Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

Water Tower Christmas Cross to Be Replaced With ‘Holiday Tree’ in IL Town After Atheists Threaten Suit

Nov. 20, 2012 8:24am Billy Hallowell

Alsip, Illinois Cancels Water Tower Christmas Cross | FFRF, Atheists

Credit: AP

The village of Alsip, Illinois, is discontinuing its annual holiday tradition after facing threats of a lawsuit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist activist non-profit. Every year, the community erects a 19-foot cross on its local water tower to commemorate the holiday season — a tradition that has been in place since the 1970s.

However, this year, facing threats of a costly legal battle, Mayor Patrick Kitching is discontinuing the festive display. Using a tactic that it frequently relies upon, the FFRF threatens lawsuits as a means of intimidating communities into removing religious displays from public property — a plan that has, in instances like this one, proven effective.

Not wanting to waste public dollars on a costly lawsuit that Alsip would potentially lose, the mayor made the tough choice to nix the tradition.

“I am very saddened by this and had hoped we would not have to change tradition,” Kitching wrote in a letter to residents and business owners. “However, in these economic times, the village cannot afford to waste any tax dollars on a lawsuit that simply cannot be won.”

FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor commented about the incident saying that her group’s preference is always to choose “education and legislation, not litigation.”

“Towns can’t put crosses on public structures such as water towers because we have separation between religion and government,” she explained.

While Kitching is complying, he certainly isn’t happy about it. Following the announcement, the mayor made it clear that he’s discontented with discontinuing the tradition, saying that the atheists “slapped down” their annual Christmas commemoration.

Credit: Getty Images

“They told me an anonymous person complained. I doubt that,” Kitching explained. “I think they [FFRF] were driving down the tollway and saw our cross.”

To avoid future problems, the cross will be replaced with a lighted “holiday tree.” The mayor said that the structure will not be called a “Christmas tree,” as he does not want to have yet another run-in with the FFRF.

“I thought about putting up a 30-foot Grinch, but I couldn’t find one,” he quipped.

(H/T: Southtown Star)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (219)

Falandarin
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:25am
I don’t understand why atheists are allowed to get time off to celebrate the birth of Jesus if they don’t believe in him. They should have to work during the celebration Christmas. Its a religious holiday. Always has been. Hypocrites. Plain and simple.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- momrules
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:33am
  What these atheists do not realize is that are just playing their part in prophecy told long ago. Christians know that we will be hated for His name sake. It is happening now.
  
  God bless Israel.
  
  Report this comment
- NHwinter
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:37am
  Isn’t it time to turn this around and sue them for our rights stated in the Constitution. What would happen if the people in the town sued the town for their right to freedom of Religion? To sue for their right for freedom of speech?
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:39am
  I think all Christian churches should pool money and hire every bill board and put crosses and Christian messages around the cities. Every Christian should erect a prominent cross in their Yards (ensuring to stay within code) and saturate the country. Make Atheists see it everywhere they go.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:52am
  Its a federal holiday. I don’t believe in Labor Unions (in fact I hate and detest them) but if my employer offers a paid day off for Labor Day I’ll take it. I do notice that they have not made any great push to have that holiday removed. My guess is that because there would be quite a few non religious people that would be more than happy to drag the lot of the FFRF into the street and hang them for it. I have a feeling more people are willing to commit murder for a free day off work than for any faith. But maybe I am overly jaded this morning.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:14am
  @NHWINTER
  
  See, this is the problem.
  
  You view not being able to put stuff on public property as “infringing on your rights.”
  
  It’s not.
  
  You can still put up a display on your own private property. That is never enough for religion though. You people claim to detest government and want a small and limited government. Despite that, you seem to LOVE government endorsement of your religion in Christian displays on public property and other things like adding “Under God” into the pledge and making “In God We Trust” our official motto in the 50s. You had another city name 2012 “The Year of the Bible” and you have silly things like, “the national day of prayer.”
  
  Christians have brought them on themselves by continually over reaching and trying to impose their crap on everyone else.
  
  I love the “Christmas is a Christian holiday.” Actually it’s a pagan holiday that Christianity adopted as its own and fit its fairytale around that.
  
  I celebrate Christmas with my family and never think about Jesus once partially because I don’t base my life around a fairy tale.
  
  Report this comment
- Ecomposer
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:13am
  Without God, there would be no force for atheism.
  
  Without atheism, there would be no force for God, as in the Great Commission.
  
  Surely some forces are more equal than others– especially when you consider that Newton’s Laws are limited to the known universe.
  
  It is not that we need each other – it’s just the way it is– for now.
  
  May the better force be with you.
  
  Report this comment
- Female
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:29am
  Town should start selling blood red shirts with large, green “T” on them. Might be a good revenue instead of taxes, heck offer them online and next year you will be able to afford the lawsuit, or the people could join together and buy the smallest parcel possible on a hill, to hold a giant “T” and a nativity scene.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:36am
  @Ecomposer
  
  “Without God, there would be no force for atheism.”
  
  I’m assuming here you mean “without the concept of the Christian God.” But your statement would still be wrong. Atheists aren’t inherently anti-Christian; they’re anti-supernatural. From the atheists I’ve spoken with, even if Christianity was erased from the face of the earth, atheists wouldn’t suddenly start believing in Zeus or Vishnu. They’d still remain free of belief in any supernatural entity.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:52am
  Well Christmas trees come from the wiccan religious practice…..so ban those as well
  In fact the entire winter solstice decoration practices come are part of the a pagan religion,……ban those also.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:53am
  One more thing giving any federal or state publ;ic servent a paid holiday for any religious holiday is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it violates the atheist interpetation of the 1st amendment….RIGHT?
  
  Report this comment
- Ecomposer
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:33pm
  @Locked
  
  “free of belief in any supernatural entity.’
  
  So long as an atheist is disturbed or otherwise offended by open expressions of theism at the community level, barring any tangible direct nor indirect cost to the atheist, he is not free.
  
  The atheist in the United States would appear to be dependent upon the PC-adherence climate of a damaged, atheist-interpreted, Christian-God-chartered republic. We may go as far as to suggest that the atheist has already or will become yet another protected class in this society.
  
  Protected classes are not truly free in any society.
  
  A dear atheist friend once told me she ” thought of [a supernatural entity]” during the time her airliner seemed to plunge many thousands of feet in mere seconds.
  
  It stands to reason that she may not be free, either. So I asked her… and yes, she proceeded to defend her original position once again.
  
  Even taking the time and expending the effort to express and defend an anti-theist position, irrespective of any cultural specificity, seems to cast a doubt on this inferred freedom.
  
  As for us– we can throw an ATV with a Nikon at Mars and feel good about mathematics (JPL is amazing!). So then we can make the jump to thinking we have already encountered all that exists and deny the infinite?
  
  God– or any supernatural entity– exists– at least as a problem to be solved– for an atheist who finds that he must defend his position.
  
  Report this comment
- FieldJudge
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:44pm
  @MODERATIONISBEST
  “I love the “Christmas is a Christian holiday.” Actually it’s a pagan holiday that Christianity adopted as its own and fit its fairytale around that.”
  
  “I celebrate Christmas with my family and never think about Jesus once partially because I don’t base my life around a fairy tale.”
  *******
  
  If Christmas’ roots is a pagan holiday then what’s the problem? Everyone can celebrate their meaning of it and governments can continue on with their society’s holiday tradition.
  
  You silly mean spirited atheist… that’s not a cross being placed on the water tower! No, no…
  
  It’s a secular “t” and the town’s way of celebrating taxes cheer!
  A cheer that the Liberal Democrat party brings us all this time and throughout the year!
  
