Atheists’ Threats Lead Town to Remove Christian Cross From Water Tower
- Posted on October 5, 2011 at 11:55am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, America’s largest organization of atheists and agnostics, continues to use the legal system to purge the nation of references and symbols related to faith and religion (as we reported yesterday, the group will hold its 34th annual convention this weekend).
In one of the foundation’s latest assaults on faith, FFRF is demanding that the town of Whiteville, Tennessee, remove a cross that stands at the top of a local water tower. The atheist group first requested that the cross be taken down last December, citing a citizen who is uncomfortable with its presence. The Jackson Sun reports:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says the cross, located on public property, is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
If the town refused to remove the cross, FFRF threatened legal action against both the local government and its mayor, James Bellar. In a letter to the town, Alvin Harris, who is an attorney for FFRF, wrote, ”This letter is my clients’ final demand that the cross be permanently removed from the Whiteville water tower.”
In the letter, Harris gave the town a 30-day time frame during which the organization wanted to see the cross come down. If the town didn’t comply, FFRF planned to file a lawsuit, citing a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Bellar harshly responded to the atheists‘ and agnostics’ claims, saying, “They’re the terrorists. It’s not us…It will be a shallow victory for them if they win.”
According to WREG, Bellar also said,
“Whiteville is a religious town. I’m just sorry we have one individual here who is offended by this. I just think it’s a sad day when people in a small rural Western Tennessee town like Whiteville have to be the object of attention for non-believers.”
Despite his opposition to FFRF, Bellar has decided that the cross will be taken down and moved, as the town cannot afford to battle the organization in the courts. While this is certainly the downside for those who support its presence, the mayor has announced that the cross will be placed on private property on a local highway. It is here, he says, that the cross will actually be seen by an even larger audience.
(H/T: Jackson Sun)
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 202 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 202 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 (515)
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:25pmThey should have said that it was an antenna, not a cross, and left it at that :-)
Report Post »This, “rules changing because of a minority,” crap has got to stop. They have the ACLU, when are the religious groups going to start an anti-ACLU law group to fight this?
No law was made establishing a religion, by Congress, and they were freely exercising their religious rights, so what was there, really, to fight?
Cerealface
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:39pmIf it’s owned by the church. Put crosses everywhere.
Report Post »If it’s owned by the city. Why do you have a cross on it?
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:44pmOh Please. If that was an Islamic prayer tower sitting on top of the water tower you Blazers would be screaming for retribution.
To the ACLU, Christianity is just as much an eyesore as Islam. You have a hard time noticing this discrepancy in your logic because you lack empathy (that normally comes with puberty, but apparently not always).
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:46pmWe do – the ACLJ — American Center for Law and JUSTICE — http://www.aclj.org
Report Post »Nanner-SW
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:06pmState and Local governments have abilities that the Federal government does not. For example, the local government can pass any idiotic rule as long as it is agreed by the majority. If a primarily Islamic city had a prayer thingy on top of their water tower, I would not care, as long as it was supported by the majority of that city.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:36pm@Nanner-SW:
Report Post »I don‘t know what governments you think you’re describing, but they’re not American governments.
TomFerrari
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:14pmYou are wrong, lesbianpacking.
The Constitution prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a national religion.
Report Post »Posting a cross does NOT establish a national religion.
It does not prohibit congress from praying, from PROMOTING a religion, or from acknowledging a religion, only from ESTABLISHING a religion.
As for local governments, Nanner is correct. The Constitution does NOT even ADDRESS the actions of local governments.
Sure, case law has been decided in favor of your argument. HOWEVER, that is EXACTLY the point that everyone on here is upset with. OUR RIGHTS are being trampled BY THE ACTIVIST COURTS !
We insist on returning to a CONSTITUTIONAL government, and FOLLOWING that Constitution. Freedom of SPEECH is protected. NOT “freedom of silence” or “freedom of not-seeing.”
TheBlazenTruth
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:24pmhas Congress established a religion? Is this assault prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Can we get more God fearing Constitution loving lawyers and judges? I dont want a moral dictating government but I do want moral people in government.
Report Post »Bluebonnet
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:34pmProblem solved………………just shut off their water so they don’t have to compromise their beliefs.
Report Post »Let them haul the water in, like our forefathers did.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:40pmNo. It‘s not prohibitting the free exercise of anyone’s religion. The fact that you can’t put a religious symbol on public property in no way implicates the right to put religious symbols on PRIVATE property, and that is exactly what this town said it was going to do in order to come into compliance.
Conversely, to allow the town to Establish Christianity as the official religion of the government jurisdiction would be to prohibit Atheists from the free exercise of our religion. The ones who object to the government practice of religion, especially in such a small town, quickly become known and the rest use the power of government to cost the non-Christians money through taxation, fines (another form of taxation), and in many cases, malicious prosecutions, anything to use the power of government to make the non-believer feel unwelcome and want to leave.
That is, if they remotely think they can get away with it, which is precisely what permitting them the camel’s nose under the tent flap with religious symbols on public property does.
Cerealface
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:41pmI bet you want your math teacher to think you can divide by zero as well.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:48pm@Cereal Face:
Report Post »In higher forms of mathematics, you can.
poorrichard09
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:26pmWhiteville, eh? Obviously racist Christians. (sarc)
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:29pm@Bluebonnet
You’re really witty. You must be so proud of yourself. You support the persecution of innocent people, and you take pleasure in it. You are disgusting.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:31pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Excuse me, it’s not a fact unless we allow it to become one. The FACT is, the Constitution prohibits Congress from forcing a religion upon us. Allowing religion to take part in the political process is not the same as requiring religion as part of the political process.
Use your damned brain.
Report Post »janedough1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:35pmFolks, will you stand up to these thugs, please? How many lawsuits do you think they can prosecute at the same time? If everyone just started standing up and quietly saying “no,” they‘d be stretched so thin they’d have to start dropping cases, at which point they’d become a laughing stock. They already got stopped short here a few years ago by a sheriff who told them they’d see the inside of his jail if he caught them in his town. And folks, if your elected officials have no courage, maybe you need to elect someone who does.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:35pmCerealface
Report Post »In upper level math classes like Real Analysis you learn that you can dived by 0, infinity & everything else.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:37pm“In one of the foundation’s latest assaults on faith, FFRF is demanding that the town of Whiteville, Tennessee, remove a cross that stands at the top of a local water tower.”
Assault on faith?!?! Is the faith of the Christians of Whiteville so fragile and so superficial that it is damaged by not having a a cross on top of a watertower?
Report Post »janedough1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:40pmI’d also like to know how Lesbian Packing Hollow Points (boy is that an ironic name) deals with the fact that during Jefferson’s era there were 14 churches who had Congress as their only home, their only building? Methinks her point is REALLY hollow, and no I don’t mean her bullets. She might profit from reading the Congressional Record before she starts spouting the unsubstantiated liberal agenda. Congress is to make no law regarding an establishment of religion, as in, they aren’t to establish one denomination over another as a state church. That doesn’t mean you get to be free from all mention of religion. If you don’t like it, move elsewhere. In many other countries, they will stone you for being a lesbian, not tolerate you and love you anyway, without pretending to like your lifestyle or think it is good.
