Are Church-State Separatists Right to Call This Christian Cross a Constitutional Violation?
- Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:30am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Image Credit: EnterpriseNews.com
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) may be preparing for yet another battle over the presence of a cross on public property. This time, the scene of the debate is Middleborough, Massachusetts, where a large, brick cross with the word “worship” present on it is creating angst among secularists who view it as an overt constitutional violation.
The structure, which was built on a traffic island by the Middleborough Kiwanis Club back in 1959, is considered — unofficially — to be a historic landmark by residents and local leaders, alike. The cross, which measures 12 feet in height by seven feet in width, includes a Kiwanis emblem at its base. It was originally conceived and advocated for decades ago by the Rev. Francis Schlater, a faith leader who is now deceased.
While many locals support the cross’ presence, a lawyer who drove past it a few months ago decided to file a complaint with the state’s Department of Transportation (DOT). The roadside religious symbol, he contends, violates the separation of church and state.
The battle is shaping up to be a complicated one, with the Kiwanis Club doubling down on its defense of the cross. Local officials, too, hold a positive view of the symbol and, thus far, seem to be defending it. But the state, which owns a portion of the traffic island, reportedly wants the town to remove it. The ACLU, naturally, agrees with this stance and is siding against Kiwanis.
The civil liberties group, infamous for fighting religious displays on public property, is hoping that the town simply moves the cross to private property. Or, ACLU attorney Sarah Wunsch claims that another option would be to open up the island to all religious expression — an action that would force local officials to allow any and all faith messages to accompany the cross.
Image Credit: EnterpriseNews.com
But while Wunsch, who says that the town “has a problem,” stands firmly opposed to the cross in its current form, others, like Jane Lopes, the chairwoman of Middleborough’s Historical Commission, claim that the symbol was originally intended to be non-denominational.
“It was meant to encompass all faiths,” Lopes said. “The dedication was non-denominational, and it was hoped people of all faiths would take this in the spirit in which it was intended.”
Kiwanis Club president Robert Kinney, too, seems surprised by the anonymous lawyer, who has such major issues with the cross’ presence. In an interview with EnterpriseNews.com, Kinney voiced concerns over demands that it be moved and claimed that the cross can’t be relocated without destroying it.
“DOT said the man intends to come to Middleborough and make a ruckus,” Kinney said in a Boston.com piece, going on to state his surprise. “Figure about 2,000 cars pass every day for more than 50 years, and I’ve never been told by anyone they take exception to it. Then one Boston attorney took umbrage.”
Image Credit: EnterpriseNews.com
The state‘s DOT examined the cross following the lawyer’s complaint and found that one of its arms allegedly hangs over the state’s right of way by about six inches, although the majority of the cross is on local property.
Board of Selectmen chairman (a local official) Alfred Rullo said that, if the ACLU and the lawyer in question take the town on, that local leaders will petition the Historical Commission to look into making the cross a landmark.
“The cross has been there since 1959,” Rullo said. “If they come to the town with the issue, we’ll raise its historic significance.”
Wunsch, though, warns that a legal battle would be a money-waster for Middleborough. With neither side appearing to back down, we’ll have to wait and see how the case unfolds.
Is this cross a violation of the separation of church and state? Take the poll and let us know what you think, below:
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 684 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 648 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 316 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 181 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 212 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 181 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (240)
momprayn
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:22amThey think by doing these kind of things, it will somehow help their “cause’ of atheism, diminish Christianity – makes them feel better – demons do things like that. But it usually does the opposite – like when Rome threw the Christians to the lions, etc. Just stirs us up more, wakes us up as most of us need to be & grows. They pick on small communities like this, knowing they can’t afford legal fees, etc. What the spokesperson said about being non-denominational – that’s only speaking of “Christian” denominations; however, not against separation of church and state..
Report Post »And btw, to those that say Christians would have a fit if it was non-Christian. No, I wouldn’t. It’s still not a case of separation of church and state. As long as it’s legal and was voted on by the majority of the town to be ok – fine.
Many of us Christians have taken for granted that most of America are Christians. Sadly,we have fallen very far away and full of hypocrites and into apostasy. “Labels” do not make you “real”. Too many have rebelled against what the Founders intended. They said themselves we could not sustain a free Republic if the majority were not moral, etc. So here we are. We not only have to wake up about the degenerated state of America, we have to wake up about the degenerated state of Christianity. So…I pray we do…..or down we go.
22AUTOMATIC
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:39amEverywhere I go I always run into people who think the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the Consitution. Anytime someone says that just have them point to it; it can be a very enlightening moment for them when they cannot. Here are three videos that quickly break down the history of “separation of church and state.” Knowledge is potential power my friends.
http://youtu.be/ACufmHNFE98
http://youtu.be/WzPnpuF7h84
http://www.therightscoop.com/david-barton-tells-truth-about-americas-founders-at-the-american-revival/
P.S – Honor any veteran you see not just today but any day. Family, friends, and strangers alike. Buy a dinner if at a restaurant, buy a beer if at a bar, or just look right into their eyes – shake their hands – and say THANK YOU. To my Grandfather a U.S Marine in WW2 and my Father who was in the US Airforce and to all other heroes (yes MSNBC we call them heroes despite you rejecting that) God Bless you all!
Report Post »Nick697
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:43amHow about if the symbol was the Muslim star and crescent instead, with the words “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is His prophet”? You don’t appear to understand that having the symbol of ANY religion on government or public property is against the Constitution. I don‘t give a rat’s ass that most people surveyed think it’s OK. The Constitution was not drawn up after a poll of public opinion.
