City Leaders Push Back After Atheist Group Demands Removal of Cross From City Hall

LONGWOOD, Fla. – Elected officials of a Florida city say they have no intention of removing a cross memorial from their city hall after a prominent professing atheist organization took issue with the memorial, describing it as exclusionary and unconstitutional.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a letter on March 10 to the mayor of Longwood, Florida, objecting to the display of a three-foot-tall wooden cross in the Longwood city hall. The white cross, emblazoned with the words, “We Will Never Forget Their Sacrifices,” is a memorial to veterans who lost their lives while serving in the armed forces.

“Our objection is to the message of endorsement of religion over nonreligion,” wrote FFRF staff attorney Rebecca Markert in the letter. “Additionally, this memorial sends a message that the government only cares about the deaths of Christian veterans, not other non-Christian and nonreligious veterans.”

The cross was created by a retired Army colonel and Vietnam War veteran who lives in Longwood, according to a report from the Orlando Sentinel. Initially displayed in a city park as part of a traveling Vietnam War memorial, the cross was later donated to the city and placed in the Longwood city hall.

David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community first alerted FFRF of the cross memorial, describing it as “a promotion of Christianity by the city.” Arguing that the cross “universally represents the Christian religion, and only the Christian religion,” Markert claimed in the letter that the memorial is “an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.”

“The government’s display of a Latin cross on public land is unconstitutional,” Markert stated. “The inherent religious significance of the Latin cross is undeniable and is not disguisable. No secular purpose detracts from the overall message that the Latin cross stands for Christianity and that the display promotes Christianity. The display of this patently religious symbol on public property confers government endorsement of Christianity, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.”

Markert further alleged that the cross has “an exclusionary effect, making non-Christian and non-believing residents of Longwood political outsiders.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“We ask you to remove the cross from the commission chambers immediately and direct the display be moved to a more appropriate private location,” she concluded.

Upon receiving the FFRF letter, Longwood Mayor Joe Durso defended the cross memorial, saying the city has “no intention” of removing it. He told the Orlando Sentinel that Longwood City Hall has displayed a Christmas tree and Jewish menorah every December for years, and no one has ever complained about them.

“[The cross] was donated to us as a nice honor in paying homage to those men and women who served,” Durso said. “How is having a cross an endorsement? … They are trying to create a fire where there is no fire.”

Longwood City Commissioner Ben Paris dismissed FFRF’s letter as “a political stunt,” pointing out that the cross is inconspicuously located at the rear of the city commission chambers.

“I’m Jewish, and I don’t find the cross offensive,” Paris told the Orlando Sentinel. “We’re not asking people to pay respect to it. … I think this is nitpicking.”

The retired Army colonel who created the cross, Johnnie Richardson, said FFRF’s demands are illogical and offensive.

“It had nothing to do with endorsing one particular religion,” he said. “Personally I’m offended—heavily offended—by those individuals that take it upon themselves to make waves about religious freedom. Why they want to make an issue out of it is beyond me.”


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. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    American forefathers were all Christians or Christian-minded or Christian-educated. American atheists are actually vicious aliens from the outer space who came to Earth to destroy the USA; they have no ancestry on Planet Earth. American atheists should get kicked out from the USA to North Korea their own utopia as they wish. Non-christian Western whites are New-Age naive because they never suffered atheism’s brutal reign. For the USA to remove the Christian cross means removing all of the nation’s noble character and human rights and all of history. Americans have been good only because of their Christian religion. Man is only evil apart from his Christian conscience in all of former Christendom. The West should stop being bored now and take life seriously.

    • Johndoe

      You just don’t get America do you? Atheists have the same rights as everyone else here. You need to quit insulting Americans. It’s not very “christian ” of you.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Christianity is good. Atheism is bad. Today’s USA is naive and repeating the evil folly of the Soviet Union, the system which their Christian forefathers had defeated. Christians tell the truth and facts in a loving way. I did my best. I realized in early days that the political correct language never gets through to today’s unbelieving Western whites. Only blatant fact-telling does. Read the Book of Isaiah to discover the objective truth in life.

        • uwauwa

          I see , Atheism is bad. Nice of you to decide that , but it isn’t law, and it shows your shallow view.

          • getstryker

            No, it shows that she has an opinion, supported by her faith. You have your opinion, based on whatever you do or don’t believe. You’re both entitled to those opinions, whatever they happen to be.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you. It is called observed experiential facts.

          • getstryker

            You are quite welcome and correct in your comments and beliefs. I have followed you with great interest and gratitude for your stand supporting our faith in Jesus Christ. You’re a tough, strong lady of faith – I like that!
            May God Bless you and yours.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you so much, sir! The Lord bless you, too! I love Christian Americans very much. You brought us everything wonderful and life-saving.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Unbelieving young Americans are naive; that’s why you guys are mimicking the Soviet Union this century. Communists were better than modern secular Americans; they were not sexual pervs.

        • Johndoe

          Atheists are no worse or better than christians. You keep spewing that nonsense. Hmmmm

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Atheists kill anyone who does not comply with their evil ideology, conduct experiments on live humans, massacre the multitude of unborn babies, and force the worships of humans. No exception. The Western ones force lies in academia and destroy children by the systematic installation of depraved immorality. Atheists are sucidal.

            Secular Americans are naive because they don’t know history; decadent species do not care what happened in the past or what will happen in the future and neglect the present. Without the Holy Bible, ability to read and write is futile. The USA needs Christians for everything meaningful and right. Today’s Western culture’s deadliness is equation of the good(Christianity) and the bad(blasphemy, atheism, immorality, Satanism, etc). God’s justice is a mercy upon all creation.

          • Johndoe

            Strange as neither I nor any atheist I know has killed anyone. And the Bible didn’t reach me to read and write. If you’re talking about the native Americans, they had their own spoken and written language. Your word salads get worse with each post.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Abortion is murder and atheists support the murder. It’s same as killing. All mankind, not just the Native Americans but also the Native Europeans, had to learn how to read and write to be able to read the Holy Bible firsthand. It was the only way not to become a slave to another.

          • mfm420

            abortion is murder? so then why does your “god” abort 30 percent of all pregnancies vs less than 20 percent done via abortion?

            don’t see you protesting church or screaming baby killer outside one.

            oh wait, i’m trying to use logic with a christian, my bad

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            He takes them with Him. Humans are creatures and should not take the life of fellow creatures. That is murder. You are a sinful creature and should not think of other entities on your own level.

          • Malleus

            You are a liar. Atheists are the worst killers in human history.

            The big genocidal nations of the 20th century:

            USSR (atheist), 62 million
            Communist China (atheist), 35 million
            Nazi Germany (nominally Christian), 21 million
            China 1928-49 (Buddhist/Confucianist), 10 million
            Japan (Shinto/Buddhist), 6 million
            Cambodia (atheist), 2 million
            Ottoman Turkey (Muslim), 1.9 million
            Of genocides in the 20th century, atheist nations were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths.

            These numbers are from Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature. Pinker is an atheist.

            Now let’s compare: Crusades and Inquisition and witch hunts vs. atheist genocides:
            From the beginning of the First Crusade, in 1096, till the end of the last one, in 1276, perhaps 2 million people died – Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others – 2 million over a period of 180 years, and that 2 million includes Christians and Jews who were killed by Muslims.
            Historian Norman Cantor, an agnostic Jew, states that “The total number of people who died at the hands of all Catholic Inquisitions did not exceed five figures and probably did not total more than ten thousand people.”
            So that’s 2 million for the Crusades (1096 – 1276), 10,000 for the Inquisition (1184 – 1834). 60,000 for witch trials (1400s to 1700s). Atheists killed far more people in one century that Christians did in 2000 years.

            And you are such a shameless liar you can actually post something as absurd as “neither I nor any atheist I know has killed anyone.”

            Atheists hold the record for dead bodies. Aren’t you proud?

          • Johndoe

            How pathetic. Reading comprehension not your strong suite?

          • Malleus

            You told a whopping lie. You said atheists do not kill.

            I proved you lied. I posted facts.

            Atheists have killed millions. You lie to pretend atheists are harmless. They are not. They are the worst killers in human history.

          • Johndoe

            Still with the reading comprehension. I said neither this atheist nor any atheist I know has killed anyone. Ridiculous

    • kftgr

      Quick question…what do you think is the approximate population of atheists in the USA?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        50-60 millions. Most of them are freeloaders. Anyone can be prosperous and successful by being in a sober mind (not addicted to anything) and working hard in a nation like the Christian USA.

        • uwauwa

          “most are freeloaders”, eh? How about some data to back up your talk?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They live in a Christendom, making the contributors suffer. Honest American atheists immigrate to North Korea or to Cuba. The English were great nation-makers only because they were Christian.

          • uwauwa

            and your data is where? What a high horse you place your delusions on.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Secular Americans don’t know the US history. America has no history or even meanings if Christianity is taken away.

          • uwauwa

            says you.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read your homeland’s founding documents and monuments and national anthems and the pledge and everything else. Why would Americans disrespect Christianity this century unless they became bad? You are one external proof of my point, too.

          • uwauwa

            national anthem? no mention of gods, pledge? edited in 1954 to add “under god”, what monuments? Founding documents? one mentioned “creator” pretty generic, certainly not xtian. This nation was founded on the very idea of freedom of religion. Saying it is xtian is the most incorrect thing one could possibly state.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Americans always breathed and drank Christianity. Because you are too young, you have no idea how America was created and raised by the Christians exclusively. America is ending and that’s why today’s Americans rant and live the homosexual insanity. Read the Book of Revelation.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read all verses of the anthem. America thought itself as Christian until about 1980 and that’s the majority time of her existence in its 400 years of history. Monuments like the Harvard inscriptions. Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence. The Europeans and Americans would never have come up with the concept of objective truth or freedom or human rights apart from the Holy Bible. Non-christian West forces immorality like some madmen. The Westerners need Christianity for morality and freedom.

      • Jason Todd

        Relevance?

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      Do you have any literature about chemtrails or Reptilians that I could read? 🙂

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You should leave me alone. Your father must have taught you not to bully anyone anywhere. I learned from the Christian American forefathers not to submit to today’s American perverts but to submit to God alone and stay free. Read the Holy Bible to gain life. The West is barbaric like the rest if it has no Christianity.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          If you don’t want to be held accountable for your words, keep them to yourself. You’re not being “bullied” simply because the whole world doesn’t agree that government officials should be able to decide your religion for you, or mandate what religious instruction children will receive at taxpayer expense.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Children need Christian instructions to value human life and learn morality. Christians are citizens and tax-payers, too. No government should promote atheism or something evil. The West needs Christianity to live and be good.

          • uwauwa

            Make sure to teach your children that they must stone to death those who work on sunday, and to marry those who would rape them. That is clearly the more moral choice.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are illiterate on the Holy Bible. Those who work on Sabbath was a national traitor who placed the millions in physical danger. Decent nations execute such individuals even today. The Holy Bible orders to execute all rapists.

