Texas City to Sue Church in Battle Over Land Where ‘Jesus’ Sign Is Displayed

HawkinsHAWKINS, Texas — Officials in a Texas city have voted to sue a local church over land that it purchased to help protect a “Jesus” sign from being removed following a complaint from a prominent professing atheist organization.

As previously reported, the situation centers around a sign in Hawkins, Texas that reads, “Jesus welcomes you to Hawkins,” which first came under fire from the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) this past June. The atheist organization sent a letter to city officials asserting that the sign runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for the City of Hawkins to display the sign … because it conveys both a government preference for religion over nonreligion, and prefers Christianity over other religions,” the letter, written by attorney Sam Grover, read.

Mayor Will Rogers rebuffed FFRF’s demands for removal of the sign.

“They (FFRF) scare you into believing there’s a boogie man, and we’re going to get you,” he told Raw Story. “They want God and Jesus out of our life. I mean that’s what the bottom line is.”

Rogers said that the sign was the idea of private citizens—including himself as he was not an elected official at the time—and was privately paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, although it was approved by city council.

In August, the city attorney reviewed the situation and concluded that the sign sat on private property belonging to Crowley Funeral Home. However, as independent contractors contrarily determined that the sign is on public property, city council voted in September to remove the sign.

  • Connect with Christian News

But doubt still remained that the property is public, and Jesus Christ Open Altar Church bought the land from the funeral home in October.

“In no case is the tract owned by the city of Hawkins and no part of the street is owned by the city of Hawkins,” church trustee Mark McDonald told local television station KYTX.

Reports state the the church cordoned the sign off with tape and had members surrounding it at all hours to prevent the sign from being removed by the city.

Now, the Hawkins’ City Council has voted to sue Jesus Christ Open Altar Church over the matter, as well as Crowley Funeral Home, which it contends did not have rights to sell the land. City Attorney Alvin Flynn told the Tyler Morning Telegraph that the city is suing the church to prevent a lawsuit from FFRF.

“If we didn’t do anything, we’re still subject to being sued by the [Freedom From Religion Foundation] … because we are the ones that allowed that sign to be placed on the street in 2011 …” Flynn stated. “I’m trying to protect my client from further litigation.”

Mayor Rogers disagrees with the decision to sue the church.

“These people bought this property,” he told reporters. “They paid for it. I see a deed, and that’s what I have to go by as the mayor.”


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
  • gizmo23

    I don’t understand this article. If is it is on private land what is the problem?

    • acontraryview

      “However, as independent contractors contrarily determined that the sign is on public property, city council voted in September to remove the sign.”

    • BarkingDawg

      It’s probably not on private land.

      I suspect that the former city attorney may wind up facing a discipline hearing before the state bar before this is all over.

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        Troll baits troll.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Perhaps you too should read the whole article before commenting.

      • gizmo23

        Never!

  • Oshtur

    Sounds like the true ownership of the land is in doubt. We had similar situations here about waterfront access – the property owners had a deed but turned out the person selling the land didn’t have the authority the sell, nor the person who sold to them.

    They’ll figure it out.

  • Mr. Avatar

    The supreme court has been the problem all along. Instead of going by the 1st amendment they went out side the exact wording and decided a letter was more important. They screwed the Church and should be sued.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      In what forum would you sue the Supreme Court?

      • afchief

        Impeach judges who do not understand what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
        MEANS!!!!

        Even my 12 year old KNOWS what this means!!!!!!

  • acontraryview

    If it’s on public land, then it’s got to go.

    • Robert Taylor

      Perhaps you should read the whole article before commenting as the sign is on private land now. If this even makes it into court, which I doubt, once the judge sees the deed that it is private property, he will throw the lawsuit out.
      Then those ungodly FFRF people won’t have a leg to stand on.

      • acontraryview

        “However, as independent contractors contrarily determined that the sign is on public property, city council voted in September to remove the sign.”

        “which it contends did not have rights to sell the land.”

        If you don’t have the right to sell a piece of property, the deed is meaningless.

        Perhaps you should read the whole article before commenting.

      • BarkingDawg

        Was there a legal transfer of the public land to private ownership?

        • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

          Perhaps you should read the whole article before commenting.

          • BarkingDawg

            I did. Apparently the city considered it public land until the FFRF threatened to sue, then they “magically” discovered that it was private land.

            I’m tending to believe that the third party evaluation that it is city land is correct.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            So you believe you know the answer to your question, but you asked it anyhow. I am tending to believe that you don’t know anything at all. Apparently.

