Bible Verse Bench Remembering Toddler Killed in Car Crash Removed from Park

Bench-compressedELKIN, N.C. — A bench placed in memory of a toddler that was killed in September in a hit-and-run car accident has been removed from a public park after officials said that permission was not obtained to place it—an assertion that the family denies.

Mason Roten was 16 months old when a car pushed the vehicle his father was driving off the road and into a tree, which subsequently fell and crushed the child in his seat.

Last weekend, a memorial was placed Elkin Municipal Park, near the playground when Roten and his brother would play each week. The bench included the child’s name and a quotation from Psalm 127:3, along with two cutout crosses.

“Children are a gift from the Lord. They are a reward from Him,” it read.

Alumni from Elkin High School placed the bench, and state that they first obtaining permission from the town. Ben Whitecross says that he specifically obtained permission from Parks and Recreation Director Adam McComb.

But on Monday, the bench was removed, and Whitecross states that he was told that it was because of the Bible verse and crosses on the memorial.

“One day we come down here with this beautiful bench and tears of joy, and now it’s being taken away as if we haven’t been through enough already,” Roten’s mother, Heather, told reporters. “I just could not believe that they would take something away from my precious little baby like that.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But Town Manager John Holcomb asserts that alumni never obtained permission for the placement of the bench.

“In Elkin we have an approval process for any bench to be added to our municipal park that is for a public memorial. This bench was added last Saturday without prior knowledge or approval,” he said in a statement. “It was also on top of another memorial in the park.”

“The bench was first noticed on Monday morning and was removed due to not being approved by our recreation and parks director,” Holcomb continued. “The bench does have religious symbols and Scripture in its designs, which no other bench in our park currently has.”

He said that the town is seeking to move the bench to another location.

Heather Roten is unhappy with Holcomb’s statements.

“They’re pretty much calling us liars, that [alumni] didn’t get permission which they did,” she told Fox8 News. “That bench should be there in his honor.”

A meeting is scheduled over the matter on Dec. 14.


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
  • Nidalap

    Talk about your tyranny of the extreme minority…

    • Ambulance Chaser

      People should be allowed to put monuments on public land without permission?

      • bowie1

        That is just it – they said they got permission.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Okay, then they should be able to prove that.

          • bowie1

            Or maybe the bureaucrats need to get their act together so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

          • gizmo23

            They should have a letter or something showing permission was given

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    A town that participates in the grief by making it worse, just in case it wasn’t bad enough to lose a son.

    • Jade

      This is very sad but Christian extremist have themselves to blame. Many people are beginning to have less tolerance of religious issues because we are seeing that religious extremism (Islamic and Christian) is responsible for most of the world’s problems.

      • jmichael39

        I’ll tell you what…why don’t you show us a list of the ‘world’s problems’ caused by Christians and I’ll show you a list of the world’s problems caused by those who reject Christian principles. Deal?

        • Richard Cranium

          Lets start with The Spanish Inquistion, more modern times how bout the KKK. The cross they light is a christian symbol as they put it “lighting the cross for all to see”

          • jmichael39

            You’re not Jade, but thank you for participating.

            Let’s see. By records we do have concerning the Spanish Inquisition, some 125,000 people were investigated and approximately 2250 were executed.

            FIRST: According historical evidence, some 1500 people (1200 blacks, 300 whites) have been killed by the KKK.

            Not something to be happy about by any means.

            But let’s look at the deaths caused by non-theistic groups.

            It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.

            Here are multiple sources for this data:

            –The Black Book of Communism The Human cost of Communism – 100 Million, IndyMedia, April 4. 2004, Retrieved 5/23/2015

            –“The Black Book of Communism”. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website: Cold War Studies. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

            –Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). “How many did communist regimes murder?”University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

            –White, Matthew (February 2011). “Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century”. Necrometrics. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

            –Higgins, David (June 22, 2007). “Memory and ideology: Washington’s newest statue is the Victims Of Communism Memorial”. Sarasota Magazine website. Retrieved from October 8, 2007 archive at Internet Archive on May 22, 2015.

            –Radosh, Ronald (February 2000). “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression”. First Things [journal] website. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

            SECOND: it is estimated that some 300,000 people were killed by the so-called Cult of Reason during the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.

            The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

            The historical record of collective atheism is thus more than 180,000 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.

            Thank you for trying.

            And oh, just so you know, that doesn’t even account for the hundreds of millions of unborn children killed through out the world in complete antithesis of Christian dogma.

          • acontraryview

            “It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.”

            Here’s the primary difference. In none of those instances were the actions justified by saying: “Because there is no God, we can do this.” They did not use their lack of a state religion of justify their actions. The multiple inquisitions justified their actions based upon their faith.

          • jmichael39

            Considering the assertion that began all this was that religious extremism was the cause of most of the world’s problems. I think the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people killed in the name of religious interests pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions slaughtered in the name of human interests.

            While there are most definitely evils that have been perpetrated in the name of various religions, Christianity…and especially what Jade referred to as extremist Christians (implying those with extreme versions of Christianity, not Christianity in general)…have hardly compared to the other causes of evil in the world.

            You still wanna try arguing your point?

          • acontraryview

            “have hardly compared to the other causes of evil in the world.”

            Agreed.

            “You still wanna try arguing your point?”

            My point was that your attempt to create a comparison between the Inquisitions, which WERE based upon, and deemed justified due to, Christian beliefs, was comparable to atrocities created by atheist Communist regimes, which were NOT based upon, nor deemed justifiable due to, atheism, is false. There is no point to argue, as yours has been shown to be wrong.

          • jmichael39

            So what? Your point is irrelevant. So these so-called Christians justified their killing on the basis of their faith and Stalin/Mao justified their based upon whatever ideals they held to. Does it really matter? Are Stalin and Mao somehow more justified because they didn’t do it ‘for god’ but for themselves?

          • acontraryview

            If you want to view pointing out that your argument was false as “irrelevant” you are certainly free to.

            “Stalin/Mao justified their based upon whatever ideals they held to.”

            Which was not their lack of belief in a supreme being.

            “Are Stalin and Mao somehow more justified because they didn’t do it ‘for god’ but for themselves?”

            Of course not. Nor was that the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion was your false comparison between those who justify their actions based upon their religious faith, and those who did not.

          • jmichael39

            No, fool…the issue of discussion was an assertion by Jade that Christian extremists have done more harm in the world than anyone else. I think it matters not whether Mao’s or Stalin’s or anyone else’s agendas included or didn’t include religious beliefs. They have obviously done more harm in the world than all of Christianity throughout history.

          • acontraryview

            “the issue of discussion was an assertion by Jade that Christian extremists have done more harm in the world than anyone else.”

            Jade never made that assertion. Here was what Jade said in his/her original post: “we are seeing that religious extremism (Islamic and Christian) is responsible for most of the world’s problems.”

            You then attempted to suggest that atheism was the cause of other atrocities when you said: “The historical record of collective atheism is thus more than 180,000 times worse”.

            Yet, as has been shown, the actions you detailed where not done in the name of Atheism, nor were they justified by citing Atheism, unlike the actions of Christians.

          • gizmo23

            Both world wars were started by Christian nations, Hitler used Christian dogma to start his rise to power, slavery and genocide of natives in the USA was justified by dogma. The Russian czar used the church to enslave the Russian people forcing a revolution. Ditto China which through off English rule which used the church to justify colonies .
            I’d say there is plenty of blood to spread around All religious dogma used to promote political ends is evil

          • jmichael39

            Very good, Gizmo. Glad you decided to jump into the fray.

            The vast majority of Hitler’s so-called Christian-supporting statements were made during campaign trails. But let’s take a look at what he really thought of Christianity.

            “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

            “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

            “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”

            “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”

            Do you need more? There is more if you want it.

            But here, let’s see where his beliefs really lay, The planning of the Second World War started when Adolf Hitler joined a secret society called the Thule Society in 1919. It was in this group that he found the perverted beliefs that were later to lead him in his control of the German government.

            In the Thule Society: “… the sun played a prime role… as a sacred symbol of the Aryans, in contrast to… the moon, revered by the Semitic peoples. The Fuhrer saw in the Jewish people, with their black hair and swarthy complexions, the dark side of the human species, whilst the blond and blue-eyed Aryans constituted the light side of humanity. … Hitler undertook to extirpate from the material world its impure elements.” – Jean-Michel Angebert, The Occult and the Third Reich

            In addition to sun (or light) worship, the Thule Society also practiced Satan worship: “The inner core within the Thule Society were all Satanists who practiced Black Magic. – Trevor Ravenscroft, The Spear of Destiny

            One of the founders of both the Nazi Party and the Thule Society, was Dietrich Eckart: “a dedicated Satanist, the supreme adept of the arts and rituals of Black Magic and the central figure in a powerful and wide-spread circle of occultists—the Thule Group. (He was] one of the seven founder members of the Nazi Party….”

