Family Removes Roadside Cross Memorializing Mother Who Died in Crash Following Atheist Complaint

SALEM, Ore. — The family of a woman who had been memorialized with a roadside cross in Salem, Oregon has removed the display following a complaint from a prominent professing atheist organization.

“They didn’t want their mother’s memorial to become a point of contention in the community, and thank everyone who supported them,” Kenny Larson, a spokesman for the city, told television station KATU on Tuesday. “They ask the media respect their privacy and have no further comment.”

As previously reported, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently sent a letter to the mayor of Salem to advise that it had received a complaint about the cross off Kuebler Boulevard. It said at the time that it did not know the origin of the display.

“It is blatantly unconstitutional for the City of Salem to display a patently religious symbol like a Christian cross on a public roadside,” attorney Rebecca Markert wrote. “The cross … unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity.”

After the city disclosed to reporters that the cross was actually a memorial to a mother who was killed in a car crash at the location at least a decade ago, and had been placed and maintained by her children, FFRF still found the display to be unconstitutional since it rests on public property.

Cheryl Kolbe, the Portland-area leader of FFRF, asserted that the intention of the cross placement does not matter.

“This is not the same as a very recent car accident where somebody put some flowers or whatever or even a cross on the side of the road a week or two,” she told KATU. “The cross dramatically conveys a message of governmental support for Christianity whatever the intention of the display may be.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“I don’t like seeing Christian symbols or any religious symbols on public land,” Kolbe stated. “They’re free to move it to private land.”

Mayor Chuck Bennett said he didn’t see the memorial as a government establishment of religion, but rather a symbol “of a family’s love for their mother, and their sadness at her loss, and their desire to commemorate her memory.” The soil immediately surrounding the cross is outlined in the shape of a heart.

FFRF says that it is satisfied now that the family has removed the cross to avoid complaint. See photos here.

“FFRF is pleased to hear that the cross has been removed. While our hearts go out to the grieving family, we thank them for understanding the problem religious imagery creates on public property,” Markert told reporter Joe Douglass.

However, many members of the public are now feeling aggrieved over the matter as they state that the cross should have been left in place and the family should be allowed to mourn how they see fit.

“I know this family, and it breaks my heart that they are going through this. As if it wasn’t enough for little kids to have to grow up without their mom, now that they are all grown, you’re going to take away what they have left of her and [are] honoring her with,” one commenter stated.

“Absurd. I see memorials on the roadside all the time. Some have crosses, some have signs, some have trinkets. It’s a form of healing for people. I’m not into religious symbols, but people who are so easily offended by them need to get over themselves. There are so many more pressing issues going on in the world,” another said.

“The cross has been, and I believe will continue to be, a way for people to mark the resting place for loved ones who have passed. It’s a sign of hope and trust that death isn’t just an empty void after life. What’s next, tearing up Arlington?” a third asked.


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
  • Reason2012

    Meanwhile google public school islam and read all about the growing number of cases where kids are being forced to learn all about islam and FFRF does nothing. They’re really pro-islam activists pretending to be atheists attacking Christianity 99%+ of the time.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I have a better idea. Why don’t you either provide some evidence of this yourself or even better, stick to the topic at hand?

      • Sisyphus

        Teaching someone about the tenets of Islam, or any religion, is not proselytizing. That is called education. Informed and rational discourse essentially requires at least a cursory understanding of the “opposing” side. ???

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I agree. That’s why I’d like to hear his evidence. Because I suspect it’s all about neutral, inclusive, and objective world religion classes.

        • Bob Johnson

          “I’m an American, I don’t have to see something to know it’s stupid!”
          – Tommy Smothers

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      There’s a big difference between learning about Islam in public school and being taught to be a Muslim in public school. The former is constitutional, the latter is not.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    I gotta say, I’m not loving the FFRF’s position here. Roadside crosses memorialize A SPECIFIC PERSON, they don’t just announce generic Christianity. This is basically the same thing as the religion-specific headstones at Arlington National Cemetery, which are chosen by the deceased’ family to represent only that person.

