Texas City Sells Land Surrounding Cross Monument to Church After Atheist Activists Demand Removal

Cross-compressedPORT NECHES, Texas — Officials in a Texas city have sold a plot of land surrounding a controversial cross to a local church to avoid a lawsuit from a professing atheist organization.

As previously reported, the cross at issue, a 10-foot cement monument, sits in Riverfront Park in Port Neches, and has done so for over 45 years. But the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) took issue with the monument after it received a complaint from a “concerned citizen” about the presence of the cross.

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

The organization then demanded the removal of the cross.

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

Area residents rallied in support of keeping the cross, with hundreds placing white crosses in their own yards. Johnson vowed not to capitulate to the atheist demands.

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

  • Connect with Christian News

But according to reports, the city has been considering its options, and decided to sell the plot of land surrounding the cross to a local church, which would then make the area owned by a private entity. Both the cross and a 20 x 20 space surrounding the monument were purchased by First United Methodist Church of Port Neches.

“We found a section in the local government code that allows the sale of property to a religious organization, as long as that organization owns land within the municipality and there’s an agreement to revitalize that land,” Port Neches City Attorney Lance Bradley told 12News Now.

“I don’t think we’d categorize it in any particular manner,” City Manager Andre Wimer also stated. “We looked at a number of options and this is the direction that city council decided to proceed.”

FFRF considers the sale a “victory,” but said that it is investigating the sale further as it is skeptical about the plot of land selling for only $100.

“The action to remove the Christian symbol from the public park is certainly a step in the right direction,” attorney Rebecca Markert told local television station KDFM. “FFRF will be looking into the details of the land sale to ensure the law was followed. If it is determined that the sale did not go through the proper process and the purpose was to save a religious symbol, then it’s not a closed case.”

Area residents state that they are glad that the cross will remain in Riverfront Park.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Mark Moore

    So the land was not sold at public auction so everyone would have a fair chance. Nothing goes together like Christianity and corruption.

    • Anthony Gonzales

      Your a lil slow.

      • Jay Assunto

        When calling someone slow you should use the proper form of you’re. Idiot

  • Semp

    Poor vampires, they writhe at the sight of a cross.

    • Jay Assunto

      There are no proof of a vampire being afraid of a cross or your fairy-tail god

      • Karen Sloane

        the cross only works on vampires if your faith in God is strong and real. Other wise it’s just a cross with nothing to if.

    • George T

      Semp: More like cringe at Christians allowing their religion to be influenced by government.

    • George T

      Semp: Is that why they’re offering to buy the land and cross at 20 times the churches price?

  • Mythblaster

    The church now owns a landlocked 20′ x 20′ lot, surrounded on all sides by city owned property… a pretty damned disingenuous solution. A better solution would have been to donate the cross to the church and have it displayed on church property.

    To the casual observer, the cross remains on city park property, so the religious entanglement with government remains. Clever Christians… pulling the wool over their own eyes once again.

    • bowie1

      If it becomes private then there would be no entanglement I would say.

      • George T

        bowie1: What other targeted sales of government property would you approve of? For example, if I’m elected would you support my selling the remaining park property to my brother for a dollar?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, that would be a sale below market value, so a constituent of the seller might have the right to void the sale for lack of consideration.

          • George T

            Ambulance Chaser: Is a 20 x 20 plot of land in this community only worth $100? Couldn’t that be said of this sale?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s a good question. It sounds pretty low to me. But I usually charge hourly to review land valuation records 🙂

          • George T

            Ambulance Chaser: The FFRF has offered $2000 for the land. Let’s see if this is a sweetheart deal or if they’re genuinely just trying to sell the land to avoid a legal issue.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wait, let’s back up a step. Did the FFRF offer two grand to the church that now owns the land?

          • George T

            Ambulance Chaser: Offer extended to the local government.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Isn’t it too late then?

          • George T

            Ambulance Chaser: Not sure. I’m guessing that’s part of the defense the local government will use.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      It’s a stupid solution, but it does comport with the letter of the law.

    • Kelly Samuelson

      I don’t know if you read the whole article, but it said area residents are happy the cross will be remaining there. No one had a problem with it to begin with except the anti-Christians. They found a legal solution and now the atheists are still upset over it

      • Jay Assunto

        That is why we have the law to begin with. To protect minorities

      • Ambulance Chaser

        The Constitution is not up to a popular vote.

        • Kelly Samuelson

          They didn’t violate the constitution in any way, so that comment holds no water

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh really? Perhaps you can explain the relevant legal precedents, then, since you’re so certain.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Texas sold a piece of land to a church, what about that violates the constitution? Texas has every right to sell any piece of public property they choose to anyone. If people were happy about it or not is really irrelevant

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Selling the land was the solution (which I agree with, from a legal standpoint, by the way).

            The problem was having the cross on public land.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Well now it’s not on public land, so what are you arguing about?

          • George T

            Kelly Samuelson: Well, now The FFRF is offering 20 times the price. If the local government continues with the sale to the church, that would make any sweetheart deal painfully obvious and probably lead to further litigation.

          • George T

            Ambulance Chaser: Have you heard about the new offer from The FFRF?

      • Mythblaster

        That’s like saying to the police who caught you going 80 mph in a school zone, “But officer, I’ve been doing this for years and no one ever complained.”

        The duration of an illegal act doesn’t make it legal. The moment that implement of torture was installed It was unconstitutional… the fact that it wasn’t brought to the proper authority’s attention until lately is irrelevant.

        Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Selling a 20′ x 20′ plot was a parlor trick, far beneath the dignity of the Cross which bore your God. Wouldn’t it make more sense on church property where followers would appreciate its meaning?