  Report this comment
- Female
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:59pm
  FJ, take away the “T” from tax and you end w/ “AX” which is what happens when businesses and people get taxed too much.
  
  Somebody has to pay and several people get “AXed”.
  
  Trickle down economics: prosperity and proverty both flow south like the raging Mississippi.
  
  Report this comment
- pavepaws
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:33pm
  Anyone owning private property in the town should put crosses up.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:43pm
  Atheists Already have their OWN HOLIDAY!!!!! It is Celebrated on the FIRST on APRIL every year.
  it is called FOOL’S DAY!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 3:16pm
  @Ecomposer
  
  “So long as an atheist is disturbed or otherwise offended by open expressions of theism at the community level, barring any tangible direct nor indirect cost to the atheist, he is not free. ”
  
  Now I think you’re really going off on a tangent. I don’t think any of has the right to judge someone else on whether or not they are “free” when it comes to their belief. It’s not the topic at hand here, and while it would be a nice philosophical pursuit, I go for problems that can be solved: ie, constitutionality.
  
  If atheists are outraged by religious icons on private land, that’s their issue to get over. If those religious icons are displayed on public land to the exclusion of other belief displays, then we have a constitutional issue. I’m not offended by Christian displays (after all, I’m a Christian!), but I am very offended by unconstitutional actions and the government encroaching upon the belief systems of its citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- rickc34
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 3:16pm
  Christianity and its symbol the cross is the main target because it has power. No other religion has power not Islam, hindu ,buddah ect only Christ centered. Satan is behind these attacks as he influences people like Judas was influenced.
  
  Report this comment
- fixer
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 3:50pm
  I think these atheist’s names and addresses should be made public.WE’LL handle it with no lawsuit.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:23pm
  (1) Because it’s a national holiday by law.
  (2) It’s not always been a religious holiday, or at least, it’s not always been a Christian celebration. Christmas, or celebrations happening at the exact same time with lesser or greater degrees of similarity in the rituals and principles celebrated, have been called many different things, such as the Saturnalia under the Romans which celebrated the Roman gods, particularly Saturn with festivities.
  (3) Christmas is basically not a religious holiday now–other than the religious imagery, which might as well be the same as the myth of Santa Claus, and the pagan tradition of the tree, for its relevance to the holiday, it has been thoroughly co-opted by commercialism.
  
  Report this comment
- Lamarr01
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:35pm
  Christmas Day, December 25, should NOT be included as a Federal Holiday. Government “workers” and unions should not be given a paid religious holiday.
  
  In a politically correct world, the following holidays should be discontinued:
  
  Thanksgiving – the Pilgrims brought death and disease to the Indigenous people.
  Columbus Day – the indigenous people weren’t discovered: the Europeans stole their land.
  President’s Birthday – Dead, white males that supported slavery
  Veteran’s Day – A celebration of US imperialist power over smaller countries
  Memorial Day – Ditto
  Independent Day – Independence for the wealthy, white males.
  
  Report this comment
- Ecomposer
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 3:30am
  @Locked
  
  “I don’t think any of has the right to judge someone else on whether or not they are “free” when it comes to their belief.”
  
  No judging here: They pass this harsh judgement on themselves by allowing themselves to be disturbed or offended. It is an observation of a reaction, not a judgement. For example, the Founders were disturbed and offended by George III– and then they reacted. Observation: not experiencing freedom under the third George.
  
  To Include the underlying philosophy and principles associated with any given conflict or problem is not a tangential pursuit but is an integral part of the topic at hand especially in these times of ever-increasing constitutional relativism.
  
  “If atheists are outraged by religious icons on private land, that’s their issue to get over.”
  
  Exactly. In addition, it is clearer through this exchange why it is their issue, why they are on their own in terms of getting over it, and that their reaction of outrage reflects that they also assume that they are somehow prohibited from ignoring those religious icons. They deny their own freedom to destroy ours.
  
  It is good to know that even if the Constitution is badly twisted to cater to the outrage of disgruntled atheists– and the way things are going it will only get better for them– they still cannot articulate a rational position that excludes some expression of personal omniscience.
  
  Report this comment
TheMajority
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:19am
Have you noticed these so called “American Atheists” won’t go to Dearborn Michigan (all islamc there now), and do their work there? Just like the little commie groups posing as all Gays in the USA (forcing gay marriage on the Christian Church only–when they can start their own Church in the USA), the little commie groups posing as USA Atheists, are only attacking the Christian Church–as it formed the moral code founding the USA. We need is good Judges who have assimilated to USA Values, and I bet the commie groups only pick areas where they know the Judge. The law could easily follow the fact that there is a big difference between supporting a religion (or none at all), and attacking others. The islamics in the USA do not fall under such attacks—-because they are friends with communism—for now. For now, it is all about attacking the Christian Church, purposly targeted, while we watch History repeat itself.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:27am
  “Have you noticed these so called “American Atheists” won’t go to Dearborn Michigan (all islamc there now), and do their work there?”
  
  Good Catch
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:45am
  Most of these public organizations and individuals like the FFRF are not atheists but anti-Christian bigots. They rarely if ever raise a stink about any other religious activity other than Christian. Nothing about the religious meditative yoga instruction in public schools and the teaching of the values of Lord Ganesha, nothing about teaching to dress in Arabic style clothing and bowing towards Mecca, and a myriad of other infractions. Maybe the city should erect a huge Hanukkah Menorah instead? Then again Jews are targeted by “hate” crimes far more than any other religion in the USA, and Jew Hatred and Blood Libel is a favorite past time of leftist organizations, so that might not work.
  
  Report this comment
- Do The Right Thing
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:15am
  @ The Majority… Kudos to you! I for one, like the way you express your thoughts on this topic.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 5:14pm
  C’mon those of you with nice upper middle class incomes — put up very public and noticeable Christian Christmas crosses and the like so the anti-religious idiots have to view them each and every day yet can do nothing about it. That’s what we did here… in their face every time they enter and leave town they are viewing a giant statue of Jesus along with a small sign next to it that says, “Private Property”.
  
  Report this comment
sickofreligion
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:01am
“However, in these economic times, the village cannot afford to waste any tax dollars on a lawsuit that simply cannot be won.” We can see by this statement that the Mayor knows what he wants to do is unconstitutional. Why not just do the right thing and not put the cross up ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:08am
  “…Mayor knows what he wants to do is unconstitutional…”
  
  WHERE?
  
  Report this comment
- mdlwoods
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:12am
  You know, SICK, you are a sick person. No one comes to you and forces religion on you. No one is demanding that you don’t do something or you take down something or get rid of something that is important to you. Why can’t you idiots just leave us alone? How is putting a cross up once a year hurting you? It isn’t! I can’t wait til more towns and people start standing up to the anti-Christian push. Besides, no matter how it has been wrongly interpreted by the SC, the Constitution states, clearly, that Congress shall make no law affect religion or the free practice thereof. It does not state that religion cannot have a role in government or the public!!! Get a freaking life!! and leave Christians alone to practice religion freely in accordance with our Constitution!!!
  
  Report this comment
- sickofreligion
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:17am
  I didn’t say it’s hurting me. I don’t really care if they leave it up or not. My point is the courts have decided this issue.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:21am
  No, he knows that people in the court system are willing to break the constitution for political gain. ;) The Constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression — nothing about a restriction against public property.
  
  He should go with the Grinch. But really, I wish people would just ignore this nonsense. You do not have freedom from seeing religious symbols if others wish to display them. You have the freedom not to believe in religion, and not to display those symbols on your own property. Sigh.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:24am
  The courts have decided? You mean like Dredd Scott?
  