Report Post »Harvey
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:42pmYou wont get more Constitution loveing lawyers when the law schools are teaching that fighting Christianity is where to make the money.These Lawyers will every one with a very few exceptions
Report Post »pay the price that God demands for .
JLGunner
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:42pmThe bottom line in this whole movement is to get God out of our country. This coupled with the labor unions protesting / occupying wall street, is to push our country into socialism. Look at what universities have turned into and look at the protesters themselves. The vast majority of them have no idea why they are out there. Remember the socialistic montra : Workers unite, everything for the state.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:58pm“Conversely, to allow the town to Establish Christianity as the official religion of the government jurisdiction would be to prohibit Atheists from the free exercise of our religion.”
Lesbian, ignoring the assertion that a cross on top of the water tower establishes anything, how exactly would that level of “establishment” prohibit your free exercise? What would be be less able to do?
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:12pmSo, here’s an idea. Why don‘t the athiests come up with a symbol of their ’lack of’ faith and have it placed on the water tower as well? I am so sick of the minority telling the majority what they can and can’t do.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:15pmLesbian Packing Hollow Points
No…
—–
Sweetheart, AMERICANS CAN PUT RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. As far as letting the camel’s nose under the tent flap, let me remind you that our founding fathers started public schools to teach the Bible to American children, they used the Capitol Building as a place of worship on Sundays and all of the colonies either had state sponsored Christian religions or requirements that only Christians could serve in government. America is and always has been a Christian nation. People like you have been able to perpetuate ignorance in the past, but those days are over and Christians are fighting back.
Fact: The word “religion” (i.e., as in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) was synonymous with the word “Christianity” back in 1700s America.
Fact: Nowhere in the First Amendment are the words “separation,” “Church” or “State” mentioned.
Fact: The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the establishment of a Church of America akin to the Church of England.
Fact: In 1899, the Supreme Court (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States) concluded that America is a “Christian Nation” and backed its decision with 87 precedents, quotes from the Founding Fathers and excerpts from Congressional Acts. In 1947, however, when the Supreme Court decided that there is a “wall of separation” between Church and State, it did not cite one single pr
Report Post »NYLDS
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:19pm@ LESBIANPACKING….
I spent time in Spain. I am not Catholic, but I observed their customs and reverently respected their beliefs. I didn’t jump up and down when I saw some symbol somewhere that reminded me of this Catholic nation. A cross may be displayed, but it is the culture and if you don’t like the culture – MOVE!! If there is such hatred and intolerance for religion (a sincere question), what is the stance of the atheist for all of the religious references in the speeches given by the early Presidents clearly, definitively, and emphatically establishing a belief in and acknowledging a tangible aid from God.
With regard to establishing a religion for Atheists as you have hinted at in other posts, I wasn’t aware that Atheism is seen as a religion. However, if ‘religion’ is seen as merely a set of beliefs, then I concede that the antithesis of one by virtue of mutual exclusion, must establish the other.
In the end, this is not good. Let people show their religion and display symbols to remind them that they are to be decent people and help the poor and the widows. This does nothing for happiness to have the Government compel people to do the same at their behest.
Report Post »Ex-Democrat
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:24pmFrom some of the responses here you’d think that Congress not only DID pass a LAW, but that they personally put the cross up there , and made all passersby genuflect to it! Separation of church and state is a myth perpetuated by a wholesale misunderstanding the the “Establishment Clause‘ and a quote from a personal letter from Jefferson that’s been taken-completely-out-of-context (they’d have you think it was in the Constitution). For STARTERS, try reading George Washington‘s Farewell Address for a change to see how much a role religion DID play in the founder’s lives and the creation of our Republic. This is the “Establishment Clause” not the “Shield Everyone From Religion And Never Mention It’s Name Clause”. These people should be made to read the clause over and over again until understanding is achieved.
Report Post »Ofra1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:29pmLes, get over it. Live and let live. Say thanks to a country where you can speak as you do, practice whatever religion you choose and live openly as a proud gay woman. Don’t like it, don’t look at it. Just quit complaining about something so insignificant because YOU don’t like it .. quit sweating the small stuff and focus on the real problems in this country/world.
Report Post »REALID 239823749828-HIF
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:33pm@ISLESFORDIAN
Yes, that’s the point that I was going to make. Placing a cross on public land is in no way making a “law respecting an establishment of religion” nor is it “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” for anyone. Personally, I think it should go to a vote since it’s not a direct violation of the constitution. If the majority of residents want to take it down, do so, otherwise, leave it alone.
Atheists are a minority. If you guys don’t like it, too bad. Go somewhere and form a commune, but stop acting like you’re offended every time you see a cross. That’s just stupid. I’m not offended every time I see a mosque, or a statue or Buddha, or a pentagram or even a depiction of Baphomet. If my town put a symbol that offended me on public property, I wouldn’t look at it, or I’d move unless I felt that the majority of residents agreed with me.
See, that’s the problem with you liberals. You pretend to care about everyone and what’s good for everyone, and so forth, but really, you only care about what’s good for you and those who agree with you, and the rest of us should be beheaded.
Report Post »randy
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:39pm@LESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS
Report Post »Really…….. LESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS???
Who really gives a rats A$$ if you’re a Lesbian?
Who really gives a rats A$$ if you’re packing hollow points?
And are you really that shallow, insecure and in search of attention
that you have to go around screaming to the world who and what you are?
My God you’re pathetic.
ltb
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:42pmNYLDS and Ex-Democrat, great comments. BTW NYLDS, the federal courts have ruled that atheism is a religion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry). Furthermore, Evolution is a doctrine of atheism (i.e., according to the first plank of the Humanist Manifesto). What I would like to know is why not one single Christian in America has filed a suit to stop the State from favoring the atheist doctrine of Evolution over the Christian doctrine of Creation in our public schools. If I had a child in a public school, I would file a suit and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Report Post »TxSon
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:55pm@Lesbian. Show me the law passed by congress that established a religion? Neither did the town have a law that established a religion. However, using legal terrorism to force communities to remove symbols the that reflect the moral inclination of the local population is in fact interfering the the free exersice of religion.
The whole falacy of separation of church and state has given rise the “right” to freedom “from” religion. There is no right to freedom from religion except as it pertains to your personal expression. Forcing others to adhere to YOUR view of religious practice of having no religious references is no better than them forcing you to perform in or pay a duty to a church.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:15pm@ Randy:
Who really gives a $#!& if you’re British and horny?
@ TX Son:
I really grow weary of educating people about the facts of the Constitution and the law. I’ve posted about the incorporation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Am. against the states by SCOTUS via the 14st Am. in several places here. I suggest you read them.
And no, there is no right to be free FROM religion. Not on a Societal level. That much is true. I do not have the right to force all religious practice from my presence. If I am so offended by the sight of a cross, the solution is to not walk down the street where the Christian Church is located. The solution is not to get the church removed.
But that’s a non sequitor, because this story is NOT about a cross in front of a Christian Church. It’s about a cross on government property. I DO have the right to be free from religion when dealing with the government, because anything other is the government sanctioning the religion that they impose upon me over the religion that I, myself, believe in. I might be Christian. I might be Atheist. I might also be Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Hindu, Pagan, or any of another thousand religions practiced across the face of this planet, ALL of which require EQUAL treatment under the LAW in this country. Ergo, NONE of them are permitted pride of place on government/public property.