          • BarkingDawg

            The question is up for legal review. I have my opinion, but the courts will make the ultimate decision.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            You may be unaware that this article is not about you. Your private opinions and the ineffectual process by which you form them may well be fascinating reading, but you may wish to find a forum in which such material is appropriate. (And courts, by the way, make interim decisions: ultimate decisions are made by God.)

          • BarkingDawg

            My goodness, but you are a pedantic smit.

    • The Last Trump

      By the way, Christian website stalking trolls….
      JESUS WELCOMES YOU TO THE CHRISTIAN NEWS NETWORK!
      Sue that.:)

      • Theresa Easley

        I know. Isn’t it funny and pathetic how they feel the need to stalk and harass the people on Christian sites?

        • acontraryview

          In the content of my post, who did I stalk and in what way did I harass them?

          • lizk

            Christians do not ask others to take down their signs In the end it is Jesus who judges us. We are all accountable. Jesus defeated the devil when he walked the earth. He will come back as King of kings and Lord of lords.

      • acontraryview

        How in the world is it that you feel empowered to speak on behalf of Jesus? Quite the ego you have there, Trump.

        • Josey

          Jesus uses His people on the earth as His spokes people, not not all speak for Christ and if they do what they say always lines up with Christ’s character and with the word of God, the Bible. We who belong to Christ whether you like it or not are Christ’s ambassadors on this earth and one day according to His word we will judge with Him during the thousand years after the tribulation and judge. Paul the apostle speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 6 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

        • The Last Trump

          Ego?! Huh?
          All you need to do is read the Bible bud.
          It’s all in there.
          (There are even online versions if you’d like to take a quick break every once in a while from trolling, yes?)
          As it turns out, Jesus is quite the welcoming kind.
          Which is why you tend to see so many representations of Him with outstretched arms. (My very own profile pic included!)
          Seek ye the Man with outstretched arms, my angry little Christian website stalking friend! Say no to anger. Say no to hate.
          And let Jesus welcome YOU, too!

          • acontraryview

            I’m quite familiar with the Bible. While Jesus encouraged his followers to spread the Gospel, I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said that his followers are allowed to speak on his behalf. Perhaps you could direct me to that passage.

            “Say no to anger. Say no to hate.”

            Advice which you apparently have failed to heed.

    • afchief

      More lies!!! Show me where public land = congress in the 1st amendment?

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

      Waiting……………………………………

      • Ambulance Chaser

        I would quote Supreme Court Precedent, but you wouldn’t accept thst, despite the fact that I showed you three law professors and a Christian legal society’s publication proving you wrong.

        • afchief

          You have proved absolutely nothing!!! I mean NOTHING!!! I have shown you in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has NO authority to strike down laws. I have shown you the founders intent of the SCOTUS and it’s role. I have shown you past presidents and their dismissal of SCOTUS opinions. I have shown you where Congress (whether federal, state or local) is the only body to make, change or remove laws (besides a direct vote of the people).

          And you CALL yourself a lawyer and do not know these simple truths.
          ???? Like I said that law degree you have should be used for your dog to take a dump on. It is worth that little!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, is it your contention that “real” lawyers go about their business NOT on the premise that court rulings are binding?

            You should introduce me to one.

          • afchief

            Then Mr. “Make believe Lawyer” show me the law!!!! Show me where laws have been removed by the SCOTUS. For example show me the state Constitution that has removed the ban on homo marriage.

            SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’ve shown you plenty. Now it’s your turn. Show me a single lawyer who thinks that court precedent is not binding.

          • afchief

            You have shown me NOTHING!!!! This is why liberalism is such a mental disorder!!! You believe lies!!! We have all been programmed with cleverly crafted lies and propaganda. It has often been stated that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Look at the phrase “separation of church and state”. A lie nowhere found in the Constitution. A lie that was built upon a lie in the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion.

            Like I said an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws. Courts do not change laws. And Courts do not remove laws.

            You are just repeating lies!!! Read the history of our Founders and there intent of the SCOTUS. I have posted why the Founders believed the SCOTUS should have “little” power. Why their decisions are only opinions. Why the Legislative and Executive branch have to agree to change, make or remove laws.

            Study to show yourself approved!!! Because up to now, you have NOT!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you going to answer my question or not?

            Do “real” lawyers practice based on the premise that court precedent is not binding?

            YES OR NO?

          • afchief

            I just answered your question above! Read!!!