  Courts are made of fallible people just like any other human institution and they can do wrong. The real decision needs to be made by the people, within the bounds of the Constitution, and if a court violates their constitutional rights, they should continue to protest and fight it if possible until the wrong is righted.
  
  Report this comment
- sickofreligion
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:32am
  Well Bones, why can’t you just put up a Crèche and a cross on your own property and be happy with that ? Why should everyone driving by the Water Tower be exposed to that nonsense ?
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:34am
  Typocorrect: Dred Scott… Anywho.
  
  Report this comment
- NHwinter
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:41am
  sickofreligion – nonsense? You will weep on day at saying that word. You can laugh now and make fun of other’s beliefs, but in the end, believe it or not, you will not laugh.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:42am
  HE knows the liberal judges won’t uphold the constitution. The first amendment guarantees the free expression of religion, it doesn’t prohibit the state from allowing the expression on public land. But, liberals do not understand that concept.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:48am
  Sell the tower to a private organization, with utilization rights in the deed. Just like an easement to fix the power lines on my property, I still own the land. Then the organization can put a cross on the tower as long as it does not interfere with the utilization of the tower by the city/county.
  
  Report this comment
- dcgirl
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:52pm
  It’s not unconstitutional. There is NO separation of church and state in the constitution. And since the town is not passing a law mandating a specific religion then there is nothing unconstitutional about the recognition of a religious holiday. The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:59pm
  “Why should everyone driving by the Water Tower be exposed to that nonsense ?”
  Why should we be exposed to your insults? You’re not even making them on public property but on property of the Blaze.
  
  Well, that’s because the owners of the Blaze grant you that right.
  
  Same principle here. The owners of the public land — the people — by and large are fine with a religious display on that public land, and that should be enough. Through the Constitution which grants the freedom of expression.
  
  But the real issue to me is how negative you and those who buy into the same philosophy have become. You see a positive expression of what some believe is true, and good, and you for whatever reason declare it nonsense, see it as bad, etc. You then invite negative counter-reactions towards you — like objecting to your insults, as would be fair! — and in practice what happens is you spread negativity. It’s bad for everyone.
  
  Instead, as you pass by something that is a positive expression of someone else’s beliefs, on public or private land, simply don’t react, or smile for the thought of it, even though you don’t agree with it, etc. Spread positivity. If atheists could show that their beliefs were the fount of healthy attitudes, it would be much more attractive.
  
  Why should I be subjected, in public schools, to others’ beliefs in what I know to be nonsense about evolution? Well, those pushing those beliefs don’t think them nonsense, and they have the majority.
  
  Report this comment
- sickofreligion
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:08pm
  As I said,
  “Well Bones, why can’t you just put up a Crèche and a cross on your own property and be happy with that ? ” Then, on Sunday or Wednesday night or whenever, meet with all the believers in your little building and pray to the invisible god together ?
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:25am
  Dodging my questions, SickofReligion? I answered yours. ;)
  
  Report this comment
- Balpit
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:58pm
  “Why should everyone driving by the Water Tower be exposed to that nonsense?”
  
  The Geico gecko is not real.
  Yet I’m exposed to that “nonsense” every time I drive past a Geico billboard with his likeness on it.
  I don’t go nuts.
  I don’t suddenly get a panic attack and hyperventilate.
  I don’t form a coalition to eliminate Geico billboards.
  
  Report this comment
noslave
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:00am
those offended by religious holidays,separation of church and state??should not be paid religious holiday pay??also state workers,teachers etc.should be made to show up on their jobs,on these holidays??you want it you got it??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:37am
  Easy fix. Sell the land to a private organization with contracted utilization rights of the county/state with easements for repair. This makes is private land, and until they finally come out and honestly say there is no such thing a private property, the owner can place a cross on the top of the tower.
  
  Report this comment
TROLLMONGER
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:58am
Another win for common sense. And another loss for myth. Good job!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stelex
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:34am
  Crawl back into Michey Moore’s rolls again troll
  
  Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:57am
You know the best way to decorate a “holiday tree”?

By hanging atheists on them.

KIDDING…… A little “holiday” humor

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:03am
  Actually that’s more the action of Krampus I think.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:06am
  Classy–the thing is, you’re “joke” is exactly the reason these symbols should be removed. They create an “us” and “them” mentality that is wholly incompatible with the American concept of citizenship and the public.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:13am
  Actually that perfectly describes more of a communist conformity system. Where everyone is the same, and there are no rights to show or display other beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:20am
  Take a joke. My fellow believers were fed to lions and burned at stakes. You atheists are a bunch of pansies. You guys just sit around and wait to be offended. Lighten up. You’re not that important.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:23am
  @NOSACREDHONOR
  
  Communists tend to be atheists. A major flaw in your ridiculous assessment of a joke. Just thought I’d educate you.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:25am
  @SACREDHONOR
  
  Sorry. I think I misunderstood your post. Ignore my sarcastic reply.
  
  @Plubis
  
  I still mock you.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:27am
  “Take a joke. My fellow believers were fed to lions and burned at stakes.”
  
  Haha. And then you tell ME to lighten up (after you make a joke about hanging other people for their lack of belief).
  
  Report this comment
- Tickdog
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:27am
  I liked the joke and i agree!
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:40am
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p1JYvV178E
  
  “Every year in Christmas town, after Santa has come down to his comrade he gives the gist of whose been naughty on his list…there is no escaping KRAMPUS!!!”
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:21am
  @SQUIDVETOHIO
  
  Oh, here it is again. The poor “Oh us Christians have been persecuted before” completely ignoring the CENTURIES of Christians persecuting Jews and Muslims.
  
  Religion is built around persecution, it’s in its very core. Religion is built around conflict, it’s built around separating people.
  
  “You either follow Jesus or you don’t”
  “You’re either going to Heaven or you’re going to Hell”
  “You are either a follower of Allah, or you aren’t”
  
  The only reason Christianity, Judaism and Mormonism have lightened up is because it’s been dragged kicking and screaming through the generations by secular people.
  
  Christianity was just once as brutal as Islam, they just didn’t have 21st century technology to prove how peaceful they were.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:37am
  Actually its human nature for people to persecute people… Over religion or ‘isms’, political power, issues, culture, etc… It’s not always over religion, and religion has definitely had its fair share or persecution.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:54am
  Also to be fair, some Christian organizations were as brutal as Islam. Primarily Catholics, but some of the break off protestant groups as well. There were other christian groups but they usually ended up being persecuted by other Christians, who tried to wipe them out.
  
  Probably the same can be said for modern Islam as well, that there are some sects that are picke don by other sects.
  
  Report this comment
1unwashed
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:57am
Everyone can put a cross in their yard.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Blitz
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:52am
  I’m waiting for the day the gov to tell us we can’t or it’s offensive to have a cross on your own property. I’m sure I will put up three just for fun…
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:11am
  That’s the next step. Just like those housing communities that put up rules that say you can’t put displays or flags in your yard. If Agenda 21 is implemented everyone will be forced to live in those types of communities.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:44am
  Sacred,
  
  AHHAHAHAHA. Agenda 21? Tell me you don’t buy this silliness that Beck is drumming up to sell a book he didn’t even write (but he’ll take credit for).
  
  Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:55am
People just stand around it, and sing christmas carols about christmas trees and religion. Set up shifts, and take turns at all hours of the day, and night. Peacefully assemble and protest through song! Also throw in a live nativity scene with real people, playing the various parts.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:07am
  Yes, because what is most important is that one portion of the public should go out of its way to make the other portion of the public feel excluded and uncomfortable. That’s what America is all about, right?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:11am
  Hey, other portion has a right to protest and peacefully assemble too. Dolt…
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:20am
  http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bcealr/27_2/04_FMS.htm|
  
  1. The Free Exercise Clause
  The federal government, as owner/manager of public lands, routinely has acted or has permitted private actions that rendered Indian sacred sites inaccessible and unusable for religious ceremonies.58 By flooding a valley59 or a canyon,60 for example, or by building a road [*PG315]through a high alpine area,61 the government has made it impossible in practice for Indians to exercise their religion.62 In each case, however, a federal court held that such destructive government activity was not an improper burden on the Indians’ freedom to exercise their religious beliefs within the guarantees of the First Amendment.63 This conclusion—that rendering the practice of religion impossible does not burden the free exercise of that religion—seems plausible only if one distinguishes free exercise of religion from full exercise of religion.
  
  2. The Establishment Clause
  Another popular argument against protecting Indian sacred sites is couched in a view of the Establishment Clause as a limiting principle conspiring against “religious servitudes”64 on the land. On this formalistic view, government protection of Indian sacred sites is a virtual per se violation of the constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion.65 In a passage cited by the Tenth Circuit in Badoni v. Higginson, Judge Learned Hand stated the formal construction of the Establishme
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:23am
  Funny how “freedom from religion” athiests and progressives (perhaps certain religious fanatics) perhaps both from Liberal and Conservative sides have used the same arguements they are currently trying to use on Christians, to prevent Indians from worshiping or practicing their native religious displays on public land as well.
  
  I don’t condone any group that tries to misuse the establisment or the free exercise clause to strip another groups rights, simply because they are offended by the ‘other’….
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:31am
  Sacred Honor,
  
  What exactly is your point here? Because of this case about native sacred ground, other unrelated towns need to be able to use crosses however they want? That makes no sense.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:42am
  You explain to me why one group should get special treatment over another group? Different groups have different traditoins, sacred, historical, etc. The constitution should equally treat all individuals the same.
  
  No group should misinterpret the ‘constitution” to try to prevent another group from practicing their beliefs. The fact of the matter is the same arguement being used to try to prevent people and their christmas, hannuka, or whatever traditions are teh same arguements used to try to prevent native americans from practicing their traditions.
  
  Again I’m for equal rights, not special rights.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:58am
  When it comes to fitting these criterions, there are several. They could easily make the arguement on the ‘tradition’ merit. It wouldn’t fit criterion A however, which requires a place to be of 50 years or more (the tradition is only 42 years), but it could fit into other criterions. But not all places of historical heritage are 50 years or older. For example the Arizona was given special exemption on criterion A. As well a sight does not necessarily have to meet all criterions to fit for registration. But two or more raises the changes that it will be endorsed.
  
  Of course even if they were to have applied to the national register it wouldn’t guerrentee that a site will be protected from local construction. But national register is still a good thing to look at how US law interprets how cultures assign meaning to places or traditions..
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:09am
  Yes, because what is most important is that one portion of the public should go out of its way to make the other portion of the public feel excluded and uncomfortable. That’s what America is all about, right?
  
  Tell me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it states that a person is not allowed to make one feel excluded or uncomfortable…?!…YOU exclude yourself…so it’s YOUR problem if you feel uncomfortable. Funny how atheists don’t stop muslims from bowing to pray, blocking busy streets, and impeding the lives of others…or perhaps it’s because you know islam isn’t a religion.
  FFRF, communists and islam all serve the same master…satan…
  
  Lake of Fire is awaiting…
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:47am
  ” Funny how atheists don’t stop muslims from bowing to pray, blocking busy streets, and impeding the lives of others”
  
  Because Muslims are not insisting that this is a “Muslim Country” and that they have some unstated right to push their religious symbols on everyone through public land and public institutions. The example you are using there is an expression of the individual right to free exercise, and it applies to every religion.
  
  Report this comment
ds06
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:54am
I hate this preemptive caving. I’d be willing to donate to a fund for legal defense to fight these lawsuits.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jefftavolieri
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:10am
  You can waste as much money as you like. We will always win and your god will always lose.
  
  Report this comment
- seek.the.truth
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:34am
  God does not lose! HE may allow us as Christians to lose for his greater purpose but believe me –God will be the victor in the end.
  
  Report this comment
IKW
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:50am
There is little faith in Faith these days, those that find it will not cower to the threats of man.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- old white guy
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:01am
  it is time to slap down atheists and any government official who restricts the free practice of religion as guaranteed by the constitution. the only probition regarding religion is a government imposed one.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:09am
  Old White Guy,
  
  How exactly is this barring any individual’s right to free exercise? These clauses apply to individuals (a concept that is at the center of all civil rights), not institutions.
  
  Report this comment
- Oldphoto678
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:10am
  Come on Old Fart, the days of you slapping anyone down are long past. From here on you will not be allowed any say in the matter.
  
  Report this comment
DeavonReye
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:48am
You know, . . . I have seen these stories [FFRF filing suit and usually the religious giving in] a lot on theblaze.com and I wonder why that is the case. Is it about legality or is it about not having the money to defend it in court? If the court would legally side against a religious symbol, then although a group like FFRF brings it up, it seems like it would be the courts that christians should be questioning. If it is a matter of court costs and fees, a collection could be made.

Now, I usually don’t agree with what the FFRF does. I think they go overboard in their zeal. I wouldn’t be a part of their suit against THIS [the story here] either. However, in what way is a cross symbol a representation of christmas? If you are celebrating the birth of your god, then his death seems counterproductive. Easter is just a few months away. That would be my only question about this particular story.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:02am
  I don’t know every Christmas Tradition, but many go back to European traditions brought over by colonists or immigrants. Many come from Germany of all things.
  
  There seems to be a market for ‘Christmas Crosses” though;
  
  http://www.amazon.com/7-5-Christmas-Crosses-Clear-Lights/dp/B000UCNV5E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353419842&sr=8-2&keywords=christmas+crosses
  
  http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Christmas%20Cross&go=&form=QBIL&qs=n
  
  Festive, but not really something I’m used to in my own Christmas experiences… I’ve had more experience seeing nativity scenes, santas, christmas tree, wreath, hannuka related stuff, frosty the snowman, rudolph, etc…
  
  There are some interesting cultural traditions in other countries though that haven’t caught on in the US, like that demonic creature that goes after naughty children, while Santa gives gifts to the good children. That’s in sweden or norway I think?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:06am
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EmqsEHl3P8
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:27am
  I wonder if this town has a high percentage of folks of that cultural heritage? Not sure if the story spoke to that or not.
  
  I’ve heard the lesser known santa stories like that, but don’t recall its origin. I’m glad that one didn’t make it to a more mainstream belief. Christmas may not have been the bright holiday it is today.
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:47am
I’ve often wondered about the “establishment clause” that the atheists erroniously and only partially cite as evidence that they can ban public displays of (only) Christianity on land that Christians help pay for. If they wish to sneer on about “no establishment of religion” (incorrectly, as this meant only that the state cannot establish a state church), then what about “nor the free exercise thereof” that they never, ever, not once, bring up in their quotes? Can they be counter sued for preventing the free exercise thereof? I’d think so, since they use the first clause. I mean if one clause is legally valid, so is the other right? So why aren’t Christian groups suing the living crap out of the atheist brigade for a violation of the “establishment clause” then?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gonzo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:56am
  I think the left’s revisionist history has successfully convinced the sheep that they are right about these issues. I would wager that a poll of 30 and unders would show that they agree that Christian symbols are prohibited by our constitution. There is no will to fight it by the majority of Americans.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:01am
  Only if the money is there to fight them. The extortion these groups (who happen to be in the minority, or even one person) bring upon small towns and communities.
  Also, if the courts started using the system of “Loser pays,” we would have a LOT less frivolous lawsuits like this. Tort reform is needed, but unlikely in a House full of lawyers. We need to QUIT electing slime-bag lawyers to Congress, and start electing REAL working people, if they would run.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:05am
  If Christmas symbols were prohibited most of the founders and early presidents broke the constitution!
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:15am
  It’s easy – Exorcise it however you please, just not in schools and not on government property. You can exercise your right to free speech however you want, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Those limits exist to protect the rights of all, not just some. Accept it or accept me putting up an homage to Mohammad on the sidewalk in front of your house.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:18am
  Ghost,
  
  Wow. For someone who claims to be the Ghost of Jefferson, you seem to be very confused on basic points about a concept Jefferson helped found. Free exercise, of course, applies to individuals, not public entities, institutions, etc. This is a really basic concept of civil rights, so I hope this isn’t a mystery to you.
  