Report Post »Richalu
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:03amSo… It’s a bad thing for private citizens to erect a cross on public lands, 50+ years ago. But quite alright for the National Endowment for the Arts, a US government agency, to use taxpayer money to pay for a piece of “art” called ‘P.iss Christ’?
Would the government fund an art project that put Mohammed in u-rine? No they wouldn’t. But by not doing so, is the government then promoting one religion over another?
Report Post »usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:06amok NICK, like all thick headed, intolerant atheists, you have again missed the point. If the symbol was build because the PEOPLE wanted it, and if it still stands because the PEOPLE consider it a landmark and it is special to them, then LOCAL sovereignty has the “right of way”. WE THE PEOPLE have the power, not the 2 atheist douchebags in the entire county that got their panties in a wad. If it were a 12 ft muslim symbol, the ENTIRE TOWN would ask for its removal and it would happen over night. I know you guys clutch so tightly to this “separation of church and state” NONSENSE, but that is all it is. Apparently you do not know back in 1700 & 1800 there were many states that had state religions…Meaning it was the officially endorsed sect of Christianity that was used to make (along with the word of THE PEOPLE) virtually all state level policy decisions. If you didn’t like the “morality” of a certain sect, you moved to a state that best fit your ideals. Many of our Founders were members of state leg. that PUSHED for different sects to be officially recognized by their states, as they knew that religions influence on politics (and never the other way around) was not only a GOOD thing, but VITAL to the survival of the greatest nation on Earth. It really is sad how hard you people try to pretend this isnt a “born and breed” Judeo-Christian nation…pathetic, actually.
Report Post »RedDirtTexas
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:43amNick, please read 22Automatic’s comment just ahead of yours. Do you think we should take lower case T’s out of all laws? They sure resemble crosses to me! Maybe you should contact your overlords in the government or the A.C.L.U. to see what your opinion is going to be on that! Church and state in the Constitution! Please grow wiser!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:51am@22AUTOMATIC
Everywhere I go people think the word “God” is in the Constitution.
What’s your point?
Report Post »ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:16pmY‘all gotta stop believing that David Barton knows what he’s talking about.
I know that Glenn & Co like Barton’s version of US history, but you really gotta understand … all the real historians think he’s either an zealous idiot or an outright liar. Sure he tells a good story, with some factual scraps and dashes of scholarly-sounding language. Problem is, it just ain’t true
Report Post »usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:47pmWho are the “real historians”, so that I may go get better informed?
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:59pm@NICK697
“…having the symbol of ANY religion on government or public property is against the Constitution”
You are just wrong.
There is nothing in the constitution that states this.
Government does not own land. The People own public land.
WE decide what we want to put there. I am fine with people from other religions putting up a monument to their religion as long as the people approve it and the private individuals pay for it.
You and the atheists make a positive monument to man, or the universe or whatever and petition the local govt for a place in public to put it. BTW, I would not approve a monument that said Lutheranism is the only religion or one that said atheists are wrong, even if I did believe it.
You people who hate other people for having religion are anti-american.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:02pm@CONSERVATIVECANUCKLEHEAD
Maybe you could show some evidence that what he says in not true vs. just calling him a liar and referring to anonymous “others” who agree with you.
“Nothing CONSERVATIVECANUCKLEHEAD says is true and smart people tell me he has no clue.”
Report Post »Effective?
Pontiac
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:26pmTheocrat’s are thick in here…
Report Post »Let me try to make this as simple as possible…
Religion is an “individual” right.
Not a collective right.
Not the right of the majority to dictate what religious propaganda tax payer dollars fund.
No where in the constitution is the “government” granted religious liberty.
No where in the constitution is the government, federal or local, allowed to establish a religion.
The 1st Amendment, Supremacy Clause, and Civil rights laws do not grant the majority or the minority the authority to appropriate taxes or land to shove their beliefs in the faces of everyone else.
Government is not your church.
Government is not godly.
Stop making it those things!
ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:28pm@INBLACK
Who is going to approve a Muslim monument on public property? You have people protesting a mosque on PRIVATE property.
You are then subjecting the minority to the tyranny of the majority.
The only way to have true freedom of religion is by having freedom FROM religion.
As you can see, when the government starts endorsing religion, it creeps in and gets a foothold and it will NEVER take a step back.
If marriage is purely a religious ceremony, why does the Government issue marriage licenses?
Isn’t the easiest way to solve the gay marriage is to void all marriage licenses, issue EVERYONE a civil union?
If religious people then want to get “married” they can in their church, and no church has to marry someone they don’t want to but their “marriage” will not be recognized by the Government, only their civil union.
It’s simple enough, and legal and doesn’t discriminate against anyone…..Is that good enough for you? Or do you want your “religious” ceremony PROMOTED and ENDORSED by our Government?
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:42pm“They think by doing these kind of things, it will somehow help their “cause’ of atheism, diminish Christianity”
Report Post »No–Christians merely must obey the same laws as everyone else. You aren’t special–cut out the victim mentality ********.
ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:43pmThat’s why God invented Google brother.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:17pm@MODERATIONISBEST
You have set up a straw man argument.
No one has said they want to establish a govt religion. No one has said they want to ban Muslims or Unitarians or Hindus from public places.
You don’t want freedom, you want to ban religion.
You seem to be confusing freedom with never being in the minority.
I hate professional sports. I have to allow it to be talked about, stadiums to be built, people cheering, clothing with numbers, Superbowl hype, even my snacks have pictures of sportards on them. Am I oppressed? No. Am I asking for all sports to be banned from public places? No.