I’m sorry, but I can’t teach this principle any more clearly than that.
TomFerrari
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:31pm@lesbianpacking – so it is okay to rent space on a tower to a cell phone carrier? To a tractor dealer for a billboard? Just so long as it is NOT a religious organization?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:07pm@Publius
Is the non-faith of the non-Christians of Whiteville so fragile and so superficial that it is damaged by having a a cross on top of a watertower?
Report Post »randy
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:11pm@LESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS
@ Randy:
Who really gives a $#!& if you’re British and horny?
Really now? That’s the best you can do????
Report Post »Pathetic!
Just like your lifestyle choice. LOL
JMorcan
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:15pm“I dont want a moral dictating government ”
That’s the only just basis for its existence.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:22pm“I DO have the right to be free from religion when dealing with the government, ”
Fair enough, Lesbiapacking, but simply SEEING a government building is not really “dealing with the government” because IT isn’t dealing with YOU. You act as if you have the right to THINK that your government has no opinion about religion. You don’t, because no opinion merely held can infringe upon you unless it is enacted into a law requiring your acceptance or conformity.
Besides, seeing a public water tower is a ridiculous example of “dealing with the government”. If all we are talking about is symbolism I could understand it if it was a court house or the town hall, BUT A WATER TOWER?
Get a life, even if you won’t get an afterlife.
Report Post »scarebear83
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:36pm@ Les Would you have a problem with a government building that had this posted in a frame in their hallways? “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 signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war…”
-Would you have a problem with this being posted on government property?-
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:42pmI think every citizen in the USA who believes that is is just plain wrong, stick 1000 crosses on their front yard. I’d like to see that from the sky.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:45pmJaycen:
Report Post »I believe you are 110% correct and the comment by Lesbian Packing Hollow Points was an attempt to dazzle us with her stupidity. I AM DAZZLED.
mikem1969
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:49pmTell them to shove their threats and put the cross back up. America needs GOD. Also, ask them why they feel so threatened by what they don’t believe in. Then tell them to shut up or get out.
Report Post »americanfirst
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 5:33pmI think the people of the community have the right to know the name of the claimant. Otherwise, one could rightly argue that the Freedom From religion folks could just indiscriminately make up claims that someone was offended.
Report Post »No definitive proof of a claim means I don’t have to honor such claim.
Where’s the name?
PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 6:25pm“Is the non-faith of the non-Christians of Whiteville so fragile and so superficial that it is damaged by having a a cross on top of a watertower?”
Ha! Good point, except no one is actually saying that they are at risk of being converted to Christianity. They are saying that the cross violates their right to a government that does not endorse (or “establish”) a particular religious belief.
It’s the Christians in this case that seem to think that the removal of the cross somehow threatens their salvation! Seems rather silly and hollow to me!
In the end, this DOES violate the free exercise clause (which, as other have noted, applies to the states through the due process clause). The state endorsement of ANY religion constitutes de facto coercion. This point is obvious from the mayor’s statement:
“Whiteville is a religious town. I’m just sorry we have one individual here who is offended by this”
He declares the town is “religious,” but he obviously means Christian, or he wouldn’t insist on a cross. He even goes so far as to single a citizen out as not fitting with the religion of the town, which in my mind constitutes official coercion, plain and simple.
This is pretty cut and dry my friends. Stop waving around your Constitution and take some time to read it.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:25pmSimple. Take that one down, and put up a larger one. Better yet, put more up. Better yet, everyone in town put one up one their roof, and every business post one in their windows. Print T-shirts and everybody wear them. Oh, and don’t forget, class action lawsuit against this group for filing suits where they have no standing.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:29pmThe more these mis-guided people try to remove God. The more of God there will be to remove. Pathetic little people fighting against the God that made them. It‘s like an ant telling me it’s time for beddy by………..SPLAT !
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:39pmLTB,
“Fact: The word “religion” (i.e., as in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) was synonymous with the word “Christianity” back in 1700s America.”
Nope! See, for one example, Washington’s exchange with Moses Seixas of the Hebrew congregation of Newport, RI in 1790. While a little later, in 1819, John Adams writes to Mordecai Noah:
“It has please the Providence of the ‘first Cause,’ the Universal Cause [phrases by which Adams’ defined God], that Abraham should give Religion, not only to the Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest Part of the Modern civilized World.”
“Fact: Nowhere in the First Amendment are the words “separation,” “Church” or “State” mentioned.”
You know what else isn’t in the Constitution? Any mention of God or Christianity! That is, excepting for the standard formulation of the dat “the year of our Lord,” which only appears once, and that’s jsut the way they wrote the date back then. Jefferson came up with the phrase separation of church and state–it’s just a snappy way of summarizing the establishment clause.
“Fact: The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the establishment of a Church of America akin to the Church of England.”
Then why didn’t they say that? The Founding Fathers could be very direct when they wanted to be. They certainly had the vocabulary. But they kept it vague because…?
Report Post »jndough
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:46pmPacking Lesbian you don’t have an effing religion…so shut up. If the town decides as a whole that they want a cross on the water tower they should be able to do so. The odd man out needs to find a new town.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:49pm“Fact: In 1899, the Supreme Court (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States) concluded that America is a “Christian Nation”
The purpose of the case itself was not to determine whether or not the US was a Christian nation–Justice Brewer, who wrote the majority opinion, was using the idea that the majority of American have historically been Christians as “proof” that the law against importing foreign workers (the actual law in question) was not meant to restrict the importation of foreign priests.
Justice Brewer himself clarified his statement in a book he later wrote:
Report Post »“But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.”
PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:51pm“The more these mis-guided people try to remove God.”
Sorry friend, but a cross isn’t God. It’s a symbol of a specific set of religious practices. I would think that for someone with faith, the presence of a cross on a watertower would make little difference.
motonutt
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:56pmTo the weaklings of WhiteVille…….If you turn from God he will trun from YOU!!!!!
Report Post »This is what is going to happen when the antichrist comes along with “the mark”.
You hear christians say “oh I would never take the mark” really?….what are you going to do when you can’t buy food for your children without it? many will cave. If you cave over a cross on a water tower, you are going to cave and accept your ID# for satan. Get some balls….stand up for Jesus….He stood for you….you weaklings….that’s all.
dnnyshdy
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:58pmAtheists are just trouble makers.Having a cross somewhere shouldn’t offend anyone.They’re just real good at being a**holes.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 9:08pm@ publius –
WRONG !
GOD IS IN THE CONSTITUTION:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”
Just thought you may want to actually READ it sometime, instead of repeating liberal trash you pick up on moveon or dailcuss or huffnpuff.
Take you HATE-FILLED LIES that are the work of Satan elsewhere. WE KNOW THE FACTS. WE SEEK THE TRUTH. The TRUTH is not in you. Since we seek the truth, and the truth is not in you, consider yourself welcome to troll on sites more suitable to your lies and hatred, as you’ll convince NOBODY on here with your deceptions.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 9:10pm@Lesbian: Correction…. Having a cross on a water tower in any town does not prohibit atheists from the free exercise of their religion. Get real.