        • Kelly Samuelson

          It makes sense where it is and where it has been. The people who live in the area already appreciate it and it’s meaning. Atheists are just trying to find something to whine about and they attack anything Christan.

  • jmichael39

    I am still curious when the Establishment Clause was incorporated to the states. Last I knew it says, “CONGRESS” shall pass no law establishing a religion. I doubt Congress passed any law in this instance, nor would it, since it has no jurisdiction over that land.

    • meamsane

      You are correct, but there will always be fascist attempts to twist that which did not apply to a thing as though it did and those fools that buy into it! Many wrongs need to be righted!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Everson v. Board of Education held that the restrictions on the federal government imposed by the Bill of Rights also applied to the states in 1947.

      • jmichael39

        And where exactly did the Court get that from? In the nearly 80 years prior to Everson the Court had never interpreted that the 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. In fact, the very authors of the 14th Amendment didn’t see it that way either. When they tried to pass another Amendment that WOULD have incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States it failed.

        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:

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

        No state shall make any 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.

        Yet, here we are nearly 150 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified and nearly 70 years after Everson…and people just simply accept that the Court can do what the legislature and states, through the ratification process, didn’t do.

        Of course, even IF it were a foregone conclusion that the 14th Amendment did incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, this particular issue begs the question, “what LAW was passed” that “established” a religion?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          A) Why are you moving the goalposts? You asked where the law came from that established the Incorporation Doctrine and I told you. You didn’t ask me to provide proof that it was a decision you would agree with, which is an impossible task.

          B) “What law was passed that established a religion?” Come on, you know as well as I do what’s going on. Obviously, if the government can’t establish a religion, they can’t take the first step toward establishing a religion either. It’s not like every action short of actually writing a law saying “The Official Religion of the United States is…” is perfectly acceptable, just as long as you don’t take that very last step.

          Or do you support massive restrictions on gun ownership, mandatory safety locks, laws about who can own guns and how many they can own, and what types, as long as we don’t ban them completely?

          • jmichael39

            A) Asking a follow up question is not shifting the goal posts. And that’s what I’m doing. Sorry if you don’t have an answer for where the SCOTUS gets off in completely re-interpreting the applicability of the 14th Amendment after 80 years of it being interpreted as the drafters of it intended (as I have shown)

            B) You come on. Answer the stinking question. What law was passed by any legislative body that ordered that cross to be put there? and if there is a law, what did that law say? If you don’t have an answer to that question, then what are you doing trying to answer anything?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            A) I don’t know what you mean by “where SCOTUS gets off.” If you want to know how SCOTUS arrived at its ruling, read it. It’s publicly available. If you don’t want to do that, you can read briefs of it, which are also available in many places.

            You can feel free to disagree with it, but it’s still the law, whether you like it or not.

            Over the years, many groups on both sides of religious freedom issues have used Incorporation Doctrine to bring suits. In Free Exercise Clause cases, I’m betting you’d be glad it’s there.

            B) You know as well as I do that no law was passed by any legislative body. Just as you know as well as I do that no one needs to be passed. Any state action will trigger a constitutional issue. And again, unless you’re okay with public school teachers confiscating students’ Bibles, you should probably be happy about that.

          • jmichael39

            A) Are you intentionally being obtuse? Of course I’ve read the court rulings. And yes, my questions are general in nature…namely, where does the court get off…(get it’s authority)…completely changing or extending the meaning or applicability of any provision of the Constitution. In essence, in this one case, the court usurped authority for the federal government that it never had nor was it ever intended to have. They now, by some 9 person fiat, decided to completely re-write the Constitution or at least re-interpret it. In a matter of a few cases, suddenly the federal government has authorities it was never given…authority over education, over health care, over public bathrooms, over city, county and state property.

            And sadly, people like you just sit here smiling naively thinking how good a thing that is.

            B) And you know as well as I do that there is no evidence in this case that the local government was favoring one religious over another. For that to be the case they would have had to have rejected options from other religious organizations to do something in honor of their own religion. Oh wait, I remember now, even IF they’d have allowed other religions to do similar things, that wouldn’t have good enough for you. huh?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            A) I don’t see that there’s anything here that SCOTUS is ruling on that it doesn’t have authority to. I know that there’s becoming a very pervasive view among conservatism that SCOTUS should try and read every constitutional provision in the light it was most likely written, but it’s a view I don’t share. I’m sorry that the country doesn’t work the way you’d like it to, but currently, that’s how it works. If you’d like to change it, start working on an amendment.

            B) No, I might be okay if every religion got the chance to put their monument there. But at the same time, not as a bidding process.

          • jmichael39

            A) Really? so you actually buy that argument that the SC can re-interpret the Constitution however they feel like depending upon the circumstances and the political winds. I already figured that about you.

            B) so in other words, you’re just assuming that the local government just chose Christianity over everyone else and didn’t even investigate. Good to know.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            A) That’s not how rulings work. Each one builds on a prior ruling, which builds on a prior, all the way back to a time shortly after whatever constitutional amendment or statute being ruled on was written.

            In making rulings, courts are required to obey precedent. They are obligated to rule in a way that matches the facts to prior rulings on similar facts. If there isn’t a precedent, courts have to make one up, and again are REQUIRED to make sure the rule is a natural outgrowth of precedent. They don’t sit around thinking up new rules out of thin air. Why do you think SCOTUS briefs contain hundreds of pages of case citations and treatise quotes?

            B) Are you contending that the park land is open to everyone and that other groups simply haven’t gotten around to putting their monuments on it?

          • jmichael39

            A) so in others words its OK if the courts simply re-interpret the Constitution to mean something wholly contradictory to what the framers intended so long as the court does it slowly and simply builds upon the re-interpretations of previous re-interpretations. That sounds exactly like how the Founders designed it. Thanks for clearing that up.

