public schools filled with children of various other religions. The same reason you can’t put up an Islamic mosque in the middle of a State Park or a Star of David on top of your City Hall.

          • ProudAmerican

            Better get busy reading. Must be hundreds of Supreme Court cases decided already on that very subject. Yeah, the Constitution means and says what the Supreme Court says it means. Yeah, the Supreme Court IS mentioned in the Constitution but “God” isn’t. As for the inverted informal logic fallacy…after you prove God doesn’t exist prove that reptilian extraterrestrials living among us don’t exist or that the skies aren’t filled with tiny invisible fire breathing dragons.

          • ProudAmerican

            Nope. In this country you can’t force YOUR religious symbolism and belief down my throat. Muslims do it in their countries and get away with it. You want a Christian Nation? Go make one and move there. Leave the rest of us alone. This is OUR nation not YOURS. You have a superiority complex not a persecution complex. Ugly arrogance.

      • Nofun

        Except it does. Google the Establishment clause.

        • BeccaJoe

          Hogwash. The establishment clause was intended to prevent a national religion or church. You know, like what they had in England. The land that our forefathers came from and where the King was the head of the Church of England and the church was an arm of government.

          • Nofun

            Yes, thus the US govt has to be neutral on religion. Putting christian symbols on govt land means the govt is favoring a religion …. sorry, not constitutional.

          • BeccaJoe

            Even if I were to concede to such a notion, which I don’t, given the plethora of Christian symbols, quotations etc that are all over federal property in Washington DC alone, Riverfront Park is not federal. It is a city park. Completely constitutional.

          • Nofun

            Govt. is govt.

      • daniel

        Yes, it does. According to the supreme court, the 1st and 14th amendments, working in concert, prevent a state or local government from granting permission to place a cross in a public park.

    • Josey

      The people in the city own the park. Whose taxes pay for that park? Pay for the upkeep, etc. or do you believe there are some anonymous owner of the park, some invisible ppl?

      • daniel

        The people who CONTROL the park is the Government. The government is prohibited from granting permission by the 1st and 14th amendments.

    • Brenda Prince

      The problem with that argument, Daniel, is that the cross is not just a cross. It was a monument in remembrance to those lost, which was why it was donated to the city 45 years ago.

      • Nofun

        So you are saying it is secular …how?

      • acontraryview

        “in remembrance to those lost”

        In remembrance of those Christians who were lost. A cross would not serve as a remembrance of non-Christians who were lost.

      • daniel

        There are many LEGAL ways to remember those who lost their life. Do we only remember the Christians who gave their life? Should the Jews, atheists, and so on NOT be remembered? The reason why you commit an illegal act does not make it legal. Sorry.

  • Emmanuel

    The Wisconsin turds are back at it again.

    • Frank Dorka

      Yeah, Fairness has no place in a free country like this, right?

      • Rebecca

        Depends on your definition of fairness.

        • Frank Dorka

          How about equal treatment of all Americans regardless of their religion or non-religion. How does that sit with you?

          • Rebecca

            Overall that’s fine. As I already said though, for 45 yrs atheists have “let” the cross be and went on with their lives, but current day atheists can’t tolerate it. Current day atheists are the problem on this issue.

          • Frank Dorka

            Overall that’s fine? Christian tyranny is alright as long as no one complains? Look, we finally got rid of the hateful Confederate flag flying over statehouses in the South. Maybe we should have just left the racist symbol fly because no one complained before? How about a big Jewish Star of David next to your Roman Torture Device for all to see? A Star and Crescent? A Wiccan goat head? That is what we would have to call “equal treatment. Or do you think that the Christian voice is the only one needed to be heard?

          • daniel

            Don’t call it a “Confederate” flag… Call it what it was, The Battle flag of the Traitors.

          • Rebecca

            What do you think about muslims who demand that an employer give them breaks for their ritualistic prayer times?

          • BarkingDawg

            The same as I feel about employees who demand coffee and lunch breaks.

          • Rebecca

            I wasn’t asking you dawg, but that’s comparing apples and oranges.

          • Frank Dorka

            The same as I feel about Christians that refuse to pay for medical on the basis of their religion and the way I feel about county clerks that refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses and the same way I feel about coaches and teachers that pray during school time and on school grounds paid for by all taxpayers and the same way I feel about Christians that think their opinions are the only ones that matter. If you are at work, do your work, without religion interfering. Does that answer your question?

          • Rebecca

            Frank, I pay for my own medical, not sure what you’re talking about with that one.
            If Kim Davis didn’t want to issue the license herself, she can let another person do it.
            Yes, a coach or teacher praying is so horrid, worse then the coaches and teachers who have sexual relations with students.
            Have you EVER in your life asked or appreciated prayers for you or a loved one who was in need?

          • Frank Dorka

            Maybe you will notice that the Christian coaches and teachers praying are also the Christian coaches and teachers that are doing the molesting as well. (Just for fun, google “youth pastor” and see what they have been up to.) You never hear of atheists doing such garbage. Since I KNOW that praying is worthless, I have never asked for someone to do such a ridiculous act. I will try to help those I care about by my actions, not my superstitions.

          • Rebecca

            Frank, you’re a fool.

          • Frank Dorka

            A clear headed, free thinking fool, that’s me.
            As opposed to you, a mindless, sheepish, “follow you anywhere” kind of Christian. Ever read the Bible? Most truly believing Christians have not. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

          • Rebecca

            You’re a fool.

          • Frank Dorka

            …and in essence you are saying that you pray, because you really will not help in any other way? Nice.

          • Rebecca

            You’re a fool

          • Kelly Samuelson

            We pray on top of everything else. Prayer is so powerful, wish you could experience it. I’ll pray for you 😉

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Whoa, hold up!!! I pay taxes too, so that ground he was praying on is being paid for by me as well. So why is it that that doesn’t matter when someone against what he’s doing whines?

          • Rebecca

            exactly

          • acontraryview

            What do you think about Christians who ask for accommodations to be off on Sunday to attend church services and people of the Jewish faith requesting to be off on their Sabbath. Or do you believe that employers should only make accommodations for certain religious beliefs?

          • BarkingDawg

            What do you think about Hobby Lobby being closed on Sunday?

            It’s the same argument.

          • acontraryview

            Just one less day I have to not shop there.

          • BarkingDawg

            What do you think about blue laws?

          • acontraryview

            “for 45 yrs atheists have “let” the cross be and went on with their lives, but current day atheists can’t tolerate it. ”

            How is that relevant to using public land to promote a single religious belief?

            “Current day atheists are the problem on this issue.”

            In what way is it a “problem” that some people do not want the government – which represents all people of all faiths as well as no faith – favoring a particular religion?

          • Josey

            It’s so petty of those atheists, poor atheists who claim to believe in nothing and yet they let a cross make them insane.

          • Nofun

            No atheists just believe religion does not override the constitution.

            You should feel sorry for christians who think it does as they risk their religious freedom by doing so.