Report Post »Devilmist
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 9:14pmWell again its not the federal govt. here. It is a small town. Why not stand up and leave the cross there. ?Would you rather kneel to the godless or kneel to god? If the godless do not like it they can MOVE to another town that is less godly. Just like if the Muslims don’t like it then move back to a Muslim country. SCREW THIS !!! Funny how there are Muslim countries ALL AROUND THE WORLD, but calling this a Christian nation is wrong some how. The U.S. has always been Christian since the start but keep on kneeling to the godless and it wont be much longer!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 9:38pmSwing and a miss TomFerrari! I explicitely mentioned that this is simply the formula for writing the date–it has no legal or even religious/philosophical significance in this context. It’s the long form translation of Anno Domini, otherwise known as A.D.
Now please. Think before you post.
Report Post »Ohio4Tea
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 9:50pmI agree with NYLDS
Report Post »These people should just MOVE
33thewayiroll
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 10:23pmRegardless of what any atheist believes or gets accomplished here on earth; EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS JESUS IS LORD!!! I am willing to bet my life that EVERY includes the peerson/people who complained. Unfortunately they are have not researched Jesus enough to know when the Devil is playing them for a SUCKER!! All we can do is pray for the lost and love them as we are commanded :-)
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 10:54pmThis story needs to be updated. I contacted the city council of Whiteville and was told they will not be removing the cross. A Christian law firm will be handling the case pro bono.
ltb
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 11:28pmPubliusPencilman, I don’t know where you got your quote from, but it didn’t come from Washington’s letter to Seixas. If you look up “religion” in the most widely used dictionary from the 1700s (i.e., Samuel Johnson’s, “A Dictionary of the English Language”), every entry for the word “religion” was a quote from prominent Christians of the day. As far as the words “God” & “Christianity” not being mentioned in the Constitution, I hardly think that matters since, as I already said, all of the colonies either had state sponsored Christian religions or requirements that only Christians could serve in government. Our founding fathers didn’t even consider faiths like Muhammadanism to be religions, rather they viewed them as doctrines of Satan. That being the case, why would you think they would have given Islamic heathens any thought whatsoever when drafting the 1st Amendment?
Regarding the intent of the 1st Amendment, study the Congressional Records for 6/7/1789 through 9/25/1789 & then let me know if you still mistakenly believe it was meant to create a wall of separation between Church & State. Furthermore, read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, which was perverted by the very Liberal Supreme Court of 1947. Anyone who reads Jefferson’s letter in its entirety quickly understands he was assuring the DBA that the President would never become the head of an American Church, similar to the way that the monarch in England is th
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 11:35pmTo the Lesbian: The 14th Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with abridging the 1st Amendment. If Americans, after the Civil War, realized future generations would use the 14th Amendment to restrict public expression of the Christian faith, it would have died a quick death. It is despicable for federal judges to use the 14th Amendment to circumvent the 1st Amendment when the authors of both the 1st and the 14th Amendments would have been appalled by such sleazy tactics.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 11:41pmThat’s not a religious cross, it’s three point lightning rod.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 11:57pmPubliusPencilman, I couldn’t care less what Brewer said later in life. The fact that the Supreme Court reached the conclusion in 1899 that America is a “Christian Nation” based on 87 precedents, quotes from the Founding Fathers and excerpts from Congressional Acts pretty much says it all. Seriously, what kind of fool could possibly argue that the Supreme Court in 1899 didn’t REALLY mean America is a “Christian Nation,” even though the Justices reached the conclusion that America is a “Christian Nation” and backed up their opinion with 87 precedents, quotes from the Founding Fathers and excerpts from Congressional Acts? Give me a break. It’s not like one Supreme Court Justice gets to later negate the collective opinion of his colleagues by saying, “Forget the opinion we reached a decade ago and let me tell you what we REALLY meant… I’m sure the other Justices won’t mind me rewriting history and speaking on their behalf.”
Report Post »MHP
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 1:18amCongress has established an official state church, it’s athiesm.
All Christrians should immediately stop paying taxes, period.
Report Post »WeeDontNeedNoSteeeenkinBadges
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 5:49amYou mean … the godless have won without even firing a shot?
Report Post »Applehead
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 6:37amI believe most Atheists are Devil worshipers! But they know the masses wouldn’t except them so they use the term Atheists!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 8:47amLTB,
I made it clear in my post that the quote I included was from John Adams in a letter to Mordecai Noah. You know, your arguments would be more persuasive if you had actually read my post before responding.
I‘m sure your reference to Johnson’s dictionary is extremely impressive to anyone who has never opened a book in their life. But let‘s look at Johnson’s definition of “Religion”:
“1) Virtue, as founded upon reverence of God, and expectation of future rewards and punishments.”
“2) A system of divine faith and worship as opposite to others.”
http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=6421
Hmmmm…. It appears that between these two definitons you can include just about anything, including polytheistic beliefs…. But why does he include only quotations from Christians in those contextual sentences?…. Hmmm….
Well, could it be because in his dictionary of the ENGLISH language, he drew from ENGLISH language sources for the context of ENGLISH words, and ENGLISH writers at this time were almost exclusively christians–it would, of course, make no sense to quote from, say, Arabic, to provide the context for an English word.
Continued in my next post…
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 8:53amYet, out of the eight contextual sentences provided by Johnson, only ONE of the quotations uses the word “religion” to explicitely refer to Christianity. Most of the quotations use the term in a broader sense, which is exactly what you suggest it doesn’t do. For example:
“The image of a brute, adorn’d
With gay religions, full of pomp and gold. Milton.”
“The doctrine of the gospel proposes to men such glorious rewards and such terrible punishments as no religion ever did, and gives us far greater assurance of their reality and certainty than ever the world had. Tillotson.”
You see, these contextual quotations are there to prove exactly the opposite of what you are claiming–that “religion” only means Christianity. This raises the question of whether you actually know how to read a dictionary. Now, since you are obviously wrong here, I would expect you not to repeat that false claim again.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 8:56amI find it funny that while you are arguing the “Christianness” of the US entirely based on what you assume the intention of the Founders was, you are not actually interested in the intention of Justice Brewer! This is really bordering on unhealthy denial!
OK. Now, just for the icing on the cake, how about the famous 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Adams in 1797:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Regardless of how you feel about this, can you deny it uses the term religion to refer to Islam?
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 10:30amPubliusPencilman, I read your comments down to “But why does he include only quotations from Christians in those contextual sentences?…. Hmmm….Well, could it be because in his dictionary of the ENGLISH language….” Are you serious?!? WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORD “RELIGION” IN AMERICA DURING THE 1700s. I stated that every entry for the word “religion,” in the most widely used dictionary at the time, was by a prominent Christian of the day AND YOUR RESPONSE IS THAT THOSE ENTRIES WERE BY CHRISTIANS BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE WAS A CHRISTIAN BACK THEN?
You have been so indoctrinated, that you can’t even see that you have made my entire argument for me. IF THE PEOPLE BACK THEN WERE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE WRITTEN A CONSTITUTION THAT CATERED TO NON-CHRISTIANS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY BELIEVED PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS WORSHIPPED DEMONS?
Continued…
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 10:30am…continued
Publius, you don’t care about the truth and I don’t care about arguing with someone who will defend lies until his last breath. I’ve gotten into arguments with people like you before and it’s pointless. You no doubt are the product of America’s failing public school system and most likely were taught American “History” by Liberal “educators” who have no respect for America’s history.