            B) Or gotten around to asking for permission…either way…what do you care?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it’s that it’s impossible to have a system where that doesn’t happen. In every case one side has to lose. Each side argues it’s case, and the judges will decide whose law is most accurate. Over time, there becomes a bigger and bigger chasm full of case law between “right now” and the date of drafting. How could you create a system where this doesn’t happen?

            Further, it’s the drafters’ responsibility to state what they mean, not later judges’ responsibility to try and read tea leaves or hold a seance to ask them.

      • RCQ_92130

        Ummm … excuse me, Mr. Nothing-But-Dirt, but is it your impression that any and all SCOTUS Opinions are either lawful or correct?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I don’t know who nothing-but-dirt is. My screen name is pretty clearly displayed.

          My impression is not that all SCOTUS decisions are correct but they most certainly are lawful. How could they not be?

          • RCQ_92130

            Ummm … because they are later reversed and deemed unlawful?

            You tell me. You are the one who knows all things (except, of course, that which is most important)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The fact that a SCOTUS ruling is later reversed doesn’t mean that the first one was unlawful. Until Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land. Please was overruled but the justices didn’t find that the prior court had issued an “unlawful” ruling.

          • RCQ_92130

            It would, of course, have been better if you actually had a clue about that which you speak of. I’ll help.

            Should SCOTUS rule that a law is not Constitutional, then is IS not Constitutional, nor WAS it Constitutional since the Constitution has not changed in the interim. Thus, that law WAS NOT LAWFUL, the U.S. Constitution being the highest law of the land.

            Should that be difficult, you should ask Ronald Carter who, in an act of sheer stupidity, “liked” your incorrect and foolish Comment. Perhaps he can explain it to you,.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m not sure what your point is here. I suppose we could quibble over whether a Supreme Court ruling that was later overruled was at its outset “lawful,” but that seems to me to be a pointless distinction to make.

            A ruling being overturned does mean that a later Court found that it was not the proper interpretation of the Constitution, but I can’t imagine how you could argue a Supreme Court ruling was not “lawful.” Although I also think that the definition of “lawful” in this case is a rather pointless discussion to have.

          • RCQ_92130

            Are you claiming to NOT be an atheist? Make up your mind, Fluffy!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I never said that. This is not how debate works; you can’t pretend to catch me in a contradiction until you actually catch me in a contradiction.

        • Slidellman4life

          RCQ, scroll down for a real knee-slapper from this guy.

          • RCQ_92130

            Wow. How fun.

            If ever you feel down about yourself, all that is needed is to have a brief chat with idiots like this guy to feel both like God’s top servant and like a veritable Einstein.

  • Slidellman4life

    I would have just told them no and went about my business.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Then you would have been sued.

      • Slidellman4life

        And I just don’t care what a pedo-defender thinks.

        Go away.

        • Ronald Carter

          “Pedo-defender”.

          Right.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He’s talking about the time I told him that the Rind study was “not as bad as he thinks it is.” I certainly don’t agree with all of the study’s conclusions, but it was far from promoting pedophilia.

            In his mind, my attempt to explain to him what the study said as opposed to the popular Straw man version of what it said, is the same thing as promoting pedophilia.

            My mind is now settled on at least one thing. He actually does believe that I was promoting pedophilia. At first I thought he was saying it because he wanted to shut down discussion with me but now I’m convinced that he actually thinks that’s what I said. Now, as to why he is so terrified of actually having a discussion, I can’t say, but I suspect that the nuance is too complicated for him and/or he’s afraid of encountering something that might cause him to rethink his beliefs.

          • Ronald Carter

            I’ve dealt with him before. He’s hot tempered, prone to believing conspiracy theories and goes on the attack often. Far too unreasonable to deal with.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Probably not worth my time, especially if all he can say is “pedo defender!” There’s no conversation to be had.

          • RCQ_92130

            Pedo defender.

            Now, I’ll take you at your word that you will cease all so-called conversation.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sound like a good idea……

          • The Last Trump

            Not about pedophilia, no.
            What good could possibly come from it?
            You guys from fstdt sure do pick some strange things to ponder over…

          • The Last Trump

            Actually, I think he just doesn’t like pedophilia.
            Can’t say that I blame him.
            Can’t say that I blame him.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well good, I don’t either.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, if I see any around, I’ll warn you not to talk to them.

          Anyway, what would you plan on doing if you got sued for refusing to comply with the Constitution?

          • Slidellman4life

            Don’t play games with me, boy. I have you on record defending the pro-pedophilia Rind study, and you should be glad screenshots aren’t permitted so I can refresh everyone’s memory.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay.

            So are you going to answer my question now?

          • Slidellman4life

            Yes, it is, or the entire House of Representatives would not have condemned it, and the American Psychiatric Association wouldn’t have backpedaled.

            And, yes, you are a liar. You are defending it because you have no problem with it. Makes me wonder what one might find on your hard drive.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            There were certainly problems with the study, but it didn’t say what you and everybody thinks it said. It became a media bandwagon for the anti science crowd to cherry pick and condemn for either the promotion of anti science propaganda or their own self-aggrandizement.

            In any case, can we get back on topic now?

          • Slidellman4life

            The topic is “Ambulance Chaser is Defending Pedophilia and Lying About It.”

            Excuse me, Mr. Hankey, but reasonable people draw the line at the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. These same people also know the Rind study said not only do children not suffer long-term ill effects from sexual abuse, they also might benefit from it.

            For you to say otherwise is a bald-faced lie, and for you to be defending it makes you a defender of pedophilia as well as a liar.

            I told you before not to talk to me. You do not know how to listen. What am I going to need to do to get you to listen?

