KS City to Remove Christian Cross From City Seal & Sign Following Atheists’ Legal Threats
Citizens in Buhler, Kansas, have a new city seal to look forward to — however, many are less-than-content over the situation surrounding the re-brand. Following the threat of a lawsuit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist activist non-profit, officials are being forced to redesign the seal and replace a large sign that is currently posted in a local park.
The secular group maintains that both contain a Christian cross — an apparently illegal religious element that they say has no place in public venues. The inclusion of the cross has been a part of the design for the past 24 years, since the city last fine-tuned the image in 1988. However, the FFRF didn’t complain until a more recent image was posted in a city park just four months ago. It was this larger sign — one that made the cross even more prominent — that came to the attention of non-theist activists.
KSNW-TV has more:
In a letter dated Sept. 14, the atheist group, citing an unnamed resident, told officials that the cross violates the Establishment Claus of the Constitution. By default, the FFRF charged that Buhler is endorsing Christianity by allowing the crosses to have such a prominent place on both the seal and sign.
“The endorsement of religion in the Buhler seal is particularly egregious because the cross is prominently featured and used to symbolize the ‘Traditional Values’ portion of the town motto,” the organization’s letter read.
After consulting with legal experts, the city notified residents this past Friday of its decision to comply with the FFRF’s demands. In addition to opinions that seemed to back the ideals behind the atheist complaint, the city noted that it could end up with massive legal fees if officials allow the case to move forward — something that would strain already limited financial resources.
Mayor Daniel Friesen said that the sign is still up, but that decisions regarding a new design will come over the next few months, as the city attempts to comply with the legal opinions it has received. While he told Fox News’ Todd Starnes that Buhler is a “faith-based community,” the tough decision to comply with the FFRF’s demands was made.
Photo Credit: Fox News’ Todd Starnes
“I think the people of Buhler are going to be just as frustrated at the Council and myself,” the mayor admitted. “But one of the reasons we’re trying to get this information out is so people can understand the decision we’re making here. We’re not making them lightly.”
Friesen also said that the city’s decision is not one that many, including himself, want to make. However, based on legalities and the constitution, he said that officials have made the right choice.
“The city of Buhler was founded by immigrants that came here to escape religious persecution,” he added. “The same constitution that brought them here also protects the view of people who may not agree with the values of this community. We have to be acceptant of that.”
According to KSNW-TV, new, faith-based signs will be posted on private land in response to the controversy. And the sign that is being removed will purportedly be relocated across the street from its current location, also on private land.
(H/T: HutchNews.com)
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.
Popular Stories
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 441 Comments
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 386 Comments
Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 337 Comments
Church vs. State Complaint Leads City to Remove Christian Crosses on Water Tower — Now See What They’ve Been Replaced With 314 Comments
This Could Be the Most Haunting Statistic You’ll Ever See 264 Comments
Faith
-
Priest Gunned Down by Italian Mobsters Now Beatified
Read More
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
386 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 337 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
166 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
102 Comments
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
100 Comments
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
121 Comments
Technology
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
120 Comments
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
-
6 Fascinating Spy Gadgets You’ll Probably Want (and Can Have) After Seeing
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (200)
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:44amThis is all part of the current International Far Left’s War on Christianity. Marxists and all Big Brother totalitarian movements hate religions. They killed the religious by the score in all past “out-breaks” of the Far Left and the Far Right. From the French Revolution to WWII. Big Brother wants no other God to hinder Big Brother’s rule of the population. Our current Lefty Big Brother is an arrogant, cold, cruel and calculating bully. Obama is just his local American franchisee ….
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:54amThis is obviously a town of morons anyway…I mean come on…Traditional Values/Progressive Ideas??? Who but idiots would allow an Oxymoron as their city seal???
Report this comment
thetruthlives
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:25amthe left has to remove religion from everything. belief in God is contrary their idiotic ideas.
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:03pmBuhler….Buhler…..Buhler…..
Report this comment
Pontiaku
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 1:49pm[Marxists and all Big Brother totalitarian movements hate religions.]