Ask yourself a question: if Americans were taught for 180+ years that America was founded by Christians, for Christians, do you really think you should believe people who were born 200 years after the fact when those people have an agenda and they teach the complete opposite of every historian who lived prior to 1900? Here’s the truth, do with it what you will: America was founded by Christians, for Christians (that’s why “ENGLISH writers at this time were almost exclusively christians” [sic] – those were your words BTW). If I were you, I would read lots of books about American history written before 1850, then I would write letters to the “history” teachers/professors who tried to indoctrinate me and tell them I don’t appreciate being lied to.
Continued…
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 10:31am…continued
The problem with people like you is that you can twist and pervert the truth to make it almost fit the lies you’ve been taught, but it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to get there. I suggest you use Occam’s razor when looking at American history, with respect to American’s Christian Heritage. In other words, if almost everyone in 18th Century America was a Christian and if every single colony back then had a state sponsored Christian religion or requirements that only Christians could serve in public office and if every entry in the most widely used late 18th Century ENGLISH dictionary (yes, they used ENGLISH dictionaries back then, BECAUSE THEY SPOKE ENGLISH) was by a prominent Christian, THEN it can safely be assumed that the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the “religion” of Christians. Goodbye, I hope you find the truth one day before you die and I mean that sincerely.
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 11:15am“IF THE PEOPLE BACK THEN WERE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE WRITTEN A CONSTITUTION THAT CATERED TO NON-CHRISTIANS”
Ummm…. well… because they believed in religious freedom and equality–two main tenents of the Constitution. In this case, logic does not point to the need to invent stuff that is not found in the text. I’m sorry to tell you that typing in all caps does not make it true.
But please–learn how to read the dictionary. The “entries” as you call them are sentences to provide context for the definitions. Neither the definitions nor these contextual entries support your assertion that Christianity was synonymous with the term “religion.” So you are obviously wrong there, as I said.
And by the way, “every single” colony did not have an established religion (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island did not have an established church). Among those that did, Virginia, Maryland and Massachusetts officially disestablished the church before the Constitution was ratified (although MA still included some Christian-themed laws in its constitution, which predated the federal Constitution, until 1833). George and South Carolina disestablished their churches within three years of the Constitution’s ratification. In the remaining colonies/states, the establishment ceased as a legal practice in 1776.
Soooo…. if we were meant to be a “Christian Nation,” why the rapid disestablishment before and immediatley after the Constitu
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 11:18amBut let’s play with your logic. If the fact that the vast majority of Americans in the late 1700s were Christian makes this a fundamentally “Christian Nation,“ does that also make this a fundamentally ”white” nation? All the major legal figures were white, as were the vast majority of the population. Please. Answer this simple question for me.
Report Post »CHRIS260
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 11:23amI have to AGREE with pointed lesbian hollowed out, or whatever her name is….
Look, I think the moron who wanted to cross taken down is…well…a moron. However, let’s exchange the cross with a Muslim crescent on top of a government water tower. Using the same logic that some of the posters are using here, we should all just get over it and move on. We should apply the same legal line of thinking to the cross or whatever symbol.
In my mind this cross infringes on a strict interpretation of the first amendment. When a piece of property owned by the government places a religious symbol atop of it, in my mind that institution is saying this is the religion we endorse. While we may want to see a cross or be Christians, there WILL be a day when an atheist or Muslim will place his little avatar atop a government building, and with the foresight of the founding fathers wisdom, we will get to say…uh uh I don’t think so…
Now what the town should do is raise funds to build a cross 100 times bigger, no they should buy the statue of Christ in Brazil, and place in on a private piece of property on the main road into the town, so drivers have to turn their headlights on when in its presence because it’s shadow blots out the sun.
Report Post »Knight Templar
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 4:21pm@ publius— Given the context of the founders other writings, when the said IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD the meant in the year of OUR LORD.
Report Post »tc84
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 5:13pmOne point that hasn’t been mentioned here is that our system of law is based on Judeo-Christian values. It isn’t enough to say the founders were Christian (which I believe to be true based on their words.) We have to recognize that murder for example is wrong because Christian law says it’s wrong. Stealing is wrong because God gave the commandment to Moses “Thou shalt not steal.” (It could be argued that the laws of happiness already existed and God just told us what they are, but that’s another discussion.) We use symbols to remind us to be good because when we are good as a people, we will be great as a nation. We don’t have to agree on a religion, but as citizens of the United States, we are subject to laws. The laws we have chosen to be subject to are Judeo-Christian in nature. If a city wants to remind people of that, good for them. I do not see a cross on a water tower as the establishment of a State Church, otherwise I’d fight it as hard as I could. The minority who would have us believe that our laws are not religious in nature are still the minority (may God bless that it will always be so) and the majority should not have to subject itself to the will of the minority.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 5:59pmTC84,
Even if you were right about the law of the United States being based on Judeo-Christian values (and how many of the 10 commandments are actually federal crimes?), then you would have to concede that the cross is much more Christian than Judeo. It’s purposely promoting one practice/belief/faith above another, and that’s a problem.
Report Post »ILUVJESUS
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 7:12pmGood point. They shouldn’t have given into a THREAT! They should have stood up and fought. I hope that the citizens make life hell for that guy!
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 9:28pmYoChris260:
Report Post »Had me laughing with your last paragragh. I think they did say that they found private property in which more people will see it….Can’t beat God! It will play out to the Grand conclusion of it.
dmar003
Posted on October 7, 2011 at 2:21amThere is a couple of questions for the Atheist, how long has the cross been on the tower? one year two years, when the tower was built? Does it really bother you that much, or are you trying to get your 15 minutes of fame? Why aren’t you protesting the government to remove “GOD WE TRUST” on our currency? One last question….do you celebrate Christmas?
Report Post »Warphead
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:22pmSo the town doesn’t have the money to fight. Well, how about the towns people, rather than be pushed around, form a committee. This committee is to be heavily armed and guard the tower. When the first SOB comes around to take the cross down, well let’s just say the SOB might have a change of heart or assume ambient outside temperature, his choice. The next thing that the committee should do is find the one citizen who is offended. Have a little talk with this person and kindly show them the city limits. When people, do we take a stand and fight? We appear as cowards. The first mention of a lawsuit and we throw in the towel. Somewhere, someplace someone has to make a stand. I can only imagine what Jesus must think of his people who so quickly cave like cowards to any opposition to their “supposed” faith. In Iran, right now, there is a Christian man who will die because he will not renounce his faith. In the United States there is no man even willing to fight for his. Our lives, society, culture and civility are truly ending before my eyes. Am I sad? Yes, but mainly I feel sick.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:33pmAgreed. That’s why we have a jury of our peers. If I were on the jury, I’d have a very difficult time convicting someone for standing up to these militant atheists.
Report Post »Andy
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:34pmYou hit the nail right on the head, amen!
Report Post »Wayne
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:54pmThere is no Christians in that town, A Christian would standup for their belief in GOD and what He stands for. I would like to stand guard on that cross and let one of those low lifes try to take it down. The atheist and the **** is destorying this country and no one will do anything about it.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:29pmWell…take the bus and get over there. It shouldn’t be too hard to find Whiteville. We stand behind you in your fervor and committment.