          • uwauwa

            right someone performed some mental gymnastics to weasel out of this one.
            Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”
            You will likely cite some interpretation that somehow justifies these words. But that is what is written, like it or not. There’s hundreds of other examples in your silly book .

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They were marriable. Virgins do not get “seized” like that unless they are marriable. All unmarriable criminals got executed. Read the surrounding verses, too. No playboys allowed.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Well, I’m glad the constitution was written to stop people like you.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Atheistic Americans force Sodomy upon the world; they are human rights abusers.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Who’s being forced to engage in sodomy, Grace?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Everyone in the wedding and marriage matter for now. People are forced to serve Sodomy, and it’s wrong. American liberty is gone. You Western whites became oppressive again this time by enforcement of sexual immorality instead of racism.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            When you hang out your shingle, you become accountable to the rules governing the market. Some of these rules prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. If a person is not willing to obey those rules, then they aren’t entitled to operate a business open to the public. If you can’t tolerate serving gays, blacks, Muslims, whites, or anybody else, you are free not to go into business. Nobody has been compelled to engage in sodomy or to participate in a same-sex marriage.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Western culture is wrong to call the rejection of immorality a discrimination. Serving gay weddings violates God’s truth and human conscience. One will sell bread to anyone, but no one should be forced to bake a cake for pagan rituals or immoral celebrations. People have rights to the truth and morality. The Western culture is screwed up by applying racial equality upon sexual immorality this century. White men’s nations have become oppressive again. You guys should stop this evil, now more colored people than white people are Christian this century.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            So you’re basically calling for sharia. Huh.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Anything is better than Western Sodom’s monopoly on earth. Sodomic West and its mental servant nations are going extict from childlessness anyway. Sharia orders all homosexuals to death. Biblical Christians are the only humans who are fair and safe to all. It is stupid and suicidal, not just evil, for the West to attack Christianity this century. Americans don’t know much about the real world because the Protestant churches always protected them well.

          • Blogvader

            That’s absurd.

            The concepts of law and morality far predate Christianity, and in fact, the first law code was written by the Sumerians.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Just for elites and special classes. The Non-biblical cultures are similar everywhere, sophisticated or simple. The Holy Bible alone teaches that all men are equal under God. Morality is grossly defective in ALL pagan civilizations without exception, though none is worse than the Western secularism.

          • Blogvader

            Yeah, that’s bullsh**.

            Do you even know a Pagan?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No B-word. You Americans should stop bullying. Bullying is not American values. Stop shaming your own father.

          • getstryker

            Sure, we all recognized you!

          • Blogvader

            I’m not a pagan.

            I’m an atheist. 🙂

          • getstryker

            Yeppers, right on! . . . Pagan, atheist, lost – it’s all the same!

          • Chris

            “Pagan, atheist, lost – it’s all the same!”

            Yes, and the fundies. We are all the same. All human beings.

          • Blogvader

            Although the teachings Pagans believe make much more sense than Christianity, when you think about it.

          • getstryker

            I would imagine that many non-Christian ‘belief systems’ offer exciting and interesting doctrines and rituals . . . it will be quite interesting, in the end, to see whose ‘belief system’ was right and whose was wrong . . . only time will tell.

          • Johndoe

            You’re a phagan

          • Jason Todd

            They don’t predate God.

          • Blogvader

            Yeah, they do.

            God as a concept is still very young.

          • Jason Todd

            God is only a concept for those who don’t wish to acknowledge His existence.

            Your argument is invalid.

          • Blogvader

            She’s a concept whether you believe or not.

            That’s why it’s called ‘faith’ instead of fact.

          • Jason Todd

            If you are going to come in here and mock the beliefs of others instead of making an actual argument, I’d just as soon block you.

          • Blogvader

            You could always pray and ask God to do it for you.

          • Jason Todd

            You are a jerk. Blocked.

          • If your children are unruly, do you:

            A)Tell them to settle down

            B)Ground them

            C)Make them go without dessert

            or

            D)Take them to the edge of town and stone them?

          • getstryker

            Are you really so biblically ignorant that you don’t understand that the ‘laws and punishments’ you refer to are about 2-3 thousand years old and ONLY applied to the Hebrews at the time of the Old Testament? The dietary and other Mosaic Laws do not apply to us today. Nine of the Ten Commandments were brought forward into the New Testament. Go play with your marbles and quit bothering folks with stupid comments!

          • Not a jot or a tittle of the old law….

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, you don’t know what you are talking about. Read the Bible, for Pete’s sake.

          • I’ve read the bible. Not my fault if you don’t like parts of it.

          • Jason Todd

            Aaaand you’re a liar.

            If you actually read the Bible, you would be aware Jesus said He came to fulfill Mosaic law. Which is why only Jews practice it.

          • getstryker

            Had you bothered to look at the prior verse, you would have seen that Jesus fulfilled the Law:

            “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” – Mat 5:17

            For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Mat 5:18

            As you should know, Jesus perfect life on Earth and His sacrifice on the Cross fulfilled the Law and allowed mankind to receive salvation by faith alone.

            There’s more – read it for yourself.

          • Oh don’t be absurd.

            It says “Till heaven and earth pass.”

            Earth is still here.

            I’ve read the bible, thank you.

            Do you want me to curse fig trees?

          • getstryker

            You have absolutely no comprehension of the scripture you read or the context in which verses are made. Do some real biblical research, read a commentary or two, actually READ the verses before and after to see the context the writer intends . . . you people profess to be wise and you are nothing but fools!

          • I’ve read the entire thing, getstryker.

            I’m sorry that there are bits of the bible you don’t like but you need to choose: Either it’s inerrant or it’s not.

          • getstryker

            You may have ‘read’ the Bible but you certainly did NOT ‘comprehend’ any of it.

          • Do you deny that the fig tree incident took place?

          • getstryker

            Of course it happened and yes, I am aware of the apparent inconsistencies in the two versions . . . if you had bothered to research a good commentary, the answers are there. Go play your silly ‘gotcha games’ with somebody else.

          • I wasn’t talking about the inconsistencies of the two versions. Just…well, it’s not like the fig tree worked on the wrong day.

          • getstryker

            Of course you did and now, you want to play little ‘gotcha games’ . . . well, I have already addressed that proposition in another comment.
            BTW – the Bible is ‘inerrant!’ –
            Whether you believe or understand that or not is your problem – do the research yourself and find out if you really want to know something – I and no one else should play ‘step & fetch’ games with you seeking answers you really don’t want to see.

          • Is God never-changing?

          • Please quote-and-link to where I talked about the inconsistences of the two versions.

            Should be easy given ‘of course I did’ and public profile.

          • getstryker

            You did not mention any ‘apparent inconsistences’ in the two versions of the scriptures about the fig tree. I did. The Bible is inerrant, but there is certainly some scripture that is more difficult to understand than others. Seeming ‘contradictions’ are not and are certainly explainable. Not every believer is mature enough to have ALL the specific answers when asked (myself included) but the answers are available if you look. If you would like to learn more about my comment – do the research yourself . . . It’s a good ‘learning experience’ for you as I won’t play ‘step and fetch it’ for your little ‘gotcha games’.

          • You said ‘of course I was talking about’.

          • getstryker

            Bye bye

          • Of course. Absolutely typical …asked to back up claims of what I said (I have a public profile) and you have to run away.

          • getstryker

            I’m NOT running away from anything . . . you want answers – find them yourself . . . I did!

          • Then why can’t you quote-and-link to where I said what you claim I said.

            As for finding it myself….it’s your claim and thus, your burden of proof.

          • getstryker

            Ok, let’s start over:
            Tell me exactly WHAT you think that I claimed you said.

          • When I mentioned I wasn’t talking about inconsistencies, you said that of course I was. So quote-and-link to where I was talking about inconsitencies.

            By the way, what makes the bible more authoritative than say…the Qu’aran or the Guru Granth Sahib?

          • getstryker

            Hahaha . . . just as I figured – play’n little games – Bye!

          • Which is kind of the point.

            An omnipotent God ought to be able to make it crystal clear exactly what he means to everyone.

          • getstryker

            Funny . . . Christians, those that are actually ‘born-again’, generally understand the Bible and it’s meaning. Sure, there are all ‘levels’ of learning and understanding as each Christian grows in the faith. Some are still ‘babies’ and some more mature, and certainly, NO Christian is perfect! However, they can repent and be forgiven for sins they commit. It’s all a part of faith growing into the Christian life. It’s a process – Non-believers always mock and question the Christian life because our faults show just like every one else’s as we grow . . . the ‘adversary’ is real and he’s there to kill, steal and destroy our life and our testimony.

            The fact that ‘non-believers’ do not understand Christian believers is addressed in scripture: (note the words – ‘natural man (that’s the unsaved) & spiritually discerned’)

            “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.
            – 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV)

            Salvation is a ‘free-gift’ from God Himself thru Jesus Christ. You can accept that gift or not – it’s up to you. NO ONE, including God, forces you to accept that gift – He gave you ‘free-will’ and you can accept or reject as you choose. You should know that every truly ‘born-again’ believer ‘absolutely knows in their heart’ – (spiritual discernment) that they have received Christ into their hearts and they are then, a son or daughter of God. When it happens, there is no doubt about it. You WILL know!

            He has made your options ‘crystal clear’ – He gave you a book to read and folks that have already ‘been there’ to help you along the way.
            Oh yeah, I might mention that the Holy Spirit has a hand in this too 😉
            I’m sure that you and your friends will mock what I have written and that’s ok . . . whatever happens, it’s all your choice – Believe it or not, you will stand before your Maker one day – make it a good day – just choose wisely!

          • TO EVERYONE. Not just Christians. Every single bloody person on the planet that can read.

          • But the trouble is that so did Allah. So did Ik Onakar. And so on. So who do I believe exists?

          • Chris

            You do know that you are going to hell for calling someone a fool, right? Matt 5: 22 “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be
            subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister,
            ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’
            will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

            Now, of course, if you’re a false convert you’ll claim that the bible verse doesn’t apply to you because of some reason. Are you a false convert? Only time will tell.

          • getstryker

            I’ve read some of your other comments and I was NOT impressed . . . you might want to heed this old quote:

            “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”. . . (son, you have left no doubt!)

            Don’t bother trying to send me some kind of ‘snappy’ BS comeback . . . I’m not interested and it will go unanswered!

          • Chris

            “Don’t bother trying to send me some kind of ‘snappy’ BS comeback . . . I’m not interested and it will go unanswered!”

            The bible is BS? You’ll be drummed out of the fundie association and have your right to judge others revoked. 🙂

          • Jason Todd

            Wow. The stupid burns.

            Blocked.

