Atheists Threaten Lawsuit Over ‘Unconstitutional’ RI Firehouse Cross & WWI Monument
- Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:38am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Atheist activists are at it again. This time, the target of secular angst is a cross that appears in front of a firehouse in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a well-known atheist group, is threatening to sue the city if the religious symbol isn’t removed.
Image Credit: ABC6
The Christian cross, part of a World War I memorial that was built in Woonsocket back in 1921, is causing a great deal of angst among secularists who stand firmly opposed to its presence on public property. Taking on even more significance beyond WWI, the monument was re-dedicated back in 1952 to honor three fallen WWII soldiers who lived in the area and has since been a public statement of remembrance.
In a April 13 letter sent from the FFRF to Leo Fontaine, the city’s mayor, FFRF staff attorney Rebecca Markert called the presence of the cross “unconstitutional” and claimed that a concerned citizen made the group aware of its presence. Here’s a portion of the letter (read the entire note here):
In addition to the cross in the fire department’s parking lot, the letter makes mention of a prayer that is present on the fire department’s web site. According to the letter, the site “contains a prayer that makes reference to a monotheistic god and a picture of an angel.”
Image Credit: WPRO/Dee DeQuattro
But it is the cross that seems to be spawning the most controversy.
“It’s illegal, and we know that. And just because its been there for 90-something years, doesn’t make it right.” Debbie Flitman, a local and member of the FFRF, told ABC6. “If they want to have a religious symbol on it, well go ahead, just not on city property.”
Already, some individuals in the local government seem to be backing down, with Woonsocket Council President John Ward, in an interview with WPRO, saying that a legal battle would be too costly. Instead, he is advocating for a removal and relocation of the cross.
“I don’t think the city’s resources will be best used to pay lawyers to fight for this. I’m sure the mayor can find a prominent private lot for the monument to be relocated to,” he told the WPRO, going on to dismiss the supposed religious nature of the cross. “In this case, our case it is not so much a religious symbol but a memorial for people who gave their lives for us.”
Ward also claims that he doesn’t understand why the atheist group is targeting the cross and that his opinion on moving the symbol is rooted in a wish not to “waste any time” fighting the infamous FFRF.
“Maybe the good thing that will come of this, is it will be moved to a more prominent place, and the people it memorializes will get more attention and be better served,” Ward told WPRO.
So far, Mayor Fontaine has no intention of moving the cross. This is the second major atheist case to hit Rhode Island over the past few months, following a debate over a prayer mural at a local high school in Cranston.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 689 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 658 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 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 322 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 201 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 221 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
‘Imperial President’: President Obama Issues Another Major Executive Order Read More- 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
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 201 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 (209)
Mia Cav
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:51amSend the Chief an email of encouragment; I just did: glataille@woonsocketri.org Include a link to this article.
Report Post »Mitchm999
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:35amThanks for posting his email. I sent him a note telling him to do the constitutional thing and take it down.
Report Post »BreeZee
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:51amI wish the left would read the Constitution, I mean read it and use the words that are written because there is no line whatsoever that says :SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.
The establishment clause is “[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.”
Report Post »Now the Supreme court has ruled athiestism is a religion. So live with it
jeffile
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:56amTo MITCHM999
Report Post »Sorry but it definitely is constitutional. Yes, if one judges by erroneous case law then you might be correct but constitutional as the writers intended. Oh, you say case law is final? I guess you believe Jim Crow laws were constitutional. Congress has not made a law establishing Christianity which would be unconstitutional only one state’s fire department exercising their freedom to worship. It was intended to be freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
phillyatheist
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:47pmBREEZEE – we’ve read it, and interpret it much like EVERY judge who’s ever presided over similar cases. you interpret it differently, so maybe you should get a law degree and run for judge.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:52pmExcellent point, Jeffile. Maybe Phillyatheist should read what you said.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 1:05pm@jeffile,
Thanks for the excellent point you make and it is so true. These atheists have a way of distorting the truth and the Bible! Funny thin is, they spend millions upon millions to fight something they don’t believe exists. Now that’s funny…
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:47amJeffile,
And it was case law that led the way in dismantling the Jim Crow laws, just as it reinforced the understanding of the separation of church and state that prevents those Americans in the non-favored religions from being second-class citizens. You are happy to blame Jim Crow on case law, but you ignore the fact that the Constitution didn’t prevent those laws either.