  You claim that there is no right to restrict the construction of a cross on lands that Christians help pay for, but are you suggesting that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. should have to help to pay for land to promote Christian symbols? In fact, to answer your concern about free exercise, the public display of specific religious symbols is a direct violation of the “free exercise” clause, since this would be using government power to force Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to be represented by symbols of a different faith.
  
  In the end, you haven’t a leg to stand on here, so stop trying to contort the law to reinforce your misguided attempts to make others feel excluded from the public.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:25am
  Ghost the problem is progressives and possibly fanatical relgious have been doing this for years… Even to the native peoples… It’s not fair that the constitution is misused in this way by anyone.
  
  http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bcealr/27_2/04_FMS.htm
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:25am
  1. The Free Exercise Clause
  The federal government, as owner/manager of public lands, routinely has acted or has permitted private actions that rendered Indian sacred sites inaccessible and unusable for religious ceremonies.58 By flooding a valley59 or a canyon,60 for example, or by building a road [*PG315]through a high alpine area,61 the government has made it impossible in practice for Indians to exercise their religion.62 In each case, however, a federal court held that such destructive government activity was not an improper burden on the Indians’ freedom to exercise their religious beliefs within the guarantees of the First Amendment.63 This conclusion—that rendering the practice of religion impossible does not burden the free exercise of that religion—seems plausible only if one distinguishes free exercise of religion from full exercise of religion.
  
  2. The Establishment Clause
  Another popular argument against protecting Indian sacred sites is couched in a view of the Establishment Clause as a limiting principle conspiring against “religious servitudes”64 on the land. On this formalistic view, government protection of Indian sacred sites is a virtual per se violation of the constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion.65 In a passage cited by the Tenth Circuit in Badoni v. Higginson, Judge Learned Hand stated the formal construction of the Establishment Clause: “The First Amendment . . . gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:30am
  The First Amendment . . . gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities. . . . We must accommodate our idiosyncrasies, religious as well as secular, to the compromise necessary in communal life.”66 It is this formalism that led Judge Downes to offer his “ill-conceived” assertion.67 But there is an alternative, more inclusive approach to religious freedom which supports NPS’s efforts to protect Indian religious practices at Devils Tower.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:34am
  Sacred Honor,
  
  Again, this situation you keep citing doesn’t apply to some members of the public using public lands for religious symbols. Try to stay on topic–no one is impressed by your ability to cut-and-paste.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:36am
  Pantloadian – Actually, you can shout fire in a crowded theatre.
  If you are going to spew as an ‘authority’ of fact… Then get your facts right… You’re sounding foolish.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:50am
  Actually Publius its an example of the same arguement being used to attack one group by lawsuit of other groups. In both cases the same misinterpretation of the constitution is being used to try to prevent others from practicing their traditions or beliefs.
  
  It shouldn’t matter if one place or practice is ‘sacred’ to one group, and not allow the practice of another group that may have traditional , historical, and cultural practices as well. There shouldn’t be special rights for individual groups, but equal rights applies the same to all.
  
  Also if one goes to say the Criterians used to define the national register of “Historical Places”, it covers places of importance, sacred, etc. it need not be limited to a native american or hawaiian ‘cultural’ heritage, but also applies to local communities cultural heritage as well. There are many ways local cultures define places to be of merit, and important. But eh I’m an anthropologist I have to deal with, and research this kinda of stuff all the time…
  
  I wouldn’t expect you to be awhare how this works.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:02am
  And actually publius, I claimed nothing. I was wondering how you folks conveniently ignore “or the free exercise thereof” when you sneer out “establishment clause!”. It just seems logical that if you want to use the 1st, then the “establishment clause” cancels itself out. The reason is that it was meant to prevent the government establishing an official state religion, it was not meant to prevent anybody from putting up religious displays or daring to breath the word “Jesus” on the statehouse lawn.
  
  So how does that “free exercise thereof” thing work then? There is no subordinate clause deeming “here we mean public property, here we mean private property”, in fact, all that separates the two statements is a comma. A normal reader of the English language would thus conclude based on the full context that no such distinctions exist as are being claimed.
  
  Funny ol’ thing, reading.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:06am
  When it comes to fitting the historica place criterions, there are several. They could easily make the arguement on the ‘tradition’ merit. It wouldn’t fit criterion A however, which requires a place to be of 50 years or more (the tradition is only 42 years), but it could fit into other criterions. But not all places of historical heritage are 50 years or older. For example the Arizona was given special exemption on criterion A. As well a sight does not necessarily have to meet all criterions to fit for registration. But two or more raises the changes that it will be endorsed.
  
  Of course even if they were to have applied to the national register it wouldn’t guerrentee that a site will be protected from local construction. But national register is still a good thing to look at how US law interprets how cultures assign meaning to places or traditions..
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:25am
  Ghost,
  
  Individual rights apply to individuals, not public institutions. That’s just a fundamental point about the legal foundation of civil rights, so it’s unclear where your confusion is. None of the other rights (freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition) would make any sense otherwise.
  
  But you didn’t address my other point: that forcing others to pay for land that promotes specific religious symbolism is an obvious and blatant violation of the Free Exercise clause.
  
  Sacred,
  
  You may suggest that the interpretations are similar, but it’s absurd to say that this cross is classified anything like native sacred land. Plain and simple–stop trying to derail what is, in the end, a very simple issue.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:28am
  If you’re going to allow one, allow them all.
  
  If a Jew wants to put up a display right next to it, do it
  If a Muslim wants to put up something next to that, do it
  A Mormon too
  Someone who believes in Zeus
  
  There is another article on here where a government official FINALLY realized the truth.
  
  If you allow one, you have to allow them all and suddenly our government land looks littered with religious crap.
  
  The only way to have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion.
  
  You can practice your holiday anyway you want in your home, on your property, no one will stop you. But when you try to use your religious symbols to try and represent and entire community on government land; that goes too far.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:34am
  Hi Publius
  
  So land we all pay for cannot display Christian beliefs, but they must by needs display your intolerance of other beliefs and reflect only your wishes?
  
  Help me understand.
  
  I do agree with Moderation, I don’t mind if other belief systems put up something on the lawn. Not my concern, I don’t shrivel away in seeing their displays and I certainly don’t find the display of a belief system outside my own as somehow shooting a metaphysical arrow through my heart. Tolerance works for me.
  
