Santa Clara Officials Remove Cross From Public Park Following Atheist Lawsuit

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Officials in Santa Clara, California have removed a 14-foot cross from a public park in response to a lawsuit filed by a prominent professing atheist organization.

The granite cross had been displayed in what is known as Memorial Cross Park for the past 64 years after being donated by the local chapter of the Lions Club.

But in 2012, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) wrote to then-Mayor Jamie Matthews to assert that the cross violated both the federal and state Constitutions in that it was a government endorsement of religion.

Matthews advised that the city looked forward “to resolving this matter in an expeditious and responsible manner,” but FFRF became dissatisfied when the only change that was made was the removal of a sign announcing the area as Memorial Cross Park.

Therefore, last April, FFRF filed suit. Included in the legal challenge was local resident Andrew DeFaria, who said that he has avoided the park so he does not have to look at the cross.

“As a non-believer in any religion, he finds the cross on public land objectionable. As a consequence, he avoids the public park and even goes so far as to avoid the street on which the park and cross are located in order to avoid the offensive encounter with the City’s endorsement of … religion through this symbolism,” the lawsuit outlined.

“Mr. DeFaria does not want to have to choose to be exposed to objectionable religious endorsement by Defendants, who are part of his local government and elected officials, in order to have access to public land in his city,” it said.

  • Connect with Christian News

FFRF asked that the courts declare the display a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution, and that it issue an injunction prohibiting the city from maintaining the cross whether in the park or elsewhere.

In response to the suit, Santa Clara officials began working on a settlement agreement, and decided to donate the cross to Santa Clara University, a Roman Catholic institution. The cross at issue had originally been erected as a memorial to an 18-century Spanish Catholic mission in the area.

Last week, it came to FFRF’s attention that the cross had been officially removed.

“It’s a very rational way to begin the New Year—sending a strong message of support of the wall of separation between religion and government,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor in a statement on Tuesday. “Reason and the Constitution have prevailed.”

But not all believe that the city should have removed the display.

“I find it offensive that the city leaders don’t have the will to maintain a rich symbol of their city’s history, but take path of least resistance—and less legal expense—of caving to this lawsuit,” one commenter wrote. “The city should have settled by offering counseling to the individual who allegedly found the cross so offensive. … [I]t is very likely that this had nothing to do with the individual actually being offended, but was operating from anti-Christian animus.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • tatoo

    It is about time.

  • Roy Hobs

    The Genocide of Western Civilization proceeds. And her forebears continue to sleep.

    Think — where did Cain’s wife come from?

  • Bob

    Don’t come to Texas. You will lose. It’s already happened and they slithered away-poor FFRF… You can try and remove a cross but you can’t remove the Lord Jesus Christ! Have a great day

    • George O’Donnell

      You can stick up a cross but you will never rightly own that which belongs to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      And some of the most well known Anti-Theists comes from your state. Aron Ra and Matt Dilahunty, among others, all fight the good fight there. Eventually ignorance will be overcome.

      • Bob

        Yes, true! Ignorance will be overcome when Jesus Christ returns to rule 🙂

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Ok. Talk to the world then about how great he is.

          Till then, no evidence of him existing.

          I wont wait up for you.

          • Bob

            ~~For we walk by faith, not by sight. ~~
            2 Corinthians 5:7
            Have a Blessed and Awesome Day 🙂

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Faith is never a path to truth.

            Faith is wishful thinking. Faith is the concept that if you somehow force yourself to belief, your own mind will fool itself.

            Faith is the tools the oppressors use to fool the ignorant.

            I will rely on my five senses and reason before I will ever consider Faith.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Which is a shit poor way of determining truth.

            Also a great way to be fooled.

            I have great beach front property in Colorado. Great deal. Cash only. Sight unseen. Don’t worry though, you have faith to ensure you have a great deal, right?

            Didn’t think so.

          • Bob

            It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
            Psalm 118:8
            There is no good way to answer fools when they say something stupid. If you answer them, then you, too, will look like a fool. If you don’t answer them, they will think they are smart.
            Proverbs 26:4-5
            So I guess I will be going now….
            ~~~Have a Great Day~~~

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Pslam was written by man. So you ARE putting your faith in a man. This is regardless if he actually was speaking on behalf of God, because man by definition is fallible.

            You have faith in the humans that wrote (and later edited) the Bible.

  • Joshua 1:9

    The cross is more of a hideous symbol of torture than it is a symbol of religion. I am a born again Christian. I do not, nor have I ever, worshipped a cross, prayed to or at a cross, looked at a cross for answers, or thought of it as a place for Jesus. It was only a means to serve a purpose. If atheists have skin that thin that they cannot bear to be in the same vicinity as something that was meant to kill or torture Jesus (a man they do not even believe existed), then they better start having all whips removed from the nation as well. Also, followers of Christ, in the Bible, were stoned to death. Better remove all stones too. There are so many things that were used in torturing and killing Jesus and Biblical Christians that should keep atheists busy removing them from everywhere throughout the nation. Atheists, it is not an option. Either get busy removing all stones, whips, and other items having to do with Christianity, or zip it. And in order to find out precisely every item you need to remove I suggest you read the Bible to find that out. Study it hard so as to not miss a single thing. Otherwise, you will be considered hypocrites. And you would not want that, because the word “hypocrites” is used throughout the Bible. Oh, and while you are at it, start demanding ISIS quit using the cross, whip, stones, and other means to torture and kill people. After all, those are the things they use as well. Better suit up! ISIS is very tough. And you do not have the Armor of God to protect you. Not unless you turn to Him and ask. Ask and you shall receive!

    • Jason

      Your argument is childish and silly 🙂 “remove all stones and whips,” ha. You brightened my day. That was funny 🙂

      • Joshua 1:9

        Atheism is childish and silly.

        • Jason

          Why?
          Oh and why does disagreeing with a religious cross on public grounds make me an atheist? You do know there are many other options out there, right? disagreeing with a religious cross on public grounds make me a secularist… which many Christians do not understand

          • Joshua 1:9

            Did you read all 5 words in my previous comment? I actually had to re-read it just to make sure I didn’t type something that made no sense. Kind of like what you just typed. Where, in those five words, did I insinuate that you were an atheist? Now, this is not just a rhetorical question, Jason. I seriously want you to explain to me exactly where. Because I really don’t see it. Wait, I shall read it again. ____________ Nope! Still don’t see it. And, not that you claiming to be a “secularist” at all pertains to this article or any of my comments, I do understand secularism. I probably understand more than you do. Just to let you know, most Christians are not just a group of people who idly and hopelessly sit in a church all week long, singing Kumbaya. Many of us study. We study not only the Bible, but many of us also study other religions and beliefs, as well as fake beliefs such as atheism, humanism and secularism. I am well-schooled in not only Christianity, but also Catholicism (and yes, it is different from Biblical Christianity), Mormonism, I had studied at great length with Jehovah’s Witnesses, also different types of Buddhism, Islam, occultism, Druidism, some Hindi, and many ancient beliefs that are no longer in existence. The one thing they all have in common aside from true Christianity) is that they are all hell bound unless embrace the truth about Jesus. You can certainly continue on with your secularism, but there will come a day when you have major regrets about it.

          • Jason

            “Where, in those five words, did I insinuate that you were an atheist?”
            The assumption was in the tone of your reply.
            Why is atheism childish and silly?
            “fake beliefs such as atheism, humanism and secularism.”
            Why do you think atheism, humanism, and secularism are fake beliefs?

          • Joshua 1:9

            There was no “tone” in my reply. This is typing. No tone required. The only way a person gets any sort of “tone” is if they are searching too hard for one.
            Atheism is childish because there is a group of people who spend so much time and effort trying to take away any and all belief from others. Atheists spend all this time and effort fighting against things like a cross in a park (that does not even say anything about God on it) among other things similar. They will fight against it it, and for what reason? It has never hurt anyone in anyway for hundred of years (and when I say “it” I mean alleged religious symbols in public places). I spoke with a few atheists before and asked why they are against such things. Their response was, “Why do they get to put up the symbols of their beliefs but we don’t?” My response sounded a lot more intelligent. I said, “Because you have no symbols!” As I had said in my original comment on here, a cross is just a cross. Yet, some people take it to heart a bit too much. But the thing is, it doesn’t hurt anyone. It is not as if Christians are using the cross as some sort of flag, and planting it in the ground, yelling, “I hereby claim this property in the name of the Cross people!”

          • Jason

            You are lumping together all atheists. Which is called a stereotype. Atheism is a stance on the existence of a deity. Nothing more.
            Many of my atheist friends do not like religious symbols in public parks because they are paying for it to be built and/or maintained by their tax money.
            I never heard the “where’s my symbol argument.” I have seen atheists use other religious symbols to point out the the hypocrisy and hatred of others. Like putting up the satanic statue in Oklahoma next to the 10 commandments.
            Humanism is a belief that all humans should be treated the same… which makes sense.
            And many Secularists believe that in order to be fair and just to everyone’s religious beliefs we must not show favoritism in any particular one… which also makes sense.
            These are real beliefs… except for atheism… which is a lack of a brief in a deity, but they can believe in many other things 🙂

          • Joshua 1:9

            You said, “Many of my atheist friends do not like religious symbols in public parks because they are paying for it to be built and/or maintained by their tax money.” Yet, Christians are forced to pay for science text book and other government-regulated text books that fly in the face of Christianity and any existence of God. Many books compiled for students in schools are written (or partially written) by people claiming there is no God. Christians still pay because it is what we do. Some of us also teach our children that not everything they learn in school is accurate or even true. But that they do have to learn it and succeed in those classes, nonetheless. I think I would rather pay for a cross than to pay yearly for millions of books.

          • Jason

            It’s a science book… that teaches science… in science class… so our children don’t grow up ignorant 🙂
            Education is very important for children. The more they know the better they will be. Science is a tool and scientist are like detectives. They just follow the clues. And then hopefully, more than a decade later, it gets into a text book.

          • Joshua 1:9

            It’s a science book that teaches against creation. A lot of parents try to teach their kids about creation. It is a lesson parents have been teaching for many many generations. And in recent history, parents have had to contend with more modern text books that argue with creation and God and Christian beliefs. And those same Christian parents are being forced to live with the fact that they have to pay so that their kids can learn a lot of things that strictly go against their own beliefs. Your atheist friends do not want to pay for a cross in a park or other alleged religious symbols, yet Christians have to pay for text books that fly in the face of their beliefs? How is that fair? And if Christians wish to remove their children from public schools and send them to private schools, they have to pay a lot more, plus they are STILL having to pay so that other children can attend public schools. I will answer my own question. No, it does not make any sense at all. And here is the kicker … for the most part, Christians have not complained about that, while atheists have been complaining about unimportant things like a cross in a park. Crosses have been in parks for centuries! Yet, atheists have just recently been complaining about it.

          • Joshua 1:9

            If Christians are forced to pay for science books and other books that teach against God and creation and other Christian beliefs, then I think it might be fair that atheists pay for Christian Bibles in churches. Wait, not fair? Silly idea? Both of them are.

          • Jason

            Ok so let’s do this… Science textbooks do not teach against creation… it’s creation (intelligent design) that goes against everything we gave discovered. Remember, it takes at least a decade for discoveries to make it to textbooks. Our understanding of the universe is growing exponentially and religion can’t keep up. If our kids want to become scientists why should they rediscover something we have known for years because it was omitted from their books.
            You are right; it is getting harder and harder for parents to teach creationism, but it can be gone with more and more lies.
            The difference between the cross in the park and science in the science books is that the cross is showing favoritism toward a single religion… which is illegal… which is why they moved it to private property:)

          • Joshua 1:9

            You cannot deny anyone their beliefs. There are laws in the country that allow for that. The Bible has been around for a long time. Longer than a decade. Longer than every text book ever written. The Bible is not just a bunch of hopeful maybes. There is a lot of proof on several different topics throughout the Bible. Even many scientists are trying to figure out how they knew what they knew back in the days the Bible was written. They can’t fathom the idea that they had no science to back anything up, yet they knew and could prove things.
            Your other point about the cross is ridiculous, because it is just a cross. There is no image of Jesus on it. There is no picture of Jesus there. There are no Biblical scriptures on or near it. It is just a cross. Crosses were used for centuries even before Jesus was born. But atheists always have to find some little thing to latch onto, even if there really is nothing to back it up. And they sometimes win based on the fact that … well … as the old saying goes, the empty can rattles the most. They don’t stop whining about the small things, like an ALLEGED religious cross in a park. Meanwhile, Christians have not protested, threatened or sued over the fact that our money has satanic symbols all over it. We understand that it is just a symbol, and it doesn’t mean anything to us. Just like the cross in the park should not mean anything to atheists. And for the record, money is public property.