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:21pmDoesn‘t the town have first amendment right’s too??? Once again until I am blue in the face “There is no such thing as seperation of church and state as interpretted in the US Constitution!!“ Gotta love the education system and the liberal lifetime appointted ”justices”!!!
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:47pmThe townspeople? Yes. The town government? No.
Only natural persons have rights.
All other institutions, units of government, corporations, organizations, have no rights whatsoever. What they have are delegated authorities and powers. Units of government in America, bottom to top, do not have any delegated authority to establish any religion as the official, preferred religion. So sayeth the 1st Amendment.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:35pmLesbian,
You are finally correct. Mounting a cross or any other religious iconography on public grounds is not the same thing as “establishing a religion”. It’s a recognition of a religion and its principles. Some of which many people will agree, and some of which some people will disagree.
Until the city states that “citizens must adhere to relgion A”, you have no logical argument.
Report Post »Andy
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:40pmCemerius I don’t get it either, don’t people read the Constitution and realize that there is no such thing in the Constitution of the United States, I even hear this on Fox (with whom I’m very disappointed in) People please read the Constitution of the United States please, and call these idiots on their threats against our Holy beliefs.
Report Post »Andy
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:47pmTo Lesbian Packing Hollow Points, the government is by the people for the people, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Report Post »jndough
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:54pmI’ve got stones/ Anybody want to help??? Get off my Glen Beck!
Report Post »HomophobicHousewifeWithSlingshotAndStones
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 8:06pmGo back to the closet!
Report Post »ReadItToday
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:21pmI read a story online today and it basically claims that there are a number of stories in the news that are being fabricated by the Feds. Has anyone else looked into this
Report Post »http://BiggestCoverUp.blogspot.com/
Eaglesyx
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:50pmBeware this guy…that link goes to one of the most ridiculous things ever posted…ever. The fractured logic used in the arguments found therein are almost funny. This makes 9/11 “truthers” sound like geniuses. This troll is posting this on every forum he can get registered on.
Report Post »Virginia Joe
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:21pmBy getting this small town to capitulate – not because they are wrong, but because they can’t afford the legal fees necessary to fight this the threat of a frivolous lawsuit – only encourages more of this asinine behavior …
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:30pmActually, there’s already ample case law. There’s no new precedent being set. They buckled not just because to defend their government establishment of religious symbology would cost the town money they can’t afford, but also because it would be a legal loss in the courts as well.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:31pmMassachusetts had a state religion until 1833. I might not choose to live in a state with a state religion, but the U.S. constitution does not prevent states from having state religions.
What the left wants to do is replace priests with psychologists & the the church with their interpretation of science. That is a secular religion. the results won;t be pretty.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:46pmOkay, just to clarify – the 14th amendment came about after the Civl War. Cluase 1 states that the States may not pass or enforce laws that contradict the Constitution. It says nothing about municipalities.
It requires States to give citizens due process, and equal protection under the law.
It was intended to prevent Slave states from abrogating the rights of blacks after the war.
Here‘s the start of why people who support State’s Rights get called racists, because that was what pro-slavery people used as their rallying cry during the period. This is a bad amendment. It needs to be repealed.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:26pmA) Past criminality on the part of states do not sanction future criminality on the part of states.
B) Where do the states receive their power to govern? Where do municipalities? What about counties? We are the United STATES of America, not the United MUNICIPALITIES of America. States are instituted by the people. The states then devolve what powers they have and deem appropriate to delegate to Counties and municipalities.
The proposition that municipalities can have powers that the states in which they reside do not is laughable on its face.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 7:52pm@lesbianpacking – you are correct, we are the United STATES of America.
However, ALL government bodies receive their power FROM THE PEOPLE.
WE THE PEOPLE agree to create our states.
WE THE PEOPLE and our states agree to create a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
HOWEVER, our federal government does not “allow” states to have certain powers.
In the 10th Amendment, The Constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR, that ALL POWER is reserved to the States and to the Peoples UNLESS it is SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
NO POWER over religion is granted to the federal government. On the contrary, as obama whines, The Constitution specifies NEGATIVE LIBERTIES as to what the federal government CANNOT DO… Amongst those is ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION. As The Constitution states it, “Congress SHALL PASS NO LAW establishing a religion or infringing the free practice thereof.”
Now, if the townsfolk choose to practice their religion by putting up a cross, then, the supremacy clause requires that government CANNOT interfere with their exercise of their religion.
The ACTIVE PARTY is the one protected. NOT the passive party.
Report Post »Freedom of SPEECH is protected. Freedom FROM speech IS NOT !
Freedom OF RELIGION is protected. Freedom FROM religion IS NOT !
4truth2all
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 9:17pmYo Pencilman;
Report Post »The cross is a symbol for the suffering of Jesus and all that that entailed. Jesus calmed He was God. If there is one, there is only one. Don’t worry my faith is far deeper than a symbol of it being removed from anywhere. Had a similar thing happen in the city where I reside. Actually does the opposite. It is the falling of this nation that is destressing, but then if your not a believer, you don’t get it. You argue with the wind.
showmerancher
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:19pmThe Constitution says (as indicated), Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”. As I see it, Congress has not passed such a law, and the cross on the water tower has nothing to do with Congress passing such a law. If they argue the ‘spirit’ of separation of Church and State, I would argue that taking the cross down violates the “spirit” of the “free exercise thereof” of those that placed the cross.
I am not a religious person. As such, the cross is just another piece of architecture. If there are folks that want it there, so be it. For all I care it could be a Star of David, a Crescent or a silhouette of Donald Duck. What I find to be offensive are the folks who seek to limit the freedoms of the people, in this case those that wish to exercise their Constitutional right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:28pm@Show Me Ranger:
Report Post »I draw your attention to the 14th Amendment which extends all rights and privileges guaranteed under the Constitution to ALL Americans, not just those DIRECTLY under Congressional jurisdiction. After the 14th Am. was ratified, The states and their legislatures, et al. were forbidden to do anything the Congress of the United States was forbidden to do. That includes Establishing any Religion, as per the 1st Am.
Jaycen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:37pmWow, Progressives got an earlier start than I realized. Thanks for the education on the 14th amendment, Lesbian. That was truely the beginning of the centralization of all authority in America. Shameful.
Report Post »NYLDS
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:03pm@ Lesbia.sdkfgd…. (Whatever)
Your wrong. As most liberals do when they want to eradicate religion or any other decent element of society that if put into practice correctly maintains the moral fiber of America, they claim activities as rights when in reality they are NOT.
First you misquoted “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” No where in that passage you referred to does it mention rights. Priviledge/Immunities – NOT rights!
Next, the constant pandering of the judicial establishment to those who are in any small matter, offended by some supposed injustice or inconvenience, clearly points the direction of our laws to a complete annihilation, if given enough time, of every vestige of what is supposed to keep our society civilized. This will end up in a never ending cycle of being offended, by the offense of the offense of the offense (you get the picture). Our laws will be never ending, and thereby increasingly less manageable. When the regulation of every minutiae of ones existence stems from the fear of offense, there will be a point when society is no longer civilized and personal responsibility which is intended to create happiness is eliminated.