Your marriage example is a great example of this. Gays have to watch TV with straight couples on it, they have to see only straight people having babies. Should we sterilize every straight person so gays do not feel oppressed? No.
There is no freedom from being a minority and frankly, I’m just happy that there is freedom to be a minority. Why can’t you just be happy you are an atheist vs. trying to make everyone else one.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:32pm@PONTIAC
Allowing private citizens to use public land is not establishing a religion.
What is so hard for you to understand?
If this case was a group of Hindus requested a place to put a monument and were denied the request because the city said, “No only Christian monuments”, then they might have a case.
As it is, there is no proof that the town is establishing one religion over another. Since the land is public land there is no case to deny citizens a request to use the land.
You are anti-religion and opposed to the 1st Amendment.
Report Post »ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:43pmInBlack … I gotta say man, yer logic is like totally whack!
That delusional, religious thinking really messes up the old mind box.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:58pm@CONSERVATIVECANUCKLEHEAD
Right, so I’m delusional for accepting all people and all religions.
You are clear minded for wanting to ban religion.
Why is it that you feel threatened by others’ freedom?
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:23pmReddirttexas had a good idea. What constitutes a religious symbol? What if two brooms are tied together to look like a t? What if a tree in the fall resembles a t shape in a national park, aka federal land? If that’s unconstitutional, then we better start combing all the national parks in the US! (60% of all land is government land, which means we have our work cut out for us)
What about everyday speech too, since according to the Officials at the Kennedy Center, you can’t pray in a federal building?
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/16/glenn-beck-told-he-cant-lead-audience-prayer-kennedy-center
Don’t forget, there’s Christian themes in our everyday lexicon too. Like pearls before swine, (Jesus metaphor) or reading the writing on the wall (old testament story) since its true you can’t mention God in a federal building, or wear a cross in a French federal building, we should punish anybody who stubs their toe in a post office and screams, ‘oh God dang it!’
How should we punish these people? Tazering, fines or imprisonment?
Report Post »usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:24pmamazing how little you know about the founding us this country and what freedom of religion means MODERATION…Local cities, hell even states are allowed to have RECOGNIZED LOCAL RELIGIONS. In fact, many of the founding fathers were members of legislative bodies in different states that endorsed STATE SANCTIONED sects of Christianity. If muslims wanted to put up public displays of their religion, and they have a local population that feels like they want to profess the morals and values of their community in a way that sums it up nicely (The cross pretty much means, “we show Christian love to all in this town”) then no problem. If you took a local poll of who wanted this cross to stay as a symbol of their towns values, I bet you get a 90% “for” vote. It’s almost like a mental illness this completely corrupted “separation of church and state” idea that you all have.
Report Post »ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:00pmINBLACK to CONSERVATIVECANUCKLEHEAD
Right, so I’m delusional for accepting all people and all religions.
You are clear minded for wanting to ban religion.
Why is it that you feel threatened by others’ freedom?
No, that’s not why you are delusional.
I do not want to ban religion.
I do not feel threatened by the freedom of others.
Let me see now … that’s three strikes. You’re out!
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:17pm@CONSERVATIVECANUCKLEHEAD
Are you even going to try to make a coherent point?
Oh right “Dude yer whacked” was a good one.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:26pm@INBLACK
I wonder if you know what a straw man argument is. Well scratch that, you do know what one is because you created one.
I never said that people want to ban Muslims or Unitarians or Hindus from public places. Nice try though.
I did say, “Who would vote for a Muslim Monument on public property?” I also did say that you have people protesting the building of a Mosque on private property.
I have talked to many people(some on here) who say they want scripture consulted on
Public Policy
Foreign Policy
Our judicial system
Let‘s not insult both yours and mine intelligence by refusing to deny that it’s establishing a government religion. Is there a “formal” establishment? No. Would our society be dictated by Christianity? yes. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
“You don’t want freedom, you want to ban religion” Absolutely laughable. Almost every one of my friends is a Christian and I went to their house for a Christmas Eve party, and also I went over to their house for an Easter party. I was polite the entire way through and enjoyed their company. I could care less if every single house on my block had a nativity scene on it, or a cross on it. It wouldn’t affect me in the least. What I don’t like seeing are religious symbols on public property. It’s not enough for people to have their religious symbols on their own property….there is something special by having it on public property.
Report Post »Stupe
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:03pmActually 22AUTOMATIC, Amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution. Have you read the First Amendment? It clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. This cross, though they claim it’s non-denominational, is clearly a Christian symbol on public land. Therefore it should be removed. I don’t get how they can say its non-denominational in the first place. Since when have Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and the many other non-Christian religions used a cross to symbolize their religion?
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:34pm@MODERATIONISBEST
1) I do not want govt to consult scripture on Public Policy, Foreign Policy, or Our judicial system. I certainly do not want to impose this on govt or the public.
2) If by freedom FROM religion, you mean you have a right to impose non-religion, that is not a right, EVEN on public property.
3) If by freedom FROM religion, you mean to be free to not have a religion, I think we have that in this country and with the exception of some state offices, there is no banning of atheists from any public jobs that I know of.
4) As an atheist you are a minority in this country, but you have a right to your beliefs. You have a right to state them and argue them. But you do not have a right to strip religion from others.
5) Today is a national day of prayer. That may bug you, but no one is forcing you to pray. They are not imposing this on you.
Atheism means a belief that there is no God. If you ban God from public places, you have imposed your “religion”. How is this better than everyone being allowed to express their own belief in public?
Report Post »ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:06pmINBCLACK
Are you even going to try to make a coherent point?