          • Again, not my fault if you don’t like what the bible says.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            If anyone endangers a nation, I hand them over to the police no matter if it is my family member and how old he is. You must read all of the Holy Bible. Read 1 Samuel chapter 1-2 to know what happens to the nation who does not discipline the wayward grown children. So many perished because two evil grown kids had been appeased foolishly for years instead of execution.

            You need to remember that godless Gentiles and secular Jews can never overcome the Church or even the religious Jews. Today’s secular Westerners are evil to attack Christianity, the only religion which nurtured them and give them the life-saving truth and unequal wisdom. You guys have become some unthinkable species because of well-fed boredom. Shame on you. Please retain Christianity even for the sake of all children in the land.

          • I’ve read all of the bible. That’s how I know you’re supposed to stone the criminal if you witness it – actually, you’re supposed to be at the head of the queue.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You haven’t. Today’s secular Americans are incapable of comprehending the Holy Bible or any literature written by their forefathers.

          • Then it wasn’t written by an omnipotent God.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God is indeed omniscient and omnipotent. If people are too immoral, they become incapable.

          • Can God be suprised?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No. Read Isaiah chapters 40-45.

          • Well, which is it?

            Is it impossible to suprise God or is he omnipotent?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God is also omniscient. You should read the Holy Bible instead of ranting futile questions.

          • Then he isn’t omnipotent since we’ve identified something he is powerless to do.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            He simply chooses not to be surprised. He is sovereign. Stop treating everyone as yourself. And not every human being is as sick immoral as today’s secular West. Western whites should give mankind some break by not-forcing their depraved immorality. Your culture has serious defects. Stop ranting non-sense and learn something worthy genuinely by reading the Holy Bible with an honest heart. Poor your fathers.

          • Well, which is it?

            Is it that he can’t be suprised or is it that he can be surprised and simply WON’T be surprised?

            I’ve read the bible with an honest heart. This is why I’m asking you questions about it. You do know you’re supposed to be ready to give a reasoned answer to anyone who asks for one, right?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You didn’t read the Holy Bible. Not-remembering is same as not-reading at all.

          • I’ve read it, Grace. I understand it. I remember it. I simply don’t believe it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You don’t believe because you prefer immorality over the truth.

          • Evidence?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Your life. Compare it with John chapters 1-3.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Fatten pervs scorning godly serious hard-working people – that’s the picture of today’s secular West. The world should thank the Lord forever that the Western white slave owners of yesteryears were not today’s homosexual pervs. God spared the world from having the greater grief. God destroys every Sodom, and bad kids do not live long or inherit anything. Honor your father and your mother. Jude 1. Exodus 20.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Huh. Didn’t notice that you were a white supremacist slavery apologist before. What a great, moral person you must be! 🙄

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The white people are great if they are Christian. Non-christian Western whites force immorality upon the world and use colored people in blasphemous works. I want white kids to respect their own Christian ancestors and forefathers so they will be happy. Racism never ends as long as the liberal white kids bash the Christian white race. Colored kids mimic bad things from the liberal whites. The effects are mutiual.

          • shay simmons

            The world should thank the Lord forever that the Western white slave owners of yesteryears

            Somebody needs to read Mary Chestnut.

          • A.B,C or D?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I personally want the Western whites to altogether stop bashing their Christian ancestors because today’s Western culture is more evil. Perversion is more evil than mere racism. I want Western whites to stop using colored people for blasphemous works as well. They should use their own race if they want to so blaspheme. It applies to all races and tribes and clans.

          • A, B, C or D?

  • Amy

    Looking forward to them being sued and the cross being torn down. Hopefully the state will be forced to pay court costs as well. One way or the other these Christian’s will obey the law.

    • bowie1

      You realize that if you live in that state YOU will pay up a part of that cost if the state pays for court costs through taxes.

      • Amy

        Correct, which will ensure that the states stop breaking the law. My tax payer dollars do not support unconstitutional activities.

        • bowie1

          Christians feel the same way about how their tax payer dollars are spent but you may not have any choice.

          • Amy

            The difference is that I do not ban you from going to your church.

    • 0pus

      A very lonely, bitter woman.

      • Amy

        I am not lonely nor am I bitter. Some of us value the constitution over your feelings.

        • 0pus

          Why do you pretend to be a woman?
          Trannies are mentally ill and need to be locked up in institutions. Men who think they are women are insane.

          • Amy

            I do not pretend to do anything in my life. You do not get to violate the constitution because of your own mental illness.

    • Jason Todd

      I doubt they will be sued. The FFRF has been known to bully people because they do not like Christianity, and most people will quake in fear and do what they are told.

      But these people will not. And they shouldn’t.

      • Bob Johnson

        On the FFRF website under Legal they have an extensive list of “New Legal Successes.” They also have a list of “Highlighted Court Victories”.

        • Jason Todd

          And?

      • Johndoe

        Why not?

      • Amy

        They can stop themselves from being sued by taking the roman torture device off government property. Truly sicking that you guys worship a blood sacrifice but you do not get to push that type of stuff on the public. Either learn to follow our laws or learn to pay the price for violating them.

        • Jason Todd

          Blatant troll. Flagged.

          • Amy

            How in the world is pointing out the factual nature of the cross ‘trolling?’ And you guys cry over liberals having thin skin.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Aww, poor li’l snowflake…

  • james blue

    “Additionally, this memorial sends a message that the government only cares about the deaths of Christian veterans, not other non-Christian and nonreligious veterans.”

    I actually agree with this. The city should add other religious symbols including and Atheist one with the same or similar words. So I suggest FFRF and the Satanic temple guys get carving and donate.
    If the city refuses to place them next to the cross there will be a case that it’s not a memorial, but a promotion of one religion over others.

  • InTheChurch

    it is not about the cross but for those who died. It’s about the soldiers, Christians, non Christians, that passed away that defended our country and our rights. Yes, I will honor an atheist soldier like I would a christian soldier. A satanic soldier like a Muslim soldier. It’s about them and not the cross.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Then why have a cross as a memorial?

      • InTheChurch

        why not? it’s not about the object.

        • Guzzman

          It’s entirely “about the object.” Federal courts have held displays of Latin crosses on public property represent an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, Christianity in particular.

          Why not have a display that honors all veterans, not just Christian ones?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Where is “their” defined anywhere on that cross as being “Christian”?

            Answer It’s NOT. It’s defined by the connecting word “sacrifices”.

            Why don’t you just admit that the Cross is an offense just like God says?

          • uwauwa

            keep your message and put in on a crescent moon then, since it obviously isn’t a religious symbol.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why? Would you not object to it if it were on a crescent moon?

            Like I said, why don’t you just admit that the Cross is an offense just like God says? And that goes for the two who “liked” your comment too.

          • uwauwa

            I would still object to it, and I bet you would also. The cross has no offense to me at all (sorry persecution complex) . What does offend me is government giving preference to individual religions. You have no monopoly on the citizens of this country, nor it’s government. Keep your little fantasies in your church or on other private property.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You’d lose that bed and the cross IS an offense to you. Not only because God says so but also because you’ve proved it with your very comments.

            “You have no monopoly on the citizens of this country, nor it’s government. Keep your little fantasies in your church or on other private property.”

            Not go and practice what you preach!!

          • uwauwa

            ok, then go change it to a moon. Go and promote another religion besides your own. Go and promote all of them. I could care less about your silly little symbol of death. Your god doesn’t speak for me, sorry. I do practice what I preach. I take every opportunity to criticize any and all forms of ridiculousness and hypocrisy, especially where it affects me. Having religions pushing their crap onto all the citizens of this country does just that, not to mention that by definition it does nothing but hold back the potential of society. I’ve had enough fun with you today, so I won’t be back to reply to whatever your next ridiculous reply is. . I’ll be on the lookout for the moon in the cross’s place soon.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            ” I could care less about your silly little symbol of death. ”

            Ah, but you lie again. One who could care less about something doesn’t spend near the time, effort, and ink that you have.

            “I take every opportunity to criticize any and all forms of ridiculousness and hypocrisy, especially where it affects me.”

            Thanks for showing yourself a hypocrite and contradicting yourself. Always happens. Much appreciated.

            “Having religions pushing their crap onto all the citizens of this country”

            Having a Memorial in the form of a cross with the inscription to remember the sacrifices of those who have served in NO way is “pushing” religious “crap” on anyone. But it does show your bigotry in full bloom. Thank you.

            What is does do is push respect and honor and remembrance for those who have sacrificed and your comments reflect well why that is so offensive to you.

            And thank you for the honest admission as to what is “fun” for you. Much appreciated.

          • Guzzman

            The Latin cross universally represents the Christian religion. It is unconstitutional for government to display a Latin cross on its property because it conveys a preference for a particular religion. No one is challenging the inscription on the cross, it’s the cross itself, an undeniable religious symbol, that is the issue. The cross represents an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. There are numerous ways to display the inscription so that it honors all veterans, not just Christian ones.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Says YOU. And YOU do NOT get to decide what is “universal” or what something represents. What I said is spot on. The words themselves inscribed on that cross give it its meaning.

            STOP pushing your religion on everyone else and trying to define what they mean.

            “an undeniable religious symbol, that is the issue”

            WRONG!! As evidenced by the fact I just denied it AND I did so with logic and reason. Something you haven’t done. All you’ve done is demonstrate your confused god-complex and faux omniscience. Why don’t you climb down off your self-imposed thrown as a god and realize YOU do NOT get to decide what is “universal” for everyone else?

            “The cross represents an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.”

            Only in your twisted, confused mind. Moreover, even if it did an “endorsement” is not the same as “establishment”. Ooops. Too bad. There’s that pesky Constitution again and problem with the actual words it is comprised of.

            “There are numerous ways to display the inscription so that it honors all veterans, not just Christian ones.”j

            YOU don’t get to decide that. Rather that goes to the one who donated the memorial and NOTHING in the memorial says it doesn’t honor all veterans or only Christian ones. That is YOUR opinion and YOUR assigning motive to something that isn’t there and YOU do NOT get to do that.

            That you have a narrow, filtered, bigoted worldview and POV on anything that pricks your guilty conscience is YOUR PROBLEM and you do NOT get the right to shove your bigotry down the throats of every other citizen of this country.

          • Guzzman

            You are one seriously confused individual. The courts have held that the Latin cross universally represents the Christian religion. It is unconstitutional for government to display a Latin cross on its property because it conveys a preference for a particular religion.

            Your problem is with the Constitution and the courts, not me. You are accusing me of pushing my “religion on everyone else”? Nowhere have I advocated the placement of a religious symbol on government property. The only thing I am pushing is the Constitution, which prohibits government from endorsing religion.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “You are one seriously confused individual. ”

            LOL? That the best ya can do? I understand. it’s all ya got when you have nothing else. Thanks for the blessing and putting forth your best. Now we can take the rest of your nonsense and lies and know what to do with it.

          • InTheChurch

            That is fine with me. Display anything but don’t change the message.