          • Jason

            No one is denying anyone their beliefs. I said it’s hard to teach creationism with daily scientific discoveries… I think that’s what you are referring to.
            You are right, the Bible has been around for a long time, but older does not mean better. The Bible is static and brittle. The scientific method is a great tool to explain all the observations that we see around us. And the best part is that our knowledge is dynamic, flexible, growing.
            “The ALLEGED religious cross…,” come on 🙂

          • Joshua 1:9

            Science is a lot more “brittle”. Science is always changing it’s mind on many important issues. Yet, science has also been known to admit, on several occasions, that the Bible is correct on certain issues. Archaeologists have been proving certain Old Testament things to be correct and accurate. Not only have they found many specific Biblical items, but those items have proven things that a lot of non-believers have been disputing for years. The Bible stands the test of time. And it is not even a government-regulated text book.
            And yes, ALLEGED. There is nothing on or near that cross that says it is Christian. Some ancient satanic cults have even been known to use the white cross as one of their symbols.

          • Jason

            “Changing its mind,” do you mean increasing our understanding based on more accurate observations? That is the opposite of brittle 🙂
            “Archaeologists have been proving certain Old Testament things to be correct and accurate.” For instance…?
            Still going with that alleged thing. Funny. You know what it stands for.

          • Nancy Cousintine

            Joshua 1:9 What a load of old bollocks you shovel. Science is flexible and it grows with new knowledge every day. The very opposite of Religion which is stagnant and clings to misinformation even when there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. You can claim anything you want about biblical claims, but that doesn’t change what is actually written there. Be thankful that the modern world doesn’t run on the science and technology of the Bible.I’m sure even you wouldn’t want to live in the world of biblical tech and medicine. You wouldn’t even have the option of personal freedoms, or the ability to choose what or how to believe. Stop playing stupid. The cross is the most recognizable symbol of Christianity that there is, so stop with the guff. You fool no one. As for stuff being found in the Bible…seriously big whup. Harry Potter books make references to the city of London. Comic books have made references to New York City . All of them make references either obviously or obliquely to the fact that humans wear clothing, breathe, eat, and do any of a number of things and go any of a number of places. That doesn’t mean that the actual stories are true, only that some of the setting are based on recognizable human people places or things for setting ad recognition purposes. Myth/ fiction of any sort must a framework that the listener/reader can connect with,and understand. That you blindly believe, and so obviously and desperately try to twist reality to fit ancient, ignorant and rather primitive beliefs is rather telling about your intellectual maturity, and you arrogance, desire, and ability to deceive yourself all so you can indulge you childish fears, and self centered imagining of specialness. If you only were willing to be self delusional, no one else would care. The fact that you want to spread your ignorance, and even make it into law, is sickening. Oh you poor thing…such persecution… Churches on every bloody street corner. Religious exhortations on currency. Oh the terribleness, and the unfairness that other people who either believe differently from you, or hold no religious beliefs what soever might wish to be treated equally. How in the heck is wanting equality persecution of your faith? When you find yourself denied a job, or housing, or education or the right to a fair trial and equal treatment under the law…then you may complain. When anyone else wants the same rights as you, that takes nothing from you that you didn’t already have, except now everyone is on a equally footing, as it should be in a modern civil functional society/ democracy. You are just whinging because you aren’t “special” anymore, poor thing. If you want to be socially and culturally backwards, please keep it to yourself. Ignorance, either purposeful or induced/ indoctrinated is diabolical and destructive. it has taken centuries for humanity to begin to drag itself toward a future where ignorance can be seen as a thing of the past. Why in the name of all that is decent would you try so hard to drag us back to the days of superstition and incomprehension? Why are you so proud of being scientifically, and historically illiterate? I’ve no idea if you yourself were infected by your parents, or whether the disease and delusion is self induced and self perpetuated, what is horrifying is that you want to pass such pathology on to the next generation and make the rest of us suffer the religious virus that has affect your mind. Sorry. Please, keep it to yourself. Religion hasn’t been an antidote to what troubles this modern world. It foments hatred , special pleading, unfounded fears, and gives power to those who don’t deserve it to use against those who have been taught they are somehow born broken. In all that time that it’s been around, if it was such a good thing and the “right way”, then it would have worked. It doesn’t. Enough already. Let it dies. Time to try a different approach.

          • Joshua 1:9

            In your comment here you have told me to stop forcing my beliefs on people (I have not forced anything on anyone here). You have very ignorantly lumped all religions together, knowing very well that all religions are very different in many ways. You have taken certain thing I have said out of context (senselessly speaking of Harry Potter books and comics). You have also led me to believe that, although you seem to think you have all the negative answers when it comes to what I specifically believe, you really do not. My assumption is that you have never really read, nor studied, the Bible enough to formulate an opinion of what it really says. You have said that religion “foments hatred”. While that is very true of many religions, it seems to me that you also have much hatred in you. Your comment to me was oozing with nothing but spite. I have done nothing to you. Throughout your comment, you had told me to stop forcing my beliefs, but then you tell me to stop believing what I believe.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            If science wasn’t able to be changed, we’d still believe in a flat Earth, and the Americas would likely never have been discovered.

            Being able to be edited is the STRENGTH of Science. Only Religion is static and it is why it comes in conflict with reality more and more as we learn more.

          • Sharon_at_home

            So why exactly can’t schools be taught both – the religious side and the scientific side – about how the world and people came to be? By teaching the scientific side only, they only get half of the possibilities. Otherwise it is discriminating against Christians for their beliefs. Both sides should be presented not just one.

          • Jason

            In science class? Is that what you are asking? How about we focus on science in science class.
            It’s about a decade long hard process for new discoveries to make it into text books… Creationists want to skip that process and go straight to the textbook. Creationism can be taught in bible study… at church.
            I did take a world religion class in college that brushed up on all the creation stories. There’s some cool ones out there, but let’s keep it out of science class 🙂

          • Sharon_at_home

            It’s about creation so they are both considered ways to believe the way the world was ‘created’. There are many subjects that cover more than one kind of lesson.
            Just as you don’t believe in the idea of a God creating the earth, we don’t believe that it was “nothing created nothing” so both sides should be reviewed. Otherwise the children will only have one side of the argument and that’s not what we want our children to learn.
            To be on equal footing, you’d have to give both sides.
            If creation is a science topic then the bible version should be available to them.

          • Jason

            Science textbooks do not teach nothing created nothing 🙂 that’s funny.
            everything in a science textbook started with observations and followed the scientific method. Try again. Keep science in science class.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Science teaches us what we can see with our own eyes, physics and math.

            Religion is a story (which you believe).

            It does NOT belong in a science class.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “So why exactly can’t schools be taught both – the religious side and the scientific side”

            Because public schools arent the place for religion. any religion. If someone wants their child to have religion in their education, there are schools for that.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Because it is not science.

            Teaching religion violates our constitution.

            I think you’d rather teach your own version of Christianity to your children anyways. Wouldn’t want a Catholic being taught Jehova’s Witness version of things.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Science = The best description of observable reality. No supernatural claims.

            Religion = Supernatural claims.

            Science is not Religion.

            Different class.

            Sorry your religion doesn’t match up with reality well.

          • Nancy Cousintine

            So, you are all for a decline in the ability for your children to be unprepared for the workforce and a prosperous future? Why would you want your children to be poorly educated? How selfish and backwards you are Joshua 1:9. That is tantamount to child abuse. I was kind in my other comment to you, but when you suggest that children be poorly taught, and you without credentials to even know what you are talking about… Mind boggling! It is no surprise that educational standards are falling, when the blind propose to lead where they cannot see, and are happy in their ignorance. That you would condemn the next generation to your own lack of intellectual depth is reprehensible. That is exactly why religion should be kept out of science classes. To purposefully stunt the the intellectual development of any child is despicable. What a disgrace to all of those people who have fought long and hard to make sure that children had a decent education and a chance at a better future than their parents generation. You should be ashamed. You dishonour those who gave so much, so that you could have the opportunities that you have. You want to regress, and tear that away from future generations. What the heck is wrong with you. It is little wonder that rational people shake their heads in anger and frustration at people who think the way you do. How can you be so selfish that you would purposely sacrifice the future just because you are uncomfortable with scientific fact. That’s a bit monstrous. smh. I pity you, and hope that if you do have offspring that you haven’t infected/indoctrinated them to the point where they won’t be as irrational in their thinking as you appear to be. Saddened for you.

          • Sharon_at_home

            “So, you are all for a decline in the ability for your children to be
            unprepared for the workforce and a prosperous future? Why would you want
            your children to be poorly educated? How selfish and backwards you are”
            How on earth does how we were created affect our children in the workforce and a prosperous future? IT DOESN’T.

            Can you tell us why the schools can’t present both sides and let the children grow up knowing both and can decide when they are mature enough. You have your beliefs and we have ours. You are saying your way is the truth, while we are saying that our way is the truth. Therefore the only way to avoid discrimination is to teach both. This will make the children have a well rounded education that doesn’t discriminate.

          • Nancy Cousintine

            Joshua 1:9. Stop with the purposeful pretended stupidity. You know darned well that a cross is the Christian symbol above all others, as it symbolizes Christ’s sacrifice. So, why would you try to bs people? I don’t think that it is so dreadful to have a cross on the site of what was a church. It is an appropriate logical marker for the historical site. I don’t see it as advertising the Christian religion. Not a fan of “special snowflakes” no matter what their derivation is, and that includes atheists who wander about trying to find things to be enraged or upset about. Should there be separation of church and state. That makes sense. That way no one religious ideology theoretically can be favoured, or any non religious ideology either. Logical. Your beliefs end where my life and rights begin. I won’t tell you how to worship as long as you don’t try to force your beliefs into situations where they don’t belong, like education or government which are public institutions that are supposed to serve all individuals not just to a select favoured few.
            I don’t even care about public displays like nativity scenes etc, as long as other groups are allowed equal acceptability, though knee jerk reactions or just plain S*%t disturbing is pretty childish as well no matter who is doing it… Decorum and decency, and respect all around is what I’d like to propose. Diversity is a good thing, it is the spice of life. It can work too, as long people/groups act like mature and rational instead of whiney, spoiled, entitled brats, mobs.
            So enough guff already! You know a cross is not just a cross, and allthe same to the easily offended snowflake atheists, aren’t there better things to be concerned about, like improving education, and public perceptions of what atheist are? How about being good examples of what rational non religious humans can be? It is no positive reflection on the atheist community when there are massive flame wars and reactions to petty concerns. It’s like focusing on a pimple while you might be better to be concern with the fact that your bleeding out. Priorities! Anyway. peace to all. It is the 21st century. About time we all grw up and learned to get along.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            While your earlier post was rather close to the meat of Atheism, you add baggage to it.

            Atheism doesn’t make me post on these boards challenging opposing views, Anti-Theism does. Skepticism does. Humanism does.

            So claiming Atheism as childish is silly. Atheism is only “I don’t believe the god claims”. Everything else is something else.