    If the local government had created a memorial in the town square “For All Who Have Died in Car Crashes,” and put a big cross on it, that would be unconstitutional. Or if the town denied the right to erect a crescent memorial on the roadside to to the family of a Muslim who was killed in a car crash, that would also be unconstitutional.

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      I’m not a big fan of what they’re doing either. However, let’s face it – what we’ve read has all come from Christian websites. It could be that FFRF simply asked the family to move it to private land and they moved it. No drama, no story necessary. Let’s not underestimate Christians’ desire to be persecuted.

    • Nedd Kareiva

      We concur on this one, thanks for some sanity & good common sense.

    • NCOriolesFan

      Just because the crosses are placed along roadside does NOT mean the government is supporting a particular religion (man you bigots get tiresome over your whining over religion) . The crosses were placed by FAMILIES of motor-vehicle crash victims. There is NO, I repeat, NO endorsement of religion what-so-over by the local govenment.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

        “Just because the crosses are placed along roadside does NOT mean the government is supporting a particular religion”

        Erm… if the government leaves the cross up on government property (which they did) that’s exactly what it means.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, it means the government is endorsing the cross’s right to be there, whatever that means. It may or may not be promoting religion.

        • Oboehner

          Erm… if the government removes it then they are establishing another religion.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s what I just said.

  • bowie1

    Is this really a state-church issue since it was a PRIVATE memorial? No state, no church.

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      As I understand it, it’s on public land. If that’s the case, there’s a simple solution: move it to private land.

      • bowie1

        It’s been removed so that solves that. People often have roadside memorials such as when a serious accident occurs but the sourdoughs at FFRF don’t seem to care or have any compassion.

        • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

          FFRF don’t act unless someone asks them to help them out, so the idea that they are “sourdoughs” is silly. The folks at the FFRF regard the US Constitution as important to our freedom, which is why they respond to requests for help in situations like this. Also, they’re not demanding that the memorial be destroyed – just moved to private land (where it should have been in the first place), so the idea that they don’t care or lack compassion is nonsense.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, all they have to do is catch wind of something and they are on it, forcing THEIR religious beliefs on others.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Yeah, well, the crash occurred on public land too. How about the bigots band crashes on all public land, then maybe our highways will a lot safer. (sarcasim).

  • InTheChurch

    FFRF does not care for/about people, just their agenda.

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

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ;OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THERE OF;

    This is an element of the free exercise there of …. there is no intent to establish a state religion by the placement of the cross …and congress was never involved in its placement .

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      There have been many attempts to make that case in the US legal system. All have failed. The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you.

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

        Quite frankly – the intent and words in the amendment are pretty plain and simple -even a high school civics student should be able to understand it …. can’t help what some legislating judge does from the bench …

        • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

          A judge who has actually gone to college to learn how to be a judge has quite a lot more knowledge about the law than a high school civics student. For a start, I suspect the vast majority of judges were high school civics students before they became judges. I understand parts of the US are incredibly anti-intellectual, but your argument (that a high school civics student is better qualified to interpret law than a judge) is absolutely ludicrous.

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

            there are not to many ways to read the first amendment… 🙂 …pretty straight forward to me…..not anti intellectual at all …..just reading simple English of the amendment itself.

            if you got a better way …?

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ;OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THERE OF”

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

            Not sure why you don’t seem to get it. The law is not merely made up of the simple guidelines in the US Constitution. That’s why we need judges to interpret the law, and that’s why we don’t leave it up to schoolchildren.

            Surely this is not that difficult a concept.

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

            spelling correction accepted ….have a great day 🙂

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What you’d like the Amendment to be interpreted to mean is irrelevant. The courts have ruled differently.

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

            obviously the direct reading is irrelevant to judges that tend to legislate from the bench …perhaps one day 🙂

          • Oboehner

            Show me again in the Constitution where it states the courts can interpret laws.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Article III, Sec. 2, granting courts appellate jurisdiction “as to law.”