      • getstryker

        Note the ’empty space’ next to the cross? – That’s to honor the ‘atheist’ that died along side the Christian in battle – they are both honored. Feel free to add any other religious symbol you like if it honors each man’s sacrifice. There, everyone is ‘included!’ Happy now?!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It’s not a question of whether I’m happy, but whether the constitution is satisfied. And it would be if all of those symbols were added.

          However, I don’t know where you got the idea that the symbol for atheists is nothing. We generally use the symbol of the organization American Atheists when there’s no better alternative.

          Lastly, why are you so hostile?

          • getstryker

            Don’t try to ‘BS’ me . . . you and other atheists ‘supposed’ concern for the sanctity of the Constitution based on the mythical ‘separation of church and state’, etc., is laughable. That comment most certainly applies to the FFRF as well. It’s just the excuse you all use to attempt to remove Christianity from the public square.
            However, you are correct in that ‘adding religious symbols’ would satisfy the Constitution. I have no problem with that and it is appropriate to honor all that have fallen, whatever their faith or lack/denial thereof. If the ‘American Atheist’s symbol’ represents your ilk, then let it also be represented. We ALL bleed the same red blood in battle, whether a man of faith or not, ALL should be honored and remembered. That is fitting and proper.
            Hostile? . . . I suppose I am. In the time I served, I never saw any man, Christian, atheist, Jew or whatever, withhold aid, help, comfort or friendship, because he was a ‘believer or not’ – every man that died for his country lies in a graveyard next to other men who did the same – no matter what they believed at the time.
            HONOR THEM ALL!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Don’t try to ‘BS’ me . . . you and other atheists ‘supposed’ concern for the sanctity of the Constitution based on the mythical ‘separation of church and state’, etc., is laughable. That comment most certainly applies to the FFRF as well. It’s just the excuse you all use to attempt to remove Christianity from the public square.”

            You’re right, there’s no such thing as separation of church and state. There is, however, an Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from endorsing any particular religion or religion in general.

          • getstryker

            And ‘our’ comments of ‘adding other religious symbols’ should satisfy any Constitutional concerns. Is that correct?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, I think it would probably match the ruling in Allegheny County v. ACLU, holding that a public display of a religious symbol is permissible if it includes multiple religions represented.

          • getstryker

            I believe you are correct – Thank you!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Remember, just because some judge ruled some particular way doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional.

            I’m sure you know that but the indisputable evidence is the number of times SCOTUS has reversed itself. All it’s gonna take for AC and his ilk to stop talking about the Constitution is for the rulings to start going against them. With over 100 Fed’l judges to be appointed by Trump, that just might happen too.

          • getstryker

            I do believe that time is coming soon. I make mention in another comment that ‘there’s a new sheriff in town’ and that ‘things’ are gonna be a chang’n!’ Thank you for your comment.
            May God Bless you and yours.

          • John Smith

            Re: New Sheriff in town
            You must mean Pence after Trump gets himself impeached.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha – oh yeah, you libs . . . always so . . . hopeful!

          • John Smith

            Hey for the record, since there are bazillions of religious symbols, you’ll probably want to make them microscopic so they will all fit in that space. That might even count as art.

          • getstryker

            A ‘bazillion’ is a bit much but I get your point. War memorials can and should honor the faiths of those that have fallen. I have made several extensive comments on that fact in this article . . . look them up if your interested.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “There is, however, an Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from endorsing any particular religion or religion in general.”

            WRONG! Better read it again. Pay attention folks! THIS is their modus operandi. Tell a lie long enough, often enough, loud enough, a whole bunch of people will fall for it.

            Go read the First Amendment for yourself. Then come on back and tell me where City Hall is mentioned.

          • Jason Todd

            Yeah. Have you read Guzzman’s caterwaulings? He is so bent on bringing people into his fantasy of an atheistic society. But Madison and Jefferson were not communists.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Unfortunately I have3. Down below he started the God-hating “there’s no mention of a supernatural being in the Constitution”. There’s been 3-4 of them whining for proof that there is, saying they’ve read the Constitution and it’s not there, blah bla blah. So somebody actually showed them it is there right in Article VII and specifically mentions Jesus Christ.

            Now he’s denying that it’s part of the “official” Constitution and nothing below the attestation is “official”. Which would mean all those signatures aren’t!! LOL

            These guys crack me up.

          • John Smith

            To bad the supreme court disagrees so completely that they came up with the opposite idea. Nice try but you loose again. I don’t hate that which does not exist, BTW.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Too bad you and AC lie about the Supreme Court. Might try going there sometime and actually watching and listening as to how they open their court sessions!!

            Nice try but you LOSE (not “loose”. Just like “precedent” and NOT “president”. How old are you anyways? You outta Grade School yet?) again.

            I’m guessing you’re referring to God and, if that’s so, yes you do hate Him and He does exist. Just like Satan exists and he being your father who bids your actions are why you’re here.

          • John Smith

            The Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated
            “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to
            erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”…This is what
            the Supreme Court ruled regarding what the Constitution says regarding
            the state establishing a state religion.

          • tatoo

            And my great uncle was one of them. He was Jewish, but the cross does not honor him. So, yes, put them all up or none.

          • getstryker

            And again, I absolutely agree with you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            The Constitution says NOTHING about a City Hall having a Cross as a Memorial. Period. That is first and foremost. Most folks with any gray matter between their ears understand that “City Hall” is NOT “Congress”.

            Secondly, the words on that Cross speak to what it symbolizes – to wit: Sacrifice. NOT Christianity. While it is true that Jesus is the Greatest Sacrifice example, the Cross itself does not represent ONLY Christianity. In fact, the majority of folks in a grave with a cross on their marker weren’t Christian. To know what something symbolizes it is best to see what is actually said and that cross says ““We Will Never Forget Their Sacrifices”.

            So, let’s break that down:

            “We” – Those who identify with the giver of the memorial

            “Will Never Forget” – Will remember and be reminded to remember as they see the memorial

            “Their” – Those for whom the memorial was made

            “Sacrifices” – Those things that were given up for others benefit.

            There, now do you understand? NO mention of Christianity. NO mention of Congress. NO mention of “establishing a religion”. NO mention of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

            So STOP the nonsense and trying to prohibit the free exercise of freedom of speech and expression.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Did nobody ever tell you about the 14th Amendment?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Didn’t nobody have to tell me about it. I’m very well aware of the 14th Amendment. But evidently nobody ever told you that there ain’t no “City Hall” mentioned in it.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You have a very odd interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Tell me, do you believe it would be constitutional for states to outlaw private ownership of firearms? How about municipalities?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. That’s called Distraction and Diversion. The Constitution says exactly what it says. Maybe another trip thru 3rd Grade would help. It simply takes reading it for what it says.

            The 2nd Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            The 1st Amendment says “Congress”.

            And the 14th Amendment says “No State”.

            Got it? Tell ya what, go back and get a High School Diploma and then come on back and maybe we can have a conversation.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say a word about the states or city hall. Why assume it would be enforceable against them? Federal courts sure didn’t.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sorry you have such a problem comprehending English. “The people” is pretty obvious I would think to most.

            See this is the problem with you and your ilk. You simply can’t understand English. Shall I break that down for you to? Just slow down and try reading it one word at a time. Look up each word in the dictionary if you must. “Right”… “People”… “Keep”… “AND”… “Bear”… “Arms”… “NOT”… “Infringe”…

            See? It’s really not all that complicated.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution placed very few restraints on the states. In fact, nobody even tried to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, because it was understood that the U.S. Constitution applied to the federal government almost exclusively, and only to the states where explicitly stated so. The 2nd was no exception, and Americans of the 18th and early 19th centuries understood that the Bill of Rights imposed no restrictions on the states. To claim otherwise is to attempt to rewrite history and build a fictional America. The Bill of Rights only became relevant to the states after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

            Interestingly enough, “the people” is actually a troublesome term. It’s not just the plural of “person,” and there have been some very recent lawsuits seeking to define the boundaries of who is counted in “the people” and who is not.

            As for the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the 14th Amendment does apply it to the states, since its guarantees of religious freedom constitute a right of U.S. citizens. Because of that, neither Congress, nor the General Assembly, nor the City Council are permitted to establish religion or abridge religious freedom. This has been settled for a long time.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I hope your day job isn’t as a History Teacher. It’s the Liberals who’ve been trying to rewrite History for decades. And, unfortunately, with some success too.

            “Interestingly enough, “the people” is actually a troublesome term. It’s not just the plural of “person,” and there have been some very recent lawsuits seeking to define the boundaries of who is counted in “the people” and who is not.”

            Thank you for publicly displaying your Liberalism. Only a Liberal could take a term like “the people” and make it troublesome. I know, I know, it depends on what “is” is. Yeah, yeah, we got it. A “Man” isn’t necessarily a Man and a “Woman” isn’t necessarily a Woman. A “Baby” isn’t necessarily a baby. Etc. ad nauseum.

            “This has been settled for a long time.”

            Not hardly.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Well, what does “the people” mean, then?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He doesn’t like to directly answer questions. I predict, if you get an answer, it will start with him sarcastically “thanking” you for something, then insulting your education level, before finally telling you that you need to do some research, while never actually answering the question.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Exactly what the Dictionary and Constitution say it does. Might throw in the DOI too.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Are illegal aliens “the people” in the context of the 2nd Amendment?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’m so sorry to see you have to even ask that but since you obviously require much help the answer is NO.

            Get a dictionary and lookup “Illegal” and “Alien”. Duh!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            How about permanent residents?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            How about stop wasting my time and getting back on the subject?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Are permanent legal residents guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms? The dictionary doesn’t tell me, Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Perhaps you didn’t see my comment above. ^^^^^^^

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Please, Judge Blaricome, if you would just indulge me for a moment.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            By the way, you might want to be specific about which dictionary you mean. The most influential law dictionary in the United States is Black’s Law Dictionary, which takes quite a lot of words to define terms like “people,” and still can’t resolve all the ambiguities and questions that arise.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for publicly displaying that it takes a lawyer to try and make the simply, clear, and uncomplicated into something it’s not. Just evidence of Romans 1:22 and Proverbs 14:12.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            If it’s so simple, clear, and uncomplicated, just say yes or no.

            Are permanent legal residents guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms? YES/NO

            Are tourists guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms? YES/NO

            Are citizens on probation guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms? YES/NO

            If all you need is a dictionary, then this should be very easy for you, your honor.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Here’s what’s simple: How about stop wasting my time and getting back on the subject?