I‘m pretty sure I’ve made at least three in just this thread. You don’t like them, of course.
I think what you really want is for me to debate/argue these points with you. Problem is, your ‘mind’ is all made up. (Actually, that’s kind of a neat play on words … you know, cuz what’s in your mind is literally a bunch of “made up” stuff:-) Heck, you even take pride in the fact that your faith is … unshakeable; which is another way of saying your reasoning faculties are switched off.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:08pm@usedCZARsalesman
[Local cities, hell even states are allowed to have RECOGNIZED LOCAL RELIGIONS]
Stopped reading right there… Again, read the Supremacy Clause and Civil Rights laws. Local legislators CANNOT supersede the constitution of the United states. If they could then firearms could be completely banned in any city or any state. Your rights stop where the rights of others start.
Why are you theocrats trying to create a state church? Why on earth would you want one? If you violated the law away from home would you feel at ease in a county court room with Koran passages carved in stone in the building? Religion in government is a double edge sword. Do not allow it, only allow the law.
“We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are,and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.
Report Post »At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.” –RR
ConservativeCanucklehead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:34pmWow! Ronnie Ray-Gun said that?
Report Post »Cool.
Just one more reason I can remember that dude fondly.
Pontiac
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:43pm@ConservativeCanucklehead
Report Post »You might also find some of Barry Goldwater’s quotes pertaining to religion of interest.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:44pm@INBLACK
First off, let’s stop saying that “atheism” is a religion, because it’s simply not. I know it makes you feel better to say things like “Atheism is a religion” and “you have to have faith to not believe in a God” but it’s just not true.
Second, Atheism has nothing to do with belief. I don’t “not believe” in a God. I am stating that I have not seen sufficient evidence to think there is a God. I personally don’t even say, “God doesn’t exist.” There are some atheists who are more strident then I, but no honest person can prove without a shadow of a doubt that a God doesn’t exist. I think it’s highly unlikely that a God exists, and even more unlikely that a God revealed himself to humans.
Third, I have already shown you how the tyranny of the majority is a form of banning. I have already shown you how people are trying to stop the building of a mosque on privately own property.
Fourth, please once again don’t insult our intelligence by saying, “by having ‘nothing’ religious on public property, you are promoting atheism!” It’s flat lunacy.
Fifth, You never gave your opinion on why religion feels itself necessary to be endorsed and promoted by Government. I stated how I wouldn’t care if every house on my block had a nativity(they can be quite nice), or a cross. If people’s freedom of expressing their religion is so important, why don’t I see more of them? There is something special about having your display on public p
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:52pm@USEDCZARSALESMAN
I never saw that you commented directly to me.
Why the hell would I care about what the founders were doing if what they were doing was unconstitutional?
Are you thinking that just because they wrote the Constitution, that it automatically means they weren’t doing something unconstitutional?
Our founders wrote about freedom, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness while owning other human beings. Obviously they didn’t abide by their own words there so they were doing something that was unconstitutional.
Give me a break. Actually read and understand history instead of putting a silver bow around the good stuff and omitting the bad stuff.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:09am@MODERATIONISBEST
1) Fine, atheism is your opinion and you don’t deserve to impose it anymore than religious people get to impose their opinion. You are imposing your opinion by banning religious symbols from shared property.
3) Hey, I didn’t address your banning of the mosque (it was never banned btw) point because I don’t believe people should use the govt to ban religion. Just because that time it was the majority vs. the minority doesn’t matter – it’s always wrong. This is fundamental to your hypocrisy – you complain in the case where people tried to ban a mosque, yet you want to ban a cross.
4) It is promoting atheism to mute religious people on public property. I‘m sorry you don’t see it that way since it is you and other atheists imposing a religious symbols ban.
5) I never want the govt to endorse a religion. I want ALL citizens to be free to express THEIR beliefs.
This case is private citizens who petitioned for the use of public land to put up a cross. The govt did not build it or impose anything.
6) Religion is a right in this country. So YOU cannot BAN religion or religious symbols or religious speech from public places. You are hostile to religion in public – that is unconstitutional.
7) To be clear on private land vs public land – there is nothing in the constitution that says any right is limited to private property or banned from public property.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:16amHow FREAKING Outrageous that so many Americans are so damn Ignorant of our American history and of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. There simply is NOTHING in the terms used in the First Amendment– and for correct understanding of the meaning of the “establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment see the Reports of Committees US Senate 19 Jan.1853 (Judiciary Committee Report, Mr. Badger ) and corresponding US House Judiciary Committee Report by Mr.Meacham 27 March 1854 on the “establishment of Religion” See also the Commentaries on the
Report Post »Constitution by Joseph Story (whose image is on permanent display in the US supreme Court Bldg.)
Commentaries on the Constitution ,1833 and textbook keyed to and culled from the larger Commentaries -A Familiar Exposition of the the Constitution of the United States of America ,1840
and compare these to the debates in Congress 1789 June-Sept.when Congress drafted our Bill of Rights. Screw the enemy (the Progressives) I will defend the Constitution.
Pontiac
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:37pm[atheism is your opinion and you don’t deserve to impose it anymore than religious people get to impose their opinion. You are imposing your opinion by banning religious symbols from shared property.]
Wrong. Imposing atheism would be to put up a sign on public property declaring “STOP WORSHIP”.
[you complain in the case where people tried to ban a mosque, yet you want to ban a cross.]
I’m sure he was making a point between PRIVATE property and PUBLIC property. What on earth is wrong with your brain that you cannot comprehend the stark difference?
[It is promoting atheism to mute religious people on public property.]