          • sTv0

            Yeah! After all, Jesus was murdered by the state, amirite? Put him up on a cross, nailed him there, they did. Crucifixion was a common form of Roman torture. Usually employed as a method of silencing enemies of the state, or seditionists.

            So petty of the Romans to murder an itinerant, delusional preacher who was convinced that the world was definitely in the End Times, and that salvation was at hand. All people had to do was to drop everything they were doing, give away all their belongings and money, take only the clothes on their backs and follow him.

            Simple.

            Doesn’t it just suck? I mean, rilly. Harold Camping was convinced that we were in the End Times. Six Times! So was Jim Jones. And so was William Miller. In fact, we have an entire sect of Christianity called the Seventh Day Adventists that was born entirely out of End Time prophecies. In fact, they have a special day to observe those prophecies. It’s called The Great Disappointment. October 22, 1844 was when Jesus would return, and about 100k Seventh Day Adventists were severely disappointed after all the preparations were made for his return and…and guess who didn’t show up? Yep, you got it. That Damned Jesus.

            Now, Jesus had been dead for about 30 or so years when Simon bar Giora decided that the Messiah would return during the Jewish War of 66–70 CE.

            Then Martin of Tours predicted that definitely the world would end before 500 CE.

            Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus, and Irenaeus all predicted Jesus would return in the year 500 CE. One prediction was based on the dimensions of Noah’s ark.

            Isn’t this great? Jesus certainly is one popular dude. I’m sure when he returns he’ll be thrilled to see all these Roman crosses everywhere in Christian land…like little reminders to him of the torture to death he had to endure.

          • Ken Campbell

            Only because they have found a voice.

          • ProudAmerican

            We also didn’t “let” women vote for over a hundred years. We “let” white people own black people for over 60 years. After 150 years we “let” them start printing “In God We Trust” on the money in the 20th century. Then we opened our eyes, saw what needed to be fixed and “let” change occur.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            And how is it equal treatment when we are being forced to remove a cross? We didn’t ask atheists to remove anything, so if fair is fair, what are you giving up?

          • Rebecca

            Yep

          • Nofun

            Fairness does not matter, only the constitution matters.
            It doesn’t matter if everyone in Texas is for it, the constitution wins.

            It doesn’t matter if everyone in the US is for it, the constitution wins.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            If only the constitution matters then where is my freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression? I am not endangering anyone’s life by having a cross in a public park, I am merely exercising my freedom to express my religion

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You are not the issue. It’s not YOUR park. You can put as many crosses as you want on YOUR property.

            This park belongs to the government, and as such, it has to conform to the Establishment Clause.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Actually, the park belongs to the taxpayers, as they paid for it and it is a PUBLIC park, not a government park. Since I am a taxpayer, it actually IS my park 😄

          • BarkingDawg

            Nope. The government owns it.

            The government is a legal entity.

            Your only say over the government is through your vote. You can not stop the application of the US Constitution.

          • Nofun

            You can express you religion freely … you just can’t drag govt into it.

            Drag the silly thing on to private property and there is no problem.

          • Josey

            Apparently, they are giving up nothing since they don’t believe or so they say. lol

      • BarkingDawg

        Since the town is not being fair to other religions, I suppose it’s an issue here.

      • Emmanuel

        LOL, I place a cross in my park and you place ‘nothing’ in yours. Fair? Actually, my great dane left an atheist symbol in your park. Be careful where you step.

        • Frank Dorka

          I will be careful, I know how hungry you must get. Bon Apetit’?

          • Emmanuel

            LOL

        • acontraryview

          “I place a cross in my park”

          I public park is not “yours”. It belongs to all of the people of all faiths as well as no faith.

          • Emmanuel

            So go ahead and place “nothing” and we will place a cross. We all get a place in our parks.

          • acontraryview

            “we all get a place in our parks”

            Agreed. A cross, however, is not a citizen.

          • Emmanuel

            LOL, still trying?

          • acontraryview

            What is it you think I am still trying?

          • Emmanuel

            To validate a non issue

          • acontraryview

            if it’s a “non issue” then why are you bothering to discuss it?

          • Emmanuel

            Nope. You keep responding. Typical liberal, need to have the last useless word.

          • Josey

            heh…love your wit…

          • Emmanuel

            Thanks

          • Ken Campbell

            that’s funny Emmanuel.

            Mind you, even thought the atheist may want ‘nothing’, there are groups who want ‘something’ and it is a dangerous precedent.

          • Emmanuel

            That is correct.

    • daniel

      Our Bill of Rights was written to prevent a tyranny of the Majority. Crosses are wonderful on Private property. Put them at your house, your church, your business, anywhere you want except on My property, or OUR property. Fair is not forcing me to support your church, and my not forcing you to support mine.

      • Emmanuel

        You just said our property. So, I can put a cross in the park because it’s mine and yours. So I place a cross and you place “nothing” next to it. maybe a pebble, the size of our liberal president’s brain

        • Nofun

          Such hatred … Jesus seems to be making your very unhappy … try reality.

        • daniel

          No, You can put it on YOUR property… Not mine, Not ours. YOURS… that which you own, rent, lease, or have a variance on. Once you have LEGAL permission to put it up, go ahead. You can give yourself permission. I could give you permission to put it on my lawn. The government can not give anyone permission to put it up because of the 1st and 14th amendments.

      • afchief

        Such ignorance of people!!! 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

          So right afcheif!

          Also, the 2nd president John Adams had much to say about virtue and religion, here’s just one of his statements: [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
          Guess that is why our now president doesn’t follow the constitution but is always looking for loopholes around it unless it somehow benefits his agenda and he isn’t ashamed of his lawlessness either and he is bringing this nation down from the inside out, a kingdom divided cannot stand Jesus said and satan knows this is truth.

          Here’s another letter Adams wrote among many letters wrote to his son: There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

          We are more than animals, God created us as eternal spirit beings.
          Our government was founded under God and the ten commandments was a moral guide they used, our founding fathers emphasized one nation under God many times over. The young people of today are being dumbed down, go up to them on the street and ask questions concerning the declaration and the constitution, they have no idea what you are talking about, they are the material minded our society has made, live and let live, have fun and feel good is what matters today to most of them.
          I have no idea what history the kids today are being taught or where the misunderstanding of the declaration of Independence and our Constitution comes from with these who want to remove God out of our society. One only needs to see what happens to nations who have done this and America isn’t exempt if we continue down this path. God is no respecter of persons and God is not a liar as some say for what a man sows that shall he also reap.

          • afchief

            As Christians we see the battle we are in for truth (Eph 6:12). The atheists, liberals and homosexuals are doing everything they can to distort the truth.

            We know who we are battling!!!

          • Josey

            amen…it is a spiritual battle and the good news is we know who the Victor is….Jesus is Lord and woe to the one’s who attempt to fight Him. It will not be a battle when Christ deals with the antichrist and those that took his mark. Glory to His name forevermore!