            Eckart claimed to be the initiator of Hitler into the secrets of Satan worship. He is quoted as saying on his deathbed: “Follow Hitler. He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune! I have initiated him into the ‘Secret Doctrine;’ opened his centres in vision and given him the means to communicate with the Powers. Do not mourn for me: I shall have influenced history more than any German.”

            As for your Russian and Chinese arguments, it’s rather quaint, but it seems rather ignorant of you that the communists regimes that followed in those examples enslaved their people to no different extreme than what you claim happened leading up to those revolutions, and managed to slaughter tens of millions of people in the process. So which of those is more evil? more bloody? more destructive?

          • gizmo23

            The bottom line is he used it and the German public believed it. Not much different than politics today.
            If you want to compare killing and death the Hindus, Buddhist, native beliefs,and Taoist have cause far fewer than Muslim and Christian

          • jmichael39

            Where in the world did you learn logic? He LIED about his christian beliefs to deceive people into electing him, so you blame Christianity for LETTING him use God’s name to kill people?

          • gizmo23

            No I blame Christians. It seems pretty easy for a politician to claim one thing while acting another. Christians can be very gullible

          • jmichael39

            Well, you can blame Christians all you want…it doesn’t make you logically or historically correct. It just makes you an illogical hate-filled bigot.

          • gizmo23

            My mistake. I thought we were going to have a civil thoughtful conversation bye

          • jmichael39

            Difficult to have civility with someone who comes into the the conversation with his prejudices already in place and unwilling to accept historical reality. Suit yourself. You’re the one trolling, not me.

          • gizmo23

            I feel sorry for you if you think a free exchange of ideas is trolling. No one made you answer me

          • jmichael39

            no I liked answering up until you showed you real colors. But again, that’s making it fun. It’s always adorable how people like you think your bigotry and hatred won’t eventually come out…and how, when it does, you’re suddenly ashamed of it and deny it. Be proud, dude, you’re a full fledged bigot. I’m sure you’ll honestly be in the majority someday.

          • jmichael39

            Besides dude, you’re the one who decided to jump in on my challenge to Jade. You weren’t invited to answer. You might like to ask next time, especially when someone specifically asks another person a question.

          • gizmo23

            I suggest you don’t post anymore if you can’t handle a challenge. No one forced you to answer me. This is a public board good day

          • jmichael39

            Oh dear. Did I miss a challenge? And here all I saw was you expressing your prejudiced opinions. THanks for playing though.

          • gizmo23

            Opinions are just that. Why are you so angry. I did nothing to insult you

          • jmichael39

            See, now you just don’t do well at this game do you? I’m not even remotely angry. I have several feelings about people like you, but anger is never high on the list. Pity, humor, distaste, those sort of emotions are more prevalent regarding people like you. But, now, anger…that’s more associated with bigotry and prejudice. You should be quite familiar with that connection. See what I mean? No, I bet you don’t. You see, prejudice and bigotry are following closely by intellectual blindness.

          • Jade

            Thanks for answering jmichael139. You did a better job than I probably would have.

          • gizmo23

            I don’t get people that post then get mad when challenged.
            No one made him answer me.
            Have a nice evening

          • jmichael39

            What challenge? You asked a silly question and I still answered it. You’re the one who chose not to continue.

          • gizmo23

            Can I have your permission to practice my free speech on a public forum?

          • jmichael39

            You’re the one who asked a question. I answered it. You don’t like the answer, so you start a ridiculously silly attack on the civility of the discussion. You can write whatever you want. And I can call it silly if I want to.

          • happy diwali

            Is earth 6000 years old?

          • jmichael39

            Ah the old Red Herring. No, silly, the earth is not 6000 years old.

          • jmichael39

            Also might want to check out the Hindu massacres of Muslims in 1947-48 (especially 48).

            And of course, more than 2000 people were slaughtered by Hindus in 2002 alone…in one day’s massacre. Just a reminder that’s more than the KKK are accused of doing in a 90 year period.

            And that’s not to mention the ongoing persecutions and murders of Christians -by- them.

          • happy diwali

            The 2002 was a riot not one side massacring the other side. So stop lying. And that riot was spread to over one month not one day as you posted in your comment, but we got it, you are a Christian (a true one) so you are supposed to distort truth to suit your agenda.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…it doesn’t matter really…my ‘agenda’ has been to prove mostly that Christians, throughout history, have done far less harm than especially secular/atheistic people. And no one has come close to refuting the evidence I presented. So have fun with that, Red.

          • acontraryview

            “it doesn’t matter really”

            So it doesn’t matter if you are factually accurate when laying out your argument? Interesting viewpoint. Are you an advisor to Trump?

            “my ‘agenda’ has been to prove mostly that Christians, throughout history, have done far less harm than especially secular/atheistic people.”

            No question about that. I’m curious, does their doing less harm make it less wrong? It sounds almost like a 6-year old saying: “Well Timmy told a bigger lie than me!” and hoping that will get him off the hook.

          • jmichael39

            No, the entire issue of hindus is completely irrelevant to my assertions. But you go right ahead and defend them. I’ll stick to defending Christianity against false assertions.

            “No question about that. I’m curious, does their doing less harm make it less wrong?” – may you should actually read my posts…in their entirety. I think you’ll find that I’ve more than a few times said that very thing. And again, my posts are in opposition to an assertion that Christian extremists that done more harm in the world than any other group. Something even you agree is fallacious at best.

            “It sounds almost like a 6-year old saying: “Well Timmy told a bigger lie than me!” and hoping that will get him off the hook.” – no silly, it sounds like a man refuting an assertion with facts.

          • acontraryview

            “No, the entire issue of hindus is completely irrelevant to my assertions.”

            You are the one who first mentioned the Hindu massacre of Muslims. If it was irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

            “But you go right ahead and defend them.”

            I did not defend them. I pointed out that you do not seem to care about being factually accurate.

            “And again, my posts are in opposition to an assertion that Christian extremists that done more harm in the world than any other group.”

            No such assertion has been made in this thread. You fabricated that assertion.

            “no silly, it sounds like a man refuting an assertion with facts.”

            You fabricated the assertion.

          • jmichael39

            Let’s just get some things very clear here…and this is in response to other post too.

            Jade’s assertion was: “Many people are beginning to have less tolerance of religious issues because we are seeing that religious extremism (Islamic and Christian) is responsible for most of the world’s problems”

            Since I am not Muslim, I don’t give a rat’s behind whether someone wants to blame any percentage of the world’s ills on Muslims. But, being a Christian I -am- in a position to refute any inclusion of Christians in that assertion. Which I have done.

            In a subsequent post, Gizmo sent out a Red Herring trying to compare Christians evils to Hindu. I merely mentioned a few occasions when Hindus have been anything but nice to people of differing beliefs, including their ongoing persecution of Christians in India. That’s all. It’s honestly a Red Herring that didn’t even deserve to be responded to…since it had nothing todo with the defense I made against Jade’s initial assertion.

            You don’t like me defending against Christians being included in Jade’s assertion? Fine. Since you’re not Jade, you can only interpret her words, as I did. If she wants to come back and re-define the meaning of her assertion, let her. But you’re in no position to tell me I’m wrong in how I interpret her words to mean.

          • acontraryview

            Let’s just get some things very clear here.

            You attempted to suggest that Atheism was the cause of, and used as a justification for, atrocities carried out by various regimes and thus was comparable to atrocities that were carried in the name of, and justified by, the Christian faith. That assertion is false. None of the regimes you mentioned used Atheism as a basis for, nor justification of, their actions.

            Jade: “religious extremism (Islamic and Christian) is responsible for most of the world’s problems”

            She said nothing about past events. Please note the word “is”. If she was speaking about past events, then “have been” would have been used. It’s not a question of your interpretation. It is a question of your misinterpretation, and apparent lack of understanding of English.

            “You don’t like me defending against Christians being included in Jade’s assertion?”

            You have not done so. Are you suggesting that Christian religious extremists have no role in the ills the world is experiencing today?

          • jmichael39

            “You attempted to suggest that Atheism was the cause of, and used as a justification for” – try reading again.

            I said from the very beginning: “show us a list of the ‘world’s problems’ caused by Christians and I’ll show you a list of the world’s problems caused by those who reject Christian principles”

            Then I said, ” I’ve shown the figures that secular/atheistic people have done far more harm to this world than all the christians combined”

            Atheism is a rejection of the God and His principles in favor of man’s own concocted principles. Communism is deeply based in atheistic views and equally rejecting of God and His principles. You don’t want to agree, that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, even if I t think it’s based upon fact or reality.