  It doesn’t work for the militant atheists though. They brook no views but their own. All others must be subordinate to their diktat. In their view, there can be only one True Belief, and it is theirs. :)
  
  Report this comment
- minpin
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:50am
  Publiuspencilman- Let’s cut the crap. This is not about other religions being offended or “feeling” excluded. This is about Progressives wanting to fulfill the Communist manifesto here in America.
  Ever notice how it is always an annonomus person that enlisted the help of the FFRF and never the Jewish, Muslim or even the Rainbow Coalition that is requesting the help of FFRF?
  Hugo Black the Southern Baptist Democratic Clansman from Alabama who also performed as a Supreme Court Justice wrote for the majority in a case that quite honestly was odd in and of itself in that Cathloics were viewed as a threat to the education of the south and he did not want public dollars going to private (Cathloc) schools.
  I would have more respect for the athiest, progressive and communist movement if they would just tell us the truth about their desire to eliminate all mention of Jesus Christ in this greal land instead of hiding behind partial truths and false intellectual statements.
  Who you Crappin
  Ditka-
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:50am
  DADROCKED . . . You’re being willfully obtuse. It’s typical of someone who has no argument to make. I hope you’re more intellectually honest with your kids.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:52am
  Again “merit’ is not defined ‘sacred’ or not sacred. Sacred is only one form of merit, tradition is another, historic yet another, other types of ‘signifigance”. A place can have historical merit by different criterion, and free exercise protects that. You simply don’t understand this issue very much at all, and are trying to apply the USSR bill of rights interpretation, as opposed to original intent.
  
  There are many areas of why a place may be signifigant in American law;
  AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE
  
  Agriculture
  Architecture
  Archeology
  Prehistoric
  Historic–Aboriginal
  Historic–Non-Aboriginal
  Art
  Commerce
  Communications
  Community Planning and
  Development
  Conservation
  Economics
  Education Engineering Entertainment/Recreation
  Ethnic Heritage
  Asian
  Black
  European
  Hispanic
  Native American
  Pacific Islander
  Other
  Exploration/Settlement Health/Medicine
  Industry
  Invention
  Landscape Architecture
  Law
  Literature
  Maritime History
  Military
  Performing Arts
  Philosophy
  Politics/Government
  Religion
  Science
  Social History
  Transportation
  Other
  
  Free exercise doesn’t pick and choose on groups that it covers, and those it doesn’t. that’s where your fundamental misunderstanding is. The same arguements used to try to prevent native americans from worshiping are the exact same ones used to try to used against Christmas displays and or memorials. In the same instance, if people persue the lawsuit to the end, the sam
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:51am
  “but they must by needs display your intolerance of other beliefs and reflect only your wishes?”
  
  So… not displaying any religious symbol is displaying atheism? Hahaha. That’s the most distorted nonsense there is. There are, of course, thousands of water towers all around the country that don’t have crosses on them–are they atheistic water towers?!? Can Christians only be free from persecution when all public lands and structures display display Christian symbolism!?
  
  Really, your point is so obviously counter-intuitive that I don’t know why you bother.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:10pm
  Pantloadian – “DADROCKED . . . You’re being willfully obtuse. It’s typical of someone who has no argument to make. I hope you’re more intellectually honest with your kids.”
  
  And you base that on…?
  My credentials have been listed a number of times when one of your caliber comes at me.
  Funny though how I never get feedback from you clowns when confronted.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:32pm
  Pantloadian – Just as I figured and had said… “Funny though how I never get feedback from you clowns when confronted.”
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 4:22pm
  DADMOCKED . . .Sorry, wasn’t hanging on your every word. I saw you whining to Gonzo on some other thread. Seems you’re lonely. OK, I’ll play. Tell me all about your credentials. Dazzle me with your CV. Regale me with tales of power meetings and high-powered pols and titans. List your degrees. Detail your awards. Tell us big it is, your life. Let it fly, DadMocked. Show the world what you got.
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 4:41pm
  DADMOCKED . . . Funny though how I never get feedback from you clowns when confronted.
  
  Report this comment
mom4times
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:44am
might as well just hang garlic…..vampires can’t stand that either

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
teddyc73
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:43am
Im Christian and all of my family is Christian but we are biggest bunch of spineless wusses I have ever seen. Once again we roll over and give in to this group and they get to put one more victory in their column, emboldening them even more. When are Christians going to get up off their lazy butts and fight for these traditions? Where are the residents standing up and saying “NO, WE WILL NOT COMPLY!” Enough already!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:19am
  Turn the other cheek.
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:22am
  ‘Turn the other cheek.’
  
  Christians are not commanded to turn the other cheek to EVIL…
  
  Too bad for YOU…
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:55am
  Yeah, I think that was in the Bible. “Turn the other cheek, unless you really want to put something on a water tower. Then you are fully welcome to overthrow all sense of decency and call whoever disagrees with you evil.”
  
  Report this comment
mildot rider
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:43am
You atheists have the right to believe what you want. When you begin to trample on our rights to believe in what we want then maybe you should think about your options when SHTF as you will find yourself in peril.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LadyLibertykicksASS
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:01am
  Hmmmm…I think the whole idea of being an Atheist is not to believe in anything !!!!!! I feel sorry for them, they all seem sooooo angry!! Must be awful, when the rest of the world is happy, singing songs, celebrating, cheerful……maybe they need to make up a few festive Atheist songs.!!!
  Thought I could help them out:
  
  I don’t believe in nuthin’ ,
  I’m angry, and I’m mad !
  My kid’s all hate me, they’re sulky and they’re sad!
  Hate all those people smilin’,
  Gonna buy me some gin.
  Find ole’ Santa Claus, and do him in!!!!
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL YOU SAD ATHEISTS !!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  Report this comment
RIGS
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:42am
HEY!!!!!! People you voted in the muslin and his buttbacking FFRF DUPES like ANNIE LAURIE GAYNOR who probably is a closet liberal skag. HAVE THE MERRIEST OF HOLIDAYS!!!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SaturdaysWarrior76
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:40am
I saw a commercial on TV last night, the tune of “All I want for Christmas” but they were singing “All I want this SEASON” instead. It made me sick. Notice the absence of the word “Christmas” in commercials these days. Those are products I won’t purchase!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:25am
  That’s the free market buddy–certainly advertisers chose that wording in order not to alienate potential shoppers. Sorry if capitalism offends you, but you can’t have it both ways my friend.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:36am
  I find your comments humorous Publius.
  
  You’re all about socialism/fascism/mercantilism in the economic sense, and non-belief in your moral creed, yet you spare no opportunity to go on about free markets or preach Gospel when it suits your needs.
  
  How interesting! Intolerance is fun!
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:54am
  Ghost, you’ve just listed several incompatible political ideologies that don’t even apply to me, yet you arrogantly just assume that I must be some kind of evil communist because I disagree with your ridiculous and counter-intuitive silliness. I don’t make assumptions about you–I try to respond directly to what you say. Otherwise, I would just be making stuff up as you are doing.
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:39am
I’m getting to the point that this stuff doesn’t bother me anymore. Go ahead, erase evey symbol of Christianity from our country, it will not erase Christ from our hearts or the Holy Spirit that lives within us. YOU CAN DO YOUR ABSOLUTE BEST TO HIDE HIM AND CHRIST WILL STILL SHINE FROM BELIEVERS.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:45am
  Perfect post. :)
  
  Report this comment
- mom4times
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:45am
  Amen !
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:28am
  Next step in the communist russia, was to make it impossible for you to teach your children your beliefs. You had freedom of worship privately, but freedom from religion was law. They took the right to assemble peacefully at church, and you could only worship by yourself. If you did not comply, they locked you away in siberia, or even killed people.
  
  No, don’t conform, if they tell you can’t do it anways. Resist.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:36am
  We will still assemble Sacred. It may be in secret, but we will assemble. They will never be able to control us.
  