            Leave. Me. Alone. Do you understand?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not a matter of not understanding you. I understand your words just fine. But if you’re going to continue slandering me, I’m going to call you out on it.

            Or we could simply drop the subject and put it behind us so we can move on and discuss the topic at hand.

          • Slidellman4life

            Flagged for harassment and trolling.

          • Ronald Carter

            Neither of which he did.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So you’re still not willing to have a mature discussion on this topic then. Got it.

          • Slidellman4life

            Flagged for harassment and trolling.

          • Ronald Carter

            He neither harassed nor trolled. Stop trying to censor innocent people.

          • RCQ_92130

            The “anti-science” crowd???

            Why is it all vampires, sodomites, pedophiles, LibTards and atheists hold the impression that all who do not agree with their low I.Q. notions of reality and truth are “anti-science”? I think my academic and employment credentials would likely stand up well with most (certainly with yours, judging from your VERY low I.Q. comments). And I disagree with pretty much everything that has drooled forth from your lips.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m sorry, is there a point you’d like to make?

          • RCQ_92130

            Ummm

            Are you dodging your own use of the phrase “anti-science crowd”?

            How typically sodomite!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, I’m not denying it. I definitely said it.

          • Slidellman4life

            It gets better.

            This link details everything the Rind study’s authors wrote before and after the study, leaving it absolutely beyond question what the intent of the study was.

            http://
            www.
            leadershipcouncil
            .org/1/rind/bak.
            html

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again, I didn’t say I agreed with the study, only that the study’s results were not the gift to pedophilia people who have never read it think it is.

            That’s literally ALL I said.

          • Slidellman4life

            So, in the face of a link that makes what the Rind study said and the motivation behind it undeniable fact, you continue to assert a defense of it.

            So what we have here is either willful ignorance, incredibly poor reading comprehension skills, or you are the liar I think you are. Which is it?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t see how anything in that link effects what I said. I’ve already gone on record as saying that I don’t agree with the study, and I think it had flaws, and it deserves criticism.

            However, that criticism needs to be restricted to the things the study actually said, not the parts of it that were misrepresented in the media for political effect.

            That being said, that’s the last comment I’m going to make on this topic because it’s irrelevant.

          • Slidellman4life

            No. Your unwillingness to answer a simple question tells me you are trying to hide from the truth. But it is too late. You are a liar, and a proven liar.

            Wanna accuse me of slander? Come at me, bro. I’ll burn you so bad you’ll wish you died as a child, with your own words.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Just what question is it you think I’m not answering?

          • The Last Trump

            Yes, best to back away from THAT can o worms, eh Chaser?
            Too early still!
            Let’s at least finish with forcing transgenderism on the population before we spring paedophilia on them, right?
            Boy, you guys are too much.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Funny how the pro science crowd is so anti-science Men can become women gender is not immutable except when it is….

            Every global warm prediction has failed….

          • RCQ_92130

            Ha. Yeah.

            It’s ‘science’ when it is anti-god in some convenient to them) way, it’s “silly superstition” when not. I really wish more of them had at least a partial foundation in the science they like to label before they start spewing their labels.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Rind study claims that child adult sexual experiences didn’t cause harm and they came to that outrageous conclusion by doing a meta analysis.

            Of course that study is an ipso facto pass on pedophilia

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It did not, in fact, say that. It said that it was not a guarantee that children would suffer long term harm. However, Rind also cautioned that the risk of harm was always present, and recommended against giving any leeway to pedophiles.

            I never said I supported the study, or agreed with it, only that the boogeyman version that people like to bash is not actually what it said.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. There is no phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.

          • RCQ_92130

            Try not to confuse him with facts and reality, J. Consider: when he dies he becomes nothing other than worm food (as he see’s it – and even that notion is, of course, far less onerous than the reality he so desperately denies). So, given that – isn’t it best to not make things even more difficult than what he has already done himself?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I never said there was.

          • Jay Assunto

            So Jeanette you are for a religion run government?

  • acontraryview

    Good solution

    • George T

      acontraryview: Better solution… accept The FFRF’s offer to buy the land for 20 times more money. Avoid charges of collusion based on a sweetheart deal.

  • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

    Now it can be Protected.

    • George T

      LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord: Did you hear that The FFRF offered more money to buy the land? If the government doesn’t take the offer and continues to sell to the church, why… that would look like a sweetheart sale.

      • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

        You just don’t understand………………

        • George T

          LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord: In some cases like this, refusing money might lead to the obvious conclusion of malfeasance.

          • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

            They only want to bully them into selling the land to them. So they can destroy the cross.Kind of sad.

          • George T

            LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord: Incorrect. How would you feel if it was a Satanic monument that the local government was selling to The Satanic Temple? Would you be happy that they were offering a nice plot of government land to another religion in a sweetheart deal? Wouldn’t you want to accuse the government officials of malfeasance?

            Be honest. If god exists he’ll know you’re lying. Do it in the name of heaven, you can justify it in the end (^_^)

          • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

            After 45 years they FFRF feels the need to bully them to remove the cross or see that land to them because they want to destroy that cross. I still think it is sad. All they want to do is hurt Christians.
            P.S. I am not going to play your game of
            What if it was?…………..? I will be Praying for you.
            Shalom.

          • George T

            LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord: More like somebody noticed the church/state violation and brought it to The FFRF’s attention after 45 years.

            because they want to destroy that cross. I still think it is sad. All they want to do is hurt Christians.

            Nobody has mentioned any interest in destroying the cross or hurting Christians. That’s a Straw Man claim on your part. An imagined crime to accuse people of.

            P.S. I am not going to play your game of
            What if it was?…………..? I will be Praying for you.
            Shalom.