            This article has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. Now, I suggest you go look at the policy for comments on this page.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I’m interested in delving the depths of your ignorance about law and the constitution. You are utterly uninformed about English and American legal history and structures, and I find it fascinating. If you would please just answer the questions, your honor.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’m not interested in playing your games nor in casting pearls before swine.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            So you have no idea whether those people enjoy 2A/4A rights or not.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            So you have no idea what it means to get back on track with the OP and what the policy stated for comments on this site mean. Where you even go to school?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Why are you so afraid to answer such easy, simple, common sense dictionary questions? After all, all the Supreme Court has to do is crack open their Wordly Wise books and read the answers to questions of constitutional law, right? You could do that and end this comment chain in two minutes, right?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why do you always move into your god-complex and start exercising faux omniscience?

            “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” (2nd Tim. 1:7)

            Speaking of Wise Book, I’ll be giving you Scripture as an answer from here on out to your questions.

            Look forward to it…

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Right. That’s why judges decide these questions instead of random retirees with Random House dictionaries. Consistent application of law in this country relies on scrupulous attention to a body of law stretching back more than eight centuries. It relies on consistent, precise, and logically-derived interpretation of words and relationships. That’s what lawyers and judges went to school for.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22)

            “There is a way which seems right to a man,
            But its end is the way of death.” (Prov. 14:12)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I just can’t with this guy. I swear. He’s unbelievable.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Well, on the bright side, he can’t with the legal system, either.

          • John Smith

            Supreme court is the final word, so yes. Absolutely settled although you can continue to fantasize all you like. Actually I’m glad the religious nuts keep giving us reasons to sue the government.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wow! You actually thought so much of that comment that you had to “like” it yourself? Too bad all you did was show your utter ignorance for how this country works and Constitutional illiteracy as well.

            SCOTUS never has had the final word. Not according to the Constitution nor God. So you just go on fantasizing and publicly displaying your foolishness for everyone to see.

            Not sure who the “us” is that you refer to but I imagine the reference earlier to “religious nuts” gives a pretty clear indication. Trying to obtain Brownie Points with Satan are ya? Won’t work. God gets to decide your torment in the Lake of Fire. So just keep it up. You WILL reap what you sow.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The 14th Amendment applies all of the restrictions on the government to the states.

            Yes, I’m aware that’s not how you interpret it. That’s too bad. It’s how SCOTUS interprets it, and since we don’t live in the United States of Royce E. Van Blaricome, I’m going to continue citing SCOTUS rulings in my memoranda of law, and not your opinions.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Good. You just keep doing that when SCOTUS starts ruling against you.

            And thank you for publicly displaying that you would have “continue citing SCOTUS rulings” in your memoranda of law when it came to Blacks being humans, women voting and holding public office, interracial marriage, and the illegality of SSM.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Which rulings would those be? You haven’t answered.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sure I did. Had your eyes checked lately?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I honestly don’t know why I bother talking to you. I get more straight answers out of my cats.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I honestly don’t know either. Boredom maybe? More likely just being a minion of Satan and doing his bidding just as God said.

          • John Smith

            …but only the Christians though since ONLY the cross is shown. That’s pretty clear.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong again. Just as I said before. The donor of the memorial gets to decide what it signifies. NOT YOU! So the problem is with your eyesight, not his motives. Obviously clear as mud to you.

          • getstryker

            You may find this article quite interesting:

            “The cross: more than religion? « The Immanent Frame”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks. That was interesting. One thing that stuck out to be was the “All of the judges and justices that have heard the case assert that symbols can be understood only in context. In other words, symbols don’t “mean” without context” that was then followed by contradictory statements.

            Seems clear to me that the Cross, much like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

            I maintain what I said before. That in this instance the donor of the memorial meant the cross as just what the inscription says – a symbol of sacrifice for others. Nothing more. From the article there are many others who see it as the same.

          • getstryker

            You are quite welcome. I agree with your comments as well. May God Bless you and yours.

        • kftgr

          If only that’d go over so nicely and easily. At least atheists try to do it peacefully. Compare that with all the vandalism that mysteriously occurs on public atheist or disguised atheis (Satanic Temple) signs and displays.

          • getstryker

            Of course . . . atheists are peaceful. A ‘lawsuit’ threatening a city council, etc., is certainly ‘more civilized’ than someone simply ripping the cross off a wall or desecrating a religious monument. Is that the logic?
            IMO and the opinion of many others, the ‘legal basis’ of many atheists ‘anti – Christian actions against our beliefs are flawed and have been for many years.
            I do believe that there will be new legal challenges come before the Supreme Court . . . there’s a ‘new sheriff’ in town and things are gonna be a chang’n’ – Count on it!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Good luck tearing down the Constitution, getstryker. Unlike you, some of us are still eager to defend it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            What a completely asinine statement!! Did you even bother to read what is said when you hover on his avatar?

            Based on that completely asinine statement, my guess is that he’s already defended the Constitution in way you never have and will never understand!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            So what if he’s a retired Marine? So was Lee Harvey Oswald. James Earl Ray was a U.S. Army soldier. Judging from his words today, getstryker rejects the U.S. Constitution. He doesn’t have a lifetime free pass to never be criticized for that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I never said anything about him getting a “lifetime free pass to never be criticized” and you’re also dead wrong about him rejecting the Constitution. AND I still say I’d bet he’s defended the Constitution more than you ever will.

            Btw, your inability to show any respect doesn’t give you one iota of a free pass to being seen for the degenerate that you’ve shown yourself to be. Anyone who’s not a cretin would know that the vast majority of Marines, and all those who’ve served, are honorable people that deserve our respect and can’t be compared to the isolated cases you bring up.

            Hoo yah!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            That’s nice, but if you reject the 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as Article III, you’ve got a beef with some of the most fundamental stuff in the constitution. getstryker has denounced due process and cheerfully proposed tearing down the long-established right to religious freedom. You yourself have denied that there is an incorporated right to religious freedom, a position that’s been contradicted by the Supreme Court since the 1940s. If that doesn’t make a person anti-American, what does?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I don’t reject either Amendment. Never alluded in the slightest to any such thing. I also don’t read anything into them that’s not there. You don’t have a clue what “fundamental” even means.

            And I suppose you think I’m gonna take your word for getstryker being anti-American? LOL

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You don’t need to. You can take his word for it! 🙂

            The 1st Amendment has been held to prohibit not simply the establishment of an explicit state religion, but even the appearance of government “endorsement or disapproval of religion.” This prohibition is incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment, which states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

            This is similar to how 2nd Amendment guarantees apply to the states as well as to the federal government. It is absurd to propose that the 1st Amendment was never intended to guarantee the state’s impartiality in religious matters, or that the right to enjoy impartial treatment was never meant to apply to the states under the 14th Amendment.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            See my previous comments

          • John Smith

            Your previous comments don’t make a single valid point that is also relevant.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your previous comments don’t make a single valid point that is also relevant.

          • getstryker

            I agree, Congress is denied the ability to establish an ‘explicit state religion’. However, relying on your legal acumen as an ‘outhouse lawyer’ . . . could you explain to me why and how your argument is valid when “In God We Trust” is all over our coins, Bible verses and sculpture are visible all over our nations capital, Congress opens with prayer and has paid a Chaplain to say those prayers since our nations founding and why the ‘Almighty God of the Bible’ is copiously referenced in the Preambles of ALL 50 State Constitutions?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The printing of the slogan “In God We Trust” has been held by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits to be a secular exercise and not a religious one. The Supreme Court has not yet heard an appeal.

            What Bible verses and sculptures are you talking about?

            The House and Senate chaplains have been challenged, but so far federal courts have regarded them as civil functionaries, not religious ones, somewhat like military chaplains.

            State constitutional references to God have no legal effect, and no court can compel the alteration of a constitution.

          • getstryker

            I agree with all you have stated, and calling further upon your ‘informed legal renderings’ . . . since that is the case . . . please explain how is a ‘Latin cross’ . . . placed as a simple memorial representing ALL who lost their lives in war . . . is considered ‘religious’ by you and your ilk, ‘subject to be held in contempt and banished from the public square’ and not simply a ‘secular exercise?’ – Certainly the difference should be apparent if our nations coins, our official places of government in our capital are adorned with Bible verses and sculpture (see: “In God We Trust: America’s Historic Sites Reveal Her Christian Foundations) and the Preambles of all 50 States acknowledge the Almighty God of the Bible, how is the Latin Cross different? Isn’t it also actually a ‘secular exercise?’

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The cross is no problem, so long as other symbols are treated equally. I have no particular beef with the display itself. If they preferentially allow only certain religious symbols, then that would violate the Establishment clause by selectively endorsing some beliefs and rejecting others. Those who beliefs were not allowed to be represented would be harmed by the loss of their right to be free from state discrimination.

          • getstryker

            And I have previously posted that I believe any war memorial should include any and all applicable religious symbols for all to be represented.

          • MarkSebree

            Getstryker:

            You might want to check your sources again, and ignore David Barton this time.

            The Constitution of the State of Vermont does not have a preamble, nor does New Hampshire. That shows that your statement is a lie. What’s more, not all the state constitutions that do reference a higher power necessarily reference the Christian deity.

          • getstryker

            First of all, I did not reference any material from David Barton. References to God exist in both of the state constitutions you mentioned – whether specifically in the Preamble or not. Vermont DOES have a Preamble, New Hampshire mentions ‘Author of existence’ early in that state’s constitution. The remainder of your comment has as much credibility as your first claims – absolutely none!
            NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO POST SOMETHING TO ME – GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! – – And just who else but THE Almighty God of the Bible (a Christian deity)would these American state legislatures be referring to? Buddha, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster??? FAIL!
            =====================================

            Source: TruthorFiction(dot)com website:

            “The Fifty States Reference God in their Constitutions” –Truth!

            Summary of eRumor:

            The email includes phrases said to be from the constitutions of all fifty states in the U.S….and all of them acknowledge God, an interesting fact in the midst of controversy over the separation of church and state.

            The Truth:

            We checked them all and the constitutions of all fifty states reference God, mostly in their preambles.

            ===================================
            source search: Preamble: Vermont Constitution of 1777, Preamble

            Vermont Constitution of 1777, Preamble

            Thorpe 6:3737

            Whereas, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.

            (Reference to ‘Creator God’ as “Author of existence”)

            ==============================
            Source: “The Preambles Of All 50 States Of The United States” – Rense(dot)com

            New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V.

            Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha, I’m shocked 😉 Guz, you and the Ambulance Chaser up-voted this load of crap? Tsk, tsk . . . I’m ‘anti-American?’ . . . we may be on different sides of the fence but . . . ?ROTFLMAO!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            If you reject what amounts to the definition of the United States, that’s unequivocally anti-American.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . go sell that ‘load of crap’ somewhere else . . . it ain’t happening with me. I’ve read enough of your ‘dribble’ to know your head is so far up yer ‘tailpipe’ you can’t even see daylight. Go ‘take a pill or smoke a joint’ . . . whatever it is you ‘burn-outs’ do now days. Yer a joke, son!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I may be ‘a joke,’ but at least I actually like ‘the Constitution’ and think it is an ‘important document’ that ‘shouldn’t be ignored.’ I also know that if you oppose ‘the Bill of Rights,’ you aren’t a very ‘patriotic American.’