            “She said nothing about past events. Please note the word “is”. If she was speaking about past events, then “have been” would have been used.” – that’s fine. Shall we go over the world’s ills and see how many of them are a result of Christians vs. secular/atheistic principles? We can go down that road if you want.

            “You have not done so. Are you suggesting that Christian religious extremists have no role in the ills the world is experiencing today?” – you honestly don’t read the threads, do you? Take a stroll back and count how many times I’ve acknowledged that evil is evil whether its perpetrated by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or Atheists. I have, from the beginning of this thread merely pointed out that Christians do not belong in the list of those who are at fault for “most” of the world’s ills. If Jade wanted to merely name Muslims, I’d have shut up. Not because I agree with that assertion, but because I have no interest in defending against it. Like the Nazis before, who blamed Germany’s (and the world’s) ills on Jews (and some others), Jade seems quite willing to blame the world’s ills on some people she personally hates without regard for the facts. So I’ll ask you a similarly fallacious question as yours…do you wish to blame the majority of the world’s ills on Christians? (you don’t need to answer…cause I’ve seen you don’t…but you get my point…read before you ask fallacious questions).

          • acontraryview

            You: “you’d realize that the assertion which I refuted was that Christian Extremists do more harm in the world than all others.”

            Such an assertion was never made.

            “Then I said, ” I’ve shown the figures that secular/atheistic people have done far more harm to this world than all the christians combined””

            Their actions were not based upon their lack of belief in a supreme being, unlike the actions of some Christian (as well as other) groups that did justify their actions based upon their religious beliefs.

            “Atheism is a rejection of the God and His principles in favor of man’s own concocted principles.”

            I’m assuming you are referring to the god you have chosen to believe in and that would be the Christian god, am I correct? You do realize, don’t you, that the Bible was concocted by man, as were all religions, right?

            “Communism is deeply based in atheistic views”

            Really? Please, enlighten me as to which tenants of Communism are deeply based in the view that there is no supreme being.

            “that’s fine.”

            I’m glad we agree that bringing up past events was irrelevant to her comment.

            “Shall we go over the world’s ills and see how many of them are a result of Christians vs. secular/atheistic principles?”

            You are certainly free to do so if you like. I’m curious, why do you put secular together with atheistic principles? Our Constitution is completely secular, yet the majority of citizens in the US say they believe in God. What atheistic principles are you speaking of? That no supreme being exists? How is that a basis for certain actions that would be a cause of the world’s ills?

            “I have, from the beginning of this thread merely pointed out that Christians do not belong in the list of those who are at fault for “most” of the world’s ills.”

            No, from the beginning you have spoken about past events. You have not discussed the current ills of the world.

            “Not because I agree with that assertion, but because I have no interest in defending against it.”

            Why? Do you only care if the group you belong to is wrongly blamed? You have no concern for others? How would that be consistent with the Christian belief system?

            “Jade seems quite willing to blame the world’s ills on some people she personally hates without regard for the facts.”

            How is it you know that Jade hates Christians? As you said, evil is evil regardless of who perpetrates it – including Christians. Therefore, applying your logic that since Jade mentioned Christians, Jade therefore hates Christians, you’re mentioning Christians means that you also hate Christians. Clearly, the latter is not the case, therefore it would not be reasonable to state that the former is the case.

            “read before you ask fallacious questions”

            You: “You don’t like me defending against Christians being included in Jade’s assertion?”

            I neither like, nor dislike, your posts. You are free to post what you care to. Jade’s assertion was that religious extremists (Christian and Muslim) are responsible most of the world’s problems. To defend against that assertion, and the inclusion of Christians as a part of that, would mean that you don’t think Christians play a role in the world’s problems.

          • jmichael39

            “Such an assertion was never made.” – it was indeed made. Through including Christian Extremists in her assertion, there is no other logical conclusion than to say she asserts that Christians Extremists are the cause of most of the world’s ills today. If she wanted to assert that most of the world’s ills are caused by Muslim Extremists, I would not argue, if for no other reason than I, on a superficial level, agree with that assertion. I wouldn’t care to research it enough to substantiate the assertion or reject it. You can deny that all you want, but logic would dictate that I’m correct. And that wholly affords me the logical authority to argue that they should not be included in her assertion.

            “Their actions were not based upon their lack of belief in a supreme being” – the term “secular/atheistic people” includes, but is not limited to those who reject the existence of God. The inclusion of the term “secular” includes those who commit such acts for secular, or non-religious purposes.

            “I’m assuming you are referring to the god you have chosen to believe in and that would be the Christian god, am I correct? ” – Of course I am, since I’ve chosen to argue for the exclusion of Christians from her initial assertion.

            “You do realize, don’t you, that the Bible was concocted by man” – another red herring, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That being said, I’m more than willing to begin another thread on that topic at your convenience.

            “Really? Please, enlighten me as to which tenants of Communism are deeply based in the view that there is no supreme being.” – There is much more the communist dogma than their mere written tenants.

            Marx, himself, said, “Communism begins from the outset with atheism.”

            Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: “A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.”

            In 1955, Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, “We Communists are atheists”.

            In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.

            According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the “most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power.” Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the “Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin’s terminology, militant atheists.” However, prior to this, the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established an atheist state, with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.

            “To defend against that assertion, and the inclusion of Christians as a part of that, would mean that you don’t think Christians play a role in the world’s problems.” – that would only be true if her assertion was that -some- of the ills of the world today are caused by extremist Christians. However, she asserted that most of the ills were. Therefore, I have every justification in willingly accepting that extremist Christians have done -some- evil over the years, but that they have not been a central contributor to -most of- the world’s ills. And to argue instead that other groups, such as secularist/atheists have done more harm in the world over the years than Christians ever have.
            And btw, please be aware that nowhere in her assertion does she qualify that religious extremists are committing their evils in the name of their God. She merely asserted that such religious people are the cause of most of the ills of the world today. So it becomes utterly irrelevant what the justification was for any group or person in committing their atrocities. So I’m just as justified in choosing any characteristics I wish to prove that far more atrocities are committed by said group than by Christians. I chose the group of secularist/atheists to contrast that people of no religion (though Atheism is considered a religion by the courts of this country), are far more likely to commit atrocities than those of the Christian religion.

          • acontraryview

            “Through including Christian Extremists in her assertion, there is no other logical conclusion than to say she asserts that Christians Extremists are the cause of most of the world’s ills today.”

            She included two groups and made no mention of their relative involvement. Therefore it is ILLOGICAL to conclude the she asserts that Christian Extremists are the cause of most of the world’s ills today.

            “And that wholly affords me the logical authority to argue that they should not be included in her assertion.”

            By citing only past events, you have made no argument regarding the current state of the world’s ills. Further you have stated that evil is evil regardless of the religious belief involved. Given that the majority of the world’s population identify as either Christian or Muslim, it would illogical to suggest that Christian extremists do not play a role in the world’s ills.

            “the term “secular/atheistic people” includes, but is not limited to those who reject the existence of God.”

            Then they should not be grouped together. Please define a “secular” person. What are the common beliefs of “secular” people and how do they exclude belief in a supreme being?

            “another red herring, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.”

            Your the one who brought up that belief systems are concocted by man. It my response is irrelevant, then your initial comment is also irrelevant.

            “There is much more the communist dogma than their mere written tenants.”

            You said: “Communism is deeply based in atheistic views”. Providing quotes that Communists are atheists does not show how Communism is “deeply based in atheistic views”. There is much more to Communism then a belief that a supreme being does not exist. Therefore, I’ll ask again: Please, enlighten me as to which tenants of Communism are deeply based in the view that there is no supreme being.

            I’ll even help. Here is the basic view of a society based upon Communism: They “hold in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class – who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society – and the capitalist class – a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the means of production (the physical and institutional means with which commodities are produced and distributed), and that political, social and economic conflict between these two classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-ranging transformation of society. The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production.”

            What about that is related to a lack of belief in a supreme being?

            “However, she asserted that most of the ills were.”

            No, she asserted that most of the ills resulted from TWO groups of religious extremists and made no mention of their relative involvement.

            “does she qualify that religious extremists are committing their evils in the name of their God.”

            That is a given when the word “extremists” is utilized, as it qualifies that it is the extremism of the religious belief that is the root of the issue.

            “So it becomes utterly irrelevant what the justification was for any group or person in committing their atrocities.”

            They why are you attempting to tie atrocities to atheism?

          • jmichael39

            “She included two groups and made no mention of their relative involvement.” – that’s the exact point of my argument. That she should have included Christianity in that assertion at all. They didn’t belong there. But more appropriately Secularist/Atheists do deserve to be in that assertion.

            “Therefore it is ILLOGICAL to conclude the she asserts that Christian Extremists are the cause of most of the world’s ills today.” – There is absolutely no logical fallacy to my statement. As I’ve just shown. In fact, the logical fallacy is her including Christians in her assertion at all. Which is the very reason for the arguments I’ve presented.