It’s not that they hate them, it’s that they’re competing in the same game only government enslaves the body & religion enslaves the mind. Social Justice was born from Christianity. Nazi’s even capitalized on the catholic religion.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:09pmPontiaku, fact is, social justice, communism was born of Judaism. Moses Hess and Karl Marx were both descendents of rabbinical lines. Churchill wrote of its origins:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism
Report this comment
colt1860
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:22pmWhen are these con artists, I mean Freedom from Religion guys, sue DC for having that huge Egyptian phallus Washington munument? The obelisk is part of the ancient religion of Egypt. When will they sue the US courts which display many statutes of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses? Or when will they demand that our capitol building be remodeled, since capitols have their origin in representing Jupiter, the god of gods? Or, when will they sue to have the eye of Horus removed from the dollar bill? When will they sue to have that Egyptian pyramid, which as a temple to the gods, removed from the dollar? Oh, wait, that’s right, they’re against Christ, not religion.
Report this comment
Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:57pmAgree 100% with INDYGUY. I just don’t see how traditional values can synch with progressive ideas.
Report this comment
Annarie
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:36pmI agree with Indyguy. The sign is an oxymoron. And of course, the morons will cave to the left…………..
Report this comment
Quester55
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:38pmOur country had & still has a Motto; We Don’t Give into Terrorist,” that was, Until now.!
These NEW Terrorist are the New Age ATHEIST and their Private & Willfully Misread version of the United States Constitution!
These A/T’s are out to Remove all Things Jewish & Christian, Leaving behind All things, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Even Satanic, but if it’s anything Christian or Jewish in nature, It Has To Go, as it might offend their,”Terrorist or Atheist Values”.!
The bigger Question is, Where these A/T’s Members of the Community, Or just Trash Talkers from another Town?
HOW DARE this Town Give in to Terrorist! We as a Nation need to stand up to these Bully’s, Before it’s too late! How Dare any of those City Console Members,HYPOCRITES ALL, who Claim to Worship GOD & are too Fearful to Stand up to the Devils attacks.
That whole Town needs to Repent for their Shameful Attitude.
Report this comment
Pontiaku
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:45pmQuester55<–
Either this is a case of Poe's Law or Durrr I'm Retarded.
Report this comment
ltb
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:05pmDoes anyone notice the irony of a cross being forcibly removed by so-called liberals from a sign that says “Traditional Values / Progressive Ideas”? Seems like “progressive ideas” aren’t so much progressive as they are fascist. It should be crystal clear by now to even the most brain dead individual in America that traditional values and progressive ideas are not compatible. Oh, and if you’re one of the millions of self-professing Christians who stayed home on November 6th, you can thank yourselves that America will now have men marrying men, abortion on demand and a government that sides with Israel’s enemies.
Report this comment
noslave
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:43amin light of their tactics,enormous legal costs make people back down/give in to the few over the majorityhireing a hit man would be cheaper??and could solve future problems?grow a set of balls,forget all the political correctness crap that allows them to run rampant over us all??
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:03amI think you are seeing a case where the Left has gone so far left that a back-lash will follow. Have a feeling that is what happened in Germany prior to WWII. Germany was plagued by anger over WWI terms, anarchy , and economic disaster. Hitler played on all of this . Anger was the key. The ” rich ” and capitalism ( code word is ” the rich” / bankers, CEOs ) are Obama’s ” jews.” The Democrats through their speeches and their Lap Dog Media target, demonize, bully, smear, and scapegoat them.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:34am“I think you are seeing a case where the Left has gone so far left that a back-lash will follow. Have a feeling that is what happened in Germany prior to WWII. ”
I think you messed up your comparison there, Barber2. What these sentences equate is that the right’s backlash against the left will result in them attacking back and becoming Nazis who take out undesirables.
I know what you meant to say, but just pointing out that I think you mixed up the wording a bit :-)
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:51amLOCKED: I just meant to equate the extremes we are seeing in the Far Left Democrats as being a catalyst for an extreme blow-back ultimately. Extremes are always bad . Especially when coupled with a bad economy and an anti-capitalist ” agenda.” Also the arrogance , the nastiness, and Trial By Media approach of this Far Left Obama crowd is very dangerous to civil, constitutional order.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:05amGood clarification, I definitely agree with you!