          • getstryker

            Ok, ‘splain it to me Lucy’ . . . whatever did I write that makes you think that I’m anti-America, oppose the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights?

            No ‘generalities’ . . . give me quotes!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            “IMO and the opinion of many others, the ‘legal basis’ of many atheists ‘anti – Christian actions’ against our beliefs are flawed and have been for many years.”

            What does this mean, if not that the 1st and 14th Amendment should not protect the rights of all Americans to be free from government intrusion into religious and spiritual life? The FFRF relies exclusively on the same protections that guarantee the rights of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons, and every other religious group in the country. They seek no special rights for atheists, or special restraints on Christianity. They seek to protect freedom of conscience from government interference, as guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments.

            “I do believe that there will be new legal challenges come before the Supreme Court . . . there’s a ‘new sheriff’ in town and things are gonna be a chang’n’ – Count on it!”

            If you want these cases to start going differently than they have been for decades, then you want to dispose of the very principle of religious liberty of freedom of conscience. I think that’s pretty anti-American.

          • John Smith

            This veteran agrees with you Ken. He’s no American.

          • John Smith

            …and yet you keep on reading. 😉

          • getstryker

            Yeah, I gotta admit, I do read it . . . some of these folks put out so much crap, the methane would light up a good sized city.

          • getstryker

            More ‘BS’ – you and those like you are hardly ‘defending the Constitution’ – that’s just the lie you use to bully those with a belief system you don’t agree with. It supposedly makes the actions that anti-Christian activists and FFRF type organizations use to hide their real agenda – remove all vestige of Christianity from the public square.
            A complaisant media and biased judicial system has facilitated the accomplishment of those goals just as they were with Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, etc. Why, there is even a so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ out there that Judge Scalia was really murdered to open the opportunity to appoint a new liberal judge and lock down the Supreme Court and their liberal agenda if Hillary had won. Despite the findings, the pillow over his face certainly feed the resultant speculation . . . Hummmm.
            You make the claim that somehow I would attempt to ‘tear down the Constitution?’ – Oh no . . . save the accusations and the rest of the left-wing bully tactics – they’re are NOT gonna fly with many millions of conservative Americans and especially those that have an abiding faith in the Almighty God of the Bible. Trump’s upcoming appointments to the SC will build a conservative court that will last for decades. The media/judicial ‘BS’ liberal agenda party of the last half a century plus is about to die a noisy but certain death. Good riddance!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Blah, blah, blah. I strongly support religious freedom, but the state should have no role in deciding whether to endorse Catholicism or Lutheranisn, how to enforce sharia law, or how long to imprison cattle ranchers for blasphemy. The 1st Amendment exists to stand in the way of people like you and the Muslim Brotherhood.

          • getstryker

            Now, there ya go. See how easy that was. In only three words, you’ve conveyed your deepest thoughts, presented your liberal agenda and overwhelmed any arguments to the contrary with your most concise, accurate and cogent comment yet in this entire conversation and I quote: ‘Blah, blah, blah!’ . . . I’m in awe! 😉

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Don’t you have an oath to break and a country to betray?

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . you’re ‘funny’ – (as in strange! 😉 Crawl back under your rock . . . we’re done!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL!! Great minds… I said the same thing above a few minutes ago. LOL

          • getstryker

            Yes, you did and quite well I might add. It must be that ‘great minds’ thing!

            Don’t ya just love ‘liberals’ – so quick to shout their ‘talking points’ and yet they display an IQ 3 points below a carrot!

          • Chris

            Then maybe you’ll be able to do what your new ‘sheriff’ has done. You know – adultery, hypocrisy, uncaring attitude to the poor – all the stuff that Jesus would have supported.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . you are a ‘sick little puppy’ now aren’t you!

          • Chris

            why? Are you denying that Trump has committed adultery? Or that he has displayed hypocrisy? Or unconcern for the poor?

        • tatoo

          You are going to need a bigger wall.

          • getstryker

            Yes, I agree and I have no problem with that. Every man, whether he is Christian, Jew, atheist, etc., deserves to be honored for their sacrifice.

    • Emery Pearson

      All the more reason to remove it.

      • Adagio Cantabile

        You look like someone who is really into kids.

    • John Smith

      Then delete the cross and just have the plaque. Problem solved. …oh except it IS about the cross.

      • InTheChurch

        I’m good with a plaque. I am good with anything that honors the soldiers. I think for some it is about the offensive cross and not about the soldiers. Priorities?

  • tatoo

    The city will fight and lose big bucks. What is it with these stupid council people that they are so arrogant that they think they will win?

    • Jason Todd

      They do not have to fight. They said no, and any subsequent communiques from the anti-Christian bigots that are the FFRF should be ignored.

      • Bob Johnson

        Because the next communique will not come from the FFRF, instead it will come from the local courthouse.

        • MarkAngelo

          Homosexuals – without your hate for Christians, you’d have no emotional life at all.

          Sad creatures.

          • Johndoe

            Where do you come up with such nonsense? Too ridiculous!

          • Jason Todd

            You know what’s sad? When a Muslim shot up a LGBTQW nightclub in Orlando last year, it was Christians that ran in numbers to provide aid and comfort for the wounded and families of the dead.

            They’ve learned nothing.

        • Jason Todd

          Again, I doubt it. Last year, the FFRF demanded a sheriff remove the words, “In God We Trust” from his patrol cars. The sheriff’s response? “Go fly a kite.” The FFRF backed down.

          • Johndoe

            The sheriff shouldn’t have put it on there to start with…..

          • getstryker

            Why not? It’s on our coins, government buildings in Washington D.C. and it’s our ‘National Motto’

          • getstryker

            See the article:

            “Can “In God We Trust” be displayed on police cars?”

      • Johndoe

        Nope

  • Guzzman

    Government is mandated by the Constitution to remain neutral toward religion. There are numerous ways to depict a veterans memorial without featuring an inherently religious Latin cross. What’s wrong with a boots and helmet display? That would honor all veterans, not just Christian ones.

    • Jason Todd

      Government is mandated by the Constitution to remain neutral toward religion.

      We have already gone over this bald-faced lie before, and yet here you are spewing it again. Do you think if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it? Only those who do not bother to actually read the Constitution.

      • Johndoe

        Surely you jest? You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • Guzzman

        And I see you remain ever so ignorant of the Constitution. I repeat, government is required to remain neutral toward religion. “The touchstone of the Establishment Clause is ‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates government NEUTRALITY between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.'”[McCreary County v. ACLU], 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

        • Jason Todd

          Those are people in black robes. Not the Constitution.

          FAIL.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The Constitution doesn’t clarify every possible scenario that may involve the Establishment Clause. Luckily, we have a body whose constitutionally mandated duty is to interpret it o a case by case basis.

            That body does not include you. While you are certainly free to exercise your free speech to offer your interpretation of the Constitution, you are not free to live in an alternate universe in which that opinion supersedes the Supreme Court’s.

          • Guzzman

            So you have no citation that speaks against the First Amendment mandate of government neutrality toward religion. I have legal citations, you have squat.

            So who is the liar here?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Unfortunately, he doesn’t believe in legal citations.

            Fortunately, the legal system doesn’t care.

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, the First Amendment doesn’t say what you want it to say. It says Congress cannot create its own religion nor keep people from practicing theirs. Period.

            Judges are not the Constitution. Judges are judges. And they are mutually exclusive from the Constitution.

            You have a constitutional republic confused with a kritarchy, and a communist one at that.

            When you come around to reality, you may have something of substance to say. But not til then.

          • Bob Johnson

            Do you ever lay awake a night wondering why you keep losing in court case after court case?

          • Jason Todd

            Nope. It does bother me, however, that more people won’t stand up to organizations that are devoted to removing Christianity from the public square while simultaneously giving the green light to Islam.

            The FFRF only has power that we give them, just like schoolyard bullies. You take away that power, they are nothing. And you remove the power the way you handle bullies: You kick them in their privates and bloody their nose.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I can’t emphasize enough how far from reality this is. I don’t know any way to prove it to you (especially because you have me on block), but I can attest, as a lawyer, that the idea that there is any way to practice law without citing cases is patently ludicrous. You might as well ask a physicist to do physics without math.

            This is not even up for debate. This is a more settled issue than climate change. There is LITERALLY not a single lawyer in America who doesn’t cite case law. It’s simply not done because if you’re not citing cases, you’re not practicing law.

          • Amos Moses

            Luke 11:45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
            Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

            Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “I can’t emphasize enough how far from MY reality this is. I don’t know any way to prove it to you”

            There. Fixed it for you.

            As for the rest of your drivel, anyone that has been around long enough to actually look at SCOTUS and it’s rulings can see you’re just spouting lies.

            Not only has “case law” been completely ignored, it has in some cases been completely overturned. Ooops. So much for your case!

            Oh, and let’s not forget than when judges who want to legislate from the bench, ignore the Constitution, and push their own agenda, they just simply make up stuff that ain’t even there. The “create” “case law” where none even exists.

            If your argument were true, Blacks would still not be consider human, women wouldn’t be able to vote or hold public office, there’d be no such thing as interracial marriage and we would NOT have SSM.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “There. Fixed it for you.”

            Have you ever considered NOT being smug and condescending? No, I mean reality. As in, the way law is practiced in every court in every state in America. When was the last time you tried a case?

            “As for the rest of your drivel, anyone that has been around long enough to actually look at SCOTUS and it’s rulings can see you’re just spouting lies.”

            The definition of a “lie” is not “a statement Royce E. Van Blaricome disagrees with.”

            “Not only has “case law” been completely ignored, it has in some cases been completely overturned. Ooops. So much for your case!”

            Yes. SCOTUS has the power to do that. Then the new case becomes law. Is there some point you’re trying to make here?

            “Oh, and let’s not forget than when judges who want to legislate from the bench, ignore the Constitution, and push their own agenda, they just simply make up stuff that ain’t even there. The “create” “case law” where none even exists.”

            While reasonable minds can differ on whether a given ruling comports with stare decis, that’s ultimately an academic question that has no bearing on the real world. The fact remains, whatever got us to that ruling is irrelevant. The ruling is law and must be followed.

            “If your argument were true, Blacks would still not be consider human, women wouldn’t be able to vote or hold public office, there’d be no such thing as interracial marriage and we would NOT have SSM.”

            I don’t know what you’re talking about. Same Sex Marriage DID come from a ruling, and so did interracial marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia). You seem to be arguing that SCOTUS rulings can simply be ignored. My point is that they can’t, and if they were ignored, we would still have laws banning interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. We don’t, hence, my point.

            If by “blacks wouldn’t be considered human” you’re referring to Dred Scott, then yes, Dred Scott was a SCOTUS ruling, and needed to be followed, until it was overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment. Until then, it absolutely was law.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Have you ever considered NOT being smug and condescending?”