            “By citing only past events, you have made no argument regarding the current state of the world’s ills.” – You’re right here. As I’ve said in other posts, I’ve presented the historical evidence and am more than ready to argue against ‘current’ world ills being blamed on Christians. I’m more focused as this point on disputing your other posts. When you’re ready to move from historical events to current affairs I’m more than ready.

            “Then they should not be grouped together. Please define a “secular” person. What are the common beliefs of “secular” people and how do they exclude belief in a supreme being?” – I already showed this with the very quotes connecting a secularist system of government known as communism and atheism.

            But you could go further. The secularist government we have become in this country has reversed from being supportive of all religions to being exclusively supportive of atheistic views in the public arenas…as the many articles, including this very article…discuss. The ideal that only the religious viewpoint of the non-existence of god is allowed in our public arena is, by it’s very nature, endorsing the religion of the non-existence of God (atheism). The founding of this country allowed for all views to be openly presented in public arenas. Not the elimination of all but those that don’t accept the existence of a god.

            “Your the one who brought up that belief systems are concocted by man” – where did I say that? I said that Atheism is the endorsement of man concocting their own principles from which to live…the idea of everyone doing what is right in their eyes…rather than having a belief in a divinely inspired set of principles.

            “You said: “Communism is deeply based in atheistic views”. Providing quotes that Communists are atheists does not show how Communism is “deeply based in atheistic views”.” – sure as heck does when the principle proponents of Communism say it does. There is a reason why we look to our founding fathers in determining the original intent within provisions of the constitution…because they would know what the basic principles of the constitution are. There are reasons why Christians place such strong reliance upon the words of people who lived 2000 years ago when deciding what the fundamentals principles of Christianity are. It’s because those at the root of a belief system must know what the core principles of that belief system are and should be.

            “What about that is related to a lack of belief in a supreme being?” – you’re honestly funny. You really think that because your quote something about the economic elements of the communist system that this excludes the realities of what those men who formed the roots of communism around the world have said with their own words? Seriously, this is the biggest stretch I’ve seen by you so far. and far outside the scope of your other, usually more reasonable, arguments.

            “No, she asserted that most of the ills resulted from TWO groups of religious extremists and made no mention of their relative involvement.” – first of all, my statement was in direct response to you suggesting that I was arguing against holding Christo-centric atrocities against those who executed them. Since I never denied any accountability for those who perpetrated those acts, I merely reminded you that my arguments were against including Christians in the original assertion at all.

            Second, as I’ve said before, she doesn’t need to have made an assertion as to the relative responsibility of Muslims vs Christians in her original assertion. I am arguing that it’s utterly illogical to include them in there at all, because of the relative responsibility of Christians to either Muslims or other groups, such as Secularist/Atheists. It becomes a serious logical fallacy, in fact, to even use what it obviously a religious test to determine the main culprits of todays’ world ills, when, as my statistics showed, the most culpable of all, have no fundamental religious belief system at all, short of the religion of atheism.

            As you may be able to see by now, it doesn’t matter whether you want to see the Atheism part of Secularists/Atheists as a religion or not, the largest percentage of the historical atrocities in the world were perpetrated by people who were atheists and/or secularists. And yes, if we get into the current affairs elements, we can revisit whether this remains true or not.

            “That is a given when the word “extremists” is utilized, as it qualifies that it is the extremism of the religious belief that is the root of the issue.” – That’s an assumption that has no substantive support from her assertion as presented. And you and I are both being very literal with how she presented her assertion. So now is not the time to throw in assumptions.

            “They why are you attempting to tie atrocities to atheism?” – as part of proving my point that the relative responsibility of Christians for the historical atrocities, I have shown that there are other criteria that could have been used in attributing such responsibility…namely that the vast majority of the historic atrocities have been perpetrated by known atheists. Is it prejudicial against Atheists that I attribute those tens of millions of deaths to Atheism, just because the perpetrators were, themselves, Atheists? Yes, it is. That’s exactly my point. As her assertion is stated, it becomes incredibly bigoted and prejudicial against anyone with similar religious beliefs as those Muslims and Christians who perpetrated any atrocities. And it becomes highly illogical to do so against Christians because of the relative responsibility of Christians for the historic atrocities. If want to agree with me that her assertion is fundamentally flawed, then we could both agree that the world’s ills are perpetrated by evil people relatively regardless of their religious views…but purely because they are evil. As an example, by most standards, my religious views would be considered extreme Christian. If for no other reason than because I am pro-life and believe that from a religious perspective, homosexuality is a sin. But I would never endorse, let alone perpetrate, for example, violence against abortionist doctors or homosexuals. In fact, I would endorse the indictments of any persons who do.

            Thus, my extreme religious views have done no such harm to the world. And while tens of millions of people have been slaughtered by people with atheistic views of the world, I would, by no means support targeting Atheists for the acts of those people…just because you have the same fundamental beliefs. I wouldn’t even target proclaimed communists because of the acts of some of the major communists in the world. While I might stand in opposition to their views. I wouldn’t even consider stifling their right to have those views, let alone do them harm for having them.

          • acontraryview

            “That she should have included Christianity in that assertion at all.”

            She didn’t include Christianity. She included Christian extremists. To suggest that Christian extremists should not have been included at all, would be saying that that there are no Christians who are attempting to use their religious beliefs as a basis for creating ills in the world. That is simply not true.

            “As I’ve just shown. In fact, the logical fallacy is her including Christians in her assertion at all.”

            See my paragraph above.

            “and am more than ready to argue against ‘current’ world ills being blamed on Christians.”

            Again, not on Christians as a group. Rather, on Christian extremists. So please, show that none of the world’s ills are based upon the views of Christian extremists. You can start with bombings at Planned Parenthood facilities, attacks on Mosques, slaughter of Muslims in the CAR, attempts to deny equal protection under the law to citizens in the US, the suggestion that all Muslims are terrorists, the preaching by some Christian pastors that the government should kill all homosexuals, that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage, America, and are all pedophiles.

            “The secularist government we have become in this country has reversed from being supportive of all religions to being exclusively supportive of atheistic views in the public arenas…as the many articles, including this very article…discuss.”

            Our government hasn’t “become secularist”. Our government was designed to be secular. The Constitution makes that clear in the 1st Amendment.

            How is not favoring one religion over another supporting “atheistic views” in the public arena? Does the public arena include any statues or plaques which say “God does not exist”?

            “The ideal that only the religious viewpoint of the non-existence of god is allowed in our public arena is, by it’s very nature, endorsing the religion of the non-existence of God (atheism).”

            Please cite where the government is endorsing or promoting the idea that a supreme being does not exist.

            What some Christians are upset about is the government, which represents all people of all religions, as well as no religion, is no longer promoting the Christian belief system. They are upset that their religious beliefs are no longer occupying a place of privilege above other beliefs, or non-belief. They are upset that our laws are no longer being based upon their religious beliefs. They are upset that citizens are allowed to do things that are against their religious beliefs. in other words, they are acting like petulant children who are being told they have to share.

            “I already showed this with the very quotes connecting a secularist system of government known as communism and atheism.”

            Our government is secular, yet it is not Communist nor does it promote atheism. Your connection between those things is false.

            “I have shown that there are other criteria that could have been used in attributing such responsibility…namely that the vast majority of the historic atrocities have been perpetrated by known atheists.”

            Yes, but you fail to grasp the difference. The acts of various regimes that presided over atheistic societies were not committed in the name of, nor justified by, their atheism. On the other hand, certain atrocities through history have been committed in the name of, and justified by, religious beliefs – Christian or otherwise.

            “So now is not the time to throw in assumptions.”

            Odd comment from someone who, from the get-go, took her statement and assumed she was talking about historical events, even though she made no such statement.

            “as part of proving my point that the relative responsibility of Christians for the historical atrocities,”

            Which would make sense if she referenced events in the past or made any reference to the relative responsibility of Christian extremists versus extremists from other religions…..but she did not.

            “namely that the vast majority of the historic atrocities have been perpetrated by known atheists.”

            Again, their belief that there is not a supreme being was not a justification for there actions. Therefore, to attempt to tie that lack of belief to their actions is without merit.

            “As an example, by most standards, my religious views would be considered extreme Christian. If for no other reason than because I am pro-life and believe that from a religious perspective, homosexuality is a sin.”

            Talk about a stretch. Virtually all sects of Christianity teach that abortion is wrong and that homosexuality is a sin. Nothing “extreme” about that at all. Rather, very mainstream.

            “Thus, my extreme religious views have done no such harm to the world.”

            Views don’t do harm. People who take certain action using their views as a basis and rational, do harm.

            “And while tens of millions of people have been slaughtered by people with atheistic views of the world”

            Again, those individuals did not use their lack of faith in a supreme being as a basis, or a justification, for their actions.

