‘Obey the Constitution!’: Atheists Announce Lawsuit Against Montana Jesus Statue
- Posted on February 1, 2012 at 8:51am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
On Tuesday, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) heralded a U.S. Forest Service decision to renew a lease for land housing a Jesus statue on a Montana mountain as “a significant victory.” But just hours later, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an infamous church-state separatist group, announced that it will be suing to seek the removal of the statue’s “unconstitutional” presence.
In a press release posted on the FFRF’s web site, the group’s co-president, Annie Laurie Gaylor, railed against the decision to allow the religious relic, which serves as a World War II memorial, and pledged to take the battle to the courts. The action to let it stay, she says, shows preference for Christianity and is unlawful.
“A federal agency should not hold a vote on whether to obey the Constitution!” said Gaylor. ”The U.S. Forest Service has unlawfully misused federal land owned by all of us to further Christianity in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular. This diminishes the civil and political standing of nonreligious and non-Christian Americans, and shows flagrant governmental preference for religion and Christianity.”
Yesterday, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, had a very different opinion on the matter.
“This decision by the National Park Service represents a significant victory in defense of the history and heritage of the region,” Sekulow proclaimed. “We’re delighted that federal officials understood what we have argued all along — that this statue of Jesus does not convey any government religious endorsement of religion. Instead, this historically important memorial is designed to commemorate the sacrifice made by those killed in World War II.”
The group has already prepared a legal complaint and it will soon be filed in Montana federal court. While the Forest Service initially agreed to remove the statue late last year, the decision was overturned upon massive public reaction. You can read more about the history of the debate here.
Now, it seems the courts will have to decide if leasing the land to the Knights of Columbus is a viable — and legal — choice.
(H/T: KAJ18.com)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 567 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 393 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 384 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 366 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 324 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 384 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 393 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
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 324 Comments
- 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 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 384 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 (199)
JoeKing
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:58am@CODEXMAN: “What is it about a simple statue of Christ that affects people so much?”, I am agnostic and personally, the statue has zero effect on me and I agree that this world is too interested in the religion or non religion of other.
Report Post »Let me throw the question back at you. What is about homosexual mariage or homosexuals in general that affects people so much? Something that two people do that has zero affect on others and people act ast this is moral degradation that will bring down this world. Peope so bent on limiting this type of freedom for others that they demand a Constitutional mendment! What a joke. Not since the 18th amendment have we tried to use the constitution to limit freedom as opposed to protecting it.
People need to stay out of each other’s business. Let the statue stay. Celebrate Christmas as the birth of your Savior or as an American tradition or not at all, but shut up about other peoples choices including choices thay you deem sinful but when seen outside the spectacles of religion is no more than someone elses victimless choice!
FormerLib
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:48amA few things some of these armchair constitutional experts need to remember:
1) The Constitution limits the power of and applies to the Federal Government, not the states. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, most states had an official state religion, whether it was Methodist, Congregational, Quaker, or whatever. The founders had no quarrel with a state’s right to establish an official religion.
2) Allowing religious expression on public property is not the same as establishing.
3) Alongside of “establishing” accompanies the phrase “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof”, which always gets lost by the anti-religious groups.
4) The same founders who wrote and ratified the constitution also suggested the Bible as a textbook in public schools (Thomas Jefferson), that more pastors and bible teachers should be trained at public expense to provide increased moral and character education for the self-governed (Adams), and allowed scriptures and biblical themes to be inscribed in federal buildings like the Supreme Court. They also appointed a House chaplain. Therefore, it cannot be stated that they believed separation of church and state meant the state was free of any religious influence or activity at all. A little historical perspective would be a great thing.
Report Post »Conkuur
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:50amHomosexual marriage does indeed affect others. If it is sanctioned it leaves the door open for suit cases against churches who refuse to wed these homosexuals due to their (The Church’s) religious beliefs. I think two consenting adults can do what they want together as long as they aren’t doing harm to others. I even don’t mind them having civil unions (Not Marriage) that gives them state and federal rights like a marriage.