The founding fathers definitively have said that religion is necessary to maintain a democracy. This does not mean, hide religion in a corner only to be exercised on one day or not seen.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:26pm@NYLDS:
They were also slave owners.
The Founding Fathers were wise. They were not infallible.
Report Post »...EriK
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:18pmThat’s a nice white water tower… I’ll bet a laser projector from nearby private property lighting up the side with a cross would be highly visible, especially at night. Would that be illegal?
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:18pm“it’s a sad day when people in a small rural Western Tennessee town like Whiteville have to be the PLACE of RESIDENCE for non-believers.”
Fixed that for ya. What he really means is “Non-Christians not welcome.”
“The mayor has announced that the cross will be placed on private property on a local highway. It is here, he says, that the cross will actually be seen by an even larger audience.”
So, you’re saying what the Atheists want is a win-win all around? Then why and wherefore all the Sturm und Drang?
Report Post »momrules
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:00pmGet your quotes right. The mayor said ” I just think it’s a sad day when people in a small rural town like Whiteville have to be the object of attention for non- believers.” Typical lefty, you can’t even type a post without distorting the truth.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:33pmI’m a Conservative, not a Lefty, and I quoted the text of the story with obvious attention drawn to my MODIFICATIONS of the quote. It’s obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that it was not a direct quote, nor was it intended to be.
Report Post »NYLDS
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:06pmNo. It doesn’t say “not welcome”. It simply says, we would like to keep our culture of Christianity which pervades the town and maintain it. If you don’t like the culture – move! Don’t put words into someone else mouth.
Report Post »FreedomOne
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:25pmLOL, you don’t live there. It does not affect you. Quit whinning about it. You let me know that your a lezbo. That offends me, where are my rights to get you to shut up and stop saying that? I don’t have any, so the cross should stay. Left wing radicals ruin it for everyone.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:30pmAnd putting a symbol of YOUR religion on property of the town GOVERNMENT promotes your religion and culture… how? The government must be for all the people, Christians and non. That is WHY you are forbidden to use the power of government to establish any religion. If the community’s religion is so weak that MERELY putting its religious symbols on the grounds of its churches and private property, then it’s far, far, FAR too weak to be putting those symbols on government/public property.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:24pmAs americans they should have known better then to place a cross on that tower. Just like those opposing the constrution of mosques should know better then to think they will prevail [ 21stc un america hypocrites].We don’t have a national religion[unlike Spain and many other western democracies do].In a country of immigrants from all over the world -where adherents of different religions have equal rights -it is naive or hypocritcal to think you can get away with a public acknowledgement of your religion over any other. And now that the athiests are becoming activists -what were they thinking?Federal laws trumptheirr community values and as americans they are being dishonest to complain when people expose their flagrant violation of their own professed beliefs[no established religion ].This community is not part of the USSR-reluctant members of a federation. They’re part of the United States and they know it.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 4:03pmLesbian,you used quotation marks. You just got caught in a lie and like all good liberals you lied about your intent when someone called you on it. And I have plants in my yard more conservative than you are. What a buffoon.
Report Post »Deep_Thoughts
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 5:04pmseriously, do you get paid to spout this inane BS? a quick look at your profile says you comment on something about every 5-6 minutes, and its usually opinions stated like facts. I understand taking an interest in the news, but if you’re only here to disagree with EVERYTHING, there must be some sort of ulterior motive
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:16pmNice when “war” is declared and the antagonists use your weapons against you!! Keep turning the other cheek Christains the lions are getting real hungry!!!
Report Post »The Divided States of America
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:29pmI’ll turn the other cheek , as long as my farts are aiming towards mecca !!!
Report Post »vnachi77
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:15pmI guess Muslims aren’t the only terrorists waging war on America. The even worse part is that the non-believers seem to have a better battle plan, go after those who can’t (afford) to fight back. When are we going to stop allowing these people to pervert the freedom of religion clause? This was never it’s intention.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:14pmI am about as sick of the so called Christians bowing down to these threats as I am of the ones who make them. Christians we are in a battle for not only our own souls but for the soul of this country. I hope when these weak, luke warm Christians stand before God they have a better excuse than ” We didn’t want to face a lawsuit.”
Report Post »elihu
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:54pmI heartily agree…Too many Christians (‘professing christians’) allow themselves to be used as doormats.
Report Post »closedgonefishing
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:14pmAmerica is a Christian nation that allows freedom of speach but a CHRISTIAN NATION eather way.
Report Post »closedgonefishing
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:27pmThe Constitution is based on Christian values ,Thats like saying where not an English speaking country. The Constitution isnt written in sand script.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:14pmThe United States of America is not a Christian nation. If it were, we would be a theocracy.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:13pmThis is not establishing a national religion. Many states at the time of the Constitution & thereafter had “state” religions. Being married to a Buddhist I might not choose to live there, but that would be their loss not mine.
Atheists are cramming their values down our throats.
Wonder why.
The Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero , of the ACLU is gay. That might be a reason why!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:22pmMore proof that the ACLU is no good.
Report Post »http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/05/appeals-court-to-hear-case-graduate-student-dismissed-for-refusing-to-work-with/?test=latestnews#comment
Arr-dey
Posted on October 10, 2011 at 8:39pmWhat does this have to do with anything? The ACLU is not involved in this case, it is the Freedom from Religion Foundation, FFRF.
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:12pmSometimes you get a sick animal on the farm and ya just have to put it down.
Report Post »cheepette8
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:12pmMaybe there is a reason this person is feeling uncomfortable. I think God is trying to tell them something.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:10pmEvery home in Whiteville, Tennessee should put a cross in their yard…Christians out number atheists and agnostics…
Report Post »BernieKittyCat
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:18pmI’m putting one in mine. I’ve had it with these people.
Report Post »checkit
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:19pmAgreed!
Report Post »nurseheidi
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 1:17pmI think we should all start putting crosses in our yards all across America and also be sure to have a Nativity Scene in our yard this Christmas Season. Enough is Enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Arr-dey
Posted on October 10, 2011 at 8:36pmYou are allowed to put up a cross, crescent moon, pentagram, nativity scene or just about any other type of display in your yard provided you don’t cross into pornography.
This case is about the government. The government, by virtue of the interpretation of the first amendment, may not display a religious symbol. That is what this case is about.
Report Post »ROMANS 10-9
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:07pmStand Firm Tea-Party,
Report Post »These groups are trying to create
a civil war, and we are the only ones
telling them NO.
Protect our Country against these Thugs!
DLG123
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:16pmI don‘t know about ya’ll but I am getting sick and damn tired of turning the other check to this EXTREME minority that says because “a citizen” is uncomfortable with a cross on the highway or in my yard or on top of a water tower. GET OVER IT!!! I am about ready to stop getting puched around and start to do some of the pushing.
Report Post »dpselfe
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:06pmI’m sorry, where does Congress, or any other law making body, fit into this? Was there a law made by Congress that facilitated the cross on the tower? Really, because I can’t find it. It‘s presence certainly couldn’t be construed as an endorsement….could it?
Time for me to go to law school so I can fight these DOUCHEBAGS. No one else seems to be doing it!
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:05pmWhy would B.O. care; he’s a secularist at best.