            Revelation 19:11-16 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

        • ProudAmerican

          I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that many of the Founders self-identified as deists. It is also indisputably true that the Founders made an extraordinary effort to avoid endorsing any sort of religion. The words “God” “Jesus Christ” or Christianity” do not exist in the Constitution. They also made it rather clear that each individual can worship or not worship whatever they want. In other words, people are free to have whatever sort of faith or religion they want to practice but the government, the state, cannot show preference for any sort of belief . The mention of God or any other type of belief or nonbelief was very deliberately omitted. You can argue that perpendicular roadway intersections form a “cross” and therefore the USA is a Christian country. But, if “God” were of ANY importance to America you would find the word at least once in the document that establishes the nation. Is that too hard to swallow?

          • afchief

            You are quite wrong! The USA was founded on Judea-Christian concepts, despite the far-left’s talking points. When the first people from the European Continent stepped foot on the New Land, they were escaping from the Church of England.

            They weren’t free to hold different beliefs than the beliefs of that Church. What was common among them, was the Ten Commandments. No Islam, Buda, or whatever, was present in the early formation of this Nation.

            We do know the founders were men of conviction and morality, and for this reason they would still abhor even the idea of homosexuality much less be for marriage between two people of the same sex. If you think otherwise, you are delusional. In fact, they would be horrified we’re even having this conversation. In their time, the topic of homosexuality would be whispered among themselves, if at all, and certainly with no ladies present.

            Christianity has always been the prevalent religion of this Country. The majority of our Laws are based on Christianity. There is a big difference between those who follow Christ, and those who follow Mohamed.

            The Founders stated that the republican form of government formed by the Constitution can only work for a virtuous people. We have strayed from, abused and debased the Constitution because our society has strayed from, abused and debased our morals. What used to be shameful, is now permitted, and unfortunately becoming normalized in some states and communities (and our schools). Leaving Natural Law and morals is leaving the foundation of the Constitution. Leaving the Constitution necessarily means that we are no longer a republic (a representative federation).

          • ProudAmerican

            It should take less than 60 seconds to look up and identify the religion of each of the Founding Fathers. James Madison was not a Lutheran. Ben Franklin wasn’t a Roman Catholic. George Washington wasn’t a Puritan. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Presbyterian. John Adams wasn’t Jewish. Not one identified as an Evangelical Christian. They weren’t Protestants or Catholics or Muslims or Jews. John Locke was a far more important influence on the creation of our nation than Moses or Jesus. No, the word “God” does not appear ANYWHERE in the most important documents that established the USA. The words “Jesus Christ” do not appear even once in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. The words Judaism and Christianity appear nowhere. I know you think that simple easily verified facts are only a made-up liberal talking points and you strongly disagree. You want to believe that the Founders were “followers of Christ” but they just were not. The Bill of Rights was based on Iroquois laws and not the Bible or ten commandments.
            As for morality inspired by “followers of Christ” you say were the nation’s Founders; How many of the Founders owned other human beings? How many believed that women were valued American citizens with the right to vote? None of them ever wrote a single word regarding sexuality or expressed any opinion whatsoever regarding sexual conduct of any kind. God, gods, Christians, Jews, Bibles, and homosexuals that are so important to you were utterly meaningless to the virtuous noble men who established this country. Take a few minutes and prove that what I said above is true. Yes, Thomas Jefferson did re-write the Bible by removing all of the most offensive and preposterous parts and pages but he never called himself a Christian. Ever.

          • afchief

            Yep, another product of our indoctrination centers we call public schools!!! 30% of the founders were ministers. Most were religious men.
            They came here to practice Christianity out from under the control of the King. Remember One Nation Under God”, and all that stuff. The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that our rights come from God. The Founders were very particular on that point, because it assured that any government was subject to the authority of God.

            The State is comprised of people; fallible, whimsical people. Our rights are an integral component of our humanity. The State cannot strip of us our rights, since they are God-given. The State can only actively force or passively coerce us into not exercising them. People-driven (or State granted) rights are not rights at all; they are privileges.

        • daniel

          Maybe well and true. The 14th amendment then applies the 1st amendment to the state and local governments. Rule of law, when 2 laws are in contradiction, the latter of the two is supreme. That means the 14th amendment out ranks the first amendment. So, while the 1st Amendment applies ONLY to congress. The 14th takes superior position and applies the ban to the states. Darn that Constitution. Your freedom to use public ground to promote your religion is STILL unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            NOPE!!!! The 14th has NOTHING to do with it!!! NOTHING!!!!!

          • daniel

            Uh, the 14th amendment clearly applies the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution to the states. The clearly means the 1st amendment prohibitions apply to the states. Shouting about it has no bearing. The wording is clear and unambiguous.

          • afchief

            WRONG!!!

            The Separation of Church and State

            David Barton – 01/2001

            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.

            Endnotes

            1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. (Return)

            2. Id. (Return)

            3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. (Return)

            4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)

            5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)

            6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. (Return)

            7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790. (Return)

            8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. (Return)

            9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. (Return)

            10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207. (Return)

            11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. (Return)

            12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). (Return)

            13. Reynolds at 163. (Return)

          • daniel

            You can quote all of the religious theorists all you wish, I’ll fall back on those who’s job it is to define what the constitution is and means. That would be the supreme court. They point to the 14th amendment. The later an amendment is adopted, the more powerful it is. That’s how it works in law. The 21st amendment eliminated the 18th Amendment. The 14th amendment changed the amendments on individual liberty requiring the states to recognize them. Because the 14th amendment is later, it holds power over the 1st amendment. I am not sure how you can say that it doesn’t apply.

          • afchief

            For one, the 14th amendment has NOTHING to with “separation of church and state”. 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!!

            The right to pray is unalienable as is the right to place a cross on public grounds. 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?

            The courts and their legal miscreants have separated the terms. Establishment doesn’t trump 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;”

            Putting a cross on public grounds (that has been there since 1925) does NOT establish a religion by congress.

          • daniel

            Well, you can say what you want. I’ll say what I want. We’ll live under the interpretation by the supreme court. Those 8 learned men (and Scolia) say you are wrong. Further, it’s their opinion that counts, not yours.

          • afchief

            Nope! There is NO separation of church and state in the Constitution. It does not exist.

            The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” Not to hard to understand!!!!

          • daniel

            Supreme Court still agrees with me. Good night.

          • afchief

            But Mr. Silly Liberal, there is NO mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution. So how can it be law when the SCOTUS only renders “opinions”?

            Waiting………………………………………………………………………………

          • daniel

            I said, “Good night, sir.” The supreme court and the law as it exists agrees with me. Therefore, you lose. I shall not be bothered by responding to you again until that changes. In other words, go peddle your crosses… On your land.

          • afchief

            Sorry Mr Liberal but that is a lie!!! The SCOTUS only renders opinions. There is NO separation of church and state. Since the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion, we have been sold a lie.
            Religious liberty is absolute in America. If the government can inhibit the mention of God, then government has inserted itself ABOVE God. That has been the Christ-haters plan all along. They have used that lie to run Christianity out of the Public Square.