            Have you ever considered dropping the ad hominem and falsely characterizing others when you have no argument to present? Thank you for publicly displaying your ineptness though.

            “As in, the way law is practiced in every court in every state in America.” Thank you for publicly displaying your god-complex and exercising your faux omniscience. Seriously hope you will someday see someone about that.

            “The definition of a “lie” is not “a statement Royce E. Van Blaricome disagrees with.” Thank you again for the ad hominem and public display of ineptness.

            “Yes. SCOTUS has the power to do that. Then the new case becomes law. Is there some point you’re trying to make here?”

            Yup. Sorry to see it flew right over your head. I could almost hear the sonic boom.

            While reasonable minds can differ on whether a given ruling comports with stare decis, that’s ultimately an academic question that has no bearing on the real world. The fact remains, whatever got us to that ruling is irrelevant. The ruling is law and must be followed.”

            Thank you for that complete well mixed batch of word salad that not only confirms my point but shows you completing contradicting yourself.

            “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

            Bingo! Billy Bob, we have a winner!! And it’s likely you never will. Too prideful to surrender to Christ as a slave and become Born Again so that you can understand.

            “If by “blacks wouldn’t be considered human” you’re referring to Dred Scott, then yes, Dred Scott was a SCOTUS ruling, and needed to be followed, until it was overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment. Until then, it absolutely was law.”

            Thank you for proving my point.

          • Guzzman

            You wrote that the First Amendment means that “Congress cannot create its own religion…” No court in the history of our nation has ever interpreted the Establishment Clause so narrowly as you do.

            The undeniable intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution was to separate religion and government – it gives government no grant of authority over religious matters. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”, wrote authoritative declarations that the Constitution and the First Amendment safeguard a “separation between religion and government” (Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820). As president, Madison vetoed bills, none of which had anything to do with Congress creating its own religion, on grounds that the bills nevertheless violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

            The religious clauses of the First Amendment, acting together have the effect of “building a wall of separation between Church and State” according to Thomas Jefferson. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Supreme Court argued that Jefferson’s writings concerning a wall of separation between church and state “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First]

          • Jason Todd

            You know what? You are going to have an awfully hard time convincing me Madison and Jefferson were communists. Because, you see, they believed in religious freedom, Jefferson especially. His 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists is often quoted, and then out of context to fit an agenda.

            For those who have actually bothered to read it, it’s clear he believed religion should be protected from government, and not the other way around.

            The phrase, “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution, but it did in the Constitution of the former USSR.

            Don’t you wish you could go back in time and hang with Uncle Joe? Of course you do.

            Blocked.

          • Guzzman

            The Constitution and the Founders say you are wrong. The Constitution separates religion and government by establishing a government where power is based on “We the People”, not on a god, divine sovereignty, or anything related to religion. The Constitution separates religion and government by granting no power of any sort to the government over religious matters. The Constitution separates religion and government by making no mention of religion except to prohibit religious tests as a qualification for office.

            The founders, not just Jefferson, said as much. James Madison repeatedly affirmed that the Constitution provides a “separation between Religion & Govt” (Detached Memoranda, ca.1820). In 1833, Madison argued against the notion of combining religion and government: “In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So what do you propose we do when SCOTUS makes a ruling that “doesn’t comport with the Constitution?” Ignore it? Appeal it to you? Are you the ultimate authority on the Constitution, even above the Supreme Court?

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            There’s only one judge of law higher than the Supreme Court, but it’s a pain when you’ve got to appeal to them…

      • zeddicuskotor

        Where is the supernatural mentioned in the Constitution? Be specific.

        • meamsane

          ARTICLE VII

          Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the
          States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the
          YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
          America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto
          subscribed our Names,……

          A commonly acknowledged reference to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Specific enough?

          • zeddicuskotor

            So no, you cannot find any reference to the supernatural. Thanks for admitting to that.

          • meamsane

            Ignoring it doesn’t change the fact!

          • zeddicuskotor

            Ignoring that the Constitution doesn’t grant power to anything supernatural, but instead grants that power to the people.

            If you want a example of a constitution that invokes the supernatural, then look at the CSA, not the USA.

          • meamsane

            You asked for a mention of it, not an application. I did so.

          • zeddicuskotor

            And you failed to prove your point as a result.

          • meamsane

            Do you have a comprehension deficit? There was no point to prove. You wanted a mention of the supernatural in the Constitution. I gave it. End of story.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Under your logic, a sheet of paper that says that Satan is the ruler of all creation is a Christian document as long as it uses western dating nomenclature.

          • meamsane

            I never said it was a Christian document. I can only surmise that your hostility towards Christians and Christianity clouds your ability to understand the meaning of simple statements without expounding on meanings that are not there. Just calm down, OK?

          • kftgr

            Dunno, it could be Lord Xenu. Thus we all must bow to the scientologists.

          • meamsane

            Nice try at a dodge….but nope!

          • Guzzman

            The “our Lord” clause is not even part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution’s text ends just before those extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88.

            Nothing follows from “our Lord” except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our European heritage. The European dating system is infused with pagan artifacts that, if taken seriously, lead to similarly silly conclusions. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin its sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for publicly displaying your utter ignorance on the Constitution. Now that you and the other trolls on here have finally gotten someone to do your work for you and publicly display the Truth for all to see here that the Constitution DOES IN FACT mention the Supernatural and not only that but specifically the Lord Jesus Christ you resort to the standard tactic of Denial. LOL

            Unfortunately for you, it is there is black & white!! Article 7 is the Ratification Clause and you just publicly displayed that its “not even part of the official legal Constitution.” LOL Oh yeah, “Ratification” isn’t official!! LOLOLOLOL

            “The official Constitution’s text ends just before those extra words of attestation”

            Oh yeah, ALL those Signatures aren’t “official” but the document they signed above it are. LOLOLOLOLOL You guys crack me up!!

            And for anyone else who might be reading this and actually have a serious question about whether that written out dating and mentioning of “Our Lord” means anything, go look at the Declaration of Independence and see if you find it there? Quite to the contrary of Guzzman’s moronic characterization, the Ratification Clause was intentionally with forethought and purpose placed on the document. Anyone with an honest attempt for the truth can find the Truth in the History of what was recorded at the time.

            Bottom Line: All these God-haters have been screaming and yelling that there is NO mention of God, Jesus Christ or a Supernatural Being in the Constitution and there is. Unequivocal, indisputable proof that there IS!!

            Now, if you see them continuing to deny it, you know they are just flatout Liars and intentionally trying to mislead others.

          • Guzzman

            The “Year of our Lord” was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious or “supernatural” – a dating system that was an historical artifact of our ties to England, nothing more. The date was only added AFTER the state legislatures ratified the draft. The date is not contained in the body of the Constitution itself.

            The ultimate piece of evidence is the actual Constitution itself, which is a resolutely secular document – nowhere does it mention Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or even God for that matter. That was by design. In 1833, Madison argued against the notion of ever mixing religion and government. He wrote: “In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh really? Then why isn’t it on the DOI? Rather than giving us your opinion, which means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever, why don’t you go back and look at the Historical record? Be sure to drop your obvious God-hating bias and filter before you do though. Then you’ll see that the clause you so easily and quickly choose to dismiss was intentionally and purposely with forethought included.

            Your argument “The date is not contained in the body of the Constitution itself” is ludicrous on its face. The phrase is included ABOVE the signatures. Next you’ll be saying the signatures don’t mean anything either.

            “The date was only added AFTER the state legislatures ratified the draft. ”

            Unfortunately for you, black & white evidence supersedes your lies. Article VII is the RATIFICATION and there is NO getting around what the Constitution itself says:

            “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names”

          • Guzzman

            Article VII of the Constitution sets the number of state ratifications necessary in order for the Constitution to take effect and prescribes the method through which the states may ratify it. The attestation clause is not part of the text of the Constitution itself, but rather additional text separately explaining that the preceding Constitution had been “DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present” and “In witness whereof” the undersigned subscribed their names. While the clause commonly appears on copies of the Constitution, it is not part of the official, legal Constitution ratified by the states.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks again for publicly displaying your foolishness and attempt to insult the intelligence of any reasonable person. Like anyone is gonna believe the signature at the bottom of a document is not part of the document! LOL

            It is also appreciated when you publicly display the length and breadth that the spiritually-dead will go to try and deceive and deny the plain truth that sits before someone’s eyes.

            It is almost mind boggling how completely oblivious one can be to the obvious. Like “Article VII” doesn’t mean anything and isn’t attached to “Article VI” and the preceding articles. DUH!!

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You’d do well to ponder that for awhile.

          • Guzzman

            What I wrote is exactly correct. Article VII of the Constitution sets the number of state ratifications necessary in order for the Constitution to take effect and prescribes the method through which the states may ratify it. The attestation (or signatory ) clause below Article VII is NOT part of the text of the Constitution itself, but rather additional text separately explaining that the preceding Constitution had been “DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present” and “In witness whereof” the undersigned subscribed their names. While the signatory clause commonly appears on copies of the Constitution, it is not part of the official, legal Constitution ratified by the states.

            There is a highly detailed explanation of this by constitutional scholar A. R. Amar of Yale University in his 2012 book, “America’s Unwritten Constitution” pp. 70-79, which I quote in part: “The words ‘in the Year of our Lord’ do not merely lie outside of Article VII. They lie outside of the official written Constitution – that is – the legal one – altogether…The attestation-and-signature language below Article VII is not part of the Constitution itself.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I appreciate you continuing to show your Delusion and Denial. Always appreciate when you folks completely discredit yourselves.

            Nothing you’ve said is correct – let alone exactly correct. Most folks with a 3rd Grade education can count and understand that 7 follows 6 and therefore is part of the same thing. DUH! Anybody who’s ever signed an official document of any kind knows exactly what they are doing when they place their signature at the bottom of it! DUH!!

            And the same folks understand you’re just being completely nonsensical by claiming that the signatures are separate from the text. As for you quoting and reference to Amar, providing it’s even accurate, all that shows is that “scholar” means no more than “reverend”, “pastor”, “expert”, or a host of other titles these days. Just like PhD has garnered the understanding of stupidity “Piled High & Deep”. I’m reminded of one guy I know who has 2 Master’s & 2 PhD’s and not a lick of common sense.

            Which may well be why the book is entitled “America’s Unwritten Constitution”. But that’s not the topic of discussion. We’re talking about the REAL “written” one.

            All one has to do is go look at the original document or any other Reproduction and it’ll be right there staring you in the face. Amar’s attempt to rewrite History is typical of the liberal revisionism that exists everything they dirty fingers touch anything. Not at all unlike the liberals who are trying to rewrite Scripture these days and deny the obvious.

            You’d be far better off to read “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Fully Revised Second Edition)

            Or you could just simply exercise a little common sense. To deny the obvious is just plain idiotic and lunacy,.