Report Post »BenInNY
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:03pmIs there not just one place in this country that has the guts to stand up to these idiots? I’m not even religious and it makes me so angry at both the FFRF and every municipality that caves.
Report Post »KINGRUDDY
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:01pmEXPLAIN……How does this beautiful Cross violate anyone’s First Amendment of the great and mighty U.S. Constitution? WAIT…use common sense!!
Report Post »And how does this town give in to these ignorant demands? Really…stand up for what you believe in!!! This town has set a terrible example…please someone WAKE UP!!!!!
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:33pmThe town didn’t have the money to fight them. It would have been outspent.
Report Post »KINGRUDDY
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:37pmAnd there is not a mouth piece in the area, whom might do as a favor to the town?
Report Post »I think so!!!
PATTY HENRY
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:01pmCHRISTIANS!!! YOU are officially being called to stand up to Satan. IF they didn‘t believe in GOD or HE didn’t live in their heads, they would NOT care what any of the rest of us believed in.
Report Post »IF, however, they are Satan’s minions…evil walking…they would feel the need to destroy all reminders of GOD. It’s that simple. IF you don‘t believe in something you don’t focus on it. IF you are not sure then it may threaten you and you try to remove it.
checkit
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:21pmVery true! Good Post
Report Post »Nlitend1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:25pmWould it or should it then have no effect on you if your local school had some analogously Islamic structure on top of its building?
Report Post »Government ‘sponsored’ religion is the target, not Christianity. There is no call from this group to replace it with a different religious symbol…their goal is to remove all religious symbols from government places in accordance with the constitution. This is the law and this group is asking for enforcement of the law. You can do the same, wherever the law is not being enforced…you really can. If you want to change the law that is your right as well, and you can even try to change the constitution and/or the interpretation of it, if you see fit. In fact, many people that agree with your basic position have fought for this in the supreme court, but the current interpretation of the 1st amendment conflicts with their arguments. This is not the devil, this is the law of the land–and this land (america) does not permit theocratic rule. Even a step in this direction, no matter how minor is unconstitutional.
You may now call me a liberal satanist…even though any lawyer or person with even a basic understanding of the constitution would agree with me.
aicardi
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:20pmAmen! To arms Christian Soldiers, to arms.
Report Post »mikewooten
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:23pmNLITEND1….You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Your statement of “current interpretation” of the Constitution in itself, demonstrates your ignorance. The Constitution is not “interpreted” by the US Supreme Court. Find it in Article III. The First Amendment says what it says and cannot be “interpreted” any other way. Congress can make NO laws respecting an establishment of religion….period. Is Congress in violation of this? No, they are not. This is one of the clear problems that we have encountered over the years is the acceptance of “decisions and interpretations” as law. They are not. The Supreme court does NOT make laws…find that in Article III as well.
I am an atheist and accept the fact that this country was founded on Christian principals. This organization is just another useless collection of self sustaining idiots who are doing nothing but operating under the guise of “good” while skillfully using the current tax laws to fund their operations. Like many organizations…unless their is a “cause” they wouldn’t exist.
You are not a liberal satanist…just ignorant.
PS…for anyone who considers themselves an “agnostic”…make a commitment one way or the other. No one likes indecision.
Report Post »Nanner-SW
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 1:31pmI find myself leaning more and more libertarian. ^-^okay. I have no problem with a school having an Islamic symbol over it as long as it is what the majority of the school board, parents, and students want. If I don’t like it, I can go somewhere else or start-up my own school. Oh course I cannot do that here because the education system is horrendously without creative freedom, but whatever.
Report Post »Nlitend1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 2:22pm@MikeWooten
Report Post »I guess freedom of speech means we can yell fire in a theater, the right to bear arms must mean we can have bazookas, no quartering soldiers means the government can quarter the police in our homes, and the need for a warrant based on probable cause means the patriot act doesn’t actually exist. Shall I go on…how about the 8th amendment???? Cruel and unusual punishment doesn’t need any interpretation, right? A liar calls everyone else a liar…i guess ignorant people call others ignorant.
Nlitend1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:05pm@Wooten 2
You actually contradict yourself in your little rant…
“The Constitution is not “interpreted” by the US Supreme Court.”
“This is one of the clear problems that we have encountered over the years is the acceptance of “decisions and interpretations” as law.”
Let me see if I understand…they don’t interpret, they have interpreted for years, and we shouldn’t accept their interpretations.
Do you understand why the founders wrote the constitution so vaguely? They could have been more precise in their language, it‘s not like they weren’t all lawyers…
Report Post »Do you really think that they couldn‘t have more accurately described ’cruel‘ and ’unusual’?
Don’t you think it would have been really helpful if they would have explained what probable cause meant or given a limitation on what pursuits were for happiness and which were folly?
Finally, is the reason that you are agnostic due to your literal reading of some religious text? Do you read it and say, “you can’t live inside a whale…false,“ or ”it can’t rain for 40 days”. Maybe you read it like you read the constitution instead, and say, “I don’t agree with turning my cheek,“ and ”I don’t want to be kind and forgiving and good.” Maybe you should read something other than the text of the constitution, since you are clearly unable to think logically. Find a supreme court justice that you like (or one that you don’t) and read what they say about interpreting the constitution.
Nanner-SW
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:14pmYes, the Federal Government cannot make a constitutional law that outlaws yelling fire in a theater, what fire arms we are allowed to bare, and we all know the patriot act is unconstitutional (why aren’t the judges doing their job). But State and Local governments can walk all over your human rights with the consent of the majority, typically when it places someone else in physical danger (ex. yelling fire in a theater or allowing just anybody to have a bazooka). State’s rights allow them to give more benefits and limitations to their citizens than the Federal government and btw is was designed that way for a reason. States were allowed to experiment with different structures and duties of government. They could even station a police officer in everyone’s home, but everyone would have to pay for that added security and I don’t think its efficient and you probably would not be able to get the majority of people to go along with it. Point Federal constitution very limited on duties and power, States have their own constitution that a generally very flexible duties and occationally overbearing with power.
Report Post »Nlitend1
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 3:41pmDear Nanner,
Report Post »I know you were trying to make a point, and you were polite, so I don’t mean any offense to you. However, your understanding of this is a bit off. I’m not exactly sure what you were trying to say, but I think you said that state constitutions and laws don’t have to be federally constitutional, and that is not correct. The supremacy clause is in one of those articles, I think article 1, section 8, and it states that the constitution is the supreme law above federal or state. Maybe I misunderstood you, but my point was that the federal government can make a law against yelling fire, can make a law against bazookas, cannot quarter police, and can make the patriot act even though it does not abide by the clear letter of the law (constitution). It is because the the court interprets the constitution to make it useful. If everyone walked around thinking they could say whatever they wanted because the constitution gives them this right, we would have horrible consequences. We interpret the amendments to give them weight and to give them logic and sense. The second amendment does not mean we can all have access to the ‘red button’, we have to assume (interpret) that the founders didn’t mean that.
I.Gaspar
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 12:00pmAnother tip of the hat to prez ozero for letting this s*it happen everyday now…you are a transformer, that’s for sure.
Report Post »eat-more-bacon-USA
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 11:59amObama’s foot-soldiers are destroying America, one town at a time.
Report Post »