      • acontraryview

        Once again you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the 1st Amendment contains the entirety of restrictions on the expression of religious belief. It does not. There are a multitude of legal rulings which clearly state that no government entity is allowed to use public property to endorse or promote any particular religious belief. You really should educate yourself.

        • afchief

          Congress = public buildings?!?!?!

          Did I not say liberalism and homosexuality are a mental disorder? I sure did and this is more proof!!!

          LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            No where did I say that Congress equals a public building. I’m assuming you must be laughing at your on absurdity.

  • BarkingDawg

    I suspect that there was a bit of fudging by someone to determine that the sign was on private land.

    • The Last Trump

      Of course you do.
      Surprise surprise.

      • BarkingDawg

        Why would the city erect a sign on land that they didn’t own?

  • Theresa Easley

    Funny how the FFRF are afraid of someone (God) whom they claim doesn’t exist. I think poor little Mikey Whinestein will lose this one.

    • Frank Dorka

      FFRF is not afraid of fantasy. We are an organization with the mission to keep religion out of government. Understand a little better now?
      (P.S. We rarely lose. Why? The law is on our side. Don’t like it? CHANGE THE LAW!)

  • Oboehner

    Way to go FFRF, suing cities and taking the tax money away from the citizenry and their families!!

    • Frank Dorka

      They broke the law, they shall pay. Sorry. Atheists are taxpayers, too. So are Jews, Muslims, etc. GET IT?

      • Oboehner

        I’m quite sure that sign caused a lot of pain, but I guess the MINORITY of whiney “taxpayers” from out of state (Wisconsin) have more rights than the majority who want the sign, got it. As far as the legality, that’s yet to be determined.

        • Frank Dorka

          FFRF has members from every state, even yours. The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution protect the rights of the individual over those of a tyrannical majority, didn’t you know? As far as the legality, FFRF wins most every case they bring. Why? The law is on their side, that’s why.

          • Oboehner

            One has to wonder what their psychotic obsession is with certain religions, and why some get a pass. One also has to wonder why the majority doesn’t have any such protections.

          • Frank Dorka

            FFRF is like David from the book, remember. We pick our battles with the biggest offenders. Right now, it’s the Christian tyrannists. Who do you think we should go after? Those that mind their own business?

          • Oboehner

            How about a religion being taught in our schools? Is that “Goliath” enough? But I suppose the atheistic “tyrannists” like it because it’s their religion.

          • Frank Dorka

            First, I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The point is no religion should influence public school agenda. Second, atheism is as much a religion as abstinence is a sexual position. Non-religion is not a faith, okay?

          • Oboehner

            Atheism is a belief there is no God, which cannot be proven and influences their lives and world view – hence a religious belief held to with ardor and faith.
            Secular humanism is a religion as well as evolution.

          • Frank Dorka

            Religion is a belief that there are gods, some have more than others, which cannot be proven and influences their lives and world view – hence a religious belief held to without fact, reason, evidence or even reliable hearsay. I guess “god” can be whatever you want it to be, and that will be fine with you? Just as long as someone believes in something, then religion is just fine and dandy. Face it, the whole world is in the mess it is now due to outdated beliefs and obstinate believers. Believing in a higher being is the only reason for religion. Oh, and Justin Bieber, of course.

          • Oboehner

            Religion doesn’t have to involve a deity, merely a belief system in something un-provable or intangible that influences ones decision making. Such as believing there is no deity.

            “I guess “god” can be whatever you want it to be” That said, why are so many religions given a pass, sounds like an unhealthy obsession.

          • Frank Dorka

            I disagree. Can you show me where any educated person on the subject (other than yourself) has stated such about religion being just an intangible concept.
            If I were to tell you that you had a mushroom growing from your head without offering any fact, reason, proof, evidence or anything to back up my assumption, then that is a religion?
            Plus you would believe me on the same basis that you have faith in a god. Because someone told you, right?

          • Oboehner

            religion
            noun re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən
            an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
            a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
            a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
            – Merriam-Webster
            I wouldn’t have to necessarily believe you (or whomever), I would just need to have a life experience to bring me to a belief.

          • Frank Dorka

            And I had plenty of life experiences that brought me to my disbelief. I simply rely on knowing rather than believing.

          • Oboehner

            Not true, you have faith that God doesn’t exist for starters.

          • Frank Dorka

            Personally, I KNOW it does not exist. That’s enough on that. Did you say you were going to show others that agree with you and you are not all alone in your “theories”? That would go a long way with me where you have failed, okay?