            “I would, by no means support targeting Atheists for the acts of those people…just because you have the same fundamental beliefs.”

            Which makes complete sense, since the lack of a belief in a supreme being was never used as the justification for their actions.

            “But I would never endorse, let alone perpetrate, for example, violence against abortionist doctors or homosexuals. In fact, I would endorse the indictments of any persons who do.”

            Good on ya for that. I believe that is true for the vast majority of Christians. Unfortunately, there are individuals who commit such acts utilizing their religious beliefs as a basis, and justification for, their actions. You know, the extremists.

            “While I might stand in opposition to their views. I wouldn’t even consider stifling their right to have those views, let alone do them harm for having them.”

            Agreed. Provided, of course, that they do not attempt to impose their views against the will of others.

            We’ve gone round and round on this for probably too long. There was never an assertion that Christians or Muslims, as a group, are responsible for the ills of the world. With that said, there is simply no denying that there are people of every religious group in the world who attempt to utilize their religious beliefs as a rational and justification for actions that cause ill toward others. Some of those people use Christianity as their basis. To suggest that they should not be included in this group is simply not factually accurate.

          • jmichael39

            “She didn’t include Christianity. She included Christian extremists.” – and she did nothing to delineate between ‘extremists’ and any other Christians. Or are you going to us some sort of “no true scotsman” argument to suggest that she can determine the difference between an “extremist” Christian and one who is not? You certainly would not permit me to use that argument to suggest that no real Christian would so what those people did. So how can you suggest the opposite is acceptable. No, she has no justification for trying to delineate, nor do you…or I would be allowed to do the same thing from my perspective. But since she didn’t even make an attempt to delineate between extremist Christians and other Christians, it is only logical to defend against the assertion as presented, because no form of Christians should be included in her assertion at all. And under no condition should Christians of any form be included in an assertion that they represent any high percentage of the evil in the world today.

            “Again, not on Christians as a group. Rather, on Christian extremists” – again, who are you to determine an extremist anything? As soon as you get to call them “extremist” Christians, I can justify rejecting that definition or even declare those people as not even real Christians. This is why the “no real scotsman” argument is commonly rejected as fallacious.

            And if you want to talk in those terms then I can be justified in arguing that a common rejection of God in a single area of life, sexuality, has caused more harm in the world than all those things you tried listing and attributing to your so-called ‘extremist’ Christians. While it is not solely a Judeo-Christian principle, the principle of keeping sex within the confines of marriage is a very strong Christian principle. The general rejection of that principle has caused immense trouble in the world. If sex were kept within the confines of marriage there would be fewer, if any, STDs. There would be less strain on many marriages (since infidelity is a primary cause of divorce). There would be less financial hardship for families with fewer broken marriages and far less money spent on extramarital affairs, divorce, prostitutes, pornography and so on. Kids would grow up less screwed up because it’s a know fact that broken marriages contribute to emotional and mental issues in our kids, including violence. I could go on with just that one issue. Would you like me to go on? Or are you already calling me an extremist because I suggest that sex should be kept within the confines of marriage?

            “Our government is secular, yet it is not Communist” – I didn’t say ours was. Nor did I say that all secularist governments are communist. Did I?

            “Yes, but you fail to grasp the difference. The acts of various regimes that presided over atheistic societies were not committed in the name of, nor justified by, their atheism.” – I get the difference you’re arguing. And it doesn’t matter as to the entire assertion. If she’s going to assert that the majority of the world’s ill are caused by religious “extremists” (however she wishes to define that term), then I’m more than justified in suggesting that far more can attributed to non-religious “extremists” (however I want to define that term)

            “Talk about a stretch.” – you don’t follow Christianity much do you? It has become surprisingly common, even among what would be called fundamentalist Christians, for such things as abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex and such to be accepted practice. And I’m just referring to the notion of forgiving such sins, but outright accepting.

            Again, it has nothing to do with whether the vast majority of atrocities and ills in the world were perpetrated by people who have atheist views or whether some were done by people with Christian views or Muslim views or capitalistic views. That’s my argument against her original assertion. She can’t attribute the vast majority of the world’s ill or historic atrocities to any group, religious or otherwise. I find her assertion to be a form of religions bigotry. Evil is done by evil people…period.

          • acontraryview

            “she did nothing to delineate between ‘extremists’ and any other Christians.”

            She did so with the word “extremists”. If she was referring to all Christians, that modifier would not have been used.

            “because no form of Christians should be included in her assertion at all.”

            So no extremist Christians are responsible for any of the ills in the world?

            “And under no condition should Christians of any form be included in an assertion that they represent any high percentage of the evil in the world today.”

            Nor did she make any such claim. She provided no views on the relative contribution of extremist Christians.

            “I can justify rejecting that definition or even declare those people as not even real Christians.”

            The same could be said for those who are attempting to utilize their faith in Islam to justify their behavior – they aren’t “real” Muslims.

            “Nor did I say that all secularist governments are communist. Did I?”

            You: “I already showed this with the very quotes connecting a secularist system of government known as communism and atheism.”

            “I get the difference you’re arguing.”

            Clearly you do not, as you continue to tie the actions of some people to their lack of faith in a supreme being, when that lack of faith was the reason, or the justification, for their actions, unlike some people who utilize their faith as a reason, and justification, for their actions.

            “While it is not solely a Judeo-Christian principle”

            Then it is not a rejection of the Christian god, is it?

            I’ll ask again:

            So please, show that none of the world’s ills are based upon the views of Christian extremists. You can start with bombings at Planned Parenthood facilities, attacks on Mosques, slaughter of Muslims in the CAR, attempts to deny equal protection under the law to citizens in the US, the suggestion that all Muslims are terrorists, the preaching by some Christian pastors that the government should kill all homosexuals, that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage, America, and are all pedophiles.

            How is not favoring one religion over another supporting “atheistic views” in the public arena? Does the public arena include any statues or plaques which say “God does not exist”?

          • jmichael39

            “that modifier would not have been used.” – and any logician would tell you, an undefined modifier requires either a subjective definition of the modifier by the debate opponent, which literally makes the assertion useless to begin with. Or it requires the elimination of the modifier because of its useless and subjective inclusion.

            This could also be said regarding the assertion that most of the world’s ills are caused by these so-called, and undefined ‘extremists’. For all we know, she could define the very existence of any theistic religion to be an ‘ill’. Because it goes undefined, her assertion becomes even less tenable and impossible to support. Yet here you are trying to support it.

            “So no extremist Christians are responsible for any of the ills in the world?” – in a world of false dichotomies that might be a true statement. But obviously that’s not what i said nor what could logically be implied by what I said. And since this is like the fourth time you and/or others have tried that false dichotomy with me on that specific point, I challenge you to prove otherwise. Or rescind the question.

            “The same could be said for those who are attempting to utilize their faith in Islam to justify their behavior – they aren’t “real” Muslims.” – you’re almost getting it. You’ve actually explained why an undefined modifier is utterly useless in any assertion…and thus why it is must be either discarded completely or they lead to subjective definitions and vain illogical arguments.

            “Clearly you do not, as you continue to tie the actions of some people to their lack of faith in a supreme being,” – Clearly you’re full of yourself thinking that I have to actually agree with you to understand your point. But allow me to quote myself “I get the difference you’re arguing. And it doesn’t matter as to the entire assertion. If she’s going to assert that the majority of the world’s ill are caused by religious “extremists” (however she wishes to define that term), then I’m more than justified in suggesting that far more can attributed to non-religious “extremists” (however I want to define that term)”

            “So please, show that none of the world’s ills are based upon the views of Christian extremists.” – Why would I try to do that? I’ve never made such an assertion and dare you to prove otherwise.

            “How is not favoring one religion over another supporting “atheistic views” in the public arena? Does the public arena include any statues or plaques which say “God does not exist”?”

            1. Most Atheists I encounter (and I will use that caveat), come from the perspective that atheism is not a religion simply because they falsely identify religion as being theistic. The US Courts have soundly rejected that notion. Even several Atheist groups have argued First Amendment protection as a religion.

            2. And probably the reason they argue against it being considered a religion is their insistence that a negative existential world view cannot and does not have to be proven (i.e. – you cannot to be made to prove a negative), which is inherently false since its done in math, science and philosophy all the time.

            3. Most importantly, what is the argument for removing of such plaques? That it violates the first amendment? And yet not a single instance for more than 150+ years in this country ever interpreted the first amendment to mean that there is no place for religious expression in the public arena or on public lands. Why is that? because our Founding Fathers misunderstood the meaning of the First Amendment? Not a chance. Because they were wrong and it needed to be that all religious expression should be removed from the public arena? Perhaps. But where’s the Amendment that corrected this supposed mistake…like the Amendment that corrected the mistake of slavery? If you wanted to remove religious expression from the public arena, you should have used the amendment process in the Constitution. Instead people from your side of this argument merely got activist judges appointed to simply re-interpret the Constitution…a lovely thing if your goal is to re-write the Constitution in some manner not included in the Constitution itself. Interestingly enough it even took activist justices to ultimately do what the authors of the 14th Amendment never intended to be done and that’s to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, which was never the intention of the Founders or the authors of the 14th Amendment…except relating to the Due Process Clause.