  Report this comment
- Tractorboy
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:38am
  Yes Gonzo I agree, I’m no expert, I would guess God is unimpressed with the crosses all over the place, we are the body of Christ, where we go, God goes, we Christians need to stay strong in the faith, it is also our obligation to share the gospel, and the teachings of the scripture with unbelievers when opportunity arises, in a kind and gentle way, (remember we are not be a light under a barrel)……I would like to know, what a biblical scholar has to say about the cross and religious symbols, are we doing a bit of Idol worship with the crosses in this fight, or is this something we should fight for? Any senior pastors out there who know this?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:04am
  I would personaly assemble in public, and make a stand on my beliefs. Like paul, and many of the other apostles. …or Ghandi standing up for his beliefs, and Martin Luther King, JR, or Boehoffer.
  
  Ya, some of the later christians hid in the catacombs (or waldenses in the mountains), or people of various religions in communist China hiding in the mountains to avoid the country from controlling their religion. But I’d rather not hide my flame under a bushel. Maybe just maybe if I became a peaceful martyr, it would lead others to my beliefs.
  
  This is advise to athiests, peaceful activity will get more people to your cause, than trying to force others to do what you want, and eliminate their free exercise.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:16am
  Well the cross as I come to research it (this is as a anthropological perspective not religious) is a symbol that exists and has existed before Christianity among various different cultures and beliefs. Not always religious, sometimes a type of ‘marker’ or rune. In modern usage it can be argued that its both a religious symbol, and a non-religious symbol representing death. Historically the romans, crosses actually came in different types, one being a simple pole or tree trunk with the hands raised above their head. The cross can be found in the Mithras religoin that predates christianity, and was very popular among the roman guards, and may have very well been adapted into christianity from that religion. Connected to this is the date of 25 of December which was pulled from Mithras birthdate, and before that Tammuz (and other cultures). Actually there is a relationship with the ancient winter solstice. One of the early crosses which the modern cross design may have some connection to is the symbol of Thor’s Hammer in norsdic belief systems.
  
  The cross used among goth as an artistic expression (a goth isn’t necessarily christian or religious). It has developed as a gan symbol in some places. You can find variations within military medals, used to represent site of a person killed on a road, etc. In europe its taken on a pretty much secular use representing war dead in most cemetaries. Despite having christian and pagan heritage.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:19am
  @SacredHonor
  
  That brings up an interesting idea. Have each person and animal in the traditional creche nativity scene emblazoned, writ large, on a t-shirt. Distribute the shirts to a group of individuals. Then go to the statehouse lawn, sit down in the “order” displayed in a creche, and discuss, I don’t know, the situation in the middle east or perhaps hold a discussion concerning the latest tax coming down the pike (in other words, a non-religious discussion). You’re just a bunch of concerned ol’ citizens there, debating everyday politics on public land. Get photos. Win! :)
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:48am
  GONZO . . . You’re catching on. Your faith shouldn’t rely on vapid displays. But tread lightly, for your “meeting in secret” proves that victimhood is the last refuge for those who have been abandoned by reason and law. Just worship already. And leave the lives of others to them.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:04am
  Back to cross history, there is a indigenous group of Aztecs in a village in mexico, IIRC, that were converted to Catholicism by the catholics. But they didn’t really fully convert, and adapted much of their ancient traditions into the their practice. This originated with continued worship of Tezcatlipoca (The Smoking Mirror). The church itself and the path to it was decorated with bits of obsidian. The cross they built outside was carved with aztec hieroglyphic iconography, and a lage mirror of obsidian was placed inbetween where the horizontal crossed the verticle. Apparently most of the monks were none the wiser that it was a shrine to aztec god, and that they had merged Tezcatlipoca with the One God. They thought the people were just being particularly artistic! This was back in the 1700′s or 1800′s I think, and to this day the people of the village still practice rites based on ancient Aztec traditions. They feed bowls of blood to the cross, although that’s been changed to pouring or leaving bouls of wine at the cross, and food for the god.
  
  Report this comment
- Tractorboy
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:41am
  Thank you SACREDHONOR, I’m still not sure what to do with that, I don’t want to step on other sins of pride, etc….We know God is a gentleman, our free will is what determines whether we decide to embrace him and bless him by following his teachings, or reject and suffer a separation… I was also taught “Glory to God is when God’s holiness goes public” perhaps it sould be us individually, or as a group, to present our faith in a joyous way, but maybe leave it off the public grounds of the secular world? But public means we own that too, so we Christians have some ownership of that water tower…….I don’t know exactly what God would have us do, my goal it to please God, and I want to make sure I get it right………I think I shall reread 2 corinthians for some clues, there must be a easy to understand way, on how to handle whats going on in our times. God Bless Brother
  
  Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:35am
There are a lot of attorneys that would take them on pro-gratis – Search them out for they are out there!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
WarMunger_Al
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:34am
Since Atheists hate Christmas so much, make them all work that day. I wish these towns would stand up to these jerks. this country will have no traditions or culture once the Atheists finish with it. The judges that rule in favor of the Atheists should be strung up. atheists are pushing their religion and having it enforce through courts, violating our first amendment.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:34am
I’m an athiest, these guys are starting to annoy me. This is not the way.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:39am
  I tip my hat off to you for taking that stand
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:46am
  I honsetly think you are part of a silent majority of atheists.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:49am
  Aye. They resemble the fairy tale Christian oppressors they rail against, who were intolerant, bigoted and always pushed their beliefs on those poor sad non-believers through force of law.
  
  Report this comment
booger71
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:34am
FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor commented about the incident saying that her group’s preference is always to choose “education and legislation, not litigation.”

“Towns can’t put crosses on public structures such as water towers because we have separation between religion and government,” she explained.
==================
I wish Annie would explain to me where in the Constitution that separation of church and state can be found.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:38am
  First Amendment
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:52am
  Actually, DadRock, that means that the state cannot establish a religion. If you look further in aforementioned First Amendment you’ll also find the statement “nor the free exercise thereof” appended directly after that clause. That means that if you want to use land you helped pay for to display your religion that’s fine, but you cannot stop another group either. The way it stands now, one group stands and issues Diktats on how the land is to be used that only recognizes their (lack of) belief system (atheists). That’s hardly what was intended by the 1st Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:03am
  Dadrocked, I must need a new constitution because mine does not say anything about the separation of church and state. Where might one find one of theses new fangled first amendment copies?
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:18am
  GHOSTOFCHRISTMASPAST . . . Yes, yes, terrible atheists and their dictates. Your dictates are much better. Clearly those are the ones supported in the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:22am
  Ghost,
  
  “That means that if you want to use land you helped pay for to display your religion that’s fine, but you cannot stop another group either.”
  
  If, by “land you helped pay for” you mean public land, then no, that’s not what it means. In no way and in no other form do people assume that paying taxes means that every individual has a right to use public land and public institutions however they want, so your silly and contorted argument is based on an entirely fallacious understanding of what it means to have public land.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:26am
  GhostOfJefferson – Booger71 had asked, “I wish Annie would explain to me where in the Constitution that separation of church and state can be found.”
  
  First Amendment is what Annie would answer.
  
  I posted my response as tongue in cheek and to have people think of the how absurd of an answer that those like this ‘Annie’ sounds.
  
  Amendment I – CONGRESS shall make NO law respecting an establishment OF religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…
  
  “OF not from”
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:36am
  Dadrocked,
  
  “an establishment FROM religion” wouldn’t make grammatical sense now, would it.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:43am
  Mr.Goodvibe – “Dadrocked, I must need a new constitution…”
  
  NOPE… Your copy and mine works just fine. The constitution is a marvel of BREVITY and CLARITY!
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:59am
  PubliusPencilman – Remember that the constitution is a marvel of BREVITY and CLARITY.
  Especially CLARITY.
  You are like a handful of ‘Maroons’ that make hit and run sarcastic comments here.
  Just another instigator.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:15am
  So the only belief system that you will allow to be recognized is your own, which is, a firm declaration that since you’re against religion, you won’t allow religion to be displayed, all the while declaring that others have no claim on the same property as you do. Quite dictatorial really.
  