          • Oboehner

            You can prove that God doesn’t exist? Do tell.
            Popular opinion is some kind of proof that something is true? Now that’s a fail.

          • Frank Dorka

            You try to prove a negative. Really the burden of proof is on the believer.

          • Oboehner

            You said you KNOW, so there has to be proof.

          • Frank Dorka

            Christians always come back with the same response. You cannot prove it so you push it back on us. Really, the ball is in your court. (and as I have seen in the past, this will be about the last I will hear from you on the subject. Why? Cause you cannot do it.)

          • Oboehner

            Don’t misdirect, you clearly stated you KNEW: “Personally, I KNOW it does not exist.” – Frank Dorka

          • Frank Dorka

            You “misdirected” first. But I never met a Christian who didn’t. I understand your helplessness on this so I’ll let you off easy and just say good night.

          • Oboehner

            Translation: Frank’s got nothing, so he runs and hides instead of backing up what he said.

          • Frank Dorka

            Translation: Oboehner has nothing, (even good grammar) so he turns the table, trying to make Frank show his cards. Seen it so many, many times with Christians. I was trained as a Mormon growing up, so I know the whole dog and pony show. Silly believer.

          • Oboehner

            You made the claim, not me – back it up or shut up.

          • Frank Dorka

            “Secular humanism is a religion as well as evolution.”
            Look, this is the claim that you made that I asked for some backup on, that you have refused to provide. Now you have asked me to prove there is no god? Do I have to prove that there are no UFOs as well? How about spooky ghosts? How about Leprecahns, gnomes, elves, faeries and pixies, all those other things people believe in without proof? YOU tell me who agrees with your statement above and I will prove that reality is provable but fantasy, not so much.

          • Oboehner

            I am asking you to prove a statement you said you KNEW was true, it is that hard to comprehend? There is one of two choices here, you lack the grey matter to understand a simple request or you’re pulling the same tactics as a small child who doesn’t want to go to bed, so which is it?

          • talkingsnake

            What Frank is saying, if I may, is probably that one cannot assert with certainty that there is no god. There may actually be an old man in the sky who can read my mind. But there’s no evidence of it, just like there is no evidence of dragons or faeries in my garden. Thus, until such evidence comes to light, we all act as though dragons and faeries don’t exist. For some reason god gets a pass on this logic. Go figure. The xian god however is a different story – that is a demonstrably false proposition. If you are going to intrude on science and assault reason with your superstitious mythology, then you have to play by the same rules as any other claim.

          • Oboehner

            “one cannot assert with certainty that there is no god.” Therefore it is just a belief, a religious belief (especially given the subject matter).

            “But there’s no evidence of it” There is just as much evidence for that (probably more so) than there is for evolutionism – which put them both in the “faith” category.
            If you are going to intrude on science and assault reason with your mythology, then you have to play by the same rules as any other claim.

          • talkingsnake

            Not quite. You are being purposefully obtuse, and skipping over the salient parts of the fantastically wise (if I do say so myself) post above.
            So this is essentially for the readers that are following along.
            There are many things that we cannot assert with complete certainty – that there are no dragons, that Elvis is dead – it’s just not the way logic works. One would have to look everywhere, and I mean every single place in the universe, to fully prove that there are no such things as dragons. It’s not possible – so the rules of logic dictate that the person making the claim has to provide the proof. You seem to accept this, and then want to skip over the (admittedly heavy) burden of proof that is upon you by making your claim abut a deity. Your pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain strategy makes you look extremely silly, because you clearly have a position, and you clearly are unable to support it outside of your xian echo chamber – that’s a big problem.

          • Oboehner

            Yes, the rules of logic dictate that the person making the claim has to provide the proof.

            I have faith there is a deity. Atheists have faith there isn’t – both religious belief.

          • Frank Dorka

            …and I don’t give any religion a “pass’. Okay?

          • Oboehner

            Secular humanism, atheism, evolutionism, etc.

          • Frank Dorka

            That seems to be your opinion…and yours alone, I guess.

          • Oboehner

            Hardly.

          • Frank Dorka

            Then put up or shut up.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Atheism is a belief there is no God”? No, not quite. It’s a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It’s somewhat similar, but not necessarily the same thing. I consider myself an atheist; I don’t claim to know that no god or gods exist, I merely believe it’s something that can’t be known. I consider it to be like the “Russell’s teapot” thing….I can’t claim to know that there’s not a teapot orbiting in space between Earth and Mars, but I don’t believe in it, either. All that’s necessary for someone to be an atheist is a lack of belief, simple as that.