Report this comment
benrush
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 3:47pmBarber2:
Right on! I wish more folks were as intelligent as you. the truth will prevail and the wrong shall fail, but there will be a sifting phase first. Wheat and tares together grow.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:41amWell, it’s about time…
I want to know…. when are they going to go after the State Seals as well?…
N.Dakota and Maine both have seals that feature images of trees- clearly illustrating those State’s unconstitutional endorsement of Wiccan and Druid theologies.
Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:01amWell played.
Report this comment
Pontiaku
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:51pmJust think, if Jesus was executed in an electric chair, you would have Seals, Necklaces, and Churches adorned with electric chairs. Nothing better than whoring a human sacrifice in every public space to feel good about yourself…
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 3:09pmChrist killed on an Electric Chair? That would be impossible. Al Gore didn’t invent electricity until sometime in the 1970′s!
Report this comment
Pontiaku
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:12pmShortly thereafter he “invented” Global Warming.
Report this comment
Dan_o
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:40amInteresting. I find “Progressive Ideas” egregiously opposed to the constitution. Maybe we should scrap the sign altogether…in fact, all signs.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:16amWhat are you? An anti-signite?
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:49amI’d say starting a revolution against Britain for not allowing colonial repesentatives in Parliament was a pretty progressive idea. Certainly not conservative. Conservatives at the time, Tories, wanted to keep the status-quo. Freedom of unpunished speech, of privacy from government eyes, to own weapons, to regulated jury trials; all extremely progressive ideas. Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin and their compatriots were not just progressives and liberals, but Radicals. They agreed far more on their radicalism than they did on their Christianity.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:10amMARINE25, You seem to have forgotten that the Tories were the conservative party of the British Parliament. Being loyal British subjects, naturally they would wish to maintain the status quo. Did you just spot the word “conservative” and jump to your desired conclusion?
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:51am@RJJingadsden
Tory was also the name for the approximately 40% of the colonists who remained loyal to The Crown. They were conservative, adhering to traditional policies and methods and resisting change or progress. There were conservatives at the Second Continental Congress, but their conservatism centered mainly on maintaining the plantar aristocracy and the institution of slavery that had made most of the powerful men in the southern colonies very, very wealthy. When their economic concerns were assuaged by several amendments to the Declaration, they signed on with the radicals. And no, I didn’t just latch on to the word conservative before I posted. I know full well the meaning of the word and the history of conservative policy. I used to be a conservative. But I can’t side or vote with the reactionairies, the racists, and the xenophobes that have pushed reasonable conservatives out of the left side of the party. They alienated all of the moderate Republicans like myself. They threw away liberal Republicans like Lincoln and Teddy, but they want to keep radicals like Jefferson and Paine. They’ll purge them soon I am sure.
thegreatcarnac
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 1:29pmMarine25…no..you will be purged.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 3:26pmAlready purged myself. Ford-Reagan-Reagan-Bush-Bush-Dole-Bush-Kerry-Obama-Obama. Couldn’t vote for Bush over Kerry and his service, couldn’t vote for anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is an intelligent American, then the bigots and the Constitutionally-illiterate-Constitution-lovers and the tea party took over and well, I’m not alone in feeling there is no place left in the party for reasonable men. Say they purged me, say I quit the party. Either way, I’m not likely to be back.
Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:49pmgood bye
Report this comment
Centralsville
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:39amMore left wing anti freedom bigotry directed at Christians. Christians and white heterosexual males are the only two groups in America that have no constitutional rights or protections. Not only is descrimination not illegal, it is required by our leftist commie courts. I can’t wait for this filthy country to collapse from it’s own rot. It can’t come soon enough for me.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:47amCentral: Agree. Since the Left keeps saying ” Whitey” is history, does that mean that now ” Whitey” can play the Race and Discrimination Cards ? Seems only ” socially justified.” Call the ACLU…
Report this comment
Old Ogre
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:53pmWe are just :angry old white men”…
We are also the first ones they will ask for to protect their as*es when the **** hits the fan! If any of us are left by then, I keep telling my kids that they or their grandkids will be praying to Allah 5 times a day and they just laughed at me…
Time will tell, history repeats itself and karma is a bit*ch!