          • acontraryview

            The point is that using a modifier clearly indicates that she was not speaking about all Christians. Rather, just certain ones. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to use a modifier.

            “But obviously that’s not what i said nor what could logically be implied by what I said.”

            You: “You don’t like me defending against Christians being included in Jade’s assertion?”

            If no Christians should be included in Jade’s assertion, then you are saying that no Christians are responsible for any of the world’s ills.

            “I challenge you to prove otherwise.”

            I already have: bombings at Planned Parenthood facilities, attacks on Mosques, slaughter of Muslims in the CAR, attempts to deny equal protection under the law to citizens in the US, the suggestion that all Muslims are terrorists, the preaching by some Christian pastors that the government should kill all homosexuals, that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage, America, and are all pedophiles.

            “Why would I try to do that? I’ve never made such an assertion and dare you to prove otherwise.”

            You: “You don’t like me defending against Christians being included in Jade’s assertion?”

            “(i.e. – you cannot to be made to prove a negative), which is inherently false since its done in math, science and philosophy all the time.”

            Examples of how one can prove the assertion that something doesn’t exist?

            “Why is that? because our Founding Fathers misunderstood the meaning of the First Amendment?”

            No. Because the vast majority of the country was Christian and no one challenged the promotion of Christianity by the government nor the privilege that was granted to the Christian faith by the government.

            “Instead people from your side of this argument merely got activist judges appointed to simply re-interpret the Constitution.”

            What makes a judge “activist”? Are they “activist’ when they disagree with your views, but no “activist” when they agree?

            “which was never the intention of the Founders or the authors of the 14th Amendment…except relating to the Due Process Clause.”

            So you don’t think the authors of the 14th amendment supported equal treatment under the law based upon the protections provided by the Federal Constitution? What would be the purpose of due process if no such protection were provided? Why would they include equal protection under the law if they did not want it to be part of the amendment?

            “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Seems to be a lot more in there than simply due process, wouldn’t you say?

          • jmichael39

            “If no Christians should be included in Jade’s assertion, then you are saying that no Christians are responsible for any of the world’s ills.”

            Are you having trouble with simple logic? Her assertion is that they should be included in with those whom she is accusing of being responsible for ‘most’ of the world’s ills. There is nothing in defending against including Christians in that assertion that precludes them from being responsible for -some- such ills. Seriously, you honestly need to take a course on basic logic.

            “I already have” – no, you’ve proven that some Christians have been guilty of some atrocities. You didn’t prove that they belong in the category of being accused of being guilty of “most” of the world’s ills. Try again. This logic this is stumping you a bit, isn’t it?

            “Examples of how one can prove the assertion that something doesn’t exist?” – In math you prove a negative by proving the contra-positive. Do you know what that is? If not, I’ll explain. The same concept occurs in science too.

            The sad part about Atheists’ arguments is that you have no direction to go with it. As with any existential question, you think it necessary to try to argue it from a scientific viewpoint. You feel it necessary to seek physical evidence for a metaphysical question. You assume that the only truths in the universe must be observable to our physical senses. And summarily reject non-physical evidence as insufficient to answer that existential question. Or worse yet, you assume you own physical inefficiencies are sufficient to prove that something doesn’t exist.

            What do I mean? The only way you prove that God does not exist is for you to be in every location in the universal at all times and demand that a metaphysical being reveal itself within the confines of your limited physical abilities to observe that metaphysical being. Because you are wholly inefficient at being everywhere at all times and your physical senses are completely incapable of observing metaphysical realities unless those metaphysical realities interact in the physical universe, you think that’s sufficient to make the assertion…and it is an assertion…that there is no god. If you had a rational bone in your body you would merely assert that there is not sufficient evidence for you to accept that there is a god.

            “What makes a judge “activist”?” – that’s easy. And I will show you by example. The Dred Scott decision was actually good jurisprudence with relation to how the Constitution was written at the time. An activist judge would merely decide that what the Constitution says doesn’t matter, what he feels is right matters. The right way to deal with the flaw in Constitution and the Dred Scott decision is the way it actually happened, through a Constitutional Amendment.

            Activists judges don’t care that the Founders made no effort whatsoever to restrict religious expression in the public arena and on public lands. They just decide that, in their mind, it is how it should be and so they rewrite the Constitution from the bench to suit their Oh and just so you don’t get into a liberal vs conservative debate here, I don’t care what the political leaning is of the justice/judge. Legislating from the bench is wrong and unconstitutional. And you don’t think this is the case, take a closer look next time at the senate hearings on the next SC Justice. It’s all about whether the candidate is an originalist or whether they have the “living constitution” viewpoint.

            “Seems to be a lot more in there than simply due process, wouldn’t you say?” – here it’s easy.

            Did the Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment (June 13, 1866) or the states that ratified it (July 9, 1868) intend that the Amendment incorporate, in whole or in part, the Bill of Rights? It is a telling indictment of the incorporation doctrine that nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about incorporating any part of the Bill of Rights. The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here. In writing about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, Marshall clearly explains why such was not the case:

            Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

            It is inconceivable that if such a thing took place that such a significant doctrine as incorporation would be so veiled that it would take years before some Supreme Court judge discovered that there was such a thing.

            We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution refers to the states it clearly says so. For example, it says in Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” That this only applies to the federal government is evident because in the next section it prohibits states from passing “any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto law.”

            This view of the Constitution prevailed even after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1875, which was several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed in the House of Representatives by James G. Blaine, the speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875. Known as the Blaine Amendment, it reads:

            “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

            The Blaine Amendment passed in the House but not in the Senate so it was never sent to the states for ratification. The purpose of the amendment — to keep Catholic schools from receiving state funds — is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opening phrase, which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:

            No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

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

            The wording of Blaine Amendment shows that the Congress at the time did not consider the First Amendment to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that bulwark of the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment — was not incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment, then neither was the Fifth Amendment or any of the others in the Bill of Rights. And such was the case until late into the nineteenth century.

            It wasn’t until activist judges decided to rewrite the Constitution in a way the Blaine Amendment could not that the Bill of Rights began to be incorporated into the 14th Amendment to the states.

          • acontraryview

            “Are you having trouble with simple logic?”

            No, but apparently you are. If no Christians should be included in Jade’s assertion, then you are saying that there are no Christians who are responsible for any of the world’s ills. That logic is sound.

            “There is nothing in defending against including Christians in that assertion that precludes them from being responsible for -some- such ills.’

            By suggesting that they should not be included at all, you are saying that they have no involvement in any of the world’s ills. Seriously, you need to take a course on basic logic.

            “no, you’ve proven that some Christians have been guilty of some atrocities.”

            Then it would be illogical to say that they should not be included in a comment about being involved in the world’s ills. Logic is stumping you a bit, isn’t it?

            “In math you prove a negative by proving the contra-positive.”

            That would be proving a contra-positive, not proving a negative. Do you have an actual example of that you could cite so we can determine if it was the contra-positive that was proven, or the negative that was proven?

            “The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here.”

            So you are suggesting that subsequent judicial rulings should simply be ignored? If that is the case, then what purpose would there be to bringing issues before the court that have already been reviewed by the court?

            “which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:

            No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            That phrase is not in the 1st Amendment.

            “And such was the case until late into the nineteenth century.”

            And then it changed. I suppose you would desire us to return to the nineteenth century regarding all of our laws and constitutional interpretations, yes?

            “It wasn’t until activist judges decided to rewrite the Constitution”

            Please cite one edit to the Constitution that was made by the judiciary.

          • jmichael39

            “No, but apparently you are. If no Christians should be included in Jade’s assertion, then you are saying that there are no Christians who are responsible for any of the world’s ills. That logic is sound.” – Baloney. If she were saying that Christians should be included in an assertion that suggested they were party to “some” of the ills of the world…your logic would be fine. But I’ve clearly shown that for whatever amount evil has been perpetrated on the world by Christians, it is not even remotely enough to included in an assertion using the word “MOST”. So again, you’re wrong.

            “By suggesting that they should not be included at all,” – what “all”? She used the word “MOST”. Big difference. Sooner or later you’ll figure this out.

            “Then it would be illogical to say that they should not be included in a comment about being involved in the world’s ills. Logic is stumping you a bit, isn’t it?” – not in the least. But reading comprehension seems to be putting you at a disadvantage. She used the word “MOST”. But keep trying. You’re bordering on foolish now.