            And evolution is not a religion, it’s a scientific theory. People of many different religions and people of no religion believe in evolution.

          • Oboehner

            Atheism is a belief there is no God, the actions of these freedom from religion people prove it. If they simply didn’t believe in the “tea pot” they would find the whole thing irrelevant and move on.
            Evolution is a belief system held with faith masquerading as a scientific theory. There is no proof, there is no exclusionary evidence (evidence that points only to evolutionism). It goes hand in hand with atheism and secular humanism – whether they wish to admit it or not, people who believe in evolutionism have a religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For one thing, the FFRF doesn’t necessarily represent the views of all atheists. Even if they did, that doesn’t prove anything. I agree with what they’re doing, and that doesn’t prove I believe I know that there is no god. Agnostic atheists (yes there is such a thing, look it up) can be just as firm supporters of their ideas as anyone. You’re making a huge leap in logic.

            And if “evolutionism” is a religion, then why do a good amount of people of different religions acknowledge evolution?

          • Oboehner

            If one simply doesn’t know something, one would consider talk of it (or whatever) irrelevant. Take those who don’t believe in aliens, are they running around suing people for having pictures of aliens displayed publicly? No they are not.
            As far as evolutionism is concerned, the quote “the masses are @$$es” sums that up quite well. Too lazy to check it out for themselves.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, OK, let’s use that example….. if I believed that the existence of aliens hadn’t been proven, but wasn’t absolutely saying there were none anywhere out there (I make that distinction, because that’s not quite the same thing as “simply doesn’t know”, that could mean one was open to any possibility equally, but just hadn’t made up their mind yet)…and let’s say I had children in a school where a teacher was teaching that aliens walked among humans in our daily life? Yeah, I would probably want the teacher fired, or failing that, sued. That wouldn’t prove that I absolutely denied the existence of any aliens. (It’s a pretty good comparison, actually, to the way I feel about a god or gods, except for the fact that I think we WILL eventually discover evidence of alien life on a distant planet)

            If it was just “pictures of aliens”, like you said, I wouldn’t be too upset, that’s about how I feel about signs like the one in the article, I think they shouldn’t be there, but I don’t get too worked up about it.

          • Oboehner

            “let’s say I had children in a school where a teacher was teaching that aliens walked among humans in our daily life? Yeah, I would probably want the teacher fired, or failing that, sued. That wouldn’t prove that I absolutely denied the existence of any aliens.” Let’s substitute evolution for aliens, what would you do then? Or would hypocrisy rule the day?

            “I agree with what they’re doing” “If it was just “pictures of aliens”, like you said, I wouldn’t be too upset, that’s about how I feel about signs like the one in the article, I think they shouldn’t be there, but I don’t get too worked up about it.” Which is it?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Let’s substitute evolution for aliens, what would you do then?”

            Absolutely nothing. Evolution is something I believe to be true. How would that be hypocritical on my part? And anyway, it’s science, not religion. Those ARE two different things, you know.

            And I’m saying I agree with what FFRF does, but I wouldn’t go that far myself. Something like a sign saying “Jesus welcomes you” really doesn’t bug me that much, but I’m perfectly happy to see it removed. I didn’t think that was too hard to understand.

          • Oboehner

            “Evolution is something I believe to be true.” Yet you give it a pass when you said “I would probably want the teacher fired, or failing that, sued” in regard to another belief.

            “And anyway, it’s science, not religion.” That would be your belief as well, there is no proof of it ever occurring, just an explanation cooked up to explain our existence based on a religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, so now, what is this, you’ve just given up on your original point, so you’re going to try to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite? There’s all kinds of evidence for evolution, but I’m sure you’d try to explain away anything I talked about.

          • Oboehner

            “make me out to be some kind of hypocrite” Is there another explanation? There is no proof nor even exclusive evidence for evolution, it is just a story cooked up based on a religious belief – a belief there is no God. A religion taught in government schools, something you said you would resist.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Evolution is NOT based on a belief that there is no god. Like I keep saying, one can believe in a god and evolution. Because evolution does not say anything about how life actually began, it just deals with what happens after that.

          • Oboehner

            “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423. Based on a religious belief there is no God.
            “Like I keep saying, one can believe in a god and evolution.” and that would be religious belief.
            “Because evolution does not say anything about how life actually began, it just deals with what happens after that.” Still un-provable religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The ‘believing in a god’ part would be a religious belief, the ‘believing in evolution’ part would not be. Just because you choose to believe in unprovable religious beliefs, that does not mean that everything else is.