          • Joshua 1:9

            And to answer your last question, those three are “fake beliefs” because there really is no true belief in any particular person or thing. Atheists just plain do not believe in any god. Humanists are people who want to leave any belief in a god out of helping people in need. And secularism? Well, secularism really is not even a “belief” exactly. It is more of a political thing. Secularists want to keep religious beliefs out of political issues, and to divide the church and state. Secularists will sometimes claim that as their “belief” while it really is not even a belief at all. So, they are all “fake beliefs” in their own ways.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re mostly right, but I still don’t see how you call those things, especially atheism, “fake beliefs,” since most atheists, in fact all other atheists I’ve ever talked to, wouldn’t call atheism a belief in the first place. It’s a lack of belief. I could see how one could classify humanism and secularism as beliefs, because they are beliefs, just not spiritual ones.

          • Jason Todd

            Disagreeing makes you an idiot. There’s nothing scary or threatening about a cross, and yet people like you react to one like you’re a vampire. Grow up.

          • Jason

            That’s not how it works and name calling is childish and uncalled for.

          • Jason Todd

            That’s exactly how it works, kiddo. I’m tired of the bigots trying to silence me and my faith simply because they are afraid of the possibility of being held accountable for their actions. The gloves aren’t merely off, they’ve been incinerated.

          • Jason

            “I’m tired of the bigots trying to silence me and my faith simply because they are afraid of the possibility of being held accountable for their actions. The gloves aren’t merely off, they’ve been incinerated.” Same here! That’s exactly how I feel (minus the whole accountability thing. We have laws for that.) Do you know how difficult it is to tell others I know I’m an atheist? All the hatred and bigotry in the world makes it very difficult. I would like to see everyone follow the same laws and be treated equally.

          • johndoe

            Who’s trying to silence you and your faith….hint….nobody..

          • Jason Todd

            Baloney.

          • Joshua 1:9

            Jason Todd, stop typing things. You claim to be a Christian, yet your actions on here show everyone something different. You are extremely argumentative, hateful, and immature. There are other ways of getting a point across other than name calling and threatening. If you cannot have a meaningful, well thought out, compassionate, intelligent conversation on here, then I suggest you take a deep breath, find the little “x” at the top of your computer, and click it.

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, let me explain something to you:

            We have mentally ill people openly going after our kids, teaching the “virtues” of homosexuality and transgenderism to three year olds.

            We have atheists actively trying to remove God from the public square.

            Planned Parenthood slaughters the unborn, harvests their body parts and sells them for profit.

            And we have “Christians” telling people it’s perfectly okay to sin, the exact dead opposite of what the Bible teaches.

            And you have the nerve to come in here and tell me how to feel?

            I read my Bible everyday. I stand on and by it. Jesus Christ displayed anger and violence when he discovered what was going on in the temple.

            Neo-Christians ignore that, among other things clearly stated in the Bible. Like the part that says people who teach a doctrine that isn’t Bible based should be ignored.

            So which one are you? Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

          • Joshua 1:9

            First of all “dude”, you are furthering my point about your previous comments on here. Immaturity, calling people names, threats, saying people are “mentally ill”. None of these things are displaying what you claim to be. You are not engaging in adult conversation. You are doing just the opposite. You have been angering people, including me. Show a little patience, compassion, intelligence, and if you disagree with someone then do it by calmly pointing things out instead of calling them names and threatening. I understand your frustrations, but doesn’t the Bible say that this is how the world will be during these times? I am not saying to be a peace-loving, head-in-the-clouds, pacifist. But try to find a compatible medium ground. There is disagreement, then there is borderline hatred. It is not good for anyone to go too far. If you feel you cannot comment without calling people names or acting immature then “x” out of here, and go pray. It will help.

          • Jason Todd

            Homosexuals and transgendered people are mentally ill. Your defense of these people and their actions tell me I need not to engage with you, a neo-Christian, any longer.

            You are blocked.

          • Joshua 1:9

            Jason Todd, blocking people will is also not practicing a Christian attitude. You claim that I am acting in “defense of these people and their actions”. And by “these people” you mean homosexuals and transgender. You say I am acting in defense of them, when it is you who are constantly claiming they have a mental illness. Did you read that in the Bible? Which verse is that? My Bible, and the many others that I had studied over the years, says that it is a sin. It says it is such a serious sin that it is called “an abomination unto God”. By claiming it is just a mental illness, you are taking scripture and twisting it. In fact, you are saying that scripture is inaccurate. Also, you are agreeing with a confused society. Some of society claims it is a mental illness, while many homosexuals even claim it is not a mental illness and it is solely their choice. But here you are, claiming the Bible to be inaccurate on the subject, while agreeing with part of modern society. Not to mention, you have gone back to name-calling again. Jason Todd, homosexuality is not a mental illness. That is just a very poor excuse to allow them to go unpunished for sin. By you claiming they have a mental illness you are just enabling them to continue with their lifestyle. Not to mention, you are insulting people that actually have mental illnesses, and are truly in need of help.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You cant “teach” homosexuality any more than Christian programs have “fixed” people making them straight again. Your fears drive your belief. Fear is a very powerful tool to keep control of the flock.

          • Jason Todd

            Explain “Queer Kid Stuff.”

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Don’t know what you mean.

          • johndoe

            OL!

    • George O’Donnell

      I second the recommendation to read the bible cover to cover. It was no small part of the reason I became an atheist in the first place.

      • Amos Moses

        and therefore scripture accomplished Gods desire ….. it got rid of you ………..

        • johndoe

          What a wonderful diety….

          • Amos Moses

            that He gets rid of those who do not follow Him …… YUP ……… you bet ….. if you do not want to follow ….. then what is it you expect ………….

          • johndoe

            Sure……

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If George is telling the truth, “God’s Word” just got rid of a person who DID follow Him.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …….. he never did follow Him ….. he pretended perhaps ….. but Gods word does His desire ….. and His desire was to expose the false believer ………….

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Right. I’m sure you know him better than he knows himself.

          • Amos Moses

            it is obvious from what he writes about himself ….. i do not need to “know” him …. HE TOLD US …………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            He didn’t tell anyone. Some guy somewhere in the past, wrote down that he did.

            Unless you are claiming that God speaks to you. Which would be an amazing claim in itself.

          • Amos Moses

            If you want tp hear God speak to you … Read scrpture…. If you want to hear Him audibly ….
            READ IT OUT LOUD ……

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Men wrote scripture. God did not.

            What you are reading is another mans claim.

          • Amos Moses

            nope ……… is that a scientific, theological or personal opinion …………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            There is no claim that God wrote the Bible (with the exception of maybe you). Instead, historians claim there are many books assigned to various titles, some named after the disciples the supposed POV is from. Religious historians know at which events the Bible was put together and the followers that decided what books would be included. Some was discarded (nice to throw away the parts you don’t like).

            Those same historians also claim that the books may have had different authors. This could be because the material was pieced together from more than one source, or because it was heavily edited. But even the Bible itself suggests its writings come from those that followed, and not the actual writings of a divine being.

            So as to what it is? It is the findings of Christian religious scholars.

          • Amos Moses

            “There is no claim that God wrote the Bible”

            there is …. in scripture ……….. so again ……… is that a scientific, theological or personal opinion …………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Book and chapter please.

          • Amos Moses

            1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
            1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
            1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

            the Holy Spirit, as part of the triune Godhead, is the author of all scripture ………

            3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
            3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
            3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

            “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” ….. and as such God is the author of all scripture …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So the MEN that wrote that the words they wrote were given to them by God is “proof” that God wrote the books.

            I find the logic lacking.

            The men made the statements. Therefore the men had to be infallible and honest.

            You need to have “faith” in these men. Not God.

          • Amos Moses

            men do not have the ability to have faith ….. unless they are regenerated by God …. they have no will to choose the things of God ….. you cannot choose the things of God because you are unregenerate ………. man brings absolutely nothing to God, nothing to the table ….. man has nothing of value that God needs ….. men need God, God does not need men ….. God is totally self-sufficient and sovereign ……

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So no free will. Gotcha.

          • Amos Moses

            depends on what you mean by “free will” ….. and your definition is not the biblical definition ….. can you pick tooth paste …. sure … but you have no will to pick your parents …. you have no will to leap tall buildings at a single bound …… and you are incapable of choosing God and the things of God ….. if you are ….. then let me see you choose them …..

            you cant ……….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Everything in religion is opinion, because there is no real evidence for it.

            Isn’t it nice that everyone’s God always agrees with their line of thought on how things should be?

          • Amos Moses

            NOPE …. it is not an opinion ….. that is just YOUR opinion ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            To be supernatural, you need to NOT have any evidence. If there was evidence, it would become part of nature and thus not supernatural.

            Until you can show it is a fact, it is your opinion. Good luck with that. Its been tried for 3500+ years.

      • Mr Cleats

        Plus being gay.

      • Jason Todd

        Somehow I doubt that. My money says you allegedly picked up the Bible with a pre-determined conclusion and cherry-picked it to help you toward that conclusion.

        • George O’Donnell

          You will believe whatever you want to believe no matter what I tell you. I was a Christian for 25 years before I finally realized I’d been duped.

          • Jason Todd

            No, you’re either a liar or you’ve been lied to. Either way, you’re trying to dupe others. Not on my watch.

          • George O’Donnell

            And you are continuing to demonstrate my point. I am not lying but you refuse to believe that I can possibly be telling the truth.

            I don’t tell you what you think, don’t tell me what I think.

          • Jason Todd

            Because I know God exists. I know this on a personal level, one you’ll never comprehend or understand.

            I’m not telling you what to think. I’m telling you not to tell others how to think, i.e. there’s no God.

            You will never see me going to JoeMyGod and try to convince anyone there is a God. Why can’t you give us the same courtesy?

          • johndoe

            Quit whining. Public forum.

          • Jason Todd

            Christian website. No double standards.

          • johndoe

            More whining….

          • George O’Donnell

            I used to “know” God existed. I felt his presence and prayed to him. I now realize it was all just wishful thinking.

            You’re not telling me what I think? You’ve done it twice now. You told me I picked up the bible with pre-determined conclusion and that I never can comprehend or understand God on a personal level.

            I have not told anyone here that they need to agree with me that there’s no God. I did recommend that people read the Bible and draw their own conclusions.

          • Amos Moses

            you are not a used-to-was …….. you are a never-were …..

          • George O’Donnell

            Please refer to my other post. I believed all the same things as you. My life choices were inspired by and guided by my faith and understanding of the Bible and Gods will. I was anything but CINO. I had a very deep understanding of my faith.

          • Neal D

            Go and die of AIDS, you disgusting little trailer trash pervert.

            You pedophiles are the scum of the earth.

          • George O’Donnell

            I don’t believe in God therefore I am a pervert and a pedophile. Makes perfect sense.

            Have a good day.

          • Amos Moses

            no ……. it is all just the same garbage ……… and no … you did not believe all the samethings i do …… if you did then you would not be where you are ……… CINO is what you always were ………

          • johndoe

            Whatcha gonna do about it?

          • Amos Moses

            ahhhh …. no you weren’t ……. you never were …… you have to slide forward to backslide ….. you never slid forward ………..

          • George O’Donnell

            You don’t know me. I’m being honest with you about my past, the least you can do is take that at face value and not try to convince yourself that I never really was a Christian.

            I was a God fearing, Jesus loving, Bible reading Christian. I went to church every week and volunteered to help with the service. I was part of Christian youth groups. I earnestly believed all the same things you believe now.

          • Amos Moses

            i have heard it all before ….. you think you can come here and then gain some kind of “credibility” by saying you were a christian for “X” years ….. but now you are not ….

            you never were ……….. it is all baloney ……… reading and understanding what you read ….. not the same thing …….. sorry ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I don’t think you are a Christian, Amos.

            You are just pretending to be one.

            See? Anyone can do that. That is why it is a fallacy.

          • Amos Moses

            Yep …. So what …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            And thus the damage of religion comes to light.

            The “so what”, is that you have no reasonable basis to tell someone else that they aren’t “Christian” because they don’t believe the same as you. It is a man made label used for those that believe in Christ. Any such statements are reasonably ignored and makes any related arguments using such logic as invalid and useless in a discussion.

          • Amos Moses

            “The “so what”, is that you have no reasonable basis to tell someone else that they aren’t “Christian” because they don’t believe the same as you.”