Report Post »kevinklaw
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 11:02am@Jeffile. It is not necessary for Congress to pass a law declaring Christianity the religion of the land in order to infringe upon the Constitution. The states are subject to the 1st Amendment through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. You may argue, as many do, that the extension of the religion clauses to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment was an overreach by the Supreme Court and was not intended (or foreseen) by the founders. I would argue differently: If a primary purpose of the 1st Amendment was to prevent the tyranny of a federal government establishing a national religion, requiring its citizens to both profess belief in its tenets and to pay for its furtherance, then it does not follow that those very same people who saw it as such a threat to the citizenry would be in favor of the states wielding the very same tyranny towards its citizens that was denied of the federal government. The same reasoning follows to local government as well.
Report Post »kevinklaw
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 11:16am@Cessna152. Atheist are not fighting God, that would be nonsensical. We fight (hesitant to use that word though) those who would subject us to their religious beliefs, so that we do not have to take part in, or financially support, views we disbelieve (what Jefferson found sinful and tyrannical). Such people do in fact exist.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:31pm@kevinklaw Atheists are fighting any mention of God made by our Government. That is nonsensical. George Washington said, “Whereas 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; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness…” http://wilstar.com/holidays/wash_thanks.html
Jefferson was a highly influential figure in Virginia. Heck, he was Governor there. The Virginia Declaration or Rights, from 1776, says, “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.”
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:37pm@kevinklaw You’re completely flawed in your reasoning. You’re not being forced to believe anything. If the likes of you were alive and active during our founding, we would have become socialist France, had no Declaration of Independence, and lived our lives under King George. Our very own Declaration states things YOU disbelieve, wouldn’t financially support, and don’t want be part of. TOO DAMN BAD. THIS IS OUR HERITAGE. TAKE A STAND AMERICA FOR OUR HERITAGE! These closet Marxists are trying to implement an agenda that hides, destroys, distorts and twists our history!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare… And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 2:33pmThanks for the email. Sent my reply and forwarded it to all my facebook friends as well.
Report Post »The mayor has his heart in the right place and I believe will do the right thing.
kevinklaw
Posted on April 30, 2012 at 12:45am@Colt1860. Not all Atheist fight to remove any mention of God made by our government, just as not all theist fight to keep the mention of God by our government. Many of the early church and state cases were actually brought to the courts by Catholics and Jews, because they understood discrimination at the hands of state sponsored religion. I happen to be an Atheist who would prefer no reference to religion by our government. It is a private matter which should not be mixed with civil government, something Jefferson and others among the founders understood. Why would they break from England and the power of the Anglican Church, only to allow church the same power in this country?
But the issue here is more than simply the mention of religion. It involves advocating and supporting a particular religion. Interestingly, you did not quote from Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom where he states, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.” Government is supported by taxpayer money, so when government advocates religious beliefs, or displays religious symbols, taxpayer money is going to support the furtherance of that religion. As a taxpayer, I would be forced to support opinions I disbelieved.
Report Post »kevinklaw
Posted on April 30, 2012 at 12:46am@Colt1860. Responding to your second reply to my earlier comments, if we had become Socialist France because of “the likes of [me]”, we would have been under the rule of King Louis, not King George. But, I did get your point. You stated my reasoning was flawed but you failed to state way. I never suggested I was being forced to believe something. I stated required to profess a belief, take part in or financially support, but never said forced to believe. And I do not disbelieve the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Belief in God is not required to believe in the principles it espouses. By the way, Marxism and Atheism are not synonymous. To be an Atheist is not to be a Marxist.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:51amNo, it’s unconstitutional to be made to remove it..,..has nothing to do with separation of church of state. And woe unto all the wimps who cave.
Report Post »Oh well….think all this stuff done by very foolish people, trying to “abolish”, hurt the “Christian” cause – will only end up as it always has — to rile up and encourage people of faith to get stronger. Can’t stop us from praying and keep God from doing His “work” among the people – as it’s always has been and always will be until the “end”. I pray for all these foolish “lost” people…….
PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:00amAnd just the fact that you see the cross tied into the “Christian cause” reinforces the argument for its removal.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:07amAh Publius are we singling out your Muslim buddies? Is that why you are against the monument. Let us know when you die and we will make sure you are thrown in the landfill – no ceremony, no love ones to mourn you, no cross for you, you won’t even have to step into a church. On the other hand we could just throw you in the funeral home furnace, since you are going to burn in hell anyway. You can get that hell experience even before you set foot.