          • Oboehner

            “As to law”, appealing to a higher court doesn’t grant carte blanche for the judicial system to strike law. Especially given the law of the land has NO provision for that. Try again.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Your interpretation of this Clause is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The fact that you don’t like the way they ruled doesn’t change the fact that they did, and this is now the law. I’m sorry, but sometimes you lose.

          • Oboehner

            So “as to law” means they can make crap up then, I get it.

            Now what was this all about… taxation without something…. Oh yeah, representation – exactly what I didn’t have in some court case I wasn’t involved in. You are right, I do lose – mostly do to the ignorance of others. Keith Wood can attest to that.

          • zampogna

            You’re arguing law with an ACTUAL LAWYER. You know that, right?

          • Oboehner

            I was hoping the ACTUAL LAWYER would have a better grasp of the Constitution.

          • zampogna

            He does. You don’t.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You’re right. My understanding of the Constitution is lacking. It only includes what is taught in middle school and high school history, high school civics, undergrad political science and history, every single class in law school, and what I’ve managed to glean from being a lawyer for more than nine years.

            It is woefully deficient in any information about the Constitution that exists solely in your mind.

          • Oboehner

            Which when boiled down amounts to little more than “but everyone else is doing it that way”
            Gee, when I post chapter and verse that’s solely in my mind? How ridiculous.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, I’ve told you where that authority derives. You just don’t like the answer.

          • Oboehner

            No, you have posted something that can’t even be loosely construed as an answer. You just don’t have one.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You need to grasp this: The concept that judicial decisions are binding and have the power to overturn laws IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. There has never been a a court case in the last 200 years that asserted that we could ignore the Supreme Court. This is simply not a thing in law. You need to get over this fact. No lawyer ever walks into court and announces “judge, the Supreme Court got that wrong, so you can ignore their ruling.” This DOES. NOT. HAPPEN. This is not how our system functions.

            I’m sorry that your side lost in Marbury, but that’s what happened. You need to get over this.

          • Oboehner

            Binding indicates law, the judicial CANNOT legislate. The Supreme Court when it is operating within its CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES has authority – but not to make decisions that affect anyone outside each individual case, that is legislating. Nor to strike down duly passed law, that is the job of the people.
            I was NOT represented in Marbury, I had no side.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, we know, you dislike and refuse to accept reality. It is, nonetheless, reality.

            I’m not asking or expecting you to like, support, or approve of judicial review, only to accept that it exists.

          • zampogna

            You might squeeze a concession out of him that it’s a religion. I wouldn’t count on anything reality-based though.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Haha 🙂

          • Oboehner

            It exists and is dead wrong, how’s that?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It exists and you BELIEVE it’s dead wrong, I’ll take that.

          • Oboehner

            Me and the Constitution, but what the heck, you’re having so much fun ignoring it.
            The irony is how the courts are using an unconstitutional ideology to claim the constitutionality of duly passed law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Who is to rule on “the constitutionality of duly passed law”, though? No one? Any law that passes is assumed to be constitutional, is that it?

          • Oboehner

            Juror nullification as I have stated many, many times before. That and the ballot box. The Supreme Court was given no such power, they usurped it (as I have also stated many, many times before).

          • zampogna

            Conspiracy theory.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Aside from the fact that that’s not irony (it’s actually the opposite of irony), I still don’t agree that “the Constitution believes it’s wrong.”

            But you go ahead and continue believing that your interpretation of the Constitution is more accurate than the entire legal profession of the United States of America.

          • Oboehner

            You forgot judicial(dot)gov, they state the “power” to judge law was usurped. But hey, everybody is doing it…

          • Oboehner

            Simply put, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
            the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
            Representatives.” Therefore court cases are not law, as they only pertain to those represented (having representation) and were not put forth by Congress. As non-law they are then not binding to those who swore no oath, filed no claim, nor had representation in said matter. There is no argument against that, Judicial dot gov even states the judicial system usurped the power to strike law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Tell me how a court of any kind could avoid interpreting laws.