Report this comment
Hawk69
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:37amVery soon these leftist will sue if you put up a Christian symbol on your private property.
Report this comment
Txrpatriot
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:45amWhen they come to remove anything from my property I think I will just shoot the lot of them, that’s just how fed up I am with these communists.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:47amI love how eager you Christians are to grab a gun and shoot someone.
It’s just as sick as how gleefully you look towards billions of people dying so you can “meet your savoir.”
Disgusting.
Report this comment
Olieman
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:22pmWhy not bankrupt this organization. Everyone with private property, place a cross, say one inch inside their property and see what happens. At the very least it will drive them crazy.
Report this comment
kentuckypatriot
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:44pmHey Moderation:
You must have a problem for someone trespassing on someone else’s property and not believe they are at risk of being shot, Christian or not. You are a complete moron. It has nothing to do with religion.
Report this comment
Tractorboy
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 1:10pm@Hawk69, I fear you are correct, some places you can’t drink a beer on your own front porch, shouldn’t be long till the progressives come up with a way to ban the offensive Christian symbols.
Dispite what Atheist claim now, their end goal is to completely remove Christianity from public sight.
you all have a blessed day on this Nov. 29th 2012 AD
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 1:31pm@KENTUCKYPATRIOT
It’s not about trespassing, it’s about how often I see the supposed “loving” Christians on here ending their statements with, “I’d just shoot them.”
Report this comment
Porchview
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 6:39pmProgressive appropriation of private property is coming with UN Agenda 21.
Report this comment
Pnis
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 6:43pmAtheists haven’t tried to remove anything from private property, nor would they. Atheists don’t care about seeing crosses or other religious symbols. Cover your entire property, your car, your person, etc… All the power to you. All these lawsuits have to do with religious symbols on public property. Atheists are only interested in keeping the government secular, which is a good thing. While today it may be Christianity that is the majority, tomorrow it may be Islam or some other religion. I doubt any of you want to see some sharia law doctrine on the wall behind a judge in a courthouse or in a public school.
Report this comment
TheWhiteFalcon
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:35amYep, that’s progress all right. Gotta love how we’re going down the toilet.
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:33amThis has nothing to do with an *anonymous* resident making a complaint. This is simply more of the spiritual war between good and evil. It is war directed against God and Jesus Christ. It is war directed against Christians.
There will come a time that Christians will, once again, have to hide to practice their faith. It is already happening in other parts of the world.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:47amYou recognize the truth Mom, a gift from the Holy Spirit. This is not right vs left, it’s good vs evil.
Report this comment
Tractorboy
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:54pmHey MOM,
There are rays of hope in the world, in China Christianity is growing, in the African continent Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds…. We are by no means alone, 1/3 of the worlds population is Christian, 2.2 billion, yes we have declined in the US, but it’s time to be strong, shake ourselves off, and do the Lords work…..God Bless
Report this comment
gzorpe
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:33amHere’s what i’d do… Give a struggling artist a job, and have him/her paint obama images hanging on each cross anywhere the city seal is displayed… And call it protected art!!!
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:16amAnd then piss on them.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:28amWish the Blaze would do an investigative piece on this organization, the FFRF. Would like to know who funds it and who belongs to its membership.
Report this comment
kickagrandma
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:39am@BARBER2 ~~~ I agree with you.
It’s a satanic group filled with spiritually deceived “folks”. You can bet sorocitos is behind it.
soros /satan Coincidence? I think not.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:26amThey need to have that loser pays the winner’s legal fees rule that so many other places have. Unless it’s in the state’s constitution here is no law that prevents any state from displaying religious symbols or even adopting an official state religion.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:59amThe First Amendment prohibits establashing religion and Article VI of the Constitution makes it the Supreme Law of the Land; therefore no law, at any level, can volate or supercede the Constitution.