Tell me how that cross is hurting you? Are you in that town in RI? The Federal government can’t make a law or inhibit the free exercise of religion. The state can do anything they want. Sorry loser you lose.
Report Post »chuck_in_st_paul
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:17amAs I said in my email to the chief, the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religions, not freedom FROM religion. Part II: American WAS founded as a Christian nation. We then guaranteed that you could worship whatever entity you liked in any manner (not including human sacrifice, etc).
These antireligious zealots are merely trying to toss out all moral codes and religion has to go first.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:42amTo publius Christianity is not a religion – it is a category of people that encompasses many religions. Even Muslims believe in Christ; just not the same way some religions do.
Again, tell me how the cross excludes you from honoring those listed on the monument? How does it an inanimate object exclude you? This should be good?
Report Post »JRook
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:46amSo now that everyone has kicked their respective ideological dog. Rather than waste time on a silly controversy the city should annex the 10 foot square piece of property that surround the monument and sell it to the VFW for $1. The only thing stupider than the letter demanding it be removed is the stupid, generalized, “I’m a better American” comments here.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:44pm“To publius Christianity is not a religion – it is a category of people that encompasses many religions.”
And this after a previous post where you suggested that I would burn in hell after I die. Hmmm… seems rather extreme to protect a symbol that apparently has no meaning other than to represent “a category of people.” Sorry, but that argument is far too silly to mean anything here. I very much doubt that atheist, Muslim and Jewish citizens feel that they are properly represented by the cross.
Report Post »PaxInVeritate
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:45pmYou go MOM! Pray, pray, pray for their conversion for the second coming is in this generation.
Report Post »PaxInVeritate
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 2:02pmCOFEMALE… Whoa. It’s not in your authority to condemn. Fast and pray for all of God’s children to open their hearts to the Lord. Jesus Christ second coming is in this generation.
Report Post »scarebear83
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 3:48pm@ PaxInVeritate “for the second coming is in this generation.”
I’m interested in how you are privy to this information when no man knows the day? Nor are there any signs? Might I suggest reading Mark’s account in chapter 13. Jesus is discussing with Peter, James, John, and Andrew about the destruction of the Temple (and the persecutions they themselves would endure). That those who are in Judea should flee to the mountains (vs 14-18) When Jesus comes again there will be nowhere to flee nor will it matter if it takes place in winter. So the generation that saw the things talked about in Matthew 24 saw it take place during Jesus’ time (destruction of Jerusalem AD 70). But no doubt Jesus is coming again… just not to battle or rapture people away or set up some earthly kingdom. When He comes it will be the judgment (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Nor will there be any signs to point to the event.
Report Post »yougottabekidding
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 5:39pmJRook
I thought I was the only one with that exellent idea.
Report Post »kingbullnuts
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:50amim getting sooooooooooooo fuggin tired of this crap……………..i wonder why they dont try to much of this crap here in texas
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:01amMaybe if you are so tired of it, you should stop reading these articles and taking the trouble to post on them. You would be a lot less bothered if you minded your own business.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:09amThis coming Publius who seems to jump into everyone else business. I see you don’t practice what you preach. How is the RI any of your business if it none of King’s business? Ah, I see “do as I say, not as I do”. The most self-righteous hypocrite bigot.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:35pmCofemale,
The difference here is that I’m not whining about how I am “sick of this crap.” I’m more than happy to argue about these things.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:58pmPublius – Why don’t you mind your own business and stop whining about how Christians are shoving religion down your throat, hypocrite.
I didn’t know that displaying a cross makes someone believe in that religion.
And there is NO Separation of Church and State.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:40amGit-R-Done,
If the cross has no relation to religious practice, why are so many people on these boards resistant to its removal?
And not for nothing, but I don’t particularly care if Christians themselves “shove religion down my throat”–I am more than willing to talk to them about their beliefs, and I feel free to disagree. I do, however, have a problem with the government adopting any kind of specific religious symbol. Public institutions serve the public, not specific religious sects or practices.
Report Post »Sh3LLz
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:48amHa.. The cross doesnt represent any religion??? WHAT? LOL!!!
The cross isnt even truly christian anyway. This SO cracks me up. False religion Is so backward!!