            So you finally admit that some people do believe in evolution and a god? Then it isn’t based on a belief in no god. Maybe it would preclude believing in your conception of god, but there’s about as many of those as there are religious denominations, if not more.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is an un-provable religious belief.

            “some people do believe in evolution and a god” and that would still be religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Most scientists would disagree with your first sentence.

            I’ll ask you again, you do acknowledge that some people who believe in a god also believe in evolution; then how can you still say evolution is based a belief that no god exists? Why can’t someone believe that a god put life on Earth, and then it evolved?

          • Oboehner

            “Most scientists would disagree with your first sentence.” Intellectually honest ones would not.

            “Why can’t someone believe that a god put life on Earth, and then it evolved?” I’ll answer that yet again: It is still a religious belief, I never said they couldn’t, it is possible to believe anything, but it is still a religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Intellectually honest ones would not??? You’re completely wrong. Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science. (and if, by the way, you believe science is a religion, like I’ve seen some people do, you’re even more wrong) I don’t even see what’s so hard to believe about it…..organisms mutate and pass on their traits through natural selection. It’s been observed, multiple times.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is filled with the most ignorant followers, there is NO proof, there is NO exclusive evidence. Anything you could toss out I could find assumption and speculation which is no more than religious belief. Organisms adapt, there will never be speciation, bacteria will always be bacteria. A belief to the contrary is purely religious as it has never been observed and never will.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            In other words, for any evidence of evolution, you can find some convoluted way to explain it without evolution. That’s nothing new, I’ve seen people do that before. Speciation is just nothing but the accumulation of a bunch of smaller adaptations. If you have an organism that keeps on adapting over time, eventually you end up with a new species. Hell, even if you haven’t seen any specific evidence of that, I think it just follows logically.

          • Oboehner

            For any convoluted “evidence” of evolutionism, I can find assumption, speculation, and religious belief.
            Here is a perfect example: “If you have an organism that keeps on adapting over time, eventually you end up with a new species.” There is no proof this happens, no one has witnessed this nor will anyone ever witness it, it is speculation, assumption, and religious belief.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            First of all, what you call “assumptions and speculation” by scientists are predictions and hypotheses based on observations, NOT “religious belief”. But anyway, scientists HAVE actually observed speciation.

          • Oboehner

            Six of one, half dozen of the other – belief based on a world view, not fact.

            “But anyway, scientists HAVE actually observed speciation.” Do post the name of the scientist who witnessed bacteria becoming an elephant (or any combination you prefer). However, I don’t want to hear about minor adaptations (like Darwin’s finches whose beaks reverted back when the need was gone), but full fledged changes from one creature to another. I won’t hold my breath.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Of course, someone’s not going to have the ability to PERSONALLY witness something like that, but you don’t have to, to observe speciation. “Minor” speciation, which is still speciation, has been observed. If you’re going to say that scientists can’t say anything about anything they haven’t directly observed happening, you don’t understand science.

          • Oboehner

            “Of course, someone’s not going to have the ability to PERSONALLY witness something like that” You’ll just have to take it on faith.

            “‘Minor’ speciation” is not speciation, it is adaptation. I’m still waiting for that one creature to another thing, you know real speciation.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I repeat:

            If you’re going to say that scientists can’t say anything about anything they haven’t directly observed happening, you don’t understand
            science.

            You really think science is just another religion, don’t you?

          • Oboehner

            So now assumption and speculation is science? One can make up whatever un-provable story they want and call it science?
            I never said science is a religion, I said evolutionism is a religion – it isn’t science.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You said you do acknowledge that there is adaptation. That IS evolution. Believing in adaptation without believing in speciation, because no one saw a bacteria turn into an elephant, is like believing in erosion but not believing that the Grand Canyon could be formed by erosion, because no one actually observed it happening. Evolution works the same way. It’s not “bacteria evolving into an elephant”, it’s more like, one-celled organism evolving into something slightly more complex, evolving into something slightly more complex, repeat, repeat, etc, and millions and millions of years later, you have elephants and such. Even if you don’t believe it, at least get what the theory actually says right.

          • Oboehner

            …or seeing some corn matted down, but not believing people are being abducted by aliens or…

            Let’s see, a minor adaptation which when no longer needed reverts back, somehow proves that bacteria became an elephant… Hmmmm… All I see is assumption and speculation. I’ve personally witnessed erosion, yet no one has ever witnessed bacteria becoming anything more than bacteria. your example – apples to oranges.