As for the original posting atheists only confirm their belief in religion and God by attacking it. If it doesn’t exist how exactly can it affect you? It‘s like saying I don’t believe in monsters yet checking under my bed every night.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:00amTypical, leftist ploy… Focus on the ‘establishment clause’, while ignoring the ‘free exercise’ clause.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
They are meant to be read together, and not seperated.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:12pm“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There is no law that prohibits gay marriage ceremonies. There are laws that recognize the Judeo-Christian traditions of marriage as a unique and popular cultural tradition in the U.S. and that with it comes legal recognition of what that tradition means to the married couples. The Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage involves strictly a heterosexual couple. Homosexuals can hold whatever ceremony they want, but because it is outside the tradition of Judeo-Christian marriage it is not recognized as such, nor should it be. Judeo-Christian traditions should not be forcibly changed to suit a minority group that feels excluded from the prevalent Judeo-Christian value system and culture in this country. Recognizing homosexual couples as a “married” couple with the same status as heterosexual couples is tantamount to negating the recognized tradition of Judeo-Christian marriage.
It’s also a distinct issue in comparison with the display of this statue, which is an expression of religion. The Constitution is clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Forced secularization is in direct conflict with the Constitution, as well as being amoral and illogical.
Report Post »red_white_blue2
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:43pmThank you sir. I am a catholic. It is nice to see someone that is non religious stand up for the right of the religious. You are obviously truly a person who gets the Constitution. Thank you!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:07pmCONKURR…BINGO! That’s exactly what will happen if homosexual marriage is nationally recognized. Anyone that refuses to recognize them or marry them will be litigated against, citing “discrimination”. You‘ll see ACLU’s..all sorts of bodies suing churches, synagogues and establishments. This has been their MO for years now, they won‘t change they’ll just keep demanding more. But stupid liberals are unteachable..they don’t learn these kinds of lessons, they’re in a perpetual “inclusive” haze and don’t acknowledge the real world.
Report Post »riverdog1
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:54pmwell said joeking. im a agnostic/athiest my self.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:19pm@FormerLib Good point but if it is US Forest Service, it is federal land not state land.
Report Post »sweetgold
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:20pmwell spoken, like ………… a libertarian ?????
Report Post »RaptorEP
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 4:14pmThe point is the establishment clause; “Congress may pass NO LAW respecting an Establishment Religion, nor prohibit free exercise there of”.
es·tab·lish·ment [ih-stab-lish-muhnt]
noun
1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.
A Law Respecting an establishment of religion; It means to prevent a state religion, as established in England in the 16th century.
Nor prohibit free exercise there of; The government CAN NOT pass a LAW preventing the free exercise of religion.
Both cases apply for Federal land, they can’t prevent Christians from expressing their faith on Federal land, and it is not exclusive to just Christians either, any religion (even Atheists) can express their beliefs on Federal land. It’s just Christians express their right more then any other group.
In the terms of Homosexuals, Christians believe it is morally wrong, but the issue is the interference of the Federal or State Government with the moral choices of it’s people. I don’t hate Homosexuals, and have worked with several. I only have issue with the Government FORCING my church to support a life-style that is fundamentally opposite to my, and my church’s beliefs.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 6:20pmHomosexuality does not harm anyone but the taxpayer who funds the reasearch into homosexual lifestyle diseases. Oh and if the zealots,with their hidden agenda stop trying to change the definition of marriage then they will have less potential to harm society. The Christ statue does not harm anyone.
Report Post »PUTFORDOU2
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 8:29pmI am wondering where the anti-christians are aquiring the monies to bring a law suit against the ACLJ could it be monies coming from non christians or muslims…???
Report Post »TWJ
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:35pmReligious mythology (including christian mythology) belongs in the home or church, absolutely not on public property. The statue is an insult to all non-christian veterans who served America and risked their life for our freedom (including freedom of belief and the complete separation of church and state).
Report Post »TWJ
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:47pmI thought this was a statue of Charles Manson???
Report Post »dlo
Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:17amAbsolutely true well said
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:54amIs it me, . . . or does the fella in the second picture look exceedingly chily?