Please read The Constitution. It’s quite short, and will help you stop saying things you should have realized were ignorant when you were in the sixth grade.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:28amMARINE25, Please tell us, just what religion has the government ever tried to establish? Recognizing any or all religions is in no way an establishment. I would venture to say that you are one of those militant atheists who merely hates religion, all religions. You and the Madelyn Murray O’**** crowd have played semantics all along. You’re are likely just young enough to fall for this foolery.
Wait for that particular atheist group that is trying to have Atheism declared and recognized as a religion. Where you will want it or not, you will find your collective butts in the same bear trap as the rest of us.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 1:30pmI’m not that young. But I am an atheist. No I don’t want atheism declared a religion any more than I want my shaved head declared a **** color. I don’t want our government favoring any religious belief over another. The government agreed to stay out of it when the Constitution was ratified. We should all, theists and atheists alike, hold them to that. You would be singing a different tune if the symbol on government property was jewish, muslim, or wiccan. They have as much evidence for their deity as you do yours and the government is constitutionally agnostic about all gods.
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 3:15pmOh brother…the government is not trying to establish a religion. Stop being absurd. Just because some sign reflects the values of a society doesn’t mean it is establishing anything. You claim you are some professor and such an educated man, yet are still afraid of the boogeyman that isn’t there.
What are values? They are the beliefs and ideals shared by members of that society and culture. You must have read history yes? Humans have always used art to reflect their cultural values. What is going on here is an attempt to completely change the culture to reflect only one sects beliefs and you know it!
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:22pm@wisdom7
No boogeyman here. Just the official pulic symbol of a town symbolizing one religion out of many.
I agree with culture having always been portrayed in art. This isn’t art. It is the official crest of a public community and thus bound by the Constitution. Your ‘oh brother’ respose is exactly what 2nd Amendment opponents say when the NRA opposes state restrictions on shoulder-mount grenade launchers. But the NRA knows it must oppose every advance on the Second Amendment, no matter how narrow, or be exposed subsequently to the slippery slope; give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. The NRA supports the Second Amendment against those who would destroy it bit-by-bit. I applaud them for it. I also support the First Amendment against those ‘oh brother’ folks who will allow it to be destroyed bit-by-bit.
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:30pmActually it is art (illustrated expression). This sign reflects the values and beliefs of that town. What is the real issue here? It must be because there was not a symbol representing atheism? In another comment you stated “It makes me uncomfortable that a town would choose the symbol of one religion and not all the others.” I really doubt it does any such thing, but why would it make you uncomfortable? Do you live in this town? What does it matter to you? However, why not just ask to add an atheist symbol, or to add whatever other religious symbols that happen to be part of that town? Instead atheist wish to wipe out any reference of Christians in the public square or forum while allowing specifically for their own representation. No one is “establishing” a religion here. There is a difference. As I mentioned to another poster, one of the characteristics of a society to be considered “civilized” was a shared system of religious belief, along with a system of government, and so on. What is government other than the body that enforces the values, customs, and laws of that society. All of these things make up the culture of that society. I don’t think anyone would have a problem if these lawsuits asked to add symbols representing their beliefs if they were indeed living in that town, but they don’t.
Have you ever seen the movie “Equilibrium”? Is this how you wish society to become?
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:45pmHey that sign of their seal also has a math book and wheat on it. Using the same argument these people do, maybe gluten free folks and non-farmers should sue them for not being represented. This is all just silly.
Report this comment
lessoneleg
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:25amjust watch, and they will replace it with the Hammer and Sickle.
Please, all these big cities are tumbling downwards into a pit of similarities to close to be called ex-Soviet Union.
Let’s face it, the inner city socialist has found the achilles heal of the US public. The Inner city vote, and they now own a State like Ohio not be winning the State in Districts but by shear voter count in the largest voting centers, the inner city..