            There is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law. Abortion has never been made legal. Homosexual sodomy is still a crime. Homosexual marriage can never be legal because it violates all Natural and Christian laws.

            Courts cannot make law. They merely offer opinions. .

          • daniel

            Oh, By the way, I agree that the right to pray is inalienable. Anyone can pray anywhere they want. My students pray in my classroom all the time. It would be illegal for me to stop them. Freedom of religion. It would also be illegal for me to encourage others to join them… Freedom of religion. I welcome Muslim students into my room at lunch time so they can pray in peace. They have an ap on their phones that show them which direction to face. I do not join them. I do not encourage them. I do not participate. That’s not my job. They want to pray. They are not interfering with the educational offerings of the school. So I say, “Pray away! Allahu Akbar.”

            You see, the separation of church and state is not about stopping prayer in school, it is stopping ME, as a teacher, from leading prayer in school. Should I force those followers of islam to say the lord’s prayer? Should I force your children to proclaim that “there is only one god, Allah, and Mohammad was his final prophet?” How would you feel if I forced your children to proclaim for Allah? That is how I feel when anyone forces my children to proclaim for Jesus… unless they want to. I am a bit disappointed in my son. He’s become involved with a christian group because his friends are in it. He asks, I take him to the meetings. He’s a teen. He can make his own religious decisions. He’s asked me for money to go on a mission… That ones a bit harder. Proselytizing is evil in my world view. Then again, I’ve explained that to him, and if he still wants to go, I will give him an opportunity to earn the money to go (I NEVER give him money. I provide opportunities for him to earn the money).

          • afchief

            You see, there is NO separation of church and state. That is a boldface lie. Can you show me where it says that in the 1st amendment?

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

            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 or putting a cross on a park 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.Which means these people can put a cross on public grounds!!! Free exercise! Not ACLU enforced “disestablishment” of Christianity.

          • daniel

            No, I do not see. Supreme court agrees with me… Good night.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal!!! SCOTUS ruling are only “opinions”. They change nothing!!! Only Congress can make or change laws. So I will ask you again, where is separation of church and state in the 1st amendment or anywhere in the Constitution?

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

            Waiting…………………………………………………………….

    • BarkingDawg

      The Christian turds are back at it again.

      There, fixed that for you.

      • Emmanuel

        Thanks, Wisconsin turds probably got mad with the truth and cried like little sissies.

  • Katharine

    …nor prohibit the free exercise thereof…

    • BarkingDawg

      So you would be OK with a 10 foot tall statue of Baphomet?

      How about a collection of Tibeten Prayer wheels?

      Or maybe a statue of the Hindu Goddess with all the arms?

      A Wiccan pentagon?

      Cool. How progressive and Liberal of you.

      • Katharine

        No, but I’d not have a leg to stand on, so I’d keep quiet. Facts are, even the atheists in this country, once upon a time, acknowledge the Christian God, and the free exercise clause was intended to protect the Methodists from the Calvinist, etc., not to allow God haters to massacre Christians, etc.
        Some people even worship peni, but I’d like to see them erect one of them on public property. There has to be a limit somewhere to the death-based religions, or there’d be a lot of death.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Nice job, Katharine – they forget that part! God bless you!

    • Nofun

      Yes by the govt being neutral and having a wall of separation.

    • acontraryview

      How does not having a cross on public land prohibit the free exercise of religion?

      • Katharine

        The displaying the cross is the free exercise, and prohibiting it is prohibiting the free exercise. Especially in the instance of a many-hundred-year-old exercise…

    • Ken Campbell

      “some restrictions apply”

    • Nofun

      No right is absolute.

  • Nofun

    Constitution 1 Jesus 0

  • acontraryview

    ““We stand united to fight for what our beliefs are,” organizer Sheila Ackley told local television station KDFM.”

    Their beliefs are that a cross should be on public property? Where is that in the Bible?

    ““And it won’t be long and they’re going to take our churches away,” Ackley added. “It’s not going to be long and they’re not going to allow us to have our Bibles.”

    Oh, please. Spare me the false persecution complex and hyperbole.

    ““We’re going to fight this all the way. And if it goes to court, then it goes to court. And we’ll fight it there as well.””

    Good luck with that Mayor. How in the world can you justify spending taxpayer funds – provided by people of all faiths as well as no faith, on a lawsuit that challenges a Christian cross on public land?

    “The city attorney is currently reviewing FFRF’s letter.”

    Maybe he’ll be able to talk some sense in the Mayor.

    • Josey

      This cross has stood there for over 45 yrs with no complaints and one complainer comes along if there really is a complainer since the Atheist group lies about complaints, it is always anonymous complaint with no name given, either the atheists make up the complaint and lie or the complainer is a coward. Seems to me if there is truly a complaint which I doubt there was, but for arguments sake lets say there was a complaint given and the complainer declares he or she is right in the matter and the cross suddenly bothers them, then the very least he or she could come out with their name. The defendants in this case deserve to face the accuser. P.S. didn’t know that a person if there is really is one is so scared of the cross,hate mongers, don’t look at it if it bothers you so much. Does it remind you of God and your sins and how Jesus died in your place so you could be free from your selfish desires? Conviction from God is a good thing for He is reaching out to you! I don’t need to put out a cross in my yard because I wear it it on my heart daily
      But this perturbs me so much I believe I’ll put a huge cross our on my lawn and show my solidarity with this town of believers.

      • acontraryview

        How is the time it has been there relevant to the underlying legal question?

        “But this perturbs me so much I believe I’ll put a huge cross our on my lawn and show my solidarity with this town of believers.”

        That is certainly your right and you should do so if you wish, provided of course that you do not live in a community with HOA restrictions.

        “Also,so sick of the straw man argument that if we can put up a cross, then so can the satanist, etc.”

        In what way is that a straw man argument?

        “My God is greater than the created satan or any other insane idolatrous image anyone can come up,”

        You are certainly free to believe that.

        “There is no other Name given whereby man might be saved and every knee shall bow and every name shall declare that He is Lord!”

        You are certainly entitled to your belief in that regard. Your choosing to believe that is true, however, does not make it fact. That’s why it’s called “faith”, and not “fact”.