Report Post »tbo
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:47amanother solution would be for someone to start a national foundation that is funded by private money to really fight the lawsuits. Money speaks and the lack of money make people and municipalities cower at the threats. Look what the Super PAC have done for politics.
Report Post »thegoldman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:46amWE should just remove Council President John Ward. The coward !
Report Post »57states
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:45amIf Rhode Island caves in to this pressure by these atheist loons I will be pissed, What’s next …..Will they say the city name Providence has to be changed because it might offend some liberal athiest? Will the tombstone crosses of US veterans be removed because it might offend some muslims or athiest? I have been following the money and it always starts with progressive athieist jews, they are leading the charge in atheism, open borders, christian bashing and multiculturalism. pay attention to last names
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:06amClassic!
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:49pmlike the religious right trying to get Intercourse, PA to change it’s name?
http://religionnerd.com/2011/02/22/religious-right-demands-city-of-intercourse-pa-change-its-name/
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 3:30pm@phillyatheist Seriously? Unlike commie atheists, these religious groups aren’t falsely suing the city for somehow violating the Constitution. No, their intention is to strongly express their dislike, complaint, offense taken, and, through their right to free speech and assembly, try to win the fight, without claiming absurd legal notions. They’re trying to influence and convince the counsel men to change the name, through public outcry, not some radical agenda.
“The Religious Right, together with representatives of the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association, is organizing a multi-state march on one tiny village in Pennsylvania, demanding that it immediately change its name.”
Granted, the name is historic, and should NOT be changed. Folks just need to be edumicated. Of course, the city has the right to keep or change the name, for whatever reason it may deem proper.
Intercourse, as defined in Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
Communication; commerce; connection by reciprocal dealings between persons or nations, either in common affairs and civilities, in trade, or correspondence by letters. We have an intercourse with neighbors and friends in mutual visits and in social concerns; nations and individuals have intercourse with foreign nations or individuals by an interchange of commodities, by purchase and sale, by treaties, contracts, &c.
Report Post »DetroitAtheist
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 4:57pmColt, you realize this “radical agenda” you refer to is… actually the constitution.. right?
I really don’t understand anymore. A lot of republicans scream “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS” when it comes to guns (i’m not against guns, btw), but you just look right past the same constitution when it comes to religion. I’m at a loss for words.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:55pm@DetroitAtheist You’re wrong. The problem is that you atheist folks are confusing the word, Religion, with the phrase, Establishment OF Religion. Two different things. One consists of principles, values and morals, the other, of clerical institutions, ecclesiastical organizations, and legal entities pertaining to any formal church; an actual Establishment. The Constitution prohibits our Representatives from instituting or adopting an actual ESTABLISHMENT of Religion. The Constitution does not prohibit our Representatives from acting in the best interest of our Citizens through Religious conduct, content, or reference.
John Adams said, “We have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.
Benjamin Franklin said, “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings [the Bible], that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel:” (Memoirs…, 1818, p. 389.)
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 3:02pm@Colt1860
So let me get this straight. When Christians raise a fuss about something, it’s public outcry and a completely legitimate use of free speech and assembly. But when atheists are upset over something, it’s a radical, communist agenda? Makes sense.
Furthermore, at least atheists have some legal backing in this one. A cross at a firehouse (a government building) is clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause, which has been interpreted over and over again to mean government cannot show preference to any one religion. How would you like it if the firehouse had some sort of monument that said, “There is no God and Jesus never existed”? As for the town of Intercourse, those Christians have no ground to stand on. There’s no legal argument, they’re just a bunch of whining children who are offended by a simple word.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 9:22pm@BigAl78 LOL. Did you even read my post? One group was trying to change public opinion by veing vocal, the other one is trying to change the Law against the will of the people through false notions and frivolous lawsuits. LOL. The only backing commie atheists have are those decisions made by radical judges in these past few decades which had no historical support. That‘s why they’re radical. Funny thing is, our heritage among the people and Government has always acknowledged God. History is on our side, and against the atheists.
“The older I grow and the more I read the Holy Scriptures, the more reverence I have for them and the more I am convinced that they are not only the people’s guide for the conduct of this life, but the foundation of our hope respecting the future state.” Thomas Jefferson
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.” Thomas Jefferson
You’re basing your notions on corrupt judges.