            Not willing to consider your own bias and prejudice? I understand. It’s hard to admit ones flaws (^_^)

  • Becky

    Atrocious heathens at it again. There’s absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this so-called issue. They lie every time they open their mouths…their sole agenda is to remove any/all representation of Christianity whilst falsely claiming that they’re interest is in upholding the constitution. They’re liars and children of the devil.

    “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” John 8:44

    • Slidellman4life

      They lie every time they open their mouths…their sole agenda is to remove any/all representation of Christianity whilst falsely claiming that their interest is in upholding the constitution.

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      This is why someone who is being targeted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation needs to return the favor. This has nothing to do with the “church and state separation” myth and everything to do with a politically motivated push to stifle a certain type of speech that is constitutionally protected.

      We have a lawsuit over a school that indoctrinated a student into Islam, and we are hearing absolutely nothing from the FFRF. In fact, their absolute lack of any type of legal action re: church, state and Islam is damning.

      Come on, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel! Let’s do this!

      • George T

        Slidellman4life:

        We have a lawsuit over a school that indoctrinated a student into Islam

        Have you brought this to The FFRF’s attention? Please provide more information.

        • Slidellman4life

          They know.

          • George T

            Slidellman4life: Baseless assertion. (^_^)

            Please provide more information for people who haven’t heard about this situation you reference.

          • Slidellman4life

            Baseless assertion. (^_^)

            And how dewso you know that? Are you telling me the FFRF would know about a town in Texas most people haven’t even heard of, but are ignorant of the poorly kept secret regarding the teaching of Islam in public schools?

            I find that very hard to believe.

            Please provide more information for people who haven’t heard about this situation you reference.

            “Lawsuit: Public school forced my child to convert to Islam” Fox News (dot) com, January 29,2016

          • George T

            Slidellman4life:

            And how dewso you know that?

            Because I read your followup comment. You provided no informative basis for your assertion. It lacked a base. It’s a base*less* assertion.

            but are ignorant of the poorly kept secret regarding the teaching of Islam in public schools?

            I still don’t know what poorly kept secret you’re talking about. Perhaps you’re referencing comparative religion classes that teach information about all major world religions?

            “Lawsuit: Public school forced my child to convert to Islam” Fox News (dot) com, January 29,2016

            Ah! So these parents already found legal counsel. The FFRF wasn’t contacted. That allows The FFRF to address other issues. Not seeing what your problem is here.

          • Slidellman4life

            Because I read your followup comment. You provided no informative basis for your assertion. It lacked a base. It’s a base*less* assertion.

            Unless you have the power of omniscience, you do not know if they the FFRF is aware or not. You are only speaking in defense of them.

            I still don’t know what poorly kept secret you’re talking about. Perhaps you’re referencing comparative religion classes that teach information about all major world religions?

            You are being intellectually dishonest. The cited news item shows that.

            Ah! So these parents already found legal counsel. The FFRF wasn’t contacted. That allows The FFRF to address other issues. Not seeing what your problem is here.

            The problem here is you are being intellectually dishonest. The Freedom From Religion Foundation exists solely and specifically to stifle constitutionally protected speech, which is Christian speech. The reason for this is because of a not-so-secret hatred of Christianity, demonstrated not only by the complete absence of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits regarding the teaching of Islam in public schools, but also their practice of creating displays meant to mock Christianity when their efforts to censor it fails.

            The last thing you should be doing is coming in here thinking you can be so disingenuous and get away with it. It’s not going to happen on my watch so you need to flush that particular thought right now.

          • George T

            Slidellman4life: Unless you have the power of omniscience, you do not know if they the FFRF is aware or not. You are only speaking in opposition to them.

            I’m amused (^_^)

            You are being intellectually dishonest. The cited news item shows that.

            Yes, they are now aware of that story. They weren’t originally. The FFRF didn’t get involved because the parents didn’t contact them first. It’s not a systemic issue across all public schools. Why are you taking issue with The FFRF when the parents didn’t contact them?

            The Freedom From Religion Foundation exists solely and specifically to stifle constitutionally protected speech

            Incorrect. They work to maintain the wall separating church and state to protect religious rights only granted to citizens.

            The reason for this is because of a not-so-secret hatred of Christianity

            Straw Man fallacy. They think it’s an absurd thing to believe, but agree that you have a right to your absurd beliefs.

            demonstrated not only by the complete absence of lawsuits or threats of
            lawsuits regarding the teaching of Islam in public schools

            Typically Christians have found these situations first and are rarely inclined to seek assistance from The FFRF because they make incorrect assumptions like you’re doing now. The FFRF has recently contacted a university regarding exclusive spaces provided only to Islamic students, and addressed a Mosque that was violating noise ordinances.

            but also their practice of creating displays meant to mock Christianity when their efforts to censor it fails.

            If Christians can put up a display, that opens the door for displays based on other faiths and beliefs. Equal religious rights, not religious rights for only one religion.

            The last thing you should be doing is coming in here thinking you can be
            so disingenuous and get away with it. It’s not going to happen on my
            watch so you need to flush that particular thought right now.

            I didn’t have that thought. I accurately pointed out that you hadn’t given a basis for your assertion. Now I see how you’re misunderstanding the details that lead you to make a false accusation.

          • George T

            Hey Slidellman4life, what do you think of The FFRF’s offer to buy the land for 20 times the churches price? If the government continues with the sweetheart sale to the church, that now opens them up to further legal issues.

          • Slidellman4life

            Troll. Flagged.

          • George T

            Slidellman4life: Boy, I hope they take the offer or some other group offers more. If they continue with the $100 sale that risks charges of malfeasance.

            Hey! It’s almost like the auction that government organizations should arrange anyway.