            Scripture provides all the evidence and authority for christians to decide who is and who is lying about who is ….. but you reject scripture ….. valid in christianity ….. just not in your godless world ….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            And yet despite that, that one book, is interpreted in a thousand different ways. I like to use the term cherry picking. Because if you followed the Bible exactly, you’d be either committed, or in jail.

            If you want to find the Christian God, the best place to go is look in the mirror.

          • Amos Moses

            “And yet despite that, that one book, is interpreted in a thousand different ways.”

            but only one correct way ……. the way the author of all scripture wrote it ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So all other Christians are wrong? Damn. No wonder your religion is falling apart.

            Please show evidence on how your way is right and everyone else is wrong.

          • Amos Moses

            if their Christiology is wrong, they do not follow Christ, so not christian ……. if their theology is wrong, they are not christian …. if their doctrine is not correct, they are not christian …… the author determines what He wrote ….. not the reader interpreting it ….. Herman Melville determines what he meant in Moby Dick …… not some person who reads it years later …. the readers interpretation is meaningless ………

            Christ dismissed numerous apostles during his time here …….. they were not true followers …. and i do not have to prove anything to you about my belief ….. my belief is not at issue …. it is what Christ has determined that is the only issue …….

            7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
            7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
            7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
            7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
            7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
            7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
            7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
            7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So how do you determine if the “Christology” is correct? The various denominations for the most part take their beliefs directly from the Bible.

            If you are a literalist, I guess that means you own slaves, and have a wife you paid sheckles to her father for?

          • Amos Moses

            i take the full counsel of God as writ ………. “I guess that means you own slaves, and have a wife you paid sheckles to her father for?” ….. no … because as i said ……. “i take the full counsel of God as writ” ………..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So you choose which side of the contradictions you follow? Cherry picking.

            Also where does “God” say slavery is bad? Even Jesus supports slavery.

          • Amos Moses

            there is no contradiction … and god has already chosen ……… no “cherry picking” ….. that is what you do ……….

          • Amos Moses

            without Christ you would not know what good or bad is ….. and if he does not exist ….. then your claim as to anything being good or bad is moot and pointless ………….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I know that.

            I said that because you were the one deciding who was Christian enough.

            My remark was that you would not take me seriously if I told you that you weren’t Christian.

            It is callled the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

          • Amos Moses

            “I said that because you were the one deciding who was Christian enough.”

            NOPE ….. Christ has already done that …… we just follow what He has told us through the scriptures …… and it is not “Christian enough.” …….. it is christian at all …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You are taking that out of context.

            See? I can do that too. Ad infinitum.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You can’t make a judgement like that because you don’t know him.

          • Amos Moses

            i made a judgement based on what was said …….. and yes i can …….. it is a requirement to judge righteous judgement ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So you can judge whether someone was or is a Christian based on a few lines from a message forum? Really?

          • Amos Moses

            Really …. it is their own words that convict them ………. if a person robs a bank and then says …. “i did it” …… convicted ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I see, and what are his words that supposedly convicted him?

          • Amos Moses

            read them …. or get mommy to do it for you …… Oleomargarine ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is nothing that he said that allows you to invoke No True Scotsman. You are in no position to state what he is, was, or will be based on a few lines on a message forum. You lose.

          • Amos Moses

            “There is nothing that he said that allows you to invoke No True Scotsman.”

            i did not ….. you did …….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I never invoke it, but I do point it out when people fall into it, like yourself.

          • Amos Moses

            No fall ….. Not part of christianity…..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I never claimed it was a part of Christianity. It’s not. It’s an identified failure of logic which may be applied to anything including religion.

          • Amos Moses

            it is not a failure of logic ….. scripture defines it ……… he told us …. YES we can …….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You cannot state that he was never a Christian. You simply can’t. You have no way of knowing.

          • Amos Moses

            scripture defines it ……… he told us …. YES we can …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

            Christians should really read their own source material. All of it.

          • Amos Moses

            You have not ….. And that bit is out of context and has no meaning …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            CONTEXT!

            The excuse for just about everything in the Bible that Christians do not want to be highlighted as “evil” or disgusting.

            Whenever I hear “context”, I hear “You don’t cherry pick it like I do!”

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. you are the cherry picker ….. and you cannot provide anything outside of a “proof-text” …….. do you read the first line of Moby Dick ….. “Call me Ishmael” ….. and assume it is about muslims ….. FAIL ……… either quote the whole of scripture …… or continue to FAIL …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            “In the Beginning…”

            Well, God hadn’t created anything yet, including Time, so there was no beginning.

            End of Bible dissertation.

          • Amos Moses

            again ………. out of context ……… and meaningless ……..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            In the beginning is out of context?

            ITS THE FIRST THREE WORDS!

            Man you Christians make me laugh.

            So tell me, in what context is Slavery ok?

          • Amos Moses

            “In the beginning is out of context?”

            YES, out of context ……….. “Call me Ishmael” …. Moby Dick …. OUT OF CONTEXT …. and it has no meaning …………. you can laugh all you want ….. it makes no difference to me ….. you are the one who does not know what they are talking about …… you are OUT OF CONTEXT …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You cannot have a beginning in ANY context without time.

          • Amos Moses

            unless you are outside of time and the creator of time ….. where Father/Son/Holy Spirit exist ….. there is no time …. they are in the eternal …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            If you are outside of time, then “beginning” has no meaning, as it is a descriptor of time.

            Also without time, no action of any kind can exist. Time is required to change from one state to another.

            The only way your God can exist, is if he came from another universe where time also existed, and that opens up a whole new can of worms.

          • Amos Moses

            “If you are outside of time, then “beginning” has no meaning,”

            unless you are a Creator God ……. and then you can create a beginning ….. and since it is His creation ….. He can step in and out of it ….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I haven’t had the luxury of reading Moby Dick. But I have read the Bible. In its entirety.

            I find it lacking.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. the lack is understanding what YOU have read ……… you clearly do not understand ….. reading and understanding ….. two entirely different things ……

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Back to cherry picking. Your claim that your understanding is the only understanding is flawed. You’d be the only person in Heaven IF you were correct.

            Damn, that would suck for you.

          • Amos Moses

            “Your claim that your understanding is the only understanding is flawed. ”

            Christ is the only interpreter of His word ….. if you do not understand it …… then the flaw is in you …… has nothing to do with what i say it says …. i am not the author ….. i do not get to put my meaning on His words ….. and neither do you …….. and if you cannot understand the meaning of scripture …. you have not asked the author for help …. and you are in error ….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So Christ is the ONLY interpreter.

            You therefore CANNOT interpret it.

            If you THINK you can interpret it you are wrong, because you are not Christ.

            If you THINK Christ is interpreting it for you, then you may be wrong and misinterpreting it.

            If you happen to be right about Christ interpreting it for you, then you have no free will because it is Christ doing the thinking. You have no say.

            Proselytizing is pointless because Christ is required before even beginning to understand the words. If Christ is not present, then it is a wasted effort.

            This is according to your statement.

          • Amos Moses

            “You therefore CANNOT interpret it.”

            therefore i am forbidden from my own interpretation ….. Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Galatians 1:8-9, Revelation 22 18-21 …. scripture interprets itself ….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Interpretation means “the action of explaining the meaning of something”.

            Language gives the words meaning.

            Bible is written and interpreted in many languages.

            So, only the original text could be relevant for your claims (else you are relying on someone else’s interpretation).

            Original OT was in Hebrew and original NT was written in Greek if I remember correctly. Do you read either of those?

            Also, the very act of putting words to it requires interpretation. The ONLY way you could NOT be interpreting it is if God teleported the message directly into your mind with no Bible. Good luck convincing anyone THAT is true.

            So I must conclude, you are merely interpreting the Bible the way YOU want to, which is independent of any supernatural entity.

            So going with your first quote:

            “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you”

            The very act of reading this line requires you interpret it via the English language. It isn’t the original translation. Which means it is NOT the original divinely interpreted word of God, but something created by man.

            Also, the “word” was diminished and added to when they put the books together. So it is also WRONG.

          • Amos Moses

            no … the bible is translated into many languages ….. scripture interprets scripture ….. or it is no longer scripture ……..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Scripture interprets scripture?

            Meaningless garble to justify your belief.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not have to justify my belief to anyone … least of all you ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Sure you do.

            That is if you are following the Bibles instruction to spread the word.

            Or did you ignore that part?

            If not, then you aren’t doing a good job if you cant “justify your belief”.

          • Amos Moses

            “That is if you are following the Bibles instruction to spread the word.”

            Nope …. not the same thing ….. spreading the word is just that …. i am not responsible for what that word does once it is done …. that is Christs work …. and i do not have to justify it to anyone ……….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So its ok to just go through the motions? Doesn’t sound very diligent of you.

            Colossians 3:232
            Thessalonians 3:10
            Proverbs 16:3
            Ecclesiastes 9:10
            2 Thessalonians 3:6-9 … and more.

            Sky daddy is going to be really pissed.

            You’d better hope your God doesn’t exist.

          • Amos Moses

            so more evidence of cherry picking ….. thanks for the evidence you are providing of my assertion ….. all of salvation is Christs work ….. it is my duty to spread His word ….. the rest is above my pay grade ……. and if you used to be a Christian …. and did not know that ….. could be why you are no longer … or ever were ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            EVERYONE CHERRY PICKS!

            You cannot follow the Bible exactly word for word because you encounter contradictions.

            Therefore, CHERRYPICKING.

          • Amos Moses

            Nope ……. i take scripture as a whole …. what you are quoting is out of context ……… to put it in context …. you need to include what comes before …. what comes after ….. there are only contradictions when you do NOT read it in context and consider the entire text …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Sure you do.

            Tell me something, in what context is owning a slave ok?

            Exodus 21 — Rules for owning a slave.

            And before you CHERRY PICK and tell me its like indentured servitude, that is only for Hebrew Males.

            So do you think slavery is moral?

          • Amos Moses

            nothing in scripture says “slave owning” is ok ……. so fail ….. there are rules given to men who followed their base desires and kept slaves ….. and rules were given despite it not being ok ………

            Exodus 21:16, it is against the law to kidnap a man and making him a slave or to even be found with him is punishable by death.
            21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

            FAIL ………

            and i do not here you whining about slaves who are kept today …. legally ……. so FAIL again ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            1″Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them: 2″If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.…
            New American Standard Bible

            Now, you are going to yell, “That’s not the Bible I use! Mine says SERVANT.”

            Then I will turn CONTEXT on you.

            Exodus:
            6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. 7 If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

            Permanent servants are SLAVES. Daughters have no rights to freedom. They are permanent SERVANT/SLAVES. Do you believe it is morally just to sell your daughter into slavery? It sounds like it since you follow the Bible in its most literal sense.

            If not, then you are either denying the Bible, or are CHERRY PICKING.

            #Context

          • Amos Moses

            “Now, you are going to yell, “That’s not the Bible I use! Mine says SERVANT.””

            and so we have to go to the original Hebrew …. as i have said and the word translated is:

            H5650
            עֶבֶד
            ‛ebed
            eh’-bed
            From H5647; a servant: – X bondage, bondman, [bond-] servant, (man-) servant

            FYI, men were allowed to SELL themselves into bondage to pay DEBTS ……….. So What …..

            “Permanent servants are SLAVES.”

            and it is interesting how you then JUMP ….. OUT OF CONTEXT ……… to 6 ….. SKIPPING 3, 4, AND 5 ………. again ……………. OUT OF CONTEXT ………. and that makes you a LIAR …….

            21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
            21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
            21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

            If the slave wanted to stay they were required to appear before he a priest and declare they wanted to remain a slave and have a nail driven through their ear. There was no compulsion. They had to publicly declare it.If after six years they wanted to stay they had to be released every 50 years during the jubilee.

            OUT OF CONTEXT ………. LIAR ……………

          • Amos Moses

            “The very act of reading this line requires you interpret it via the English language.”