            “That would be proving a contra-positive, not proving a negative.” – since you seem to be having trouble understanding the English language (“most” does not equal “all”), let’s make sure we’re speaking the same language here. If Green Then Grass, what’s the ‘negative’ or “contra-positive” of that to you? Then we’ll continue on this.

            “So you are suggesting that subsequent judicial rulings should simply be ignored? If that is the case, then what purpose would there be to bringing issues before the court that have already been reviewed by the court?” – There are two questions here. The answer to the first one is yes. Unless and until there is an amendment to the Constitution that makes priors rulings on a specific issue moot, justices have constitutional authority to rule differently on the exact same issue unless they are specifically choosing to overturn a prior ruling as constitutionally incorrect. But that is utterly and completely rare in SCOTUS history. What typically happens is that a new case comes to the Court that is similar but different in regards to the questions before the Court. And in ruling on that case, the Court decision will include sections that address other issues not directly at question in an effort to explain the rational for the decision on the questions at hand. Those supporting statements rarely fully address those particular issues, except as far as is necessary to address the actual questions before the Court.

            The birther issue is a good example. The birthers pull out Minor v Happerset, where Justice Waite wrote, in addressing the questions before the Court, that as far as was pertinent to the case before them, anyone born of citizen parents (plural) were considered Natural Born Citizens. He suggested there was room for debate on other types, but he didn’t need to get into that in this case. And people from both sides of the birther issue take Waite’s statement out of context to mean completely different things. The birthers take it to mean that only those born to two citizen parents are natural born citizens.. But Waite didn’t said others didn’t qualify as NBC, only that there was debate about that. And the anti-birthers take Waite’s comments to mean there are others who qualify as NBC. Though Waite never said that either.

            The point being that when looking at any case before any court, first make sure you know the actual questions before the court. And second, make sure you understand the context from which all other parts of the ruling are made.

            “That phrase is not in the 1st Amendment.” – exactly. So why would you think that the first amendment even applies to the states whatsoever? You only think that it does because we’ve been conditioned to believe the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states. When the evidence I’ve shown previous indicates that is NOT what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended. So if they didn’t intend that, what has changed to make it so it -is- incorporated to the states? Nothing except the desire of some other judges/justices to re-write what those authors wrote from the bench. And my entire argument here is that no such rewriting of the Constitution is authorized anywhere.

            “And then it changed. I suppose you would desire us to return to the nineteenth century regarding all of our laws and constitutional interpretations, yes?” – why is that even a question? You make it sound like the people who interpreted the Constitution in those days were imbecilic, treasonous, morons who had no clue about life and that somehow interpreting the Constitution to mean something other that what it was intended to mean is actually smart. If all we have to do to rewrite the Constitution is to merely re-interpret it despite the original intent of the drafters, they why even have a Constitution? Why not just let Congress re-write us a new one every two years? Or let the judges just rule however they think best regardless of what the Constitution says? Better yet, let’s just give the media that power. They can just tell us all what our laws should be and to hell with what was written when our country was founded? Good enough for you?

            “Please cite one edit to the Constitution that was made by the judiciary” – every case that forced the incorporating of various parts of the Bill of Rights to the states…in direct contrast to the original intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment…as I’ve already shown…is a direct re-writing of the Constitution. There is, for example, NOTHING in the Constitution which compels states to make no laws respecting any particular religion. Yet people like you, because of SCOTUS cases, argue that the first amendment does apply to the states. Why does it apply? Not because the authors of the 14th Amendment or the original framers intended it to. But because activist justices decided it should. THAT is a re-writing of the Constitution.

            Even the recent gay marriage ruling was another incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto the states by way of the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does the US Constitution give authority to the Federal Government to make laws regarding marriage. That has always been an issue for the states to decide. As has abortion. I’m not saying, by any means, that gays should not be allowed to marry. I’m saying, it has always been with in the purview of the states to decide such things…not the federal government. Without a constitutional amendment granting them such authority, the SCOTUS has re-written the Constitution to grant the federal government that authority. Should the federal government have that authority? Perhaps so. But it would require a Constitutional Amendment to give it to them. But instead our courts have decided to rewrite the Constitution by simply giving the federal government such authority when no such authority existed before. Just because you agree with the results of the ruling, doesn’t make the ruling constitutional.

            The same thing happened when the SCOTUS decided that it didn’t matter what the actually Obamacare law says or even what it’s architect openly said it’s intent was. The Court decided that the law -should- read that all persons buying obamacare, whether on the national exchange or the state exchanges, should be given subsidies. Should they all be given subsidies, no matter which exchange? I have no problem with that. What I -do- have problem with is the Court decided that they have the authority to literally re-write the written law of Congress into what they think is best, bypassing Congress…bypassing the separation of powers clause of the Constitution and thus re-writing the Constitution by judicial decision. Again it doesn’t matter whether you like the results of the court case or not.

            You want me to continue? The entire 4th and 5th Amendments have been slowly, and almost entirely, rewritten to mean something different than originally intended, all by judicial decree, not by the Amendment process.

            Why do you think there have been so few attempts to try to amend the Constitution in the past 30 years. And even the attempts made were never seriously pursued? Because those with the power understand they don’t have to amend the Constitution in order to change it…they merely have to win elections and appoint judges who’ll re-interpret the Constitution in the manner they want. And sadly, people like you are actually content with that.

          • acontraryview

            “Baloney”

            Let’s make this easier. Please cite where she said that extremist Christians are responsible for the majority of the world’s ills.

            “If Green Then Grass, what’s the ‘negative’ or “contra-positive” of that to you?”

            The statement on it’s own is false. Grass is not necessarily green.

            So you can cite no edits to the Constitution. Got it. Thanks

            “Nowhere does the US Constitution give authority to the Federal Government to make laws regarding marriage.”

            Nor has the Federal Government done so.

            “I’m saying, it has always been with in the purview of the states to decide such things…not the federal government.”

            It still is. But the states are not allowed to do so in a manner which infringes upon equal treatment under the law unless the state can provide rational and compelling reasons for doing so.

            If the federal judiciary were not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

          • jmichael39

            “Please cite where she said that extremist Christians are responsible for the majority of the world’s ills.” — just to be perfectly clear, I said, on multiple occasions, “MOST”…

            “we are seeing that religious extremism (Islamic and Christian) is responsible for MOST of the world’s problems.” – emphasis added

            CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

            “So you can cite no edits to the Constitution. Got it. Thanks” – oh I see. You actually want the SCOTUS to actually amend the Constitution, not merely ignore what it says and apply it in ways it was never intended to be applied. Gotcha. In other words, you have no rebuttal. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • acontraryview

            Most:

            1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number:

            2. in the majority of instances

            CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

            “we are seeing that religious extremism (Islamic and Christian) is responsible for MOST of the world’s problems.”

            She cited two groups as being responsible and assigned no relative level of blame. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that she assigned most of the blame to Christian religious extremists.

            “You actually want the SCOTUS to actually amend the Constitution,”

            No. Amending the Constitution should be done through the appropriate process.

            You: “…so they rewrite the Constitution” If the content of the Constitution has not been changed, then it has not been rewritten. You provided no proof that the Constitution has been edited by the judiciary, nor has it been, therefore your claim that the judiciary has rewritten the Constitution is false.

            “In other words, you have no rebuttal.”

            I provided several rebuttals in my reply. What are you suggesting that I have no rebuttal for?

          • jmichael39

            “She cited two groups as being responsible and assigned no relative level of blame. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that she assigned most of the blame to Christian religious extremists.”

            Who cares? Even -if- she could successfully argue that those two groups of religious extremists account for ‘most’ of the world’s ills, the evidence presented thus far affords no logical reason for including Christian extremist in that group. Their inclusion is, as I said earlier, akin to saying Eric Davis and Barry Bonds hit the most HRs for the 2002 SF Giants. Davis’ inclusion in that assertion is a logical absurdity. Just as including Christians in the original assertion here is an absurdity.

            Why would she assert that the majority of the world’s ills have been caused by any group of religious extremists -at all-, let alone include Christian extremists in her assertion. As I’ve clearly shown, the vast majority of the atrocities committed in this world have been and are committed by people of have no connection to Christianity at all. There is no more logic to her assertion than I asserted that most of the world’s ills are caused by men (since most have been caused by men), or by white people (because they have been), or by people who generally reject God, or by people with dark hair. At least all those statements are arguably true. Her assertion is absurd on its surface.

            It fails to define who these ‘extremists’ are. The two groups referenced arguably don’t even represent the majority of the world’s ills. She doesn’t define “ills”. It is, in reality, an indefensible assertion on every point and yet here you are trying to defend it. I wonder why.

            As for your supposed ‘rebuttal’…what rebuttal? All you did was re-up your obscene claim that somehow our courts can simply change what our Constitution means by simply writing an opinion…no matter what centuries of precedence might otherwise show.