    • George T

      Becky: Straw Man Fallacy

    • George T

      Becky: Incorrect. The latin cross is an internationally recognized Christian symbol. The cross has been installed exclusively on government property in violation of The Establishment clause of our nations 1st amendment.

      • Unionville

        The founders intent with the establishment clause was to prohibit a national church or religion that all citizens must adhere to. NOT to prohibit a cross on public land. Our nations capitol is replete with religious iconography, bible verses and religious statues which hammer that point home. And if that isn’t enough to prove the founders disinterest in crosses on public land, many of the founders attended church services in the US capitol building. Imagine if the freedom hating FFRF existed at that time. The apoplexy would be epic.

        • George T

          Unionville: If other religions were also allowed to install iconography, you’d have a point. By hosting only one religious icon, the government is functionally playing favorites. That violates The Establishment Clause.

          Our nations capitol is replete with religious iconography, bible verses and religious statues which hammer that point home.

          Yes, multiple religions are given representation.

          many of the founders attended church services in the US capitol building.

          Several key people didn’t. Madison actively opposed it and opposed the paid Congressional chaplain.

          Imagine if the freedom hating FFRF existed at that time. The apoplexy would be epic.

          Given that they wrote the documents The FFRF are defending, and we’d be able to ask about the intent of several passages and consensus… I doubt it.

          • Unionville

            You do realize that nothing you stated changes the fact that the founders intent with the establishment clause was to prohibit a national church or religion that citizens must adhere to. It was NOT intended to prohibit religious displays on public property. NOR was their intent that “multiple religions” must be represented or none at all can be permitted. That tripe comes from several judicial decisions in the 20th century that effectively rewrote the intent of the founders belief in religious toleration and toward that of removing religious (Christian) expression from the public square. That salient point puts a stake in the heart of the notion that the reason there is so much religion on display in the capitol is because “multiple religions” are represented. The statuary and quotes are there because they were meaningful. Not to fulfill a quota. No quota was necessary.

            Madison did not oppose church services in the Capitol building. He attended them. He did oppose paid Chaplains because there were members of Congress who didn’t share the faith and he respected them enough to not want their consciences violated by forced attendance during prayer. I agree with him. No one should be forced to bow down to another’s faith. Which dovetails nicely with the founders intent with the establishment clause.

            in the capitol is because “multiple religions” are represented. The statuary and quotes are there because they were meaningful. Not to fulfil a quota. No quota was necessary.

            I also hate to burst your bubble, not only did Madison attend Church services in the capital, so did Jefferson. Another darling of atheists for his supposed support for their idea of “separation of church and state.”

            The freedom loathing FFRF and their panties in a bunch brigade are not defending our constitution. They are defending judicial decisions that have stripped the founders intent.

          • George T

            Unionville: You do realize that neither of us can authoritatively claim to know the thoughts of all founders. We can draw conclusion from letters, proclamations, and public record.

            It was NOT intended to prohibit religious displays on public property.
            NOR was their intent that “multiple religions” must be represented or
            none at all can be permitted.

            The Judicial Branch was granted power to interpret national law. They’ve done so regarding religious displays being permanently displayed on public property.

            Madison did not oppose church services in the Capitol building. He attended them. So did Jefferson.

            Sometimes Madison did attend some services. I’ve also attended religious services at various times of multiple faiths. Are you going to claim that I follow the faith of every religious service that I’ve ever attended?

            The freedom loathing FFRF and their panties in a bunch brigade are not defending our constitution.

            Incorrect and prejudice assertion.

            They are defending judicial decisions that have stripped the founders intent from it.

            The founders intent involved The Judicial Branch to interpret these situations.

          • Unionville

            I completely disagree that we cannot “authoritatively” know the view of the founders on the establishment clause. They were quite careful with the words they chose when they wrote it. And yes, the reasons for choosing the words they did can be found in our founding documents. Please look at them. There is a theme that runs through those documents. It was an unrelenting desire that there be no compulsion in religion. NOT that religion be stripped from government spaces, or that all religious beliefs must be represented before any one can find a sure anchor in public. Our entire nation, its cities, its towns, its villages with all of their fabulous religious symbols bolsters my side of the argument. It shows your side to be based on a lie. Particularly when it robes itself with the constitution or the founding documents as its excuse for stripping fundamental liberties from these same cities, towns and villages.

            At least you acknowledge what the FFRF are defending are 20th century judicial decisions that are based on 20th century “values.” NOT the constitution. It is an interpretation that runs counter to the founders. If the people of our nation deems the establishment clause to be too broad, there is a remedy. It is called the amendment process. That’s what it’s there for. So that WE THE PEOPLE have a say in changes that take away a liberty.

            You said: ——-“Madison did attend some services. I’ve also attended religious services….. Are you going to claim that I follow the faith of every religious service that I’ve ever attended?”

            We are discussing the establishment clause are we not? You said he opposed religious services in the US Capitiol. His attendance at them seems to indicate that he did not oppose them don’t you think?

            There is no interpretation necessary for the establishment clause. The founders were quite clear. There is, however, a reason to believe it needs “interpretation” if you want to remove religious things from public spaces.

          • George T

            Unionville: You appear to think that everything is cool with Christian icons being installed on government land. Would you feel the same about Satanic pentagrams or Islamic crescent moons in every government building and public space? Would you not feel that another religion is being rubbed in your face using government funds and resources?

            We are discussing the establishment clause, are we not? You said he
            opposed religious services in the US Capitol. His attendance at them
            seems to indicate that he did not oppose them, don’t you think?

            Attending a service doesn’t mean that he condoned or supported the activity. You’re making an assumption.