            Really …. so i can “interpret” it to mean that all cats like milk with their mouse because that is my interpretation of what you meant ….. RIGHT ….. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ……….. WROOOOOONG ……………….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So no words have changed over time? Does the English version capture EXACTLY what the Bible claims Moses said and did?

            You do not know anything about intent, reality, or anything else based on the Bible. There are many passages the state the exact opposite as other passages. Some things have been proven to be plain false. (ie. World is round and doesn’t have a “firmament”).

            There IS no correct interpretation. You only think there is.

            If you claim otherwise, you are going to have to prove HOW your interpretation is correct over others.

            For example: You will have to show how your views are divine inspired over another Christians views.

          • Amos Moses

            “So no words have changed over time?”

            that is why it was WRITTEN DOWN ………….

            “You do not know anything about intent”

            i know about authorial intent …. and the reader does not get to tell the author what he wrote and what it meant ………. you want to disregard authorial intent ….. and that is just post-modern clap trap ….. you do not want to know what it says …. you want to “you make this up as you go” ………. and you fail miserably …………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So, please show me the original document so we can verify that nothing changed.

            Oh, that right. You have FAITH in the humans that copied it.

            Please cite how you know intent of authors that wrote it. Its like saying that you KNOW Joel Osteen honestly cares about his flock as he sits in his tax free multi-million dollar mansion, and just recently CHARGED TICKETS to worship with him in the T-Mobile arena. Just saying.

            Also which author? Some books had as many as four different authors. Did they all have the same intent? I doubt it. Especially since they contradicted one another all the time. Did the people that took those writings and condensed them into the Bible have intent when they edited, and discarded parts of those writings?

            Then there is the readers intent (read bias) that lets them see what they want to see in the Bible.

            Ignoring the Bible is the best anyone can do with it. There is much better morality is modern day fiction.

          • Amos Moses

            we do not need the original document ….. we have THOUSANDS of copies of the originals ….. and we also have the dead sea scrolls …. and we have the evidence of what scripture says to verify that it is true ………….

            Dramatically, when the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity. Remarkably, there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.

            The manuscript evidence for the “New Testament” is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. 4 Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

            Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar’s The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger’s Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus’ Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).

            “Please cite how you know intent of authors that wrote it. ” ….. the author is still alive ….. not plural …. singular ….. and we have the eyewitness testimony …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Prove they were correctly copied?

            Oh, thats right. You ASSUME via your invisible god spectacles that they are right.

            You have FAITH in translators.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. prove they were not ……. if you want to prove it to be a lie …. then the onus is on you ….. the truth is either accepted or rejected …… and we know where you stand … good luck with that ……….

            Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD. 10

            Again, I pondered this — of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament. I again compared this with Homer’s Iliad. Of the approximately 15,600 lines that make up Homer’s classic, 764 lines are in question. These 764 lines represent over 5% of the entire text, and yet nobody seems to question the general integrity of that ancient work.

            In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I don’t want to prove it to be a lie. I merely wont use it as a fact until someone can demonstrate it to be.

            Pretty simple, no?

          • Amos Moses

            “I merely wont use it as a fact until someone can demonstrate it to be.”

            that is your problem ….. not mine …. and not christianitys problem ……….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Of course.

            Because you are fine with treating something as truth without determining it to be. You BELIEVE it is truth because that is what you have been taught to believe.

            A perfect example of gullibility.

            Google exists. You have no excuse.

          • Amos Moses

            “So, only the original text could be relevant for your claims”

            WRONG ……………… although i do rely on the original language of Greek or Hebrew if a question comes up …… scripture interprets scripture …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So…. you tell me I’m wrong, then say you do rely on it anyways?

            Truth is, you make this up as you go. When you run into a wall, you rely on mystical wand waving to avoid logic.

            So essentially, you are saying that your view is right because “magic”.

          • Amos Moses

            “Truth is, you make this up as you go. ”

            Nope ……. that would be you ………. the fault is all yours and your cherry picking ….. the text is the text ….. it matters not what language it is in …… but if it is questioned ….. the we go back to the original …… no problem ….. except for your cherry picking self ……………… no “magic” required ….. see … that is why it was written down ….. so foolish people would not be able to say “Truth is, you make this up as you go.” …. and that is complete nonsense ….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Prove that I am cherry picking. Then take that method, and prove every other denomination is wrong and unite Christianity like never before….

            … oh wait. That will never happen.

            Here is how I translate your comments so far:

            “I read the Bible. I read it a certain way. Anyone that doesn’t see it my way is not Christian or is cherry picking the Bible. That is because God gave me special invisible glasses that lets me see it the right way. My certain way of reading the Bible is absolute, despite consistent human interference since the creation of the Bible, despite the fact no original documents exist, and despite the various translations from TWO separate languages. I know this is right because my certain way of reading the Bible says it is so, and since the Bible also says it is the word of God it must be true. This is also verified by “tinglies” I get when I pray (not to be confused with legs falling asleep or other naturalistic answers) Anything I do not have facts for or do not like the facts for, I will assume it is God and stop looking for answers. Contradictions, no matter how justified or based in science, will be ignored for “wise men” writings in support of my certain way of reading the Bible. All this despite being the minority view in Christianity. I’ve verified the Truth of my views via faith (ie. willful forced belief).”

            As for accusing me of “cherry picking”, there is NO way anyone has presented the Bible in ANY context to me that makes me want to value it for anything other than a fictional tale with dubious advice at best.

          • Amos Moses

            all you can do is cherry pick by taking scripture out of context ….want proof …. read what you wrote ……..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Well then. I guess that means Non-believers outnumber “TRUE” Christians then. Sucks to be you.

          • Amos Moses

            “Non-believers outnumber “TRUE” Christians then”

            nothing knew there ….. speaking the truth always puts one in the minority …… so what ……

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Speaking the truth doesn’t put one in the minority. It puts one in the right.

            Now, DETERMINING what is true, that is where your flaw lies.

            You have no real way of determining what is true outside what you want or what your religion tells you.

          • Amos Moses

            “Now, DETERMINING what is true, that is where your flaw lies.”

            Nope …. the A Priori here is scripture is true …. and if you want to prove it a lie ….. then the onus is on you …. and if it is a lie ….. should be a simple task for you ……….. that is how it works ….. you take what you are told and then try to prove it …. and if it is not true ….. then it will be shown …. but you have yet to do that here in a consistent manner …….. and out of context does not prove anything ……

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You cant to demonstrate that scripture is true.

            That makes it merely opinion, and irrelevant when we discuss facts.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not have to “demonstrate” it ….. truth is either accepted or rejected ….. and the only one who can convince you otherwise is Christ ….. and you do not listen to Him …….. and you have no facts ….. just YOUR opinion about scripture …….. which you are entitled to …. but you cannot disprove scripture ….. you just reject it …

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            No. Truth is truth regardless of acceptance or rejection.

            The problem is actually determining what is truth.

            Your method, religious faith, does not determine truth.

            It is essentially wishful thinking. Tricking yourself to believing it. You can not demonstrate nothing, because there is nothing to demonstrate.

            If the only one that can convince me is Christ, then there is no one to convince me. You spouting stuff on the internet has no purpose, except maybe to try and reaffirm your own belief.

            Wouldn’t it feel better to be able to actually have evidence for the things you believe in? Or would you choose having your preferred belief over the actual truth?

            I don’t have any mystical voices in my head. I have read the Bible completely (more than most Christians). I don’t need to disprove something with no evidence. The Bible is the claim, not the proof. For me, it goes in the trash, and I go on with life, looking for the real answers.

          • Amos Moses

            No. Truth is truth regardless of acceptance or rejection.

            BINGO ……….. gee, you do understand something ……

            “The problem is actually determining what is truth.”

            NOPE ……. that is YOUR problem …….. as you reject truth ……..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You claim to know what truth is regarding the creation of the universe.

            I claim to not know what the truth is.

            You can not show that your claim is true.

            So the ONLY rational conclusion is that we do not know.

            If your God was real, he’d speak for himself and not send unresolved minions to discuss this in a website comments section, or he cant do anything at all.

          • Amos Moses

            “You claim to know what truth is ” “You can not show that your claim is true.”

            Nope …. the bible is the truth …. tested by time ….. thousands of years of testing ….. and it is not a claim ……….. and again …. i do not have to show anything …. truth is either accepted or rejected …… if you dispute it as truth ….. then the onus is on you …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I don’t believe your claim that the Bible is truth.

            As a matter of fact, I can show many parts of the Bible that are NOT truth.

            It is also morally bankrupt.

            It has indeed been tested by time, and been found lacking at every step of the way. The only way Christianity has survived this long is by a long history of killing, raping and torturing anyone that dare defy it. Secular government in the US has dropped Christianity from over 90% down to 70% and falling rapidly. Protestantism has dropped below half the population meaning no specific denomination has the majority of the population. At current trends, non-belief will supplant them before 2024.

            All this time, over 2000 years, as STILL no one can provide a single lick of evidence for the Christian god.

            Once you have it, feel free to collect your Nobel prize.

          • Amos Moses

            “I don’t believe your claim that the Bible is truth.””It is also morally bankrupt.”

            What else is new ………… you reject truth …….. no surprises there ……. and it is not “my claim” ………. i accept is as revealed truth …. that does not make it “my claim” …….and you would not know what morality was if it were not for God/Christ and the Holy Spirit …….

            FYI ….. just because the bible discusses sin …. makes no effort to cover up the sins of the people it talks about …… does not mean the bible endorses it …… nor does it make your pointing to it a proof of anything like you are trying to claim ……. the book “American Psycho” …. is not an endorsement of serial killers ……….. your claims are fallacious ……..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            If you can not demonstrate it is truth, then you do not know it is truth.

            Simple as that. You cant get around it, so all you can do is propose more claims.

            Slavery, rape, murder, genocide, etc. Its all in the Bible, encouraged by your sacrifice loving God.

            Every time you make an excuse, or call it a “religion of love”, you mock everything your religion stands for in order to maintain popularity. It REQUIRES cherry picking in order to keep it mainstream, otherwise it would end up like the Westboro Baptist Church and become reviled. If you think you are some literalist, then I have to put you in the same category.

          • Amos Moses

            the truth is accepted or rejected ….. you reject it out of hand …. A Priori ……. so what would be the point …… you will just deny the truth as you do now …… and besides …..

            it is my job to only present you the truth ….. it is not my job to convince you of the truth ….. that is Christs job ….. and if you are not going to listen to Him ….. then why would you listen to me …… i am not worth listening to as far as convincing you ….. my only duty is to present it ….. what you do with that is between you and Christ ………….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You can not show it is truth, so there is nothing to reject except the claim itself.

            I don’t believe you when you say you have truth, or the Bible for that matter. That is why being able to provide evidence is important. It is too easy to ignore otherwise.

            “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” ~ Hitchen’s Razor

          • Amos Moses

            “You can not show it is truth”

            i do not have to, truth is self evident unless you deny truth ….. and you do ……….

          • Amos Moses

            “Slavery, rape, murder, genocide, etc. Its all in the Bible, encouraged by your sacrifice loving God.”

            and numerous other books ….. including law books ….. does that mean it is encouraged ….. nope ….. you are confused about what scripture discusses and what it means ….. you do not know what it means …… and without God you would have no idea that it is wrong or right or anything else ….. much less moral …. you have no basis to make a moral judgement without God ……….. you are lost ………..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            The Bible is used as authoritarian guide to morality.

            Law is NOT morality. There are plenty of immoral laws unfortunately.

            There is no objective morality, so God is irrelevant.

          • Amos Moses

            Nope ……. men misuse what God has given …. men think that they can just write rules and by that be saved …… and you are right …. morality has nothing to do with the law …… men wrote those laws and God allowed it as a lesson to men that heaven is not attainable through works of the law ………….

            “There is no objective morality, so God is irrelevant.”

            so murder can be moral? …… so theft can be moral? ….. so rape can be moral? …… is that what you are saying ………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Morality has nothing to do with a god either.

            I am more moral than your god.

            Your gods morality system repulses me.

            If it wasn’t for common human decency, and a secular society, Christianity would be more bloody and violent than Islam.