          • Oboehner

            In one single case only with NO ability to strike down duly passed law, try again.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It would seem to be a pretty inefficient system if the none of the rulings of the highest court in the land had an impact on nothing but the ONE case in which they were issued. The Supreme Court rules that the Constitution and/or other laws mean certain things; why would a new case need to be brought before them every time the same situation comes up? By that logic, even after Loving v. Virginia, every time an interracial couple wanted to get married in a state that had an ‘anti-miscegenation law’, they would have had to bring it before the Supreme Court. Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me.

          • Oboehner

            This question always seems to be ignored, what is the difference between the Supreme Court and the Chinese Communist Party?

            The Supreme Court USURPED the power to rule on the Constitution, that power IS NOT granted to them by that document – period. Waving one decision around that may have done some good while ignoring the fact that it is NOT lawful for the judicial system to legislate (or the fact that law more than likely would have been repealed legally) is ludicrous at best. Hitler even did some good for the people, should we make his policies the norm? Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me.

            Whomever was represented in Loving v. Virginia won the right to marry whom they chose, great for them – doesn’t make the law of the land.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “The Supreme Court USURPED the power to rule on the Constitution, that power IS NOT granted to them by that document – period”

            As I see Ambulance Chaser (you know, the guy who is an actual lawyer) had already said to you quite a while ago, Article III, Section 2.

            “Waving one decision around that may have done some good”

            For one thing, what do you mean “MAY have”? And I’m not even bringing Loving v. Virginia up because it “did good”, or at least that’s not my only reason. It’s because that decision is and has been accepted as rendering previous laws unconstitutional. That decision is why “anti-miscegenation” laws were no longer enforced.

            “Hitler even did some good for the people, should we make his policies the norm?”

            I happen to think the policy of judicial review is quite a good thing, so that comparison does not apply.

            “Whomever was represented in Loving v. Virginia”

            Oddly enough, it was Mr. and Mrs. Loving.

            “great for them – doesn’t make the law of the land.”

            Oh, okay, so that explains why we had all those new Supreme Court cases every time an interracial couple wanted to get married. Oh, wait, we didn’t.

            This quote is kinda beside the point here, but I just like it anyway, from Mrs. Loving herself:

            “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry… I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

          • Oboehner

            “the guy who is an actual lawyer” Doesn’t matter if he is an actual proctologist, Article III, Section 2 states: “arising under this Constitution” NOT legislate through precedence, not interpret, not strike down law.

            “That decision is why “anti-miscegenation” laws were no longer enforced.” Hitler did many good things for industry and the economy too.

            “I happen to think the policy of judicial review is quite a good thing” Well that’s very nice, hardly legal, but very nice. To paraphrase, you think that one unelected, activist judge should have the power to force his/her opinion on we the people? Can you say Oligarchy? You would be ok if some pedo judge ruled it ok to abuse children then.

            “Oh, okay, so that explains why we had all those new Supreme Court cases every time an interracial couple wanted to get married. Oh, wait, we didn’t.” That would be due to the mass ignorance of people like you who think that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
            the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
            Representatives” is just a suggestion and not the law of the land.
            The quote from Mrs. Loving brought a tear to my eye, but the end DOES NOT justify the means, sorry. What’s law is law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “”the guy who is an actual lawyer” Doesn’t matter if he is an actual proctologist”

            Uh, yeah, it does. A lawyer knows more about law than you or I, unless you happen to have some legal background I am unaware of. And by the same token, if I was discussing something about uh….proctological matters, I’d value the opinion of an actual proctologist over that of some guy with no qualifications in the field but who told me they were doing everything wrong.

            “Article III, Section 2 states: “arising under this Constitution”

            Read it again. That’s part of saying what types of cases “the judicial power shall extend to”.

            “not interpret”

            Like I’ve said before, I’m baffled as to how you apparently think a court could NOT end up interpreting laws. Unless a law covers every possible type of situation that would ever arise in the future, or perhaps even if you had the original framers of the law on hand…but I think both of those are maybe a little bit unlikely when we’re talking about Constitutional law, you know.