            There is no interpretation necessary for the establishment clause. The
            founders were quite clear. There is, however, a reason to believe it
            needs “interpretation” if you want to remove religious things from
            public spaces.

            It’s better than wasting thousands of dollars on hundreds of different religious icons to satisfy every faith. Keeping the space neutral harms none. There are already plenty of churches in every community that host religious icons and don’t have to pay any taxes.

          • Unionville

            I am “cool” with the establishment clause as our founders intended it to be. It is for the states and their citizens to decide if they want a satanic pentagram or islamic crescent moon on public land. I have no problem with freedom.

            I would let your second paragraph stand on its own absurdity, but I have to respond. I based my “assumption” that Madison did not oppose church services in the US Capitol building (something that surely violates the establishment clause to the FFRF) on the fact that he attended them rather than try to stop them. On what do you base your assumption that he opposed them?

            The establishment clause, as our founders intended it, did not require an all or nothing approach to “religious icons” on public land. This nonsense comes from 20th century judicial decisions. NOT on the constitution OR our founding documents. Placing a cross in the Port Neches park harms no one. Nor does it require other religious icons to be present in order to be placed there. It is an expression of freedom. Trying to force its removal, nullifies the right of the people of Port Neches to make their own decisions about what they will or will not put in their park.

          • George T

            Unionville: I’ll have to disagree with you. When government exclusively endorses any religion, it violates The Establishment Clause.

            Regarding Madison…

            “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history…. Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.”

            Apparently several scholars see that he strongly advocated church/states separation to mainly keep religious faith and practice pure and unmolested by government manipulation or control. Actions like hosting church services in government buildings would risk mixing the two.

            The establishment clause, as our founders intended it, did not require
            an all or nothing approach to “religious icons” on public land.

            But given the equal rights of all citizens, the options are to give all equal religious iconography or remove all.

            Placing a cross in the Port Neches park harms no one.

            It wastes my tax dollars on a 1st amendment violation when there are tax free institutions already dedicated to this religion. I am not offended by the iconography, but oppose this waste of money on a church/state violation.

            Trying to force its removal, nullifies the right of the people of Port
            Neches to make their own decisions about what they will or will not put
            in their park.

            The government being used to endorse Christianity smacks Madison in the face and intrudes on the free practice of religion.

          • Unionville

            You, and the FFRF, can disagree with me…..and the founders all day long. Just don’t use anything other than 20th century judicial decisions that have stripped the founders original intent, as the reason for the disagreement. Even the Madison quote you used bolsters my side of the argument and does nothing to advance yours. You could not do better than to read the entire text. He was clearly against compulsion in religion. It is beyond absurd to think that he would interfere with crosses in public parks. It neither compels one to worship nor establishes a national church. It took 20th century minds, who are so far removed from that time when a king was the head of the government AND the church, to come up with that claptrap.

            The strongest argument your side has would be taxes going to pay for something you disagree with. But we all pay taxes for things we disagree with and we all know that’s not the real issue for the snowflakes of the FFRF brigade. It’s religious freedom that sticks its head outside of the home or church they loathe. It MUST be confined. Even if they have to rape the constitution, and rob Americans of their freedom, to do it.

            Madison wrote that “belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources.”

            He was a champion of religious freedom. It is those who are trying to confine religious expression to the home and church who smack Madison in the face.

          • George T

            Unionville:

            He was clearly against compulsion in religion

            Exactly! And I agree with Madison’s firmly held belief that keeping government and religion separate is the way to avoid that. Our government favoring one religion, or hosting their materials, gives our government a measure of control over that religion.

            He was a champion of religious freedom.

            So is The FFRF (^_^)

            It is those who are trying to confine religious expression to the home and church who smack Madison in the face.

            It’s free to any citizen, corporation, or private enterprise. Our government is not granted those religious freedoms, and installing a sectarian monument using my tax dollars is taking religious freedoms that aren’t granted to government.

          • Unionville

            To Madison and the founders, “separation of church and state” meant that they did not want a national church or religion to be “established.” The Church of England was their model for what they wished to avoid because the church was an arm of the government. It is also important to note that the establishment clause was ONLY intended to CONSTRAIN the federal government. The states could do as they pleased. And they did. At the time of the ratification of the constitution, the majority of them had established state religions. And the founders did nothing to stop them. The founders intended for the states to run their own affairs in regard to religion. The founders in no way cared about a cross on public land. If they did there should be copious documentation explicitly stating their disapproval.

            Let’s prove it together. The FFRF’s brand of separation of church and state is a 20th century invention courtesy of erroneous judicial decisions which actually violate the constitution they claim to be “interpreting.” You compile everything from the founders which suggests they intended religious iconography, bible verses, religious expression of any kind, to be verboten on public land, except and unless they also displayed something from all other religions. Make sure that you include all of the litigation that they launched against the states. There has to be masses of lawsuits because the states were serial violators of the FFRF’s brand of separation of church and state. The founders must have been furious at themselves as well what with all the iconography and bible verses on federal land and using the capitol building as a church and proclamations for days of prayer and fasting and whatnot. The Liberty Bell at Independence Hall must have been tied up in litigation for years. Since I have family and work commitments, I will compile and post mine sometime on Saturday.

            The FFRF has expanded their anti-religious freedom bigotry to private hotels. They have sent several sternly and hilariously worded letters to several hotels concerning their inclusion of the Gideon Bible in their rooms. Apparently the bibles have been jumping out of their drawers and opening themselves up and forcing people to read them. That is why I accurately said the FFRF would like to confine religion to the home and church.

          • George T

            Unionville: Yes, the federal/state separation was done away with thanks to our civil war, and other nationally divisive issues.

            The FFRF has expanded their anti-religious freedom bigotry to private
            hotels. They have sent several sternly and hilariously worded letters
            to several hotels concerning their inclusion of the Gideon Bible in
            their rooms.