Report Post »moreteaplease
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:43amThey better hope their homes don’t catch fire because it might take the crew a bit longer to get to it.
Report Post »If I was the mayor I’d have to tell them “The cross stays, the prayer stays and YOU GO!”
BigAl78
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 3:04pmWhy is it that so many people here think we should kick people out just for having different opinions? Jeez, the idiocy is unbelievable.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on April 29, 2012 at 10:35am@Al – because it is the minority that makes it their business to get in everybody else’s business. What right does a group from Wisconsin have to go to every little town they can find on the map and threaten them with lawsuits?
Follow the money. Who is bankrolling them? My guess is it’s Sorros money. That makes them for profit and they should have their tax exemption revoked.
Report Post »DaMule1977
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:41amreal simple people…sell the small plot of land to a private citizen. Just the area where the cross is located. They can not complain if it is on PRIVATE land. The city can then wave and taxes on said land and the argument goes away. There may be some things I am looking over, but as long as the cross is on private land they have no case.
Report Post »Harvey1
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:40amThe Constitution only states the the government can not establish a religion, not separation of church and state. I will buy the land in question. I offer one dollar to make it legal. Send me the title and a tax bill. Tell the people that will burn in Hell to go there!
Report Post »It is past time that we stop surrendering out rights to the loudest mouths.
Optimist4now
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:36amDear FFRF and POS attorney,
Please read the Constitution of the United States, Amendment I. and Amendment X.
Then if the Cross, the prayer, or the angel offend you, don’t look at them — sit down and shut up!
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:32amthe village idiots are at it again
Report Post »lovinlife4ever
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:27amSTAND YOUR GROUNDS! There is a thing called Freedom of Religion and it even goes for the so-called atheists! Keep the cross and go forth! Majority rules!
Report Post »Overton Window
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:17amThere is no way I would take this monument and cross down. It would be over my dead body. I truly believe if we don’t stand up for what we have a right to believe, we are done. Please, Rhode Island Fire Department, stand strong like the people of Texas who did not take down their nativity scene. For freedom’s sake, please stand strong and don’t give in to this.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:59amAnd your rhetoric is exactly the problem. Public lands belong to the public–the whole public. Yet, when you suggest that “we” need to fight for what we believe in, you are talking specifically about “Christians” (and even more specifically, the Christians that worship with the Latin cross). The cross and your rhetoric divide the public into who you feel belong that who you feel doesn’t belong, and this is clearly against the spirit of the phrase “We the People.”
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:20amYour mom must be so proud of you Publius. Does she know you are so hateful or do you portray yourself differently to your mother.
Why do you feel excluded? You don’t live in the town do you? Why are you so threatened by seeing a cross. Does it remind you of your fate? Why would the monument include you if it is moved off the fire stations property? Are you afraid you might catch something if you go to the fire station?
It is people, like you, who pervert the Constitution for their own agenda that do not understand anything. Only Satan’s minions want God removed and Christianity removed.
It is a shame you are driven by hate.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:38am“Latin Cross”? What are you talking about? The cross is mentioned multiple times in the New Testament by the “Jewish” apostle Paul. Good lord, learn a little chritianity 101 before talking. Do mean the crucifix? You might have a point with that one if you’re talking about catholics.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:53pmSquidvet,
The “Latin cross” refers to the Latin church, as distinct from the Eastern (Orthodox) church (which actually uses a different type of cross) or any of the smaller sect out there. Try to understand before you post.
CoFemale,
You clearly have no idea what I am actually talking about, or you wouldn’t have so blatantly reinforced my claim. You see, the trouble with public institutions is that they aren’t allowed to d**n citizens to hell.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:08amThese atheist groups are moving from irrational to borderline hatefilled.
I simply fail to understand their obsession.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:14amThey are working for the destruction of our culture. They are seeking a one world kibbutz as described by Marx.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:18amAny news from Christchurch regarding the recovery?
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:31amMany of them are communists, and communism needs to destroy all religion. Under communism, believing in God is considered a sickness. They try to re-train people out of believing in God, and if that doesn’t work, they just liquidate them. Because the people who fight against communism the most are those who believe in God.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:41am@ The Jerk
It’s underway. It will be a long time, though, maybe a decade or more.
Christchurch is still being regularly shaken by quakes – often quite big ones – but any building that might come down is already down .People are getting bit fed up with repairing their properties only to have them damaged again, though.