We’re not talking about “PEOPLE”. Stick to symbols.
[it is you and other atheists imposing a religious symbols ban.]
Yes, we’re asking GOVERNMENT to abstain from placating the dumb masses of theocrats with idolatry.
[I never want the govt to endorse a religion. I want ALL citizens to be free to express THEIR beliefs.]
Then it should not involve government assistance.
[The govt did not build it or impose anything.]
Except in this case the government had to approve it. Government shouldn’t be picking religious winners and losers.
[there is nothing in the constitution that says any right is limited to private property or banned from public property.]
Report Post »You’re trying to fabricate a specific. Again, Supremacy clause, civil rights laws. Your rights end where the rights of others begin.
Pontiac
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:45pmAtheist don’t want “one nation under no god” in the pledge.
Atheist don’t want “In no god we trust” on currency.
It is laughable the way theocrats think. The way they embrace government when it panders to their religion and the way they scoff at the idea that they’re abusing the civil liberties of everyone else…
Stop using the government as a propaganda machine for your religion!
Report Post »razz0rt
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:44pm@22AUTOMATIC
“Separation of church and state” (sometimes “wall of separation between church and state”) is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 1:38am@PONTIAC
You answered everything that he addressed to me on point.
Man it’s nice not having to swat the crazies away all by myself.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:22amThis country was founded by Christians and over the years our constitution has been perverted to the point where you can’t erect a cross on public property! Read Jefferson‘s letters on the issue of the myth of ’separation of church and state’.
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
I‘ll take Jefferson’s word over the fools who came later to practice their revisionist form of history because of their agenda.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:40am“It was meant to encompass all faiths” All Christian faiths that is.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:44amYour comments reflect on half of Jefferson’s, as well as the other founding fathers, concern with respect to government. That while the government should indeed not restrict nor limit the exercise of religion it should also not establish nor promote a state religion. Denominations of Christianity do not constitute different religions and clearly a cross is the universal symbol of Christianity.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:12amYou’ll have to describe how this cross, constructed by local private citizens on public land is an act of the govt establishing a religion. Did they declare other religions illegal? Did they declare citizens may only worship in this religion? Did they round up clergy of others and shut down their churches?
It is not, plain and simple it is the community allowing private citizens to erect a monument.
There is no separation of church and state – it does not work. The state is of the people and the people are religious. You cannot take faith out of the people and therefore you cannot take faith out of the govt.
What you can do is allow other faiths in the community to have access as well.
You need to put religion on the same level as everything else. Does the govt allow statues of politicians? Does it allow statues of sports heroes? Does it allow statues of art?
If so then it must allow statues of religion as well.
The left wants us to treat religion as a pariah. We cannot.
They want to take religion out of the people.
Report Post »Nick697
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:47amHow about these Jefferson words:
“I do not find in the Christian religion one redeeming feature.” He also said that the time would come when the concept of Christ being born to a virgin, with God as his father, would be recognized as a myth.
Report Post »usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:19amright on PROGRESSIVE…JROOK, what you are talking about would be equivalent to you going to Ann Arbor, MI and seeing Michigan Wolverine symbols all over “public property”. Then going and crying that they need to remove them because Michigan State also has a lot of fans and these “public symbols” make those fans feel uncomfortable about the “state endorsed team”. The fact is, if you want to be surrounded by MSU symbols and that makes you feel more comfortable, then you go to East Lansing and live amongst like minded fans. Just so happens in this case you are a “fan” of a little div III school called “the atheists” that have virtually no fans, ANYWHERE. Tell you what, you get a couple thousand of your atheist buddies (which would pretty much be the entire national pop) and make yourself a couple towns that have a large enough atheist presence and you could tear down all the religious symbols in that town that you want!
Report Post »Dudley Do-Right
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:58amNick
If you’re trying to imply that Jefferson was an atheist, I believe you’re wrong. Jefferson believed in Jesus Christ. He was opposed to the corruptions of Christianity but not Jesus. In a letter to Benjamin Rush, he wrote, “My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/jefferson.html
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:45pmYou are right…The communists will continue these attacks, next they will be offended because they can see a cross from public property,then demanding all crosses be removed from public view even if on private property….they will try this.
Report Post »sprouter.q
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:32pmHow often did Jefferson go to church? So the country was the way it should always be after the Constitution was written? Slavery? Land grabs from Natives? Women second class citizens? The Constitution is the MOST brilliant framework ever created by man. We the people were given the ability to change it through great difficulty. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excersise there of…..If you take federal money that is congress making a law promoting religion….If the people did not want the federal money then I guess they could have a state religion??? Please take over the state of IL!
Report Post »Dudley Do-Right
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:18pmIt is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Report Post »Dudley Do-Right
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:22pmJefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Report Post »usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:28pm@SPROUTER…please please try and come back to DUDLEY’s post. The ignorance of the left (and make no mistake, if you hold to fiscally conservative principles but are openly anit religious and don’t believe this was founded a CHRISTIAN nation, then you are part of the lefts axis of evil) never ceases to amaze.
Report Post »acovenantinblood
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:18amI wonder when the American Communist Lawyers Association is going to go after the Massachusetts Constitution? Or all the other state Constitutions that give thanks to Almighty God?
Report Post »drbage
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:45pmOf when will they go after the National Cathedral? It is on federal land, is a Christian church, and has lots of crosses and religious symbols both inside and out.
Report Post »When will they challenge the thousands of crosses and Stars of David at Arlington National Cemetary?