            Several? They’ve sent suggestions to privately owned hotels. The only hotel they’ve directly addressed regarding a church/state issue was one operated by a college or university receiving public funding and endorsement.

            That is why I accurately said the FFRF would like to confine religion to the home and church.

            Incorrect. The prohibition only applies to government, because our government isn’t granted any religious rights.

          • Unionville

            Moderators, I don’t think George T’s posts should have been deleted and I’m not sure why they were. They were not vulgar. People should be able to discuss things in a civil manner without being deleted. I am still posting what I said I would. My information was gathered from UPenn: The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause: “The Drafting of the Establishment Clause.”

            The historical context from when our constitution was first proposed was one in which there were fears that the new congress would impose one uniform church or religion throughout the nation. There were states with existing established churches who did not want federal interference. There were states that had previously had established churches but had abolished them, and they didn’t want it to be re-imposed upon them nationally. Hence the fear. The language that was chosen for the amendment was designed to specifically quell those fears. Madison took all of the states ideas and their fears and wrote the first draft and presented it to the House:

            “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account
            of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established,
            nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
            manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

            The draft went to committee and it was modified to read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

            There seems to be a theme emerging. There seems to be no concern over religious things in public spaces, and there was a lot of that stuff around when these discussions were going on, and they remained in place after the amendment was adopted. But there is plenty of talk about a nationally established religion and how the fledgling government would not impose one on the nation.

            The text still did not pass muster. Congressman Peter Sylverster felt it could be misinterpreted to permit the abolishment of religion. Congressman Benjamin Huntington, that it could “be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion” and Roger Sherman thought “the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress has no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments.”
            Madison’s response was that he: “apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

            So much worry going into one tiny clause. And still bupkis about religious displays on public land.

            Congressman Samuel Livermore proposed that they go with New Hampshire’s text: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”

            On August 20, 1789 the House altered and then adopted the New Hampshire text. It read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience”

            It then moved over to the Senate. They altered it and sent it back to the House. It read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion …. ”

            Hmmmm. Still no concern over those pesky religious things in public spaces. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. They were making clear that the federal government was to have no authority whatsoever over the states in this area.

            The House promptly called for a joint committee and the House and Senate honed the text to read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .”

            The establishment/free exercise clause has very precise language. It addresses a fear that was prevalent at the time concerning the establishment of a national church. It’s purpose was religious liberty for us all, FREE FROM FEDERAL INTRUSION. The STATE, however, was never intended to be so encumbered. All of the established churches prior to, during and after the amendment was crafted and adopted, is a testament to the truth of that statement. If our founders left the states to decide whether they wanted an established religion within their borders, how can anyone possibly presume to believe that the founders had a problem with a city within that state erecting a cross on public land? I’ll answer the question. They didn’t care. It’s tight bummed people like those that comprise the mindset of the FFRF who “care.” They “care” so much that they are willint to strip from their fellow citizens the religious freedom the founders took such care to bless us with.

            The FFRF are defending 20th century “interpretations” which have changed the founders original intent. It is actually that fact that is a saving grace for those of us who cherish religious liberty. Because these egregious decisions are not based on the constitution or the founders intent, they can be reversed, IF we get enough constitutionalists on the court, and those tyrannical rulings are challenged.

            I will leave this discussion with this:

            James Iredell, from North Carolina’s ratifying convention:

            “Congress certainly has no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm…. If any future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by the Constitution, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, “Who authorized the government to pass such an act? It is not warranted by the Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation.”

  • RCQ_92130

    Similar problem here in San Diego with God haters who can’t stand the 1/10th second, 3/4 mile away glimpse they get of the cross atop Mt. Soledad (which is a war memorial to those who dies defending the nation). YEARS of litigation; sale of the land to a non-profit; more litigation.

    Like vampires afraid of the light, they simply recoil in terror at the sight of the cross.

    With good reason !

    • George T

      RCQ_92130: Small steps towards allowing US government to influence and control religious organizations. Don’t give up everyone’s religious freedom by injecting it into government.

  • MittRomneys

    DONT FORGET MAY IS PERSECUTE A CHRISTIAN MONTH..IM TRYING TO PERSECUTE AT LEAST 8 CHRISTIANS PER DAY AT MY BUSINESS,CHRISTIANS ARE AMERICA’S ISIS

  • NCOriolesFan

    The citizens should have struck back by placing their crosses around the Big cross in support of the mayor and their town.

    • George T

      NCOriolesFan: The citizens should better educate themselves about the risks and issues that come from mixing church and state.

      • NCOriolesFan

        The were educated on their constitutional rights. There is NO separation church-state on the local level – ONLY for CONGRESS.

        • George T

          NCOriolesFan: Ah! I see that you know nothing of the 14th amendment, or the court cases Engel v Vitale and Wallace v Jaffree. Please do a little more reading. Only reading the 1st amendment is like only reading Genesis and claiming to know everything about The New Testament and Christianity.

  • Joshua Ballrd

    Lost in this is the ostentatious nature of a 10 foot cement cross. Why do we feel the need to overcompensate our worship. Deeds are more important than pillar worship.

  • Scott Pease

    This Muslim brotherhood administration and all the athiests won’t be satisfied until every cross is removed from this country.

    • George T

      Scott Pease: Incorrect! Only interested in sectarian iconography being removed from public land, to avoid 1st amendment conflicts.

  • Karen Sloane

    Now for the revitalization of the land…Put up the 10 commandments share God’s word and make the group that does not want it there really ill hahahaha I love it!!!!

    • George T

      Karen Sloane: Oh! Have you heard that The FFRF has offered more money for the land?