        • Josey

          You asked about why the 45 yrs the cross has stood there makes a difference because there was no complaint till now, my point is these anitchrist groups have become bolder in their attacks against Christians because of the sin that is being promoted and accepted in the Country because Obama is a child of the liar in chief himself and the evil spirits that surround him and his people.
          As to my mentioning a strawman argument, I said that because so often people will come back with this argument, “if you can have a cross why not have a baphomet statue or some other ungodly statue that they come up with along side of the cross and they always ask, is that what you want?”
          And yes I am certainly free to believe How great God is, but I emphasize it is not just a freedom I am expressing but a fact and a truth witnessed by my own life that I am giving. I would give it regardless of any granted freedom in other words because I have experienced and know that I know it is true.
          It is fact to me for I’ve witnessed His Lordship, His benevolence, miracles in my own life. This is a fact: He took me a rebellious teenager and young adult of the worst kind and by worst I mean if it there was darkness I was drawn to every kind of it, relished in it, not proud of it now but that is fact since you are so head bent on facts not that there is anything wrong with that, just giving you some.
          I was not worthy at all, none of us are, but nonetheless in a moments time when I had the urging to kneel down and ask the Lord Jesus to help me, to forgive me, Jesus changed me, btw it didn’t happen in a church building, I didn’t even know a preacher and had no Christian witnessing to me but it happened in my home at the time that He visited me not saying He doesn’t meet people at the altar in a church but that night my bed became the altar and for His own reasons He didn’t allow man to be involved in what He was doing. He showed me mercy when all of hell was loosed around me and He unbound me from it. He took out my old sinful thinking and heart of stone and placed within me His Holy Spirit, gave me a new heart, driving out every demon that was at work to destroy my life and use me to wreak havoc in the lives of those around me and He opened my eyes to the deceit that satan brought into my life. That is the god of this world (satan) who has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. I am no better than you by what I say for you are blinded just as I was before Christ set me free.
          This is where my faith comes in by believing His word (Bible) and submitting myself to obey His word regardless of what I see with the natural eyes and why I can be confident in the work He continually is working in me daily. 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ Philippians 1:6.
          He performed in me a 360 and as I began to hunger for righteousness as a newborn babe I knew beyond a doubt I
          had been freed from the hell I was in. I am sure if I had not taken that opportunity in that moment, I might not have had another chance, the places I found myself in so many times should have killed me. I wasn’t worthy of His goodness but He gave it to me and showed me mercy regardless. That was a work and miracle He did Himself, I couldn’t have made that happen if I had wanted to and the demonic state I was in at the time wouldn’t have let me anyway, that is how I can boldly state every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, the devil’s in me had to bow to His will and they did bow and flee!
          I now walk by faith but it’s still the faith He put in me and every time He does a miracle in my life, makes a way for me when there is no other way except for His intervening it adds to my faith. You won’t understand this unless it happens to you for a person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated. 1 Corinthians 2:14 I don’t consider myself to be better than you because I understand now what you do not, it is given by the Holy Spirit this understanding and to Him belongs the glory but just as with me, I know nothing is impossible for Him so I will pray for Him to work a miracle in you but the choice to accept is left up to you just as it was with me and everyone else but it’s possible with God but know this,your choice will mean life or death.
          I pray you do come to know the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and see for yourself the change He brings about. It has not been by my own faith, it is His faith that encourages my faith to grow and that makes the difference in my life and in the lives of those whom God has put around me.

          Now, you got a small novel in this which I rarely give out and I will offer no apology for writing so much, it is God using me as His witness to you. He is real, He lives forevermore and one day we all will come before Him, I pray that you are part of the first resurrection and not the second for the second one is eternal death and damnation. God loves you, gave His only begotten Son for your sin, the choice is up to you but don’t refuse Him when He gives you His faith to believe for I want to see you in Heaven one day. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            how is asking for the removal of a Christian symbol on public land an “attack against Christians”?

            The argument that if you can have a symbol of one religion on public property that others would have to be allowed is not a straw man argument. It is a reality.

            “it is fact to you”

            I have no doubt you believe that to be true.

            “Now, you got a small novel in this which I rarely give out and I will offer no apology for writing so much”

            None is needed. You obviously put a lot of time into your response and I appreciate that. I’m glad that your faith is so strong and that it has had such a positive influence in your life. I respect that you believe as you do.

    • BarkingDawg

      Not only will the city lose in court, but they will wind up paying the FFRF’s legal fees as well.

      • acontraryview

        Hopefully they will receive sound legal advice and act in accordance with that advice rather than spending taxpayer dollars on a fool’s errand.

        • BarkingDawg

          Since when does the Liberty Council give sound legal advice?

          • acontraryview

            I meant from the city attorney.

            Given Liberty Counsel’s track record, i’d say never.

        • Josey

          the fool’s errand lays at the feet of the FFRF

      • Josey

        I pray that the FFRF ends up paying for the legal fees for this petty lawsuit, it happened in my city and it can happen in theirs. Not by might, not by power but by my Spirit saith the Lord of Hosts. Zechariah 4:6

        • BarkingDawg

          First of all, no lawsuit has been filed.

          Yet.

          If one is filed, the city will lose.

          This is well settled case law. There are no precedents that would allow the cross to stay without the city allowing an open forum.

          If you say otherwise, please cite the case.

          • sTv0

            Josey can’t cite case law (he doesn’t even know what that means), but he can make up a mean tale of ghosts and demons, witches and hobgoblins. Sort of a “fool’s errand”, if you will.

        • sTv0

          Oh, I just loves it when Christians quote their Bible! It shows that they may actually be reading it! Yay!

          Here’s one of my favs: “Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

        • SashaC

          You’ll pray? So in other words, you’ll do nothing. Got it.

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Amen.

  • Reason2012

    (1) There is no such thing as “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. That phrase came from the time a Pastor wrote a letter to Jefferson expressing his fears that Jefferson would in some way restrict religious freedoms. In response to these fears, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter back to indicate that he would in no way restrict the freedom of religious expression because he saw a wall of separation between church and state.

    www .wallbuilders .com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65

    So actually the phrase means the exact opposite of what a few claim it means: it re-iterates the First Amendment, that government shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

    (2) First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; And yet those who reject God demand the government establish its own denomination of Christianity with its own version of marriage. A violation of the First Amendment.

    (3) Congress/government also cannnot make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    A school can decide to, for example, put up Ten Commandment displays and no one can force them not to.

    A school can decide NOT to put up Ten Commandment displays and no one can force them to.

    But in a Christian nation, the populace will be personally choosing to put up Ten Commandment displays often. Those that do not like this can start voting in a large number of people that believe differently and hope it changes.

    That’s liberty.

    That’s freedom.

    That’s the Constitution many died to create.

    That’s the United States of America.

    Start understanding the Constitution, the First Amendment and the lie about “separation to church and state” and take back our right to honor and worship God as people in positions of leadership personally choose and see fit to on a case by case basis.

    • Cosmic Mastermind

      It’s true that the phrase separation of Church and State does not appear in the Constitution, but what you are doing is misinterpreting the meaning of The First Amendment by putting the emphasis on just one part of the sentence.

      Look at it again:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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

      I do not make a moral judgment about the 1st Amendment, but legally it has been determined to mean separation of Church and State, a definition validated by comments and letters written by the Founding Fathers themselves.

      Further, the free exercise of religion is not possible if the State promotes one religion over another.

      • Reason2012

        You ignored the first 5 words:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

        Was any law passed forcing them to put up the cross?

        No.

        Case closed – it wasn’t violated.

        Correction: The free exercise of religion is not possible if the State makes laws to promote one religion or another. And again, no law was passed forcing them to put up a cross.

        Thank you for posting.

        • Cosmic Mastermind

          Why are you even arguing this point? it has long been established that the First Amendment does mean separation of Church and State. That is the law.

          “Was any law passed forcing them to put up a cross?”