Report this comment
RRFlyer
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:23amIt won’t be long before “They” will find a way to sue if churches are in public view, and then remove them all together. Lawsuits are the new coliseums.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:25amLawyers are a cancer.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:51amRR: The Left is just following Alinsky’s dictates from Rules For Radicals : get a law degree; use the system to radically ” change” the system. That’s where Obama got the agenda and the slogan. Typical Marxist/ Alinsky lingo .
Report this comment
jimbo_from_suwanee
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:22amThe sun is a sign for pagans, and there is a sun on the opposite side. I wonder why those groups never to after pagan symbols.
Report this comment
Balpit
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:00pmIf you squint carefully, the sunset and its rays look like a turd with stink lines blocking the road.
That describes Progressive Ideas perfectly.
Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:18am.
People of Buhler get ya’ll a switch and whip somebody’s behind over this and fight for your city……..
Don’t be COWARD’S!!!!!……………
Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:17amAs I’ve said before, God grant me the extra time and money the atheist seem to have and I will do something useful with it.
Report this comment
mdlwoods
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:15amWhen are the people of these cities going to start standing up and saying ENOUGH! Take us to Court! We will gladly pay an additional city tax to pay the legal fees. If cities and states would start fighting against these idiots, they would then crawl back into the woodwork!!! This group does not have unending funds to pay for lawsuit! It would only take a few cities or states to say , go ahead, sue us, and these morons would run out of lawsuit money!!! STAND UP, AMERICA!!!!
Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:58pmWe could also say…..’if we go to court and lose….we will not comply’. We could say..’the religious symbols stand where they are…..you move them…and we will put them back.., you bring in government agents…we will fight them’.
Report this comment
RubberBandEffect
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:15amSigh….. This one is tough for me. On the had, I really don’t see the harm in having a cross on the city seal. Its not really hurting anyone. On the other hand, I can see why non-Christians might feel uncomfortable with the obvious Christian symbolism. In this particular case, I have to side with the city. Its not like they didn’t try to be inclusive witth the “Progressive Ideas” part of the seal. I would think the FFRF could find far more egregious cases of religion in government. I just wish people would be religious in their own lives and be satisfied with that.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:24amYou don’t have a protected right not to feel uncomfortable. If the citizens want that as their sign, they have that right. Your personal “feelings” are irrelevant.
Report this comment
RubberBandEffect
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:41amTheJerk, you are certainly correct in some cases but wrong in others. If a naked man approaches me on the street and it makes me feel uncomfortable, nobody is going to tell me to get over it and that I don’t have any right to complain.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:26amIt makes me uncomfortable that a town would choose the symbol of one religion and not all the others. I don’t care if it was a unanimous vote in the town. The Constitution agrees with me. No legislature may pass any law or enact any policy that violates the Constitution. Article VI. Don’t like it? See Article V.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:03pmMarine25, it is no fault of mine that 5 people, princes of the black rob, had the power to misinterpret our Constitution. Remember, slavery once met your same test of constitutionality.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:06pmRubberBandEffect, the citizens chose to make nudity against the law. They have that right. There are other places where nudity is not against the law, legal. Don’t live there if you don’t like the laws. But, don’t think that just because you moved there, live there, that your ideas become law. You have the freedom to move.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:11pmMarine25, sorry forgot the ‘e.’ Should be ‘robe.’
Report this comment
RubberBandEffect
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 3:02pmTheJerk, Last time I checked, it was illegal for government to endorse religion. The original intent of my post was to point out that even though the cross on the seal doesn’t harm anyone, it is still illegal and makes some people uncomfortable. This is obviously just my opinion but I can sympathize with both sides.
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:14amGet lives, fools. You wanna put up a cross in your yard, go right ahead. You want to put a cross on the courthouse steps well, sorry, but we’ll burn that one. You don’t mind burning crosses, do you?
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:46pmYOU don’t mind burning do YOU?
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:34pmThe only problem with your idiotic babble is that it goes against the entire history of civilization. In fact, one of the characteristics that qualified a society as being considered “civilized” was they had a shared system of religious belief. This, of course, is not the only characteristic, but it is indeed one of them along with a system of government, written communication, and so on.