I find it quite ironic that we have a very vocal minority in the legal community nudging everyone to eliminate any and all references to religion from our country, yet France, the most secular of religious countries, has no such problem…I guess the French call it “laissez-faire.”
vox_populi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:00pmMy question is: why do you guys have to disrespect Jews so much? Why do you feel it necessary to push your religion down their throats?
Why do you think Jewish Americans vote Democratic? HINT: THIS IS WHY.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:24pmOh Vox, you big silly :)
Report Post »holy ghostbuster
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:00pm@ DRBAGE – You are incorrect. The Cathedral is a private entity. It stands on private land and no public money has ever been used for its construction, maintenance or for any other expenses. Look it up and do your research before spouting incorrect facts to make your point.
Report Post »VoteRightDammit
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:16amIt‘s ’freedom OF religion’ …
not‘ freedom FROM religion’.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:31amAbout 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia… resulted in the European agreement… that each State (King) would decide which Religion would be Favored. This State/Religion position turned each State into a Theocracy,,, not unalike the Holy Roman Empire or Islam.
The Founders… to prevent a Theocracy… placed in the Constitution a Prohibition against Government being involved with, or in, any Religion!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 12:01pmThe only way to have freedom OF religion is to have freedom FROM religion.
Christians are just mad because they‘ve been violating the Constitution for so long and are finally getting called out on it and they don’t like it, NOT ONE BIT.
Suddenly it goes from being a personal walk with their lord and savior to “OMG THEY’RE TRYING TO TAKE DOWN OUR PUBLIC DECLARATION OF MY FAITH, WE CAN’T LET THEM DO THAT!”
Removing a cross from public property does NOTHING to your faith. If it does, I suggest you re-evaluate your faith.
I find it funny how many of the people here support smaller government(which I do as well), but then almost feel it necessary to have the government endorse your religion.
Report Post »Melika
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 12:26pm@ LukerW: The exact phrase in the Constitution is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;…”
In all of these cases, Congress has not made a law establishing a religion. Even if the state of Massachusetts decided to adopt an official state religion, they are not in violation of the Constitution, since the Constitution is dealing with the Federal (national) government, and all other rights are reserved to the states. The Constitution does not establish any state governments, officials, regulations, or other state sanctioned actions; these are strictly regulated by the individual states. The Constitution ONLY establishes the government body to handle national issues to which the states agreed.
Furthermore, the argument Atheists use is that the simple act of permitting a monument to be erected on public property implies both an endorsement and a requirement by the government (city, state, and federal) on the part of the citizenry to participate in said religious practices. This is a blatant falsehood. The equivalent would be when the government permits the local private humane shelter to post signs about adopting a shelter pet and contributing to the cause. By the Atheists’ logic, that would be tantamount to the government requiring the local citizenry to contribute and adopt a pet from the shelter, regardless of whether or not they have already donated or owned a pet.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:27pm@MODERATIONISMINDLESS
“The only way to have freedom OF religion is to have freedom FROM religion.”
Did you actually type that? Let’s try another. “The only way to have freedom of speech is to have freedom from speech?“ ”The only way to have freedom of choice is to have freedom from choice”/ Wow that sounds like something out of the book “1984”.
I’ll start with this. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not some other entity. That is our public land. So who are you to pull down a monument that WE have placed there?
Public means us – we own that property, not the people we put in place to manage it. Imagine your gardener banning you from your garden.
We have free religion, free speech and a free press. You may not ban any of these from any location. Would we say you cannot have art on public property, you cannot talk on public property. Should we tell people they can only wear grey on public property?
This idea that we should ban our religions from our public property is a lie – from the father of lies.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:41pm[Congress has not made a law establishing a religion. ]
Report Post »See Supremacy clause & Civil Rights Laws.
Religion is an “INDIVIDUAL” right. No where in the constitution did the government or the majority obtain the right to push a religion using tax payer dollars or public land.
Government is not your church. Go play make believe somewhere else.
vox_populi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:55pm“I’ll start with this. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not some other entity. That is our public land. So who are you to pull down a monument that WE have placed there?”
Isn’t HE one of WE? And what about the Jews in America? The Muslims? The Buddhists, the Taoists, the Hindus, the Atheists? Do they not get to have rights as well, to not have the majority religion forced down their throats every day?
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:43pm@VOX_POPULI
No. You have no right to not be exposed to others, their opinions or their dress or their religion.
No one has been oppressed. You are oppressing. You want to ban one religion from public. Why not ban rap or country music from public roads or airwaves. Ban bumper stickers.
You are so confused that you cannot see the difference between allowing free expression and imposing a state religion.
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:59pm“No. You have no right to not be exposed to others, their opinions or their dress or their religion.”
No one has been oppressed. You are oppressing. You want to ban one religion from public. Why not ban rap or country music from public roads or airwaves. Ban bumper stickers.
“You are so confused that you cannot see the difference between allowing free expression and imposing a state religion.”
Funny, I was about to say the same to you.
“No one has been oppressed.”
Except Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pastafarians, atheists, agnostics, etc.
“You are oppressing. You want to ban one religion from public.”
No, I want to bad ALL religions from public (ie, State-backed) property. If the government erects giant stone crosses that read WORSHIP! across them, there is implied State support for Christianity.
“Why not ban rap or country music from public roads or airwaves. Ban bumper stickers.”
Well, your alternate option is to allow all-I-said-above to also construct their own memorials. So let’s get a giant Islamic stone crescent and place it next door. We could emblazon SUBMIT! across it, or maybe OBEY! – or just THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH. Then we can construct a Jewish monument (CHRIST IS NOT THE MESSIAH!) a Hindu one (GOD HAS AN ELEPHANT TRUNK!) a Buddhist one (WHY ARE WE FIGHTING!?) and maybe even an atheist one (GOD IS DEAD).