          That’s a false question. It is a PUBLIC park. That means Federal law applies.

          Imagine this scenario – and I promise you this is an entirely plausible scenario that is already being seen in Europe: Your town becomes a Muslim-majority town; the Christians are now the minority. The Muslims want to introduce local laws based on Sharia and they want all religious symbols except those of Islam removed from sight. Muslims shall receive preferential treatment and receive financial benefits that will not be offered to non-Muslims.

          There is one reason they cannot get away with this: The First Amendment. Separation of Church and State doesn’t just prevent Christians from gaining special privileges, it’s a two-way deal; the Government cannot interfere in your religion, it cannot grant privilege nor deny rights.

          Right now a lot of Christians are grumbling and sulking because they are being denied the right to oppress non-Christians, but when the day comes when the United States is flooded with Muslims all demanding special rights and special privileges and special tax exemptions, you’ll be thankful then that you have the protection of Separation of Church and State.

          • Reason2012

            No, the First Amendment means they shall pass no laws to establiish a religion. No law has been passed forcing them to put up a cross. End of story.

            Your example of “the muslims want to introduce a new local law….” is irrelevant to the current situation because no law of any kind was passed here forcing them to put up the cross

            It’s interesting you understand that it’s about laws being created, but ignore the fact no law has been created here to put up the cross, hence no violation has taken place. At least you (if unwittingly) admitted it’s only a violation if laws are created to establish such things, which is a start.

    • namelessghost

      “There is no such thing as “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.”

      There most certainly is. Unless, of course, you believe that our constitutional rights are limited solely to those explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution. Which would mean that we don’t have the right to a fair trial. Or the right to a jury of our peers. Or the right to vote. Or a right to privacy. Or religious liberty. And so on…

      • Reason2012

        Stay on topic. Please quote where separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

        • sTv0

          It’s funny how often we see this request. “please quote where separation of church and state exists in the Constitution…blahblahblah”.

          Yet, court case after court case has upheld the Establishment Clause…in direct support of the separation of church and state, and sometimes directly quoting the words in the Constitution that Madison et al wrote that define separation of church and state….and yet you Christians by the thousands line up to show how little you absorbed from civics class in high school by making this request.

          It’s good comedy, I have to tell you. And I’ve got lots of popcorn.

          Please, continue. 🙂

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you can’t quote any such thing from the Constitution. I rest my case.

          • sTv0

            Yes, you’re absolutely correct. The words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution.

            And that is why you and your side continue to lose court case after court case on this issue.

            Civics lesson for the day is over.

            Bye!

        • namelessghost

          It’s right there with the concept of religious liberty. Please try to keep up.

    • ProudAmerican

      Start reading the Constitution and find “god” mentioned even once. How can you say we are a Christian nation when the !st Amendment specifically says we are not? BTW: The Supreme Court, which IS mentioned in the Constitution, has beat this subject to death for 200 years and finally made it clear that there is a separation of church and state. It is what it is.

      • Reason2012

        First Amendment gives us the freedom of religion. Religion = God. I think you’re confused. The Supreme Court reiterates that no laws can be passed prohibiting the freedom of religion – that it’s a violation of the Constitution to make it “illegal” for such a cross to be put up.

        • ProudAmerican

          Buddhists, who are the third or fourth largest worldwide religion do not have a God, believe in a God or gods or worship any God. There is nothing confusing about knowing that Religion does not equal God. There is nothing confusing whatsoever that the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. Christianity and its symbols like the cross are religious and the Constitution does not permit the promotion of a religion or religious symbols in government or on public property. The Constitution gives you the right to be religious and practice whatever belief you want, dress in any sort of religious costume, go sing and pray in any church of your choice. But, you can’t build a church or a mosque in a State park, force Jewish public school students to say prayers to Jesus, impose Sharia law in a US city or require that high school students read Dianetics and convert to Scientology. No crosses atop City Hall and no Islamic crescents in a public park. Not confusing at all.

          • Reason2012

            Well then you still do not have a point, because God or not God the Constitution guarantees the Freedom of religion.

            There is nothing confusing whatsoever that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. You conveniently ignore that it’s talking about making laws to establish a religion, and no laws have been passed here forcing anyone to put up a cross.

            There is also nothing confusing whatsoever that the First Amendment would be violated if you try to claim it’s illegal for such a free exercise of religion.

            The First Amendment’s only restriction on religion: that Congress can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. Your attempt to pretend the Constitution prohibits far more than that is utterly and completely false.

          • namelessghost

            “Well then you still do not have a point, because God or not God the Constitution guarantees the Freedom of religion.”

            Please show us where the Constitution uses the exact phrase “Freedom of religion.”

            “You conveniently ignore that it’s talking about making laws to establish a religion…”

            Except that it’s not talking about “making laws to establish a religion.”

          • Reason2012

            First Amendment:

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

            It’s about Congress not making laws to establish a religion. No laws have been passed here forcing them to put up a cross.

            It’s about the “free exercise thereof” – the free exercise of religion.

            Hope this helps.

  • BarkingDawg

    One of two things will happen here

    1). The city attorney will inform the city that they have no case and to take down the cross, or declare the park an open forum.

    2). The city will fight this in court and lose.

    • Josey

      My city has a huge cross up and an atheist group tried to have it removed, they lost so there is hope for this city as well, with God all things are possible!

      • Ken Campbell

        Where did they allow a huge cross on public property?

        • sTv0

          Josey’s not going to answer your question because Josey made up that tale. Christians do this. It’s called Lying for Jesus. It’s a feature, not a bug! 🙂

          • Ken Campbell

            These stories often start on the Christian or right wing websites

          • sTv0

            Their stories get more obtuse and exaggerated when they feel threatened, which would seem to be the case these days. This BS about Moses and Christian symbols in DC…gotta hand it to them, they’re clever…as clever as bat-sh*t crazy can be. D. Barton is a credit to hucksters everywhere. He gives Joseph Smith a run, I’ll grant you that.

      • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

        I’m glad your city was able to keep their cross. I hope this city will also keep theirs.

        • Josey

          amen

  • Sharon

    It all boils down to..’you are either hot or cold..warm..and I will spit you from My mouth’..ie..you are either Pro-Christ or anti-Christ!! Cowardly sit on the fence and He will have nothing to do with you. It is a choice and that is why He died..so that we could have that choice.

    Ask an atheist that question..Pro-Christ or anti-Christ?? and majority of the time they will not answer..just throw other reasoning’s at you. That is because deep down they know..they know they are wrong!!

    • tyler

      …….huh? That’s an incredibly dumb question to a non-believer.
      There may have been a teacher named Jesus. I don’t believe he’s magical or rose from the dead or anything like that. He was crucified like many other people exactly like him were.

  • poppyw

    If the heathens don’t like the cross, no one compels them to look at it. I swear, you heathens are a miserable group, just looking for ways to cause trouble. You idiots, that cross has been there 45 years and reflects the communities standards. It is every bit a part of history, an historic relic, just as the Statue of Liberty in which I don’t care for because of hidden meanings. But, I’m not about to squawk about it because millions enjoy it. Live and let live.