            “To paraphrase, you think that one unelected, activist judge should have the power to force his/her opinion on we the people?”

            No, I think that a panel of nine judges appointed and confirmed by elected officials should have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

            “[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and
            disregard the former.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper no. 78

          • zampogna

            “if I was discussing something about uh….proctological matters, I’d value the opinion of an actual proctologist…”

            I’d say you were definitely speaking to an expert in those sorts of matters.

          • Oboehner

            “A lawyer knows more about law than you or I” Aparently not, all they are taught is legal precedence, which when comes in 2 ply…

            Read it again. That’s part of saying what types of cases “the judicial power shall extend to”.
            “not interpret” And?

            “I’m baffled as to how you apparently think a court could NOT end up interpreting laws.” No surprise there, the courts are there to mediate individual cases based on existing laws.

            “No, I think that a panel of nine judges appointed and confirmed by elected officials should have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws.” That’s what juries are for, you know – we the people.

            “…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The
            legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the
            society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” – Federalist #78, authored by Hamilton

            “…and can take no active resolution whatever.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Aparently not, all they are taught is legal precedence, which when comes in 2 ply”

            Whether you like it or you don’t, the simple fact is that precedent IS used and has been, and not only in the US, either.

          • Oboehner

            What you are telling me is that ignoring the Constitution is okee dokee with you right?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It seems to me like you’re the one who wants the Constitution to be ignored. Under the system you seem to want, there would be nothing done if an unconstitutional law is passed, except for I guess hoping the SAME legislature changes their minds.

          • Oboehner

            Here’s one: Juror nullification, Juror nullification, Juror nullification, and the ballot box. Most definitely the opinion of some activist judge who probably wasn’t even elected, but appointed.

          • zampogna

            ACTIVIST judge. Always with the conspiracy theories and agendas.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Jury nullification, huh? Well, the problem with that is, remember, in your world, there is NO SUCH THING as precedent, so you’re leaving it up to a jury to decide to what is and what isn’t constitutional, in each case where a similar question comes up?

            And the ballot box….okay, so then it’s up to a vote of the people to decide what is constitutional? What’s even the point of having a constitution, then? If even a clearly unconstitutional law is then constitutional as long as it gets voted in….

            And I’m the one who is supposedly “okee dokee” with ignoring the Constitution….

          • Oboehner

            “so you’re leaving it up to a jury to decide to what is and what isn’t constitutional, in each case where a similar question comes up?” The original intent is.

            Well obtuse boy, the ballot box is used to eliminate the source of the unconstitutional law and elect a lawmaker that will follow the Constitution. Of course Juror nullification works well – jurors refuse to convict, simple really. I really don’t know what the rest of your blathering on is about.

            “And I’m the one who is supposedly “okee dokee” with ignoring the Constitution….” Yup, just because it gives you a warm feeling, doesn’t give the judicial system the power to legislate (binding precedent) or force their opinion on duly passed law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “the ballot box is used to eliminate the source of the unconstitutional
            law and elect a lawmaker that will follow the Constitution.”

            You’re missing my point, apparently. The point is, what guarantee do you have that the people will realize the law is unconstitutional in the first place, and that they will elect someone who does? Again, I don’t know how you can accuse me of not caring about the Constitution, when your idea of dealing with an unconstitutional law is to just hope that A) every SINGLE time it comes up in court, the jury nullifies, and B) trust that it will eventually be sorted out via elections.

          • Oboehner

            What guarantee do you have that some unelected judge asserts his/her opinion in the face of the Constitution? If they think they have the power to strike down duly passed law, then they are already operating unconstitutionally. Apparently you feel that you have a better chance with some unelected activist judge who is usurping power NOT given them by the Constitution, then by a jury of your peers. That scares the crap out of me.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “If they think they have the power to strike down duly passed law, then they are already operating unconstitutionally.”

            Hey, you know what, I actually agree with that. Courts don’t have the power to strike down duly passed laws. The thing is, an unconstitutional law is NOT “duly passed.”