          • Amos Moses

            “Morality has nothing to do with a god either.”

            then tell me where it came from …………

            “I am more moral than your god.”

            so you set yourself up as god ….. that is an intersting way to go through life …..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Google states:

            Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

            It is defined by the individual. Many “evil” people in the world believed they were doing something “good”. It is subjective. There is NO set of rules everyone must follow.

            I know that is hard to believe. All your life you were told that there was a supernatural agency you had to bow down to. Many people therefore do not have the ability (lost in their youth) to think and reason for themselves (critical thinking skills ignored or not taught).

            The very act of deciding for yourself what is right or wrong is a example of personal responsibility. Christians pawn that off on their Jesus messiah. Jesus died for your “sins” so you now have to obey since God isn’t wiping out humanity…. again….

            You only see me as “setting myself up as god”, because you cannot understand a world without a god. I can. If you ask my why I believe something is wrong, I can defend it without using a supernatural entity as an excuse.

            I can not by definition be a “god” as everything I can do is bound by the natural world (especially since a supernatural one has yet to be demonstrated).

          • Amos Moses

            so God preceded google ….. and it does not answer the question ….. be consistent with you stated beliefs ….. with your stated world view ………. or show yourself for what you are ….. a thief …

            “Many “evil” people in the world believed they were doing something “good”. It is subjective. There is NO set of rules everyone must follow.”

            THEN you have just refuted YOURSELF …….. if there are no “rules everyone must follow” … then you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to complain about ………. what do you care if one “clump of cells” does to any other “clump of cells” ….. there is no morality BUT you set YOURSELF up as the MORAL JUDGE …… making yourself god ……… you have no leg to stand on by your statement ……. self refuting NONSENSE …….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So did bell bottoms. I don’t see people waiting on that.

            “God” was created 3500+ years ago. Quite a small space of time in the largers scheme of things.

            As about refuting myself, I don’t appeal to a higher being to show you are wrong. I don’t need the force of a God to feel good about myself.

            I do care about myself, my family, and my species as a whole. You may attribute that to a drive to preserve the species, but so be it.

            The problem is your argument:

            You don’t like reality, so you deny it.

            That is the argument from incredulity.

            Just because you don’t want to live in a world without a divine purpose doesn’t change the fact that there is no evidence for your imagined happy place.

          • Amos Moses

            “”God” was created 3500+ years ago.” …. no evidence ……..

            “I don’t appeal to a higher being to show you are wrong.”

            i did not have to appeal to anything but your self refuting statements ….. you have no consistent world view and the only way for you to make sense of your view is to steal from God ….. you are a thief ……….

            FYI ….. you have a relationship with the God you deny ….. and it is hostility ………. and your own statements back that up ……… self refuting nonsense …………..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Sure we do. We have many pieces of evidence that shows approximately when the original writings were done.

            God has nothing to steal from. I do find it funny though, the one defending Christianity telling other people that they “steal” ideas.

            Jesus is a stolen idea.
            God fathering a child is a stolen idea.
            Christmas is NOT Jesus’ birthday, but instead stolen from the pagan Saturnalia, Yule and Winter Solstice celebrations.
            “What Child is This is” actually “Greensleeves”.
            Easter is Spring Equinox.
            Etc… etc.

            I don’t believe the God exists. However, the “teachings” are indeed present and horribly dangerous.

          • Amos Moses

            “I don’t believe the God exists. However, the “teachings” are indeed present and horribly dangerous.”

            again …. stealing from God and setting yourself up as the judge of God as you are a god ……. and as an unrepentant A-theist ….. you have no complaint about how anyone is treated ….. it is just one “clump of cells” doing something to another “clump of cells” ….. and it is all a cosmic accident …. you have no complaints ….. IF ….. IF ….. you are consistent in your world view …… but you are not ….. you are a thief ………..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I judge your religion. Not God. Try again.

          • Amos Moses

            “I judge your religion. Not God. Try again.”

            liar ……….. you said …….

            “Morality has nothing to do with a god either.
            I am more moral than your god.
            Your gods morality system repulses me.”

            LIAR …………. and i am sorry you cannot keep your lies straight …………. you have put yourself SQUARELY in the judgment seat of God as Gods judge …..

            LIAR ……………

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            As described in the Bible.

            The fictional character of God is immoral and dangerous.

          • Amos Moses

            again …. putting yourself as Gods judge ……. and a liar and a thief ……

          • Amos Moses

            God Does Not Exist, And I Hate Him So Much That I Will Devote My Entire Life To Destroying Him

            kind of sums up your entire line of thought ………….

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Law books do not claim to be a source morality.

            The Bible does claim to be the source of morality.

            Without God, we are exactly as we are now. Making our own decisions on what is right or wrong, with no interference from an undetectable supernatural being.

          • Amos Moses

            “Law books do not claim to be a source morality.
            The Bible does claim to be the source of morality.”

            law books are based on morality ……. the bible contains morality …. but it also highlights the morality with its counter part IMmorality …… we do not know good without know evil also ……….. and you seem to have difficulty separating the two ……

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            No. Very often laws are created with the specific intent of taking advantage of people.

            If you think laws = morality, then I see why you hold your Bible in such esteem, and why you are so well controlled.

            As for good and evil, the difference is you believe in objective morality. I do not. All morality is subjective, including the morality of the Bible. You might see it as “objective” but in the end, it is the subjective morality that your God prescribes (and doesn’t even follow).

          • Neal D

            The parents in your church were probably relieved that you left.

          • George O’Donnell

            They ask me to come back constantly actually. I was a very helpful volunteer.

        • johndoe

          I was a christian 18yrs now an atheist. You’re wrong.

          • Jason Todd

            Don’t care.

          • johndoe

            good…..

          • Amos Moses

            “I was a christian 18yrs now an atheist.”

            ahhhh …. no you weren’t ……. you never were ……

          • johndoe

            Just your uneducated opinion

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That’s the No True Scotsman fallacy.

          • Amos Moses

            has not one thing to do with christianity or this forum ………. FAIL Oleomargarine ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The way you unfailingly try to use it Amos? Yes it certainly does have to do with Christianity AND this forum. Your opinion isn’t what determines whether someone is a Christian. I’m wondering if you will ever learn this lesson. Everyone has an opinion, just like you do. And other people’s opinions don’t cause definitions to be changed either, so why do you think yours does?

          • Amos Moses

            show me the scripture about NTSF and i will relent …. CANT …. it is not there …. has nothing to do with christianity …… and in case you are not paying attention this week ….. THIS is a christian forum about christianity ……….. FAIL …………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I see, so unless it’s in the Bible, it’s false? How does that work?
            The theory of gravity was proven and isn’t in the Bible.
            It’s a simple logical fallacy. You aren’t using logic correctly and that’s why it fails. Religion isn’t exempt from logic.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you in the Bible? Does that mean you don’t exist?

            Are you sure you’re clear on what the No True Scotsman Fallacy is?

          • Amos Moses

            i am in the bible …. as are all followers of Christ …….

          • Amos Moses

            NTS has nothing to do with christianity ………..

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            It has to do with logic.

            So if I replace a word or two you are saying:

            “Logic has nothing to do with Christianity”.

            I agree.

          • Amos Moses

            This is a christian forum …. The topic is christianity…. Not the perceived illogic that anyone thinks they see …. You do not see …

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            … and it pops up in a search for “Atheist News”.

            Blame the webmasters for their SEO practices if that is the wrong audience.

            I however think they are fine with it, because more eyeballs means more revenue.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He’s truly unbelievable. It’s like he’s willfully refusing to attempt to understand what you’re talking about.

          • johndoe

            They’re all atheist trolls. Ignore them and they’d move on to some other Christian blog. How pathetic their lives are.

          • NCOriolesFan

            You never were one in the first place to abandon Jesus after 18 years.

          • johndoe

            Wrong . Are you psychic?

          • NCOriolesFan

            No. But I still doubt you would abandon Jesus after 18 years if something didn’t happen to cause you to leave. Some people choose to leave after a tragedy but eventually find their way back to God after seeing he is their only way to cope with tragedy.

            God never promised Christianity would be a plate full of roses. He promised persecution instead since the world will hate Christians because of what they stand for.

            What caused you to leave, if you don’t mind me asking?

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Just like most Christians. How many denominations are there again?

      • Ginger

        Warning: It is your choice. He will let you and the world know He exists, but for many it will be too late. Christ speaking Matthew 13:49-50 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. [KJV] Christ teaches all 7 trumps of Revelation in Mark 13 KJV we are in fig tree generation that started in 1948 meaning the last one. Generation from the Bible can be 40 years [long past], 70 years [at the door] or 120 years [too far].

        Many will believe they were serving Christ, but were taken in by the antichrist, the false messiah to the wrong wedding. Acid test still being in flesh bodies. They will be no longer fit for the first resurrection to eternal life of the soul.

        • George O’Donnell

          So says the book written 70 years after Jesus died by someone who didn’t actually know Jesus, copied mostly from a book written 40 years after Jesus died by someone who also didn’t personally know Jesus.

          I’ll take my chances.

        • George O’Donnell

          My original response was removed for some reason. Not sure why but I’ll try a different wording

          The book of Matthew was not written by someone who personally knew Jesus, and it was written decades after Jesus death. Basically the author was writing down hearsay.

          Suffice it to say I don’t have much faith in the credibility of the claims put forth in the bible. I’ll take my chances with not taking the Bible seriously.

        • George O’Donnell

          OK I’ve had two comments removed now. Neither of them contained offensive language or personal insults. Both comments referenced current consensus of Biblical scholars on the authorship of the Gospels.

          I don’t know how to contact a moderator but if a mod is reading this I’d appreciate an explanation of why my previous two comments were removed.

        • Richard

          This sums it up for me, Ginger
          Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
          1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
          1Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
          1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
          antichrist

          ἀντί
          anti
          an-tee’
          A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to): – for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
          Total KJV occurrences: 22

          • Ginger

            Thank you Richard. So few are really awake to study our Father’s Word in depth. The Word is pregnant; each time I read many times I have to go: wow why didn’t I see that before. I learn something new everyday. Only our Father’s leading can help. May the Lord be with you.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      I think removing a Roman torture device does everyone a favor, regardless of belief.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

    Time to side step these attack on the cross Deed off the small area that the cross is located on to a private owner or church …make it no longer public or government property ….

    • NCOriolesFan

      Been done around the country with success too. Crosses still stand for public enjoyment.

    • Jason

      Or, just hear me out, they can move the cross to private property… which is what they plan on doing. Win, win. Public property is now for all the public and the cross can be appreciated by those that believe 🙂

      • Joshua 1:9

        But then wouldn’t public property only be for the atheists, humanists and secularists? People that believe in nothing? Those “non-beliefs” are still legally and officially considered “religions”. So, why is it that only they can celebrate their nothingness?

        • Jason

          Atheists, humanists, and secularists do not believe in nothing. In fact all three are completely different. Many humanists and secularists are religious.
          A park without a cross would not only be for atheists. That’s silly 🙂
          Yes for legal purposes atheism is considered a religion, however, there is no part of religion in atheism. It’s only a stance on the belief of a deity.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, there would be NO religious symbols. If the park were only for atheists, there would be a symbol promoting the idea that God does not exist, and that would be equally unconstitutional.

          • Joshua 1:9

            Sorry, that is incorrect. Going by that logic, an atheist’s life goal and belief is to constantly battle religion. When, in fact, their belief is that they just don’t believe in a god. So, having “nothing” to represent their belief is more accurate than having something battling another belief.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s absurd. That means that literally every square inch of the United States that is not occupied by some type of religious symbol is an atheist symbol.

    • james blue

      Can other faiths buy little plots of land in the same locality to put up their stuff?

  • NCOriolesFan

    I find religious bigotry OFFENSIVE disguised as the fantasy church-state separation. The poor bigot avoided the park because of a Cross DONATED by a local charity. Sounds like he has personal problems that are NOT community problems.

    Secondly, the city council censored the Cross from the people who might want to visit the Cross. Another example of minority tyranny towards the majority.