            “because no one actually observed it happening.” They just BELIEVE it did (faith). “Evolution works the same way” Yup, faith, religious belief complete with the “millions and millions of years later” mythology.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The “minor adaptation” is evolution. The “reverting back” is evolution.

            There are many different examples of scientists observing speciation. Look it up yourself, some time.

          • Oboehner

            “The “reverting back” is evolution.” Right that’s how we got the elephant, the bacteria kept reverting back to it’s original state.
            Bacteria becoming bacteria is hardly speciation.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t say it was, I just said it was still evolution.

          • Oboehner

            de-evolution if anything other than just embellishment.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So? If it’s “de-evolution”, it’s still evolution. Nothing in the definition of evolution says that organisms always evolve to more complex forms.

          • Oboehner

            …and that demonstrates how speciation never happened.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No it doesn’t, not at all. How do you think it does?

            This is pretty much the same point I made before, but I don’t see how speciation is so hard to accept….especially if someone accepts that adaptation happens.

          • Oboehner

            I guess I just don’t have the faith in your religion that you do.
            Adaptation is a far cry from speciation especially when the adaptation disappears when no longer needed.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Even if some bacteria or whatever reverted back to what they were before, that does nothing to disprove all the other well-documented evidence for speciation.

          • Oboehner

            Yeah… sure, well-documented, whatever. Like I said, I don’t have the faith you do in your religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Science is not religion. And, yes, evolution is science.

          • Oboehner

            No, you just have faith it’s science.

          • talkingsnake

            That’s quite a cabal of intellectually dishonest scientists, isn’t it?
            Your tinfoil hat has way too many wrinkles in it.

          • Oboehner

            “That’s quite a cabal of intellectually dishonest scientists, isn’t it?” Yup, especially given the well-known fact that those who dissent from the accepted faith are ostracized, they even made a movie about that – Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

          • talkingsnake

            Suffice it to say that I am not gobsmacked that you fell for that tripe.
            Are you interested in actually learning anything, or is your mind totally closed? If you are truly seeking answers, you should watch some videos of Kenneth Miller – his book is excellent as well. I don’t give credence to hatchet job movies, Ken Ham, AIG, Michael Behe, or the Discovery Institute. If you want to cite any of them as some sort of evidence in your favor, trust me, you’ve already lost the argument.
            My BS radar alarm goes off pretty strongly when someone’s position is not to assert their own evidence, but to simply try and cast aspersions on a different scientific theory.

          • Oboehner

            Empty claims of “losing the argument”. Evolutionism has already lost – life cannot be created, and did not magically pop out of ooze. There also is NO hard evidence for that religion either. I have read all of the speculation, assumption, and religious belief I care to. There is nothing more than evolutionism being a religion to learn.

          • talkingsnake

            I never know what to think when the faithful use the word religion as an insult in conversations, but I admit it does make me chuckle.

            As for your ridiculous statement, one is never under an obligation to prove a negative – that’s just the way logic works. If you don’t believe/understand that, then there is a pink polar bear behind you that disappears every time you turn around.

          • Oboehner

            Since an atheist is stating “there is no God” which is a statement that cannot be proven and is different from an agnostic who doesn’t believe in God despite admittedly not knowing, it is something that would require proof. If there was indeed a pink polar bear behind me that I just couldn’t see, would that be a negative, and would my statement that such a thing does not exist be true? Could I state that as fact or would it be merely my (religious) belief?

          • Jeanine Schaefer

            Abstinence is not having sex but not denying it’s existence, it may even be done because of a great reverence for how sex effects our lives, and therefore a choice was made to wait to to have sex until a particular time ( like marriage). So, it is a choice of position, but not one that “lacks” faith.
            Atheism is still a religion….the Atheist organization even takes a 501c3 RELIGIOUS tax exemption and has churches!

          • Jeanine Schaefer

            Actually, it’s NOT because the LAW is always on their side, it’s because of how much MONEY they are willing to throw at the lawsuit, and many towns simply can’t AFFORD to defend themselves, or are afraid of the potential costs to do so.

  • Josey

    The same thing happened in the town I live in, there is a huge cross and the FFRF got wind of it and tried their best to have it removed but praise be to God it still stands, they lost.

    • Frank Dorka

      Not for long.

  • Ken Faivor

    Neh 5:1 Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews.