Tell me how you feel about that idea.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:28pm@VOX_POPULI
“No, I want to bad[sic] ALL religions from public (ie, State-backed) property. If the government erects giant stone crosses that read WORSHIP! across them, there is implied State support for Christianity.”
You are not paying attention. The “state” did not erect the cross – a private group did.
I want to be open to all religions.
You want to ban all religions.
The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion.
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:54pmI want to be open to all religions.
“You want to ban all religions.”
No, I don’t, I just don’t want religious structures built on public property. I don’t care if a private group constructed it, either (which is even more absurd, because then they‘d be putting things up on land they didn’t own. I’m not necessarily talking about this story, either, because the legality of the situation is a little nebulous).
“I want to be open to all religions.”
So you’re okay with the construction of an Islamic monument, a Jewish monument, a Hindu monument, a Buddhist monument, and a Taoist monument on the same land? Awesome. So is the ACLU. Welcome to secularism.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:25pm@VOX_POPULI
Am I ok with symbols from any religion? Yes – why would I not be ok with all religions? I would expect that the community would allow freedom for anyone who is part of that community.
This makes me a secularist? No.
“Secularism – spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.”
Are you a secularist?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:02pmIt‘s ’freedom OF religion’ …
not‘ freedom FROM religion’.
It’s also no “establishment of religion,” not no establishment of a religion. Even if it wasn’t on a cross, public land is no place for a sign telling me to worship.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:05amThe Northwest Ordinance (July 13, 1787) said that religion was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind”.
The Virginia Bill of Rights (June 12, 1776) said that “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other”.
The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) says that “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) states that “Almighty God hath created the mind free” and that “the Holy Author of our religion” is “Lord both of body and mind”.
James Madison said that “Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society he must be considered as a subject to the governor of the universe.”
George Washington said that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor”.
John Adams said that “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.
Thomas Jefferson said that our “liberties are the gifts of God”.
I’ll trust the words of the founding fathers over the modern decisions made by a bunch of radical, closet communist judges, or a bunch of high minded, liberal atheists.
spirited
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:16amWhat to attack next, the World War II Memorial in DC?
>Idiots and ingrates.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:19amYes, clearly it established a religion of war.
Seriously if we can have any monuments, we must allow religious monuments as well – otherwise we are singling out religion for extermination. We are suppressing religion.
We must be clear that the term “Separation of Church and State” is WRONG. We are a country of the people, the people are religious and we WILL NOT hide our faith in public.
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:02pm“We are a country of the people, the people are religious and we WILL NOT hide our faith in public.”
Not all the people are Christian, though. Why do you hate Jews so much that you feel it necessary to crush their religion beneath the facade of yours?
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:22pm@VOX_POPULI
Why are you such a racist hater that you murdered all those African-American children?
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:18pm“Why are you such a racist hater that you murdered all those African-American children?”
Yeah!
…wait, what?
Report Post »OlefromMN
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:15amI can only imagine the angst these Godless twerps must feel every time they drive anywhere near a church.
Report Post »mikesavino85
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:09amLet me explain why I feel angst.
I see people believing a myth and wasting their life by embracing an afterlife. And I pity them because they’ll never experience what life really, truly is: personal responsibility to your fellow man. And people living through an extremely narrow worldview.
I could explain why I‘m pretty sure religion is a myth but you wouldn’t listen. Its sad, though, because I’d happily embrace your religion (or any religion, for that matter) if it could satisfy my demand for evidence and logical conclusions.
Report Post »cassandra
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:13amthey need to get David Barton in court to explain to the ACLU and judges what our founding fathers meant by Separation of church and state means, this is a war on Christianty and we must not let them win
Report Post »spirited
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:10amSecularists, anonymous lawyer from Boston and ACLU
Go to the cemetaries where the graves of our fallen soldiers lie
Report Post »look at their headstones
and you will see
that most are marked with the sign of liberty.
RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:43amSPIRITED, I am afraid that for decades now, some of the groups have been fighting to have all of the religious headstones removed from all National Cemeteries.
Report Post »usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:24amYes they have, RJ…and the day they come to remove the cross from the grave of my WWII war hero grandfather is the day one side or the other goes home in a body bag. Some of us are no longer willing to remain silent as we are bullies into secularism by these godless heathens.
Report Post »afishfarted
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:03amSo~~~~a cross representing a faith that does not force their views on anyone is considered offensive and a constitutional violation. Makes me wonder how they’ll react if Sharia law ever suceeds.
Report Post »sprouter.q
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:38pmSo anyone that disagrees supports Sharia?
Report Post »moussiagilda
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:02amDoesn’t really matter. We’ve all been on the cross, and if you hate anyone, you’re still on it.
I’m having fun today. But you knew that.
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:58amThere is no separation of church and state with the exception of the 1st Amendment. It is historical, read about it. Our Founders did not want the State/Church union to happen here due to what they suffered in England. Our current government is bending over backwards to pander to the Muslims and these idiots don’t seem to have a problem with that.
Report Post »HeisIAM
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:58amEvery knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
Report Post »Sharon Rose
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:57amWe are definitely in a war of good against evil.
Report Post »nighttrainno9
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:56amWe are going to have to deal with atheists and queers very
Report Post »harshly, they are ruining our country because no one has the
spine to stand up to the devil. It’s time, we, as Christians face
these people down and grind them into the dirt if necessary
to make them go away. Satan has grabbed a chunk of our country,
lets take it back.