    • George O’Donnell

      Put your crosses up on private property and problem solved.

      • Joshua 1:9

        Satanists and members of the occult have had many satanic symbols set up on public property for centuries! Not only in America, but in the UK, Germany, Spain, and other nations as well. It is not a secret. They do not deny it. Christians have not complained about that because the Bible explains things having to do with that and tells that Satan is the ruler of this current world. So, your argument about how Christians would “rightly be throwing a fit” if satanists tried to do the same thing is incorrect. History has already proven that, day after day after day. And the part about putting Christian symbols up on private property being okay, is also incorrect. There have been many incidents in recent years where atheists and satanists have complained, fought and threatened people who have placed modest Christian or Jewish symbols on private property. It is very well known that, after the LGBT, atheist groups have done the most whining about Christians. I still find it very interesting that you never hear about atheists or LGBT treating Muslims the same way. And yes, Muslims have been setting up billboards and Islamic symbols on public property around the country over the last few years.

        • George O’Donnell

          “Satanists and members of the occult have had many satanic symbols set up on public property for centuries! ”

          Please cite some specific examples. There has been massive backlash to the satanic temple trying to put their baphomet statue on government property.

          “There have been many incidents in recent years where atheists and satanists have complained, fought and threatened people who have placed modest Christian or Jewish symbols on private property.”

          Again, please cite specific examples. I’ve never heard of this.

          “I still find it very interesting that you never hear about atheists or LGBT treating Muslims the same way”

          I have no love for any intolerant religions. If you don’t see atheists being critical of Muslim ideology you aren’t looking hard enough.

          • Joshua 1:9

            I guess I could easily just take a page from your book and say, if you haven’t seen any satanic symbols on public property then you aren’t looking hard enough. But I won’t be that ignorant. Have you ever looked at the money you spend? Assuming you are in America, (and atheists have whined about the “In God We Trust” thing for years) it has multiple well-known satanic symbols on it. The most blatant and admitted is the all-seeing eye. Satanists have admitted this, government officials have admitted this. Yet, atheists haven’t showed enough spine to stand up against satanists. Also, many government buildings throughout the US, the UK and several other nations have occult symbols engraved right into the buildings. Have had since they were built decades and centuries ago. Some very old main banks throughout Europe also have the same symbols. This is information that is very easily attainable online.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Please describe a Satanic symbol, and where does such a symbol get its authority?

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Those places are where Christians refused to remove their icons (in the US). In that case, the only legal solution is to include ALL religious icons.

          Read up on the FL decision to allow Satanic coloring books to be distributed along with Gideon bibles in public schools. Man did Christians revert to removing the Bibles quickly.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Bigots love to cause trouble which result in the public losing out.

        • George O’Donnell

          There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from keeping public property free of religious endorsements.

          How would you respond to a satanic monument in your local public park?

          • NCOriolesFan

            Probably decorate it with Crosses.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Given the chance Christians will just destroy it.

          • clbrown

            Nope.

          • George O’Donnell

            Oh that’s wonderful. Next time I see a cross on public land I’ll follow your lead and put little satanic decorations all over it. I’m sure Christians will have no cause for complaint

      • Jenny Ondioline

        It’s such a simple solution, isn’t it? And yet it always meets with such incredible opposition here.

      • Unrepentant Atheist

        You know, if they didn’t concede to the FRFF complaint, a Baphomet statue in the park was next.

        They should be happy.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      You mean that the cross is somewhere it can not be seen?

      I think that contradicts the story.

  • disqus_BDBCEvISae

    Good work Santa Clara. That’s a very rational way to begin the New Year.

    • Tianzhu

      You define “rational” as “hating Christians.”

      That’s about as irrational as anyone can get.

  • Jason Todd

    I truly wish people would stop folding like a house of cards around these anti-Christian bigots.

    If I were mayor of that town, things would’ve ended very differently.

    • Jenny Ondioline

      Yeah, you likely would have been asked to resign for not respecting the separation of church and state (which exists to protect BOTH church and state).

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Does “differently” mean “with you violating your oath of office by refusing to comply with the Constitution?”

      • NCOriolesFan

        Means supporting it for ALL people not just the FEW religious bigots.

        • zeddicuskotor

          Which means following the law and removing the monument.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Removing it violates the rights of the people who want it there.

          • zeddicuskotor

            America isn’t and never will be, a theocracy.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Never said it was.

          • zeddicuskotor

            And yet you want a state religion.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Atheism is already a state religion.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Exactly. You want a state religion and hate America.

          • clbrown

            You’re a pathetic troll… your saying that proves it.

            How do we define “religion?” A “religion” does not require a belief in any “god figure”… see Taoism as just one example.

            No, a religion is merely a belief system which must be held on the basis of faith… that is, whose most central beliefs cannot be proven true through purely scientific and rational means.

            Since atheism’s most core belief… the belief that there is no God… cannot be proven through any scientific or rational means, and must therefore be taken as a point of faith…

            … yes, Atheism is, in fact, simply another religion, no different than any other. Or rather, it is the most central tenet of the fully-structure religion known as “secular humanism,” which states that humanity is the ultimate authority, both in terms of the universe at large and more specifically on any moral basis. (Rejection of any higher power is, of course, a total requirement for that belief system.)

            So… by declaring that “Atheism is true and the beliefs of atheism should be taught as factual, while all other belief systems are false and should be taught, if at all, as falsehoods,” you are simply declaring that you want YOUR belief system… your RELIGION… to be supreme.

            In other words, YOU, “Zeddicuskotor,” want YOUR belief system to be the “state religion.” And yes, YOU, “Zeddicuskotor,” hate America. That is, you hate the nation which our Founders created… not the physical manifestation, which you think would be “made even better” if people who shared your beliefs were in total control.

            Which part of that… be specific, please… do you disagree with or deny? No “emotional tirades,” please… take specific points I’ve raised, above, and provide full and non-emotionally-charged rebuttals. “Name-calling” or other childish responses, of course, will be taken by all reading this as an admission of defeat on your part… so tread carefully. 🙂

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Atheism:

            You claim there is a God. I don’t believe you.

            That’s it.

          • clbrown

            Nope. That’s a total logical failure.

            The correct way to phase this is “You claim there is a God. I claim there is no god.”

            In this case, your supposed “negative” is simply an IDENTICAL way to say the “positive” I just stated.

            Again, an AGNOSTIC is someone who says “I don’t believe anything which hasn’t been proven to me.” Which means that they neither believe in God nor do they believe that there is no God. They, if they’re a true agnostic, literally have NO OPINION ON THE SUBJECT WHATSOEVER.

            Because there is no hard data, either way.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            That is a false dichotomy.

            I am not claiming there is no god. I am instead not impressed with the claim and lack of evidence for your version of a god, and choose to not believe the claim. Without the claim, there is nothing to believe at all. Only the questions that we can look for on our own without the help of ancient goat herders.

          • Meepestos

            An individual that ascribes their interest in atheism as a supreme importance, could fall under “religion”, but only if the actual interest is paramount, but who sees their interest in it as paramount importance? Now if someone advocated that everyone should have this interest as paramount with religious fervour, it still doesn’t seem to be a “religion”. As an atheist I do not see an supreme importance in atheism and recognize that the religious and non-religious elements of society are required (including those that are not Christian) to accomplish a secular pluralistic society, just like the person that came up with the term secularism. I, like other atheists and agnostics I know, (again like the guy that came up with the term secularism), do recognize the light and guidance from other religions even those without gods that promotes good government and a social order separate from religious influences such as sharia law, halacha, and the use of biblical interpretations to justify the discriminatory and draconian laws we see in some other Western nations that lack secularism. This is what the person that invented the term “secularism” (also know as soft secularism) described and intended.

            Secularism in most Western nations manages to promote religious faith and worship without having to actively dismiss or criticize it by means of tax breaks and constitutions that protect worship like the US’s First Amendment and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; both secular in nature. I appreciate them greatly, as I have lived under a Christian theocratic-like regime and visited theocratic states.

            An example of religious secularists making change in a secular society can have some good outcomes, as we have seen in Canada like the secularist Muslims of the now defunct Muslim Canadian Congress that opposed a proposal years ago by The Canadian Islamic Congress to permit sharia tribunals “to which Muslims could voluntarily submit civil disputes and whose findings would then have legal weight under the Arbitration Act” in Ontario. The government rejected the proposal. The good outcome of this past process was the scrapping of existing religious arbitration tribunals having legal weight for Jews and Christians thanks to religious secularists working together.

            There are atheists that do not hold their conclusions that deities do not exist as” truth” nor hold it with ardor and faith, but more so a judgment with no core of central importance in regards to truth or proposition that serves as an underlying basis for a system of belief, behavior or for something that logically lead them from a premise or assumption to a conclusion, i.e., no principles nor system of faith.

            Atheism has no system i.e., a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done. Also there is no set of connected things that form it hence it is not a system.

            
No adherents, as there are no set of thoughts or suggestions as to a possible course of action; has no aim or purpose though it could or not give one a purpose. The non-belief in deities or coming to the conclusion deities do not exist has no aim, intention, purpose, or system.

            “a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true” is Merriam-Webster’s definition of doctrine yet one of its definitions of atheism is “the doctrine that there is no deity”. So what set (and the key word is “set”) of ideas are taught or believed to be true? What are the specific “set” of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true? I can think of atheists that have made claims that there are principles of atheism, but even this is not doctrine.

            In order for atheism to be a doctrine, it would require a recognized authority to lay down the principles and definitely would need a stated principle; atheism has no recognized authority at all e.g., person or divine authority.

 But that would fall under the religion definition of belief or worship in a superhuman controlling power.

            Dogma perhaps, but it would require principles that are laid down as “truth” that is not open to dispute or question without the consideration of evidence or the opinions of others; so far this is not the case as there are many atheists that are open to question and dispute in regards to the conclusion they have made that deities do not exist.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Secularism isn’t “Atheism”. It is government from outside of religion, and the reason why you can believe your belief without government interference.

          • clbrown

            Which law, specifically.. Please provide letter and verse of the law you’re quoting.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It means, first and foremost, upholding the Constitution.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      If that is where you want taxpayer money to be wasted, then so be it. People, even devout Christians, know that it is a losing legal battle.

      Id rather taxpayer money go to something that actually improves the community.

      • Jason Todd

        But it isn’t a losing battle. It’s as simple as letting the anti-Christian bigots know they are not welcome.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Bigotry is against people. You cant be bigoted toward a belief. Your belief is ridiculous, but I’m sure you are a nice person despite that.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    US soldiers died to protect a godly Christendom, not to preserve an atheists’ regime. Santa Clara officials should change the city’s name as well, as it bears a Christian name. It’s such a grand evil circus that today’s godless Westerners attempt to erase off Christianity in the land. The West has to erase everything about themselves except for infanticide and immorality if they should eliminate Christianity. Man cannot live apart from the truth and his sane conscience.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      I am a US Army veteran, and never was my mission to “defend a godly Christiandom”.

      Instead, it was to protect the US. A country that has citizens of many beliefs (and non-belief). So, before you decide that everything is Christian, you might want to do a bit more research.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You were fed and raised by a gracious Christendom. USA would have been nothing and not even existed if it were not for Christianity. USA was good and did any good only because it was a Christendom. You Americans should be totally grateful about Christianity instead of trying to do evil by eliminating it. USA is meaningless apart from Christianity, as a man does only evil apart from his own conscience. Secular West proved that the Post-christendom values are blasphemy, infanticide, and destructive abnormal immorality. The Western civilization needs Christianity to be saved and be good.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          I disagree.

          Slavery was abolished because of secular ideals. The “Bible belt” south violently fought against it, and the roots of the Southern Baptist Denomination was to argue that God allows slavery (though not any longer as far as I know). Women are now allowed to vote despite the Bible claiming women inferior to men.