            In U.S. v. Windsor (the 2013 SCOTUS decision that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act), the five majority justices EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO
            JURISDICTION OVER MARRIAGE LAWS. Here are a few excerpts from that opinion:

            “Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

            “Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.”

            “The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”

            “The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”

            “Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State.”

            “Federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”

            Those are not my words. Those are the words of the same five Supreme Court justices that just ignored their own words when they ruled opposite that position by deciding that same-sex marriage was a fundamental Constitutional right of all Americans, and that the federal courts could force all states to recognize that as a right.

            And yet, here they are with the Obergefell case, these same justices, deciding that now, somehow, they are compelled to abandon their own precedence and make the defining of a marriage no long a state matter, but a federal one. Judicial activism at its best.

            Have a nice life.

          • acontraryview

            “Who cares?”

            Given that her statement has been central to our discussion, I should think that you would care. But since it is clear that her statement does not support your narrative that she blamed most of the world’s ills on extremist Christians perhaps that is why you don’t care.

            “the evidence presented thus far affords no logical reason for including Christian extremist in that group.”

            Then how do you explain bombings at Planned Parenthood facilities, attacks on Mosques, slaughter of Muslims in the CAR, attempts to deny equal protection under the law to citizens in the US, the suggestion that all Muslims are terrorists, the preaching by some Christian pastors that the government should kill all homosexuals, that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage, America, and are all pedophiles?

            “As I’ve clearly shown, the vast majority of the atrocities committed in this world have been”

            She was not talking about the past. Therefore the inclusion of “have been” is irrelevant to the discussion.

            “I asserted that most of the world’s ills are caused by men (since most have been caused by men), or by white people (because they have been), or by people who generally reject God, or by people with dark hair.”

            With the exception of race, apples and oranges. People have most certainly used their religious beliefs, and race, as a rationale for their actions. Has anyone ever used their gender, lack of faith in God, or hair color as a rationale for their actions? No, they haven’t. Your inclusion of those items is absurd.

            “EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NOJURISDICTION OVER MARRIAGE LAWS.”

            Please cite where in the ruling on Windsor the phrase “the federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage laws’ appears.

            The Federal Government has issued no laws regarding marriage.

            Windsor dealt with whether or not the Federal government could deny Federal recognition to couples who were legally married based solely upon the genders of the couple. Windsor did not address the legality of state marriage laws.

            “Federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”

            Unfortunate that you did not include the entire quote, but of course that would not have fit your narrative. Here’s the entire quote:

            “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”

            “Supreme Court justices that just ignored their own words when they ruled opposite that position”

            Perhaps you missed this part of the Windsor ruling:

            “State laws regulating and defining marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional right of persons, see e.g. Loving v Virginia…..”.

            This clearly says that any state laws regarding marriage must not conflict with protections provided by the Federal Constitution. Matters of federal constitutionality of state laws are for the Federal Judiciary to decide. In this statement, the Court clearly shows that it has jurisdiction when it comes to determining if state marriage violate the protections provided by the Federal Constitution. Thus, your statement that “the five majority justices EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER MARRIAGE LAWS.” is false.

            “make the defining of a marriage no long a state matter, but a federal one.”

            There is no federal definition of marriage.

            “Have a nice life”

            Thank you. You as well.

          • happy diwali

            We don’t need to learn history from Christians because they are known for distorting history to suit their agenda. Everyone knows Hitler was a devout Christian and he wanted to teach Jews a lesson for killing the false prophet.

          • jmichael39

            “everyone knows” – I’ve provided quotes from his own words. Refute them. Prove they weren’t his. Otherwise, you’re little more than opining based upon your own distorted views of history.

          • happy diwali

            We all know the Christian habit of lying and distorting history. Millions and millions were killed in Christian Inquisitions of the New World and that figure doesn’t even include the ones killed in Africa. Also your terrorist brethren pray for collapse of Buddhist temples in Korea. A Terrorist Christian CM in India was on Hindu temples demolition drive and by God’s grace he died. Thank the Lord. You wanna learn more about acts of Christian terrorism. The only difference between Islamic and Christian terrorism is Islamic one is out and open while Christian one which is more dangerous is hidden.

          • jmichael39

            Check your history again. Less than 2500 were killed during the Spanish Inquisition. Which ones killed in Africa? Show us? And do try to compare them to the tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes like Stalin, Mao and others (info already presented earlier…try to keep up…)

        • happy diwali

          Search “gay man stoned to death in Jamaica” or “suspected witch burnt aline in Africa by LOVING Christians” and you will find tons of such things. Current western culture and value DO NOT in any way represent Christianity.

          • jmichael39

            Dude, I never said there weren’t evil people doing evil things in the name of Christ. If you actually paid attention to the thread, instead of just jumping in anger first, you’d realize that the assertion which I refuted was that Christian Extremists do more harm in the world than all others. I’ve shown the figures that secular/atheistic people have done far more harm to this world than all the christians combined. Your lynching here and burning there, while evil and despicable, do not compare to the tens of millions killed by secular/atheistic people. You don’t like Christians. I get it. But save your anger for someone who doesn’t know the facts that you’re conveniently denying.

        • Reason2012

          Exactly Over 57 MILLION sons/daughters have been slain by their very own parents in the past few decades alone in the name of “I don’t REALLY believe in God” – the religion of “there is no God” is bringing us to the darkest ages of the human race.

          When I used to not believe I never spent a moment of my time on the topic. These atheists seem to be driven by an intense hatred about something they claim not to believe in, even willing to hatefully attack a couple who has their child_killed.

  • brucefl56

    I think it looks good where it is, they could of talked to them then had a meeting. I see no problem where it is. We have benches all over our public park that were donated in memory or given by businesses with names on them.

    • SavannahSummer

      It’s truly not about where it is….it has a Biblical verse on it so that’s why they moved it. Every dog has their day and folks like those that seek to remove God from everything will have theirs. The tables will be turned because it will be them that will be removed once and for all.

      • jmichael39

        Some of the most important monuments, buildings, and landmarks in Washington, D.C., include religious words, symbols, and imagery. In the United States Capitol the declaration “In God We Trust” is prominently displayed in both the United States House and Senate Chambers.

        Around the top of the walls in the House Chamber appear images of 23 great lawgivers from across the centuries, but Moses (the lawgiver, who– according to the Bible – originally received the law of God,) is the only lawgiver honored with a full face view, looking down on the proceedings of the House.

        Religious artwork is found throughout the United States Capitol, including in the Rotunda where the prayer service of Christopher Columbus, the Baptism of Pocahontas, and the prayer and Bible study of the Pilgrims are all prominently displayed; in the Cox Corridor of the Capitol where the words “America! God shed His grace on thee” are inscribed; at the east Senate entrance with the words “Annuit Coeptis” – Latin for “God has favored our undertakings”; and in numerous other locations.

        Images of the Ten Commandments are found in many federal buildings across Washington, D. C., including in bronze in the floor of the National Archives; in a bronze statue of Moses in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress; in numerous locations at the U. S. Supreme Court, including in the frieze above the Justices, the oak door at the rear of the Chamber, the gable apex, and in dozens of locations on the bronze latticework surrounding the Supreme Court Bar seating.
        Want me to go on?

        This country was founded with strong ties to our Christian heritage. You don’t like it? Don’t sit on the bench. No one wants you to catch any cooties.

        • SavannahSummer

          What are you talking about dude?

          • jmichael39

            I’m talking about the reality that there are scriptures verses and biblical references on most historic government buildings in this country…so spare us your disdain for putting such a verse on a silly bench.

          • SavannahSummer

            And I’m happy that those still exist however even if they didn’t my God and my Saviour exists and that’s all that matters. You non-believers can NEVER take that away.

          • SavannahSummer

            Are you that stupid to NOT see what I was actually saying in my comment? I am NOT for anyone removing that bench nor am I against having a Biblical verse engraved on it. I was SIMPLY saying that it wasn’t WHERE that bench was sitting but WHAT was engraved on it was the reason those folks wanted it removed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that.

          • jmichael39

            Grow up Savannah…and while you’re at it, figure out how to properly use the English language.

          • SavannahSummer

            Why don’t you just die already you jackass.

  • 201821208_456512019 :)

    “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” Psalm 14:1
    ​”​The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they” Psalm 53:1
    “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” John 8:47
    “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” John 20:29

    • happy diwali

      Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

      If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

      You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

  • Richard Cranium

    Not such thing as “permission” when you are talking about the government. You get it in writing or it doesn’t work sorry

  • happy diwali

    “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21

  • peanut butter

    This overt disdain for the religion that has been with this nation since it’s foundation is getting intolerable.

  • Mike Crognale

    Where’s the paperwork?