    • tyler

      so if it was a huge buddha statue that your tax dollars paid for and pay for weekly for cleanings, you’d be perfectly fine with, and would just look away if you didn’t like it?

      • poppyw

        If a Buddha statue had been there for 45 years, it would be an historic relic. No, it wouldn’t bother me at all. Now, I don’t know how much upkeep something like that would cost in tax dollars. Maybe one penny of your total tax bill for everything. If you publish your address, shoot, I’ll send you a penny. Bet, you might get all kinds of pennies from others who wouldn’t want you to be put off by the cross that means so much to us who have been born-again. There was once a man like you who hated the cross, but something happened in his life that caused him to write that famous hymn, “Amazing Grace.” You should read about this man who was a hater much worse than you.

        • tyler

          Can you point out where anything I said was ‘hate’?
          You on the other hand choose to call me an ‘idiot’. Who’s angry here?

    • ProudAmerican

      Drinking fountains and bathrooms for the exclusive use of white people were also long-standing “community standards” and we trashed that idea once and for all. If I want to see symbols of Christianity I’ll walk into some church. I don’t want to put up with it anymore in public places because the ugly abusive history and hypocrisy Christianity represents along with the child molesters in the Catholic church are repulsive, disgusting and revolting. Get that ugly nasty irrational nonsense and evil out of my face. Hide it. Keep your shame private.

      • poppyw

        Can’t believe you brought up drinking fountains, restrooms when it was heathens that trapped the Africans, sold them into slavery, brought them here in heathen ships. It was Christians that stamped out slavery and Christians that led the way in stopping segregation. It is Christians that primarily feed the hungry, provide free medical care, started most of the well known colleges and universities. What has your bunch ever done for anybody?. And, who excuses Catholic Church pedophiles? I know why you are disgusted by Christian symbols.. The same reason my soul would be repulsed by a satanic symbol. It is why you heathen, rage..

        • ProudAmerican

          Oh, please. Stop with the “heathen” thing. Atheists and agnostics surely don’t believe in gods and prophets or magical holy books but we also don’t believe in sun worship, rain dances, voodoo, witchcraft, energy crystals or the Great Spirit that lives in old Redwood trees.
          …and Yeah, Spanish “followers of Christ” enslaved millions in South and Central America and the missionaries played a good game of “convert or die” for hundreds of years. Ask an Inca or Aztec how that whole conquistador thing worked out for them. “Stamped out slavery”? You must be kidding. Confederate preachers used Bible quotes to PROMOTE human slavery, for God’s sake.

          • poppyw

            Nothing wrong with the word, heathen, Biblical word that applies to all non-believers in our God. Careful when you apply “Christian” to certain points in time in Catholic history. I don’t believe the Aztecs-Inca encountered born-again Christians for the same reason of how they treated these natives. There will be many church members of the Christian faith who will go to hell. Yes, I’ve sat in those same classes and had to tolerate the profs one-sided denunciation of Christianity. You’re so bitter about Christianity, that’s not going to do you any good, just burns up more energy. But, my Bible says that at some future point you guys will hate us so bad that you’ll hunt us down and kill us thinking you’re doing God a favor. I won’t be here at that time, you’ll have to translate your hate to someone else.

          • ProudAmerican

            Hate? Nope. Bitter? Not at all. Apathetic and indifferent to irrational beliefs, Yeah, mostly. Getting annoyed at noisy in-your-face religious zealots imposing their imaginary dogma on secular society? Yup, absolutely. Sympathy for folks who abandoned reason and critical thinking in favor of mystical blind “faith” in the supernatural? For Sure! Every day. All the time. No, not anger or hate…a little sadness perhaps. *sigh*

          • poppyw

            The Bible says you unbelievers do think we have irrational beliefs because you don’t understand spiritual things. We believe we are created beings made in the image of our Creator God. Our God is a spirit Being, therefore we have a spiritual nature, a body and Soul, a tri-une being. You’ll never understand us. I imagine you think you evolved from some pre-mordial slime or soup. Now, that takes a whole lot of faith to believe that stuff. But, please, continue in your “critical thinking.” Tell me, just how many “noisy religious zealots,” have you had to deal with in your life? You must frequent strange places. I guess I’m a zealot because I disagree with you and I havn’t tried to get you saved., nor will I.

          • ProudAmerican

            Thanks for not trying to save my immortal soul. What if it turns out the God you believe in is a fake and Allah is the real one true God and the Koran is right on the money? Then my soul would be damned for all eternity. I better play it safe. Allah is a lot meaner and more violent than even the Christian God. Don’t want to get any of those ego-maniacs pissed at me. Oh, and the best of luck picking the one true religion out of thousands of choices. Hope you win the Lotto, too.

          • poppyw

            Even my secular profs admitted that Jesus is an historical person. You guys still havn’t found the body of the crucified Jesus. Secular history and scripture confirmed that Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb. The religious authorities told Pilate the Jesus followers would steal the body. He ordered a Roman guards be placed to guard the tomb. Roman soldiers, assigned to guard duty were executed if their prisoner escaped. But, we learn that the Romans fled in total fear when angels or whatever rolled the stone barrier and Jesus walked out. Over 500 eyewitnesses later saw him ascend into heaven. But, what convinced me, was the behavior of Jesus disciples. They fled like rabbits, when Jesus was arrested a few days before His crucifixion. One, even denied Him 3 times when he was accused of being one of Jesus disciples. Later, Jesus appears to them, He has them touch Him, He eats with them. After Jesus goes to Heaven, these men turn from rabbits, and become the first evangelists to spread the Good News. Each of them, though warned by the authorities preached the Good News and every one of them suffered death by the authorities. From rabbits to that kind of devotion and defiance, means they saw that Jesus was who He claimed to be.

          • ProudAmerican

            Oh, for chrissake it’s a STORY. A STORY. I read the book and saw the movie, too. There’s just got to be someone who thinks Star Wars is an historical documentary as well. You know, Jedi Knights, The Force, Yoda and Darth Vader? The stories about Vishnu, Mohammed and Buddha were equally compelling.

            I asked a simple question a very long time ago: “If God created man in His own image, then why aren’t we invisible? Never got a good sound logical answer. But, I guess I had no choice but to believe that Jesus and the crucifixion really existed because I saw the hard evidence with my own eyes. In eighth grade they passed around a a sliver of wood in a little plastic box that was an actual real piece of the wooden cross Jesus Christ died on. There it was, in my own hand, incontrovertible indisputable physical evidence. A Holy relic, over 2000 years old. From that day forward I began my journey down the path to find the truth. A few weeks later I found it. Apatheism.