Report this comment
Apple Bite
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:12amKind of like saying, “Here we are Mr. Criminal, come kill us all!” With that wretched word on that sign.
Report this comment
EqualJustice
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:09amWhat a bunch of WHIMPS we have become. Stand up for what’s right and forget about all the PC crap. Why all the “attacks” on religion? I thought we were all crazy for thinking or saying that? It’s happening under BO and taking religion out of everything is the FIRST GOAL OF COMMUNISM, people.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:08amThe sign is on its face oxymoronic, “Traditional Vales and Progressive Ideas.” Progressive ideas are what led to the signs removal.
Report this comment
Sil in CNY
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:26amExactly!
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:08amSo who started the myth of ‘separation of church and state’?
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:12amI think it was Joseph Smith.
Report this comment
RubberBandEffect
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:33amThe establishment clause and free exercise clause from the Constitution imply it while Jefferson was the one who actually coined the phrase. Separation of church and state is a great thing but some people definitely go overboard in trying to enforce it. I don’t know why the FFRF feels the need to bully this town when they can go after something significant at the federal level like swearing public officials into office with their hand on a Bible. Its federal, clearly a violation of the establishment clause, and I would suspect that many people (even here on The Blaze) would like to see them sworn in on the Constitution. Aquila non capit muscas.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:23amWANGOPANTS, How do you get Smith confused with Madelyne Murray O’****?
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:40amMyth or not, the highest judicial body of the land and our legal system makes the “myth” a “reality.” Legally-speaking.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:54amSome guy named Jefferson.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:07amMARINE25, Jefferson made a generic statement in a letter to a friend of his in France. He in no way tried to change the 1st Amendment, or interact with Congress to change the law. That has been our courts’ perversion of of the Constitution and Jefferson’s statement.
Report this comment
antitheism
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:53amIt is not a myth, but your cult of human sacrifice on the other hand, is.
Report this comment
TeresaJ
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:58am@ Rubberbandeffect
Actually, swearing in on the Bible clearly shows that this “seperation of church and state” and “establishment” has far overreached it’s territory.
Either our forefathers clearly did not intend for the government to shut out religious references in goverment, particularly from the religion ON WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION IS BASED, or they are the biggest hypocrites on earth and the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on. Example after example after example of apparent “unconstitutional transgressions” commited by pretty much every generation of Americans until the Supreme Court fouled up 200 years later.
Swearing in on the Constitution? HAH! The Supreme Court has not been following it for years. They approved illegal Obamacare on the rediculous and outrageous lie of it being a TAX for goodness sake! Our government is failed, our people have failed.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:18pm@RJJinGadsden
letter to a friend? That’s the least of it.
Please read The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/vsrf.htm It’s no letter to an old friend but it’s still on the books in Virginia 245 years after it was written, by, of course, Thomas Jefferson.
Or try the Supreme Court’s favorite Jefferson piece:“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” — Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) . This is his second kown use of the term “wall of separation,. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause:1879,1947,1948
The man asked who started this ‘seperation of church and state” nonsense. I said Jefferson. You said that was only in a letter to a friend. You are wrong. Letters, addresses, official state statutes that have been cited by the Supreme Court.
Turn off Beck. He is an absolut
Report this comment
TeresaJ
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:20pm@ Marine25
No one is using government power to support themselves or force religious views.
House Report 1854 on federally paid chaplains:
“On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.”
Report this comment
TeresaJ
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:25pmSenate Judiciary Committee 1853
“The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.”
At issue is the interpretation, which is clearly wrong. Even Jefferson himself proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto.
Like I said, the Supreme Court has failed.
Report this comment
colt1860
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:40pmVirginia’s Statue for Religious Freedom acknowledges God, and protects religious liberty as a gift FROM GOD. The statute reads, “Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure FROM THE PLAN OF THE HOLY AUTHOR of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone.”
Virginia’s Constitution, in 1776, mentions God, our Creator, and demands high veneration to those religious principles and values most beneficial to mankind. The Constitution reads, “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. ”
Why accept one quote from Jefferson and dismiss all others? The progressive Supreme Court greatly misintrepreted the “wall of seperation” quote, wrongly applied it, and thus radically changed America.