I have suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that mabye the continued earthquakes should be promoted as a tourist attraction. I know of a couple of people who have deliberately stayed in Christchurch for a couple of days to feel the quakes, and they weren’t disappointed.
It’s very nice of you to inquire. Thanks, mate.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:50amBeautiful city, wonderful people, and a first-rate nation.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:08amI no longer believe the “anonymous” or the “concerned” citizen who report to the FFRF. I think this is a well funded, well organized, Satan inspired group who scour the internet, the newpapers, old records, etc. to fine any reference to a Cross or other Christian symbol located on any piece of public property.
Report Post »They have been using their never ending source of money to blackmail towns into falling in line with their desire to remove God from the public sphere.
HorseCrazy
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:31amthey always are well funded. I think the lawyers just love these idiots.
Report Post »Polarized America
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:05amIt looks like this Cross is on a 20 by 10 foot piece of land
I say sell it to the VFW for a buck
Report Post »Steve
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:55amBingo, this is what I thought when I read this.
Report Post »Fuddy-duddy
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:01amI was thinking the same thing.
Report Post »Mitchm999
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:39amThey tried this charade in san diego with a cross and the courts saw the sale for what it was and threw it out. Try something legal next time like taking it down.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:59pmMitch – Spoken like a true Marxist who hates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Report Post »Razlord
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:05ami am a non believer…
but, i know this is bs.
all these removals and lawsuits are bogus.
sorry just cannot believe in a man made re-written , changed at will book.
too many questions…
know something is out there…
but which of the 10,000 gods should i choose…?
not meant as a dig on anyone.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:01amThere is NO seperation of God from government.
It should be illegal to move this memorial … but since when are atheists interested in truth.
Again ONE person has a problem with it … and so it goes. If I was Mayor I WOULD FIGHT IT and start fundraising efforts to do so.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:12amWe need legal reform. Lawyers are the social leaches looking for cash anywhere and everywhere, without regard to consequence.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 3:37pmYou’re right. One only needs to read the early Inaugural and Farewell Addresses to learn that this is a Nation founded by a religious people who had the utmost respect for biblical Christianity, and would ALWAYS acknowledge and thank God in all our national endeavors.
Thomas Jefferson, said, “The older I grow and the more I read the Holy Scriptures, the more reverence I have for them and the more I am convinced that they are not only the people’s guide for the conduct of this life, but the foundation of our hope respecting the future state.” Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States (Upper Room Bulletin, Vol. 3, 1916, p. 8.)
Thomas Jefferson, said in his second Inaugural Address (1805), “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:01amathiests, militant muslims, militant blacks, intimidated apologizing politicains? Where in the HELL is the sanity??? Where is the Supreme Court? Whay have they NOT squashed this liberal fantasy called “seperation of church and state”????? It is NOT NEVER NADA NOT THERE in the US Constitution!!!!! the US Congress can not force a religion onto us, a State can do as it wishes!!! This Fires station IS NOT on Federal land!!!!
Report Post »bdwatcher
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:20amThe First Amendment
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Having a cross and memorial has no bearing on govt establishing a religion. This is a memorial to passed heroes. Liberal activist judges and extremists make this a “separation of religion and state” issue. You are offended by a cross? I am offended by your attempts to eliminate from all “State” grounds. This is not Federal Land and is not promoted by the Federal Govt. Nothing in the Constitution says that a State Government can not endorse Moral and Ethical Codes and representative artifacts of such. Take your marbles and go home. This is all about money and control. If you do not believe.. then the rediculousness of religion should only amuse you.. Yet, you fight any indication of belief. I smile as you amuse me. It surely seems that you are afraid you are wrong and wish to eliminate all reference to your fears. Hmmm.. Taking away all religious artifacts will never change your fear of being wrong.. (smile)
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 3:49pm@bdwatcher You’re absolutely correct. But, to add to your argument. Even if the Prohibitive clause, through the fourteenth Amendment, binds that States to the same limitation, the memorial would STILL NOT violate that clause. For, at no point in time was ANY ecclesiastical body of men (an Establishment of Religion, aka, a Church) appointed and instituted to govern or even politically guide the affairs and business of the City, State or any residents there. Making reference to, acknowledging, favoring, or recommending ANYTHING religious in content does NOT create an ESTABLISHMENT of anything. These past and present liberal, activist, close communist, radical JUDGES are dead WRONG. It’s time to root them up, and expose them. They have NO historical proof or evidence to support any of their Marxist notions of forced diversity or multiculturalism.