          • poppyw

            All of the above that I stated is actual history, better documented than Caesar crossing the Rubicon which you probably believe. Years ago, there was a nationally syndicated writer of the Chicago Tribune. He believed like you do. It irritated him that his Christian wife went to church on Sundays, taking the kids with her. He took a leave of absence from the Tribune, for 2 years so he could research and find the evidence to prove his wife was foolish. He traveled abroad researching libraries, contacting authorities. After 2 years of research, he came back as a Christian. I can never think of his name, but perhaps others reading this post will help me out. He, also became an evangelist. I think how you evaluate everything depends on intellectual honesty. Free will is a special thing.

  • ProudAmerican

    Isn’t just a little bit arrogant and presumptuous to elevate the importance of a Christian religious symbol over those of thousands of other religions? They don’t count? They don’t matter? Put a Star of David on top of City Hall and teach the Torah in public schools. Got any problem with that?

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      I would have no problem with teaching the Torah. And I love the star of David. I wear one on my neck. I also wear a cross.

      • sTv0

        Well, then, if you’d wear the crescent moon and star you’d have the trifecta going! 🙂

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Sigh shakes head.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            He/She thinks it is dog racing. Or He/She just hates Christians/Jews. To each His/Her own.

          • sTv0

            “He/She thinks it is dog racing.”

            LOL!

            “He/She just hates Christians/Jews.”

            Um, no. You don’t hate non-believers, do you?

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            A lot of my family are non-believers. I love them. A lot of my friends are non-believers. They do not put down nor mistreat Christians. They are still my friends. A lot of the Atheist who comes to Christian sites like this one to put down and cause trouble withe Christians. I stand in the Gap for some of them. I Pray and fast for them. If I hated them I would not care about their souls. I would not wait my time Praying for them. Nor would I fast once a week for them. I care enough for enough to Pray. If that is Hate……………………………

          • ProudAmerican

            OK, Jews having a persecution complex I understand. Kind and loving Christians have made their lives miserable for hundreds of years. But, Christians whining about being persecuted and abused in America with more churches than gas stations and fire hydrants? Three BILLION of them if you include Catholics and Mormons? Thousands of TV and radio stations? At least one of THEIR holy days is one of OUR national holidays?
            Over 70% either saying or pretending to be Christian? Holy Jesus! They are a persecuted and marginalized MAJORITY dominating the USA already and they want MORE? God help us. Yuck. Selfish and arrogant hubris. At it’s worst.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            God loves the Jews and He will never let anyone kill them all. Look at the tiny Nation Israel. They are surrounded by people who hate them and wants to kill them all. Eve America is turning their backs on Israel and the Jews. Many who call themselves Christians are into replacement Theology. There still are true Christians who know without the Jews there would never have been Christians. Of all the Religions of the world I love both Christian and Jew.
            Shalom <

          • sTv0

            You mean to tell me you’re not aware of the history of monotheism?

            Srsly? And you wear those pendants…for what purpose?

            Sigh. Shakes head.

      • ProudAmerican

        Very cool! So ecumenical, too. Next try on a burka and buy a prayer mat. Maybe add a Muslin crescent to the chain with the cross and Star of David.
        You can go New Age too with some peace and energy crystals. You have all your bases covered no matter who turns out to be the real one true God.
        I had you all wrong.
        Later try Buddhism, Hinduism and voodoo just for fun.
        Very very cool!

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          You are a Hate filled person.
          Shalom.

          • tyler

            Did I miss the part where there was any ‘hate’ whatsoever?

          • ProudAmerican

            Bless you too with the unconditional love of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Yeshua *Jesus* the Christ is my Lord and me Savior. For God so Loved the world that He sent us His Son. Salvation is through His Son. He shed His Blood for us. Just think not only did God love us enough to send His Son. But His Son loved us enough to do what He was sent to do.
            Shalom<

  • EscapetheDarkness

    Militant atheists like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are, in essence, cultural communists, who believe that everyone’s beliefs must be simultaneously represented in the public square in some way, or else nobody’s beliefs can be represented in the public square, regardless of the circumstances. As such, they despise the idea of majority rule in any shape or form, by the people and for the people, regardless of what form it takes or how it is administered.

    • sTv0

      “As such, they despise the idea of majority rule in any shape or form, regardless of what form it takes or how it is administered.”

      Yes, you’re absolutely right on that, mostly. I mean, after all, who do they think they are, Americans? Just because the Constitution was structured to “protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority” doesn’t give them the right to just go around spreading American values, amirite?

      How dare they pretend that a public park is no place for religious symbols of only one religion unless all faiths and those of no faith are represented!

      • EscapetheDarkness

        @ sTv0

        So, in other words, you deny nothing of what I said, and, to the contrary, you are moving to defend it with a Colbert-like sarcastic rant which assumes the rightness of the beliefs in question.

        Awesome. That is all I wanted from your side here.

        /Thread. (For me.)

        • sTv0

          [Eyes wide with wonder…] Really? “Colbert-like sarcasm?”

          Be still my heart! Thank you, EtD! From the bottom of my heart

          Thank you! I am deeply honored to be even mentioned in the same sentence as “The sTephen”.

          Awesome, indeed!

    • tyler

      have you ever heard of the Constitution of the United States?
      Didn’t think so..

  • crusader51

    The spirit of Anti-Christ is alive and well working hard to take as many to Hell as possible. The only religion they fear is Christianity, the only symbol they want removed is the cross.
    The only true path to salvation is the one Satan focuses on as he goes on his last rampage of death and destruction before the return of Jesus to claim His Earthly throne. Come quickly Lord Jesus!

    • sTv0

      Yeah, or maybe there’s just evil people in the world who do wicked things, sometimes to other people, and there are good people in the world who do good.

      And all the gods, goddesses, demons, witches, devils yadda yadda are just relics of our superstitious nature, and as we evolve and advance we discard them one by one….

      No more Zeus. No more Wotan. No great JuJu of the mountain.

      Just us. Together.

      That’s it.

  • tyler

    I’m proud to live in the same town as the FFRF.
    This is a no-brainer. Remove the religious monument from the public park.
    If it was a statue of satan, star and crescent, buddha, or any other religious figure, they’d be howling for it to be taken down.

  • WGB

    Those people are mean, mad, and miserable and hate to see Christians full of peace and confident in God.

    I think many may be mentally ill because they seem disturbed by the mere thought that Christians believe in God, even when we are not trying to force our beliefs on them atheist trolls will attempt to troll a Christian out of believing in God. Its a waste of time, but many try nonetheless.

    • ProudAmerican

      No, not disturbed that Christians believe in irrational myths, lies, and wild delusions or invisible gods, ghosts, spirits, magic water, holy books and nutty old pagan rituals. Anti-Theists are just tired of Christian arrogance and getting angrier that all this ugly hypocrisy and illogical beliefs are being shoved in our faces. Be tolerant and accepting of con artists preaching nonsense and hate? Child rapist priests dressed in pointy hats? Who cares what they believe. We just don’t want to be exposed to evil and the mental illness of deluded people living in a destructive world of childish “pretend”.

      • WGB

        We disagree. You’re not making sense. ☝️did not read your entire comment.
        Please don’t start trolling and harassing us, which is predictable, but still unnecessary. You will never change our beliefs.

        God bless you.