PETTYDRAMA
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:55amIf someone put a stone pentagram up the right wing hypocrites would be up in a storm about it demanding it be taken down. But when one of their cult symbols aka the cross, is threatened to be removed they call it heresy bc they are nothing more than fascists.
Report Post »mwhaley
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:05amPettydrama. you are on a conservative site. You need to know the difference between liberal thinking and conservative thinking. Lib’s can make fun conservatives and it will have no effect at all. Conservatives can make fun and laugh at liberals, and the it has the opposite effect. Laughing at a liberal causes the lib to lash out. So if you just have the urge to fight go to Huffington Post, post as a conservative and laugh at one of your lib friends. You do not need a reason to laugh. just do it.
Report Post »HeisIAM
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:07amJesus suffered the cross because we are hypocrites, even you.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:08amIf that stone pentagram had been up since the 50′s you more than likely would not hear a peep about it.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:21amThe cross has been there for 53 years. Before it was constructed, it was approved by the town’s Board of Selectmen. The recent episodes where “offense” is being taken is something new. One particular way to deal with it is to “sell” or “deed” the small plot of land the cross physically stands on, (not the traffic island but just the area where the base is plus the “drip line” of where the arms extend, or possibly a bit more) to the Kiwanis Club.
However, offensive imagery is going to have to be dealt with. There are buildings whose architecture I don’t like at all. There are houses whose owners painted them colors I find offensive. There are people who wear pajama bottoms as day wear clothing. And there are people who play very loud music in their cars that I despise. But that is their right. So I ignore the plug ugly buildings, and lack of clothing sense. If the music goes on too long, I call the police about the local noise ordinance. But I don’t act like a two year old with a tantrum when I see something that is not illegal or immoral. It’s time to grow up and be an adult.
Report Post »Salgofnir
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:39amSo once again when an anti-Christian bigot writes a post they use the term fascists. Do you even know what it means. I will help you out a little and give you the definition.
“a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”
Report Post »lgccac
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:55amSome day when you stand before Jesus, feel free to express your views.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:36am@PETTYDRAMA = troll
Report Post »Sharon Rose
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:54amEnough is enough, what about the Christians rights?
Report Post »Atilla
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:53amWe continue to allow the misinterpetation of the establishemnt clause of the Constitution. The ridiculaous notion that symbolic Christianity needs removal from the public square because it is a constitutional violation is both incorrect and absurd. Nothing about the cross or other symbols of any religion constitutes “establishment” of a state sponsored religion. It’s like saying that the Red Cross or the Israli flag means that the government is establishing Judaism as the sate religion. Fundamentally absurd on it’s face.
Report Post »thibx
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:53amlook at all the telephone and utility poles they look like a cross when are you going to take them down. i hope every time you see one you see Jesus.
Report Post »RollyBones
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:27amNow that is perfect logic and very true! I’m sick of these lawyers and their petty, illogical diatribes over this misconstrued idea that anything on public property must conform to their ideas. Hell, these same idiots are forcing their ideas on personal property if it ‘Offends them’! They offend me but trying to prosecute them for it is a fools errand!
Report Post »Rolly
Baddoggy
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:52amIf we don’t syand up we are lost to evil. No matter the cost take a stand and tell those liberal idiots to fly a kite.
Report Post »chucksue351
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:48amits intent was to be non denominational, however that only means those faiths that look at the cross as a symbol of the christian faith, there is no room for other religious faiths, even if they are not effective to cover sins. maybe the town should just move it or let all religous faiths participate?
Report Post »Fubared
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:56amThey have “dead end” and no “left turn” signs already in place for the lefties, and they pay no attention as it is. Surely they could carry on not paying attention to the cross.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:05amMaybe they should ban idiot lawyers from Boston from driving through the town. It has been there since the 50′s and only now someone has a problem with it? This is insanity.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:25amThe town should not have a policy of exclusiveness to one class of religion. If citizens from the town want to build a monument to a legal religion and it is deemed appropriate they should be allowed to put it up somewhere.
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:47amI think the cross is too small, deem this one historical and then build one bigger. Every town along that road should build a cross. It is time to Stand
Report Post »dim sum
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:12pmYes, as our forefathers stood before we fall. Remember we have an election coming up this November, and we have a President who declared that we are no longer a Christian nation. He calls himself a Christian, but does not attend church, not that attending church makes you a Christian, but
Report Post »living by God’s Word the Bible certainly is a good hint that you are. God does not believe in abortion, nor does He promote marriage between same sex partners. If other religions want to place symbols of their religions up, I would not oppose them, that is what the ammendment means.
cassandra
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:46amGet David Barton in there and have him explain to ACLU what separation of church and state means, these people are just destroying our Constitution and have been getting away with it because of activist judges that have NEVER read or ignor the Constitution, God Bless America
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:45amTypical. Liberals dirtbags complaining about six inches… Any other time, six inches wouldn’t be a problem on public property.
Report Post »Optimist4now
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:35amPenis envy
Report Post »momrules
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:41amThe war on Christianity continues…………
Report Post »mikesavino85
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:00amYou do realize that every single president has claimed some form of Christianity as his religion, right? No Buddhists, Hindis, Muslims, Jews or atheists have even had a hope of being elected.
Your faith is far far far from being persecuted especially in the United States and claiming that is belittling and demeaning to those in the world who are actually persecuted. It makes you look bad. Please stop.
Report Post »Hickory
Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:36amWarning to progressives: Keep your stinking hands off the graves of our heroes.
Report Post »