          • Oboehner

            Then “striking” it down does nothing as THAT is unconstitutional.

          • TomfromErie j

            Your moniker you use should also have the letter H

      • Oboehner

        Yes, because after all, only the courts can make law and no one can stop them.

    • meamsane

      You are correct! However, the vast majority of lawyers that graduate from law schools across the country (there are exceptions) walk out as Indoctrinated drones taught only to defend what the supreme court has argued in their opinions rather than what the Constitution actually says and means.
      And of course, the lawyers in robes on the sc have come from the same schools!

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

        Evidence for these wild assertions?

        Of course not. You just don’t like how the courts rule, so you make up unsubstantiated nonsense.

        • meamsane

          What is it you don’t understand about the obvious:
          CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION……….!
          A six grader could understand this.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

            Again, a judge who has actually gone to college to learn how to be a judge has quite a lot more knowledge about the law than a 6th grader. For a start, I suspect the vast majority of judges were 6th graders before they became judges. I understand parts of the US are incredibly anti-intellectual, but your argument (that a 6th grader is better qualified to interpret law than a judge) is even more completely ludicrous than the idea (voiced in an earlier post that you seem to have missed) that a high school civics student.

          • meamsane

            It is you who are showing an anti-Intellectualism here. Don’t question! Obey! Don’t think! Intellectuals question for themselves, they don’t just accept because someone told them to or because they may like where things are going for themselves.
            Dare to look at history and look at what an “Establishment of Religion” was at the time the Founders wrote the Constitution and compare what lawyers say it is today!
            For futher evidence read Article VI of the Constitution “The Supremacy Clause” and then tell me what is considered the “Law of the Land”! Nothing in there about SC opinions!

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

            Do you know what the Treaty of Tripoli is? Do you even know why it’s relevant to this discussion, why the stuff in it is a part of US Constitutional law and what it means for the Establishment Clause? Of course you don’t! If you did, you’d know why displays of Christianity in public places are illegal.

            And you accuse me of anti-intellectualism!

          • meamsane

            Are you ever going to get to Article VI or just Ignore it? I would suggest some research on the Treaty of Tripoli. You might find something Interesting! (I will not hold my breath!)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What, exactly, is your point? Even if you were correct, your arguments would hold no weight in an American courtroom.

            So what are you arguing for?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, and then the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

          • meamsane

            Is that what some lawyers taught you? The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Now, tell me when some lawyers decided that it applied to all the original BOR?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            1. Yes.

            2. Read the Wiki article on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It details the history of how it happened. It took about 25 years +/-

            3. I doubt any.

            Now, what’s your point?

  • Ginger

    Why is some group from Wisconsin complains about what is in Oregon? These people that follow the Freemason Charles Darwin evolution hypothesis that we came from ooze. Are lunatics!

    George Washington (first president of the United States): “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      “Why is some group from Wisconsin complains about what is in Oregon?”

      Because FFRF is a national organization and they accept calls for help from all over the USA.

      “These people that follow the Freemason Charles Darwin evolution hypothesis that we came from ooze. Are lunatics!”

      I see your straw man, and I’ll raise you…

      Yet belief in the hypothesis that a magical invisible being did it – that’s perfectly reasonable [rolleyes].

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      “Why is some group from Wisconsin complains about what is in Oregon?”

      Because FFRF is a national organization that responds to local requests from all over the nation. Their headquarters happens to be in Wisconsin, but their mandate is nationwide.

      • Ginger

        We each have to sail our own boat. If you do not want to be in the ark of the end times, have a good trip! Scripture references from KJV.

        II Corinthians 4:4 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

        Who is the god of the world in this dispensation of time? Satan, the devil, Lucifer, little horn, the dragon. the son of perdition, This one has many names in the Bible learning them we can learn his MO.

        Revelation 12:17 “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

        Revelation 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

  • Stevedsmith7

    “The cross … unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity.” congress should make it clear, our government endorses Christianity……lets vote it and get ride of the devil….

    • Ambulance Chaser

      If that happened it would be massively unconstitutional.