While encamped on the banks of a river, Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools. In Washington’s response, he first told them that “Congress… will look on them as on their own children.” That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”
Report Post »kentuckypatriot
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:57amHey atheists:
Go to hell and stay there. Leave us alone. yea I know it’s real Christian like of me, and guess what? I don’t really care. I WILL NOT COMPLY!!! I will stand up to my Lord against your Satan any day of the week.
Report Post »Popp40
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:02am@Kentuckypatriot…there will be no atheists in hell. Think about it for a second :o)
Report Post »Obama Snake Oil Co
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:05amWhat I find amazing about this, most aethists really do not car as their nonbelief is their belief. Only communists have a problem with christian symballs like Stalin and Hitler….
Report Post »momrules
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:11amKentuckypatriot………..I’m with you.
Popp40………..got it. Won’t they be surprised?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:12am“Go to hell and stay there. Leave us alone.”
So this is the message of this “public” memorial? That a portion of the population belongs in hell and that they should leave “us” (Christians) alone to do what we want with public land? Hmmm…. now that sounds like exactly the kind of rhetoric that removing the cross is supposed to stop.
Good work making their case for them!
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:36amPublius that memorial was placed their even before you were born. You do not know what sacrifice means and those who lost their life fighting for yours and my rights. When you disparage the monument by insisting it be moved or changed, you disrespect those who died. You might as well pass by and spit on their grave; something I could see you doing. Just because you come across as a hateful spiteful guy. Again, mom must be so proud.
When he tell these hateful spiteful people, like you, to go to hell, you are only speaking to you. It does not include others of the public. You seem shocked that not all Christians will “turn the other cheek” and just allow you all to walk all over us. Think again bozo. We fight because your rights do not trump our rights. This memorial was there before you and me. I think the majority of the town spoke. One person does not have the right to change it and besides that is a bogus flat out lie by FFRF. Please one person complained so the town has to cow-tow to one idiot. What an insult.
Report Post »Plus you must think we are stupid.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:56pmCoFemale,
Don’t pretend that your sudden love for this monument has anything to do with the actual sacrifice of those memorialized there. Your interest has nothing to do with the public–it’s strictly an interest in furthering your own belief system through public means. I’m not nearly so selfish.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:01pmPublius – You‘re the one who’s whining about religion being shoved down your throat when that’s not the case. Apparently you don’t believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 10:36amActually, I strongly believe in freedom of religion, and like most of the founders, I believe that you cannot preserve that freedom when the state explicitly endorses a specific religious practice. You Tea Party folk are the first to say that any state action is coercive.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 6:51pm@KentuckyPatriot
Report Post »You do realize atheists don’t believe in Satan either right? We’re not serving any higher power. Our actions and beliefs are based on logic and reason (and complying with the law). We like to actually think for ourselves as opposed to blindly following some book from the Bronze Age. But I don’t really expect you to be able to wrap your head around that.
Gonzo
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:55amDo atheists cast a reflection in a mirror? They sure can’t stand to look at a cross. Anyone ever see one during the day?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:45pmthere are a lot more Atheists around you than you know. we’re not some creatures of the night. we’re human beings, just like you, who simply say that there is no evidence for God. there is no evidence, either for or against God’s existence, so is it that hard to believe that someone chooses to think it’s made up, just like all of the other Gods that no one believes in anymore?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 2:26pmKeep your distance, I have garlic and I’m not afraid to use it.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 2:33pmlol.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on April 27, 2012 at 6:54pmHey Gonzo, we atheists are having a baby-eating party next week. It’s in San Francisco, and we’ll throw in some extra Satan worship and readings of the Communist Manifesto just for you! Should be a blast.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:50amWell you know how those people dwelling in the low laying valleys are, they are saying while they dance tap-dancing “What is that light on the mountain tops, I don’t understand? Maybe it’s going to come down here, we’ve got to stop it.”
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:05amSun-light coming down the mountain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKavt7cLiZs
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:46amThis memorial has been in place longer than the court’s invention of the separation of church and state.
Report Post »Razlord
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:45amseems more in line with the 10planks and the manifesto…
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 3:53pmAnd like the fulfilling of the 45 declared Communist goals: http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
Report Post »