          The “Christian ideals” were largely the things we needed to get rid of the most to have a moral society.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. The entire America has been Christian, not just the South. You Americans are totally ignorant of the real world on Planet Earth because you’ve been kept protected by the civilized Protestant goodness. Whatever America did good was the contribution of Christianity, as a conscience guides a man. Secular USA’s values are only blasphemy, infanticide, and sexual immorality and nothing else. America was good only because it was Christian. Americans are illiterate savages like the rest if they don’t have Christianity.

  • johndoe

    Very sickminded people who take pleasure in destroying monuments. They must be very unhappy bitter souls, seriously in need of therapy. Good people don’t take pleasure in destroying things, good people create.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      Not destroyed. Relocated to a place that is legal.

  • Croquet_Player

    It’s now on private property, which is where it belonged in the first place. Don’t erect religious monuments on public property. Erect all the religious monuments you like on private property. Problem solved.

    • NCOriolesFan

      Public property is for ALL people not just the FEW religious bigots.

      • zeddicuskotor

        Exactly, and why the monument was removed.

        • NCOriolesFan

          Removing it violates the rights of people who want it there.

          • zeddicuskotor

            America isn’t a theocracy.

          • NCOriolesFan

            I didn’t say it was or is. We’re a REPUBLIC.

          • zeddicuskotor

            We’re actually a Constitutionally Limited Representative Democratic Republic. And you still want to destroy that.

          • clbrown

            Wow… you invented that whole phrase yourself, did you?

            The founders didn’t call us that. They called us a “Representative Republic.”

            You are correct that the people who work within government… not the people as a whole, but rather those who are within the government… are “constitutionally limited.”

            The “Democratic” part, though… you really need to read through the writings of the Founders. They OVERTLY REJECTED the concept of a “Democracy”… because they correctly identified the ultimate downfall of all democracies.

            History has had a number of true democracies we can look back to, and in all cases, the ultimate result was “mob rule,” then total anarchy after the system collapsed… with said collapse usually being brought about as soon as the people realize that they could vote themselves money from the public treasury.

            So,the founders OVERTLY and OPENLY rejected the concept of a “democracy” in favor of the more stable, if slightly less free, “representative republic.”

            I recommend you read the collections of papers from the two main sides of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution… specifically the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. You’ll learn a lot.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Keeping it violates the constitution, which represents all the people.

          • clbrown

            Not so. The Constitution was written by men who then IMMEDIATELY proceeded to have prayers to ask God to protect and preserve the new nation.

            The only reference to religion, in any governmental sense, in the Constitution is found in the First Amendment. (There is also a direct mention of God in the Declaration of Independence, written by the same people… but you guys often ignore that part, don’t you?)

            In part…

            *******************************************
            “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident,

            That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

            That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

            That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

            Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

            *********************************************

            Let’s see… the same folks who wrote the Constitution stated their case with regards to “Nature’s God” and the “Creator.” Doesn’t sound like they objected to the concept of a belief in God to me.

            *****

            But let’s continue… here’s EVERYTHING that the United States Constitution says about Religion.

            *********************************************

            Article the First

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            **********************************************

            That’s IT. That’s EVERYTHING. There is NO OTHER MENTION OF RELIGION, ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

            And what does this say?

            Well, remember, under the Constitution ONLY Congress can make laws at the federal level. The President cannot make law. The Courts cannot make law. So… by saying that “Congress shall make no law” they are also saying “the Federal Government shall make no law.”

            The word “respecting” means “having anything to do with.” This is a common usage still used in modern English as well as it was then. With respect to this subject, that’s about all you need to know, isn’t it?

            A religion need not be specifically about a God figure (see Taoism, Zen Buddhism, and many, m any others) It is simply a belief system whose fundamental tenets cannot be proven through direct measurement and observation, and thus must be taken on faith. I’ll simply refer to this as a “belief system.”

            “Abridgement” means “reducing the size or scope of.” I’ll just say “reducing and putting limits on.”

            “Speech” is any real-time, direct interpersonal interaction. This includes sign language, for example, morse code, you name it.

            “The press” did NOT mean “the news organizations” but rather “the means of recording, storing, and distributing ideas.” This, today, would include videos, blogs, message boards, Facebook, and you name it. It includes videos, music, any anything at all which is recorded and can be stored, duplicated, and distributed.

            “Peaceably” assembling means that you are not engaging in any act of violence against the rights of others when you assemble. This means that an “assembly” which is “peaceful” but blocks a road, thereby interfering with the rights of others, is not “peaceable” assembly, nor is a “sit in” at an office, or so forth. They may be “non-violent” in a certain sense, but they do violate the rights of others, don’t they?

            And “petition the government” can be interpreted, today, to basically mean “sue.” It can also mean other things, but the “redress of grievances” part makes it quite clear what the Founders meant.

            So… let’s break this down a bit further, and rephase this (while keeping all the original meanings).

            ************************************

            “The Federal Government shall not make any law having anything to do with the following:

            “1) the establishment of an official state-sanctioned belief system.
            “2) the prohibition of the free exercise of any belief system.
            “3) reducing the right to communicate your ideas in real time or putting restrictions on that same right.
            “4) reducing the right to communicate your ideas in recorded, stored, or distributed forms, or putting restrictions on that same right.
            “5) reducing or restricting the right of people to get together in any situation or for any reason, so long as that does not violate the rights of other people in the process.
            “6) prohibiting or restricting the right of people to sue the Federal Government over any issue over which they may have a grievance, through means not directly controlled by those being sued.

            That’s what the First Amendment gives us.

            All the Constitution says about “religion” is that they can’t say “this is the official state belief system” nor “you aren’t permitted to practice your religion in peace.”

            It says nothing whatsoever about “not offending anybody.”

            In fact, the concept of “not offending anybody” is quite literally IMPOSSIBLE. So, we live in a society where EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED, AND TO BE OFFENSIVE. But nobody has the right to never be offended.

            No, not even those who find “religion displays” to be “offensive.”

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Make even more sense that those religious people would have entered more religious references.

            However they didn’t. They purposely decided not to. To protect all of their varying beliefs.

          • clbrown

            Except, all revisionist history aside, their beliefs didn’t vary nearly so much as people would like to pretend.

            The reason for the inclusion of the First Amendment wasn’t to “protect people from religion,” nor was it to “keep religious people out of government.” It was, in fact, exactly the opposite… to keep government from becoming involved in religion.

            The reason was quite clear… and not at all hard to understand. They had personal experience with how the King of England had, some generations earlier, seized control over the Catholic Church in England, displacing their reliance on the Papacy (which is a whole ‘nother topic which I don’t intend to get into, but I suspect you and I might be closer to agreement on than you might expect), and declared himself the “head of the church of England.”

            Which, of course, meant that the King was able to run the church as a branch of his government… telling the clerics what they should or shouldn’t say, who needed to be “kicked out of the church,” and so forth.

            They realized that tyrants like to take charge of religion as a means of manipulating their subjects. So, they wrote in an amendment ensuring that no one in the government here would ever be able to tell anyone else how they should, or should not, practice their own beliefs.

            The “wall of separation” phrase is not found in the Constitution, nor in any legal document of the era. Rather, it was found in a letter written to a group of pastors, with the clear purpose of abaiting their fears that, like in England, someone in the government of the United States might, at some point, decide to start trying to regulate and control the churches, in an attempt to force them to perform POLITICAL functions.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Of course it is to “protect people from religion”, because if it wasn’t, then the WRONG religion could be pushed on you.

            It protects YOUR right to believe what you want, without the government telling you that it is against the law to do so, or that you have to believe a specific religion. In exchange, religion has no place in government, as that could allow one religion to impose itself over others.

            If you are willing to accept that Islam may be one day pushed on you via the government because its “protection of religion, and not from religion”, then I guess you and I are going to disagree.

            In order for all citizens to have their religions protected, then the government can have no part in any religious displays, rites, prayers, etc. This protects your beliefs.

            For the record, I never said religious people could not take part in government. Values and religion are two different things, even if some people get their values from religion.

            The letter explains what the view was when the constitution was written. That is pretty clear. There is also no reference of the Christian God in the Constitution. Only a deistic “creator”. If it was meant to be Christian, there would be “Jesus” all over it.

      • Croquet_Player

        No. And it always astonishes me that some religious people seem to regularly entirely miss the point that not putting religious monuments up on public property actually protects THEM. Should we clutter up city hall lawns with statues of various “gods” from here, there, and everywhere? People believe in all sorts of odd things, and because we’re a free country, and not a theocracy, they have every right, as you do, to believe whatever they like. So if anyone can put up a religious monument on public property, get used to a twenty-five foot tall marble representation of some artist’s idea of a space alien. Is that what you want? I certainly don’t.

        On the other hand I entirely support your constitutional right to put up religious monuments on private property. Put them up everywhere, and as many as you like. The only restrictions on them are related to building codes, so they are safe, and don’t blow over in storms and kill people. I think we can all agree on that, right? This is NOT religious bigotry. I strongly support your right to put up your religious monument – on private property. Heck, I’ll shake your hand, buy coffee and doughnuts, and drive you to Home Depot to get the starting materials.

        And just as a point of fact, I stood up for a huge cross erected in my hometown on one of the tallest hills in town. It’s visible from everywhere. Some people wanted it taken down, and I understood their point. Frankly, it’s pretty huge and unsightly. It has no design worked into it, it’s just pure concrete. But the land under it was sold (at proper market rates, so the taxpayers didn’t get shafted) to some private group and it had been there for many decades, so it had some historical significance. And my boss was on the city’s Landmarks Board, and asked for my opinion. I said while there were valid points for its removal, let it slide, because it had been there so long. So just please stop with the “religious bigotry” argument.

    • No Whiners Aloud

      Buzz off.
      Problem solved.

      • Croquet_Player

        No.

  • Natalie Bustillos

    THIS IS ANOTHER WHY ONLY A FEW SHALL BE SAVED ON THE LAST DAYS –>

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      God doesn’t like caps lock.

  • Toller

    good news

  • George O’Donnell

    Well said Nancy. I don’t particularly care what religious beliefs people hold so long as they are willing to peacefully coexist with people who have a different worldview.

    We could use more people like you in the world who are willing to hear out people who disagree with them and not invalidate their stories.

  • JustThink

    Here’s an idea for the Christians who object to the much-needed separation of church and state: Why not just “believe” the cross is still there? Believing something against all evidence has never stopped you before. That way, it’s a win-win for all.

  • Joshua 1:9

    I am a Christian. I have studied religious symbolism. The all-seeing eye is certainly not a Christian symbol. I suggest you go to satanist websites and argue your point. If you decide to give that a try, let me know how that works out for you.

    • George O’Donnell

      I’ve done some more digging on this because I admittedly didn’t know much. It seems this symbol has been used by many different people at many different times for many different reasons. Christians have definitely used this symbol at various points in their history. So have Hindus, Egyptians, Pagans, Muslims, Vietnemese, and Occultists.

      In the case of the dollar bill, the symbol was placed there with the intention to invoke divine providence on our nation, and acknowledge that God watches over us all.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      If anything, I see the “eye” as the symbol of the Illuminati. So what now? If it is a religious symbol, then by all means, join with the FFRF and have it removed. With your support we can get both the symbol and “In God We Trust” removed.

  • Sensible Bob

    If the Cross must be there, then a replica of our Lord and Savior, The Flying Spaghetti Monster should be there as well. And of equal size. After all, he boiled for our sins.
    To be fair though, there should also be symbols of every other religion ever known by man. Of course, none of that would be Constitutional. Church and State – never to be conjoined.

  • Rob H

    So the cross was put there over 60 years ago as a historical marker to a Catholic mission that once stood there, and a snowflake atheist forces it to be removed because he can’t handle the “offensive encounter”. What a joke. The reality is the atheist haters would lose this court case, since it is a historical marker, if the city wanted to spend to money to fight them.

  • DennisLurvey

    It was the catholics who had inquisitions in Spain and elsewhere, they put out pamphlets on how to find and kill witches throughout the world, they hung 119 methodists on one day at the fort at St Augustine Florida, and killed over one million native Indians here for not converting to christianity (there are photos). It was America’s holocaust.

    Building a monument for that behavior is misplaced.