Report this comment
PeteOH
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:06amThe cross is part of that city’s history. Before they remove the cross, remove THEM!!!!
Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:02amthe dangerous word is progressive…get a definition.
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:20amwife beater + whoremonger = traditional values
here’s TODAY’S example:
Tennessee Republican Brad Staats, a losing congressional candidate earlier this month, was arrested early Sunday morning on a domestic assault charge after police responded to a call from his wife.
Staats ran in Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District on a “family matters” platform that stressed traditional values and Second Amendment rights. He drew national attention in October after posting a photo of his handgun to his Facebook page, alongside a message “welcoming” President Barack Obama to Tennessee. He denied that it was meant as a threat.
Why do conservatives hate women . . . and blacks and Hispanics and Asians and gays and police and firefighters and nurses and teachers and young people?
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:32am@ Pantloadian…They don’t hate all those groups…They just hate idiots like yourself…
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:36amLOAD: what a ridiculous comment. ” Traditional ” values ? Sure, like the 10 Commandments include beating and whoring ? Must have been some very strange version of ” traditional ” religion you were brought up in . Your hatred has clearly not only over-shadowed your emotions, but also affected your reason. Grow up. And you talk about HATRED ? Look in the mirror. Too bad you can’t separate your self from hatred in your crusade to to separate church and state. The Far Left has gone Too Far Left…into the Land of Hate , Disrespect and Intolerance.
Report this comment
eternal_vigilance
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:37amCRAPYOURPANTS
We’re waiting to hear about the whoremonger part.
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:38amINDY . . . You’re right. My mistake. It’s all those groups who hate conservatives. There you go. Feel better?
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:47amETERNAL INSOLENCE . . . How many examples would you like?
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:55amEternal: The Troll will just insist on having the last dismissive word. Like spiders drawing you into their webs of nonsensical taunts. They are all filled with anger and arrogance .they just like to insult and annoy : that is there reason for being here…
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:06amBABAR . . .Hey, he asked a question. I merely wondered how many examples he would like. Uptight hall monitors like you need to pull the stick out of your a$$. I’m sure Eternally Indolent can speak for himself. Ain’t that right, Eternal? (Go ahead, say what you really think.)
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:33amWANGODIAPER, Just who here has a stick up his ass? Oops, I may have misspelled that.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:42amRJJ: such a shame that LOAD can’t get a real job with Obama’s bad economy, and too bad mommy didn’t wash his mouth out with soap and/ or send him to anger management class. But, then. LOAD probably wouldn’t be hear insulting and annoying people….wouldn’t that be a loss ?? LOL
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 10:43am@Pantloadin
“Why do conservatives hate women . . . and blacks and Hispanics and Asians and gays and police and firefighters and nurses and teachers and young people?”
A better question would be: why do you assume that all conservatives hate these groups? This guy was a domestic abuser and a conservative. That doesn’t mean he was abusive BECAUSE he was a conservative. The simplest way to point out your fallacy is to point out an example of a conservative who doesn’t beat his family.
Pretty sure most of the people you’re trying to offend here fit that category. Stop trolling.
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:20amLOCKED . . . You mean al liberals don’t crap on police cars? Better tell the rest of your friends here. Or do you defend only conservatives?
Report this comment
Pantloadian
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:23amBAR . . . I don’t need a job. I’m wonderfully, happily, wealthily retired. For you, one day, who knows . . . keep the faith. Jesus will take care of all your needs. In fact, do as the disciples did – leave behind all your worldly possessions and follow Him. No? It’s OK. We understand.
Report this comment
benrush
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:05pmJesus Christ is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. His earthly ministry was to show us the path, he is the Light and the Life of the World. If a man believes in him, and follows him, he shall gain eternal life.
This town has a choice. The choices they make will be irrevocably clear to them in the day of judgment. The Gospel of Jesus Christ shall go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, until it has sounded in every ear.
As ye reap. so shall ye sow. The truth is very simple and plain.
Report this comment