  And really, if you look at it, this isn’t about “exclusion”, anybody who doesn’t believe generally doesn’t go around looking to find offense (one would hope). It’s about impressing your will onto others, just as you claim about others. So you’re not against the concept, you just want the upper hand in declaring whose belief system will be respected.
  
  Interesting.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:21am
  @Dadrocked
  
  Ah, quite so, missed the cynical nature of your post, my bad.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:25am
  GhostOfJefferson – “you just want the upper hand in declaring whose belief system will be respected.
  Interesting.”
  
  WELL PUT !
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:22am
  PubliusPencilman wrote…
  
  ‘But you didn’t address my other point: that forcing others to pay for land that promotes specific religious symbolism is an obvious and blatant violation of the Free Exercise clause.’
  
  ‘If, by “land you helped pay for” you mean public land, then no, that’s not what it means. In no way and in no other form do people assume that paying taxes means that every individual has a right to use public land and public institutions however they want, so your silly and contorted argument is based on an entirely fallacious understanding of what it means to have public land.’
  
  ‘Public land and public institutions are not your “backyard” to play with as you want.’
  
  In your first post, you claim that others are beng ‘forced’ to pay for land…
  
  In your second post you claim that paying taxes doesn’t mean that every individual has a right to use public land…
  
  So, by your own words…You can NOT claim that your taxes are paying for PUBLIC land yet you want YOUR choice instituted…Your posts imply that not everyone (Christians) is equal…For you, Christians have no rights to PUBLIC land, whether they pay taxes…or not. So…if your twisted logic were true…then only certain people should be allowed to use PUBLIC state parks…you know…those YOU deem acceptable to have access.
  
  There are many names for someone like you, but HYPOCRITE will suffice…
  
  To you, Christians are not individuals, or a part of the PUBLIC sphere…s
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:08pm
  “So, by your own words…You can NOT claim that your taxes are paying for PUBLIC land yet you want YOUR choice instituted…Your posts imply that not everyone (Christians) is equal…For you, Christians have no rights to PUBLIC land, whether they pay taxes…or not. So…if your twisted logic were true…then only certain people should be allowed to use PUBLIC state parks…you know…those YOU deem acceptable to have access.”
  
  Haha. Nice try at parsing, but work on your critical reading/thinking skills. My logic doesn’t say that not everyone can use public state parks–just the opposite. Christians have just as much right to public land as everyone else, and everyone else has as much right as they do, which is why no one group is allowed to use public land for their specific religious symbolism. There is nothing contradictory or unequal about this stance. It would apply whether the religious symbol was a cross, a star of David, a Muslim crescent, etc, It would also apply if the symbol was instead a slogan that declares that there is no God.
  
  Plain and simple. So tell me how exactly I am persecuting Christians or taking away their rights. Tell me how I am singling out one group. Every citizen has the right to exercise his or her individual faith, and the right not to be forced to be represented by the symbols of anyone else’s. Again, I would be just as opposed to a Muslim crescent.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:41pm
  OK, so I am accused of pursuing MY personal beliefs at the expense of others. Well, how about this:
  Let’s say in an analogous situation, two groups want the cross taken down, an atheist group and a Jewish group. Now, if the cross is taken down, does this represent atheism or Judaism?
  
  The answer is neither, because that’s the whole point. Public institutions do not endorse specific religious practices.
  
  Report this comment
- TheGrtDcptn
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 3:24pm
  Because Muslims are not insisting that this is a “Muslim Country” and that they have some unstated right to push their religious symbols on everyone through public land and public institutions. The example you are using there is an expression of the individual right to free exercise, and it applies to every religion.
  
  More commie hogwash…Christians are told to keep prayer within the walls of their churches all the time. Tell me…why is islam’s ramadan acknowledged/celebrated within the walls of the WH…?! Is the WH not a government building…?! Is the WH not showing a religious preference…?! Perhaps muslims should also keep their praying inside the mosques and off the streets of ALL citizens, what right do they have to impose their will onto others…?! Why has the National Day of Prayer been eliminated (for all faiths, except islam)…
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/09/obama_marks_ramadan_at_the_whi.html
  
  http://therightnewz.com/?p=6453
  
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/11/president-obama-hosts-iftar-dinner-celebrate-ramadan
  
  Keep spewing your communist BS…It’s what you do best, as you try to convince me that I’m the one parsing your posts…
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 3:29pm
  @Booger
  
  “I wish Annie would explain to me where in the Constitution that separation of church and state can be found.”
  
  False premise. The part you quoted did not mention the Constitution. The separation of church and state is derived from the 1st amendment, and explained through Supreme Court cases.
  
  Your statement is roughly the equivalent of a gay activist saying “show me where in the Constitution marriage is defined as one man and one woman” and sitting back smugly thinking they had won the debate.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:00pm
  “Christians are told to keep prayer within the walls of their churches all the time.”
  
  No. People pray in public all the time. You can’t just make a silly blanket statement like that and pretend it means you win the argument.
  
  In terms of the acknowledgement of Ramadan, the White House acknowledges many different holidays, including Jewish and Christian holidays. However, it would be difficult to argue that they are doing so as an act of worship. There is an obvious difference there that you seem to be missing.
  
  Report this comment
randy
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:34am
Every good christian needs to plant a little cross in their front yard.
Imagine the outrage when Asseists have to endure a sea of crosses from cost to coast…

We could called it “Crossing America”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SaturdaysWarrior76
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:38am
  Love it!! Good idea!
  
  Report this comment
- randy
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:46am
  My simple 2 foot high white cross has been in my front yard since june of this year.
  
  Report this comment
- seek.the.truth
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:41am
  Awesome idea!
  
  Report this comment
- Pnis
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 7:53am
  Atheists don’t care if they see crosses on someones front lawn. We really don’t. Put up all the crosses you want. It’s the public property thing we have an issue with. Keep your religious myths on your own property.
  
  Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:33am
When will citizens start forcing their elected officials to stand up to these out of town/state thugs.
If you don’t live in our town then you have NOTHING to say about how we do things.
PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN BACKYARD… LEAVE OURS ALONE !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:20am
  “LEAVE OURS ALONE !”
  
  Public land and public institutions are not your “backyard” to play with as you want.
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:05am
  PubliusPencilman – “Public land and public institutions are not your “backyard” to play with as you want.”
  
  Where is it that the citizens of Alsip have a problem with their public lands displaying what they want.
  It is their ‘backyard’. Nobody elses…
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:23am
  Nor are they yours, Publius.
  
  By demanding adherence to your views and dictating what shall be displayed or not on public land, you cast yourself in no better a position than the Christians whom you feign oppression at the hands of.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:35pm
  Ghost,
  
  OK, so how about this: Let’s say it wasn’t a cross. Let’s say they put up a sign that says “this is a white person’s town.” Now, if I thought that this slogan is exclusionary (despite the fact that it isn’t literally forcing anyone to do anything) and I wanted it to be taken down, then I would be just as bad as the people who put up the sign (intolerance towards their views). Therefore, they should be able to keep the sign because I can’t oppose it without being a hypocrite. Is that the logical extension of your reasoning?
  
  Report this comment
mr.goodvibe
Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:33am
Oh no, don’t look at the cross or you will bust into flames. Damn commies.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.