          • Doug Indeap

            Quite right. By the Constitution’s terms, it is only ratification by the states (or nine of them anyway) that renders it effective. So, to ascertain what is or is not part of the Constitution, one looks to what was ratified by the states. Five attached the Constitution without any attestation clause to their resolution of ratification. Others devised their own attestation clauses.

            It is instructive to observe too that on September 15, 1787, the Convention made a few changes to the Constitution and then all states voted to “agree” to the Constitution as thus written and then ordered it to be “engrossed.” On September 17, after the engrossed Constitution was read, Franklin moved that the Constitution also be signed by delegates and offered what he termed a “convenient form,” i.e., “Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of Sepr. &c– In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.” (Note that the record has him replacing the “Year of our Lord” and associated text with “&c–” evidently deeming it but boilerplate not even worth stating verbatim—and certainly not according it any significance.) Franklin noted that the point of this “ambiguous form” was to “gain the dissenting members.” After some further discussion clarifying that those signing the form would not thereby approve the Constitution but merely witness the fact of its earlier approval by the states, Franklin’s motion was passed and the delegates signed the form. (2 Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 633-649 (1911).)

          • meamsane

            I wasn’t making any of these points, or any point at all except it’s mention. The phrase was not in the original draft of the Constitution, but no one, to my knowledge knows who put it there, but regardless, it is there and is accepted as part of our Constitution!

          • Guzzman

            You claimed the Year of Our Lord “is accepted as part of our Constitution!” No, it actually lies outside the Constitution. The attestation-and-signature clause below Article VII is NOT part of the text of the Constitution itself, but rather additional text separately explaining that the preceding Constitution ratified by the states had been “DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present” and “In witness whereof” the undersigned subscribed their names. While the attestation-and-signature clause commonly appears on copies of the Constitution, it is not part of the official, legal Constitution ratified by the states.

            There is a highly detailed explanation of this by constitutional scholar A. R. Amar of Yale University in his 2012 book, “America’s Unwritten Constitution” pp. 70-79, which I quote in part: “The words ‘in the Year of our Lord’ do not merely lie outside of Article VII. They lie outside of the official written Constitution – that is – the legal one – altogether…The attestation-and-signature language below Article VII is not part of the Constitution itself.”

      • antifasciste

        Where do you teach Constitutional Law professor?

        • Amos Moses

          where did you ……..

          • antifasciste

            Where did I what?

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . this idiot doesn’t even know what the question is . . . LOL!

          • antifasciste

            Were you bullied as a child? Or, still a child emotionally.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha – yeah, that’s it . . . LOL!!!

          • antifasciste

            Or maybe still bitter and angry over wasting a chunk of your life losing a war to a tiny country in SE Asia.

    • Amos Moses

      guess maybe you should go to Arlington and ask that all those crosses be removed……..

      • MarkSebree

        You have been told this before. The crosses on graves are meant to honor the INDIVIDUAL that is buried there. Just as the Star of David honors the Jews buried in Arlington, the Star and Crescent honors the Muslims, the Pentacle honors the Wiccans, the Wheel honors the Buddhists, the Hammer of Thor honors the Asturans, and so on. There are over 65 symbols that are allowed on the headstones at Arlington Cemetery, and less that half of them are Christian denominations.

        You cannot seem to grasp the distinction here. Since the government is providing a wide variety of symbols which are tied with many, many different religions and denominations in the world, as well as symbols for those who are not religious, they are indeed treating everyone equally and not showing any preference for any religious belief or non-belief.

        However, in the instance case, there is only one symbol on display, the Latin Cross which is closely tied to Christianity. It is supposed to represent all veterans no matter what their beliefs or non-beliefs were. There is no attempt at fairness, equality, or even trying to follow the law. The government’s implication here is that if you are not a Christian veteran, you do not matter and you do not need to be honored. That is disrespectful to ALL veterans, especially the ones that take their oaths to “defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic”. A government institution that is showing favoritism towards a single religion is an enemy of the Constitution for it violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. And thus, it should be fought, both in the courtroom and at the ballot box.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It doesn’t seem that difficult a concept to me.

      • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

        Why? Arlington National Cemetery obeys the U.S. Constitution by not showing any preference. You can have a Christian cross, you can have a Muslim star and cresent, you can have a Jewish star of David, you can have a Hindu Aum, you can have a Wiccan pentagram, you can have a neopagan Mjölnir, you can even have an atheist atom or an infinity symbol! That’s not even the full list.

      • Guzzman

        Your argument fails because gravestones in public cemeteries (such as Arlington National Cemetery) are not deemed to constitute a government endorsement of religion because they individually represent the private religious beliefs of the persons buried there, and those symbols are chosen by family members of the deceased, not the government.

    • Scotty Unchained

      Your gravestone will have a red ribbon on it.

  • GeraardSpergen

    Cross memorials like this are how government agencies that have established Christianity as their official religion honor their dead.

    • Ben Welliver

      * gasp *

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    God bless this City Hall for not caving in to the idiocy and bullying attempts of the FFRF. There’s a new sheriff in town and that stuff is gonna come to a screeching halt once they realize their throwing money into the wind.

    This was evidenced by the ACLU losing their attempt to get Ms. Davis to pay their legal fees. Oops! Didn’t work out for them and they lost $230,000. Trump is hopefully gonna appoint over 100 judges that will put a stop to all the Unconstitutional rulings whereby godless judges have legislated from the bench by reading into the Constitution what is not there.

    The fact is that even if there was a city in this country that wanted to be 100% Christian there is NOTHING in the Constitution that would prevent them from doing so. Meaning they could actually have a Christian Government with Christian officials governing.

    That’s never gonna happen and I certainly wouldn’t advocate for it. Not sure I’d even wanna live there. Just saying the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it.

    • John Smith

      Religion doesn’t belong in government. If you set that president and a few years later a Muslim gets elected…

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        I believe the word you meant is “precedent”. That said if you truly believe that you may wanna consider Russia as your new home.

        John Adams made it abundantly clear that is NOT the case for the USA and our Constitution.

        And, just for the record, if a Muslim gets elected so be it. Wouldn’t be surprising. Seems to be the direction this country is headed with the idiotic policies that are being put forth by the Libs. So if that’s what the will of the People do, they’ll reap what they sowed.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “The fact is that even if there was a city in this country that wanted to be 100% Christian there is NOTHING in the Constitution that would prevent them from doing so. Meaning they could actually have a Christian Government with Christian officials governing.”

      Sure they could have “Christian officials governing,” they’d just have to elect them. I just guess I’m wondering what a “Christian government” means here. (Welcome to Theocracyville?)
      As for nothing preventing it, how about the 14th Amendment, that says the non-Christian people (or even Christians of a different denomination, for that matter!) in that city have equal protection of the law?

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        ” I just guess I’m wondering what a “Christian government” means here. (Welcome to Theocracyville?)”

        I agree. That would be the difficulty. That’s why I say I’m not even sure I’d wanna live there.

        I’m not gonna get into a long, drawn out discussion on the 14th Amendment so suffice it to say that #1) it doesn’t say anything about a local community or City Hall and #2) there is nothing inconsistent with Christianity and Non-Christians (or even Christians of a different denomination) having equal protection under the law.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          True , the 14th doesn’t say anything about local governments, but it does mention states, so that would mean a city, which is under a state’s jurisdiction, of course, can’t have any laws that violate the 14th.

          There are many different things “a Christian government” could mean. A government comprised of Christians? We’ve pretty much had that all throughout the history of this country. If you mean a government that follows Christian laws and principles even when they would conflict with US laws, that ain’t happening.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I would disagree that a state has jurisdiction over the city. Same as the Fed’l Gov’t doesn’t have jurisdiction over a State where the Constitution does not expressly give it to them.

            One of the primary intents and functions of the Constitution was the concept of “limited powers” and limited Government. It was the will of the People that intended to prevail.

            If you don’t like the way a city or state governs – move.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Local governments are creations of the states, so therefore, the 14th applies to them….which then means the Bill of Rights applies to them as well. (Or at least most of it, as there are a few clauses of the amendments that were ruled to not apply. I don’t quite get that, but I’m no legal expert.)

            I’ll approach this from another angle, though…you say the 14th doesn’t apply to local governments. Okay then, do you think that’s a GOOD thing? Why, or why not?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. Maybe where you live but not here.

            The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans and in not applicable in this discussion.

            Yes, I think it’s a good thing. For the reasons I’ve already enumerated.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Where I live? That would be the same country as you.

            Okay, I guess you can find examples of a city that existed before the state it is now in, heck, I can think of at least a few in my home state of MI. Still , the state has authority over those cities. That’s how the SC has interpreted the Constitution, as far as I have figured from my quick reading up on the particular subject.

            “The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans and in not applicable in this discussion.”

            No, it’s more applicable than you apparently realize. The Bill of Rights wasn’t considered to apply to state governments until 1925, when a series of SC decisions made it so….because of guess what? Our old buddy, the 14th Amendment!

            Oh, and I gotta correct you on one thing…you kinda misworded that. The Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Constitution, doesn’t “apply to all Americans”….in that it doesn’t apply to individual citizens, it applies to the government, and says what they can and can’t do.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No it’s not and that’s your opinion. And you’re just flat wrong about the Constitution not applying to individual citizens. You might wanna remember that if you ever get put on the stand and asked to testify against yourself.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, the 5th Amendment? That’s not any different from the rest.

            “No person shall be held to”, etc. It’s talking about what the government (as in the courts, in this instance) can’t do to individual citizens. The Constitution exists to delineate and limit the powers of the government.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. When one invokes the 5th Amendment they don’t start with “You”! Then start with “I”. You’re grasping at straws. You’ve been better than that in the past. Now you’re just being obtuse.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “When one invokes….”

            So what? What does that mean? I can invoke any amendment, any part of the Constitution, to defend my cause. What does it matter what word I choose to start the sentence off with?

            I’ll put this another way. The Constitution doesn’t give anyone any rights. What does is the Declaration of Independence. “Certain unalienable rights”.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Put it anyway you want. You’re still wrong. But I do appreciate you publicly showing that nothing you say should be taken seriously.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Where in my last statement was I wrong, and how, if so?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Hopefully you’ll figure it out someday. As well as understanding that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I should have known I wouldn’t get a straight answer out of you on that one. I’ll just take that as meaning you don’t have an answer.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Take it however you like. Whatever puffs your panties. How you take it is of no consequence to me.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Look at the 2nd Amendment, for instance. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It’s not talking about me as a individual citizen. I’m not the government. I don’t have the authority to infringe anything. I can say Joe Schmoe down the street can’t have a gun, but that doesn’t mean a damn thing coming from me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            See my answer below and stop wasting my time. If you can’t see the obvious, I’ve nothing more to say to you.

  • John Smith

    All that yammering and they will STILL loose in court. None of it matters.