    Neh 5:2 For there were that said, We, our sons and our daughters, are many: let us get grain, that we may eat and live.

    Neh 5:3 Some also there were that said, We are mortgaging our fields, and our vineyards, and our houses: let us get grain, because of the dearth.

    Neh 5:4 There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute upon our fields and our vineyards.

    Neh 5:5 Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought into bondage already: neither is it in our power to help it; for other men have our fields and our vineyards.

    Neh 5:6 And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words.

    Neh 5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and contended with the nobles and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I held a great assembly against them.

    Neh 5:8 And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, that were sold unto the nations; and would ye even sell your brethren, and should they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found never a word.

    Neh 5:9 Also I said, The thing that ye do is not good: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God, because of the reproach of the nations our enemies?

    Neh 5:10 And I likewise, my brethren and my servants, do lend them money and grain. I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

    Neh 5:11 Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their fields, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the grain, the new wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them.

    Neh 5:12 Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do, even as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they would do according to this promise.

    Neh 5:13 Also I shook out my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labor, that performeth not this promise; even thus be he shaken out, and emptied. And all the assembly said, Amen, and praised Jehovah. And the people did according to this promise.

    Neh 5:14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor.

    Neh 5:15 But the former governors that were before me were chargeable unto the people, and took of them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver; yea, even their servants bare rule over the people: but so did not I, because of the fear of God.

    Neh 5:16 Yea, also I continued in the work of this wall, neither bought we any land: and all my servants were gathered thither unto the work.

    Neh 5:17 Moreover there were at my table, of the Jews and the rulers, a hundred and fifty men, besides those that came unto us from among the nations that were round about us.

    Neh 5:18 Now that which was prepared for one day was one ox and six choice sheep; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in ten days store of all sorts of wine: yet for all this I demanded not the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon this people.

    Neh 5:19 Remember unto me, O my God, for good, all that I have done for this people.

  • DeDeChase

    I don’t understand. If someone does not like the sign don’t look at it. I am sure there are other streets to travel in the city. I turn on my TV set and there are stations that I don’t approve of; I change the channel. Also I have the option of canceling my Cable service.

  • peanut butter

    Atheists and the ffrf need to go take a hike… way off in the woods. They can’t see the sign from there. I’m sick of these people trying to take away our religious freedom. They are freely practicing their anti-religion by protesting and hating things like this frivolously, leave our freedom to practice ours alone!

  • lizk

    they bought the land. If you don’t like it don’t look at it. It is not offensive.

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

    Yes, they bought the property, purely as a means to circumvent the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. As the sign has not been moved, it still sends a message to motorists passing by that the city government appears to be endorsing Christianity over all other religions and philosophies.

    • Sudhakar Sane

      They as the land owners have right to post what they want and this is not unconstitutional

      • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr, author

        Well, it appears that Christians have no problem whatsoever with deception, and you clearly approve.

        There are a couple of things wrong here. First, the governing body of the town clearly endorsed Christianity in the first place and continues to do so by circumventing the Constitution in selling the land to the church. That is a deception.

        Secondly, the sign, itself, is a deception by continuing to suggest that the governing body of Hawkins endorses Christianity. If it were not meant to deceive, then there would be wording on the sign clarifying ownership.

        For better understanding, let’s reverse the situation:

        Would you approve of a sign just like that one at the city line that said, “ATHEISM welcomes you to Hawkins?” Do you not think that sign and its placement would not deceive passers by into thinking the town government endorses atheism?

        How about a more memorable sign–something that would stick in people’s minds, that says, “RICHARD DAWKINS welcomes you to HAWKINS.” Would that sign deceive passersby into thinking that not only is the sign endorsed by the town government, but that the famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, lives there as well?

        Be honest. Would you be fine with that? Would you object?

        I would be willing to bet that the Christians of the town would never allow such a sign to be erected, even on property that is obviously private. An ordinance would be hastily pasted the very next day that in some way forces the sign to be taken down, or some Christians in the town would trespass on the property and destroy it.

        And in your response, please address this argument.

  • Sudhakar Sane

    Truly what America is going through is because they rejected G_D, They accepted all the sins of Sodom and Gomorah. No wonder there will be disatser and another bigger bombing that will destroy the US. Sure enough what Islam is doing to US it will grow much dangerous and US desrves. G_D should not pity such a dirty nation that holds all evil against G_D.

    • talkingsnake

      Please say hello to the other members of the Westboro Baptist Church.