Nice graven idol you all are protecting.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:01amCatholicism bears an uncanny relationship to many different Pagan religions. Prolly how they were able to con so many Pagans into celebrating Christ’s birth in the dead of winter. Worshiping idols. A pantheon of saints and martyrs to replace the Pagan pantheons of gods, godesses, and demigods.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:02amIt’s not the idol that is being protected. It‘s the meaning behind the idol and a people’s right to choose.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:07amAnd you need an idol and the unconstitutional actions of the government in order to protect your religious meaning? That must be a really weak religion you’re trying to perpetuate.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:14amFirst they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
–Martin Niemöller German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor.
Report Post »freedom2live
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:24am@ lesbian packing hollow points
Why do you carry hollow points? Is maybe to protect your right to live the way you want to? So leave the Christians alone. If it was a frog on the mountain you would give a horses arse. By the way NO WHERE in the constitution does is state that government and religion are to be seperate. It says Government shall make NO LAW concerning religion. With your advocation to create a law you are now in violation of our Constitution. If you do not like a Christian nation there is a port from which you can sail.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:31amAtheist bigots… Can’t learn to live and let live… Must shuit down other groups freedom of beliefs and will learn to respect others beliefs. There isn’t even tolerance.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:36am“Why do you carry hollow points? Is maybe to protect your right to live the way you want to?”
Among other reasons.
“So leave the Christians alone.”
Be delighted to, as soon as they leave me alone by ceasing and desisting from trying to foist their religion on me in public/government spaces.
“If it was a frog on the mountain you would give a horses arse.”
Assuming you accidentally dropped a negator in there, you are absolutely correct.
“By the way NO WHERE in the constitution does is state that government and religion are to be seperate. It says Government shall make NO LAW concerning religion.”
Not “concerning” religion. “Respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of” religion. Are your reading for comprehension skills really that lacking?
“With your advocation to create a law you are now in violation of our Constitution.”
I don’t “advocate” for the creation of new law. Merely adherence to the long-established Constitution. The ones creating new laws which establish a preferential religion are the USFS making administrative decisions in contravention of any possible authority they could rely on to operate.
“If you do not like a Christian nation there is a port from which you can sail.”
Born here. Will die here.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:40amBtw I don’t agree with Catholics but they have a right to exist. They are an ancient culture, existing all over the world. Just as much as the Hindu, Satanists, Native American, Pagan, Buddhists, Hawaiians, Christiabs, Islam, Judaism, etc have a right to exist and worship whatever they have. All have rights to have there holy places protected. Look at National Register of Historic Places it protects a large number of things that are holy/spiritual to various cultures.
This is coming from an anthropologist.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:15amIt’s typical of the left, to try to ignore the ‘free exercise’ clause.
Report Post »jasmer
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:33am@LPHP – Perhaps Christians will stop trying to foist their religious preferences on you when you stop trying to foist your sexual preferences upon them? Your forum title offends me deeply and I demand you take it down and change your label to “non-gendered defense advocate”.
My claim above is obviously stupid and something I don’t believe, but I make it in hopes you‘ll grasp why you’re equally silly and wrong here. You’re essentially claiming that Montana is some two-bit theocracy, because they have a statue on a mountaintop somewhere.
See, the problem is, you’ve bought into this Progressive “right to not be offended” bullpucky. It has no end to potential extrapolation, and is simply another method of driving divisions between citizens. You, of all people, ought to understand that it‘s too possible to be on the short end of the stick when the Gov’t starts playing favorites. Just because society says lesbians are great fun to watch -NOW- doesn‘t mean you wouldn’t quickly be rounded up and shot with all the Christians in the long run.
Not like it hasn’t happened before…
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:59amYour demand for my screen name to be changed has nothing whatsoever to do with Atheists’ demands to end government establishment of religion. The occupancy of that mountain by a religious sect deprives me of that same space unconstitutionally. My comments on The Blaze does not deprive you of the opportunity to comment on the same articles.
I’m not offended by religion, unless it is facilitated by force of government.
I would be in full support of individuals carrying this statue up to the top of the mountain, performing any religious rituals they desire to, and then carrying it back down the mountain and removing it from government property afterward. Religionists practicing their religions deprives me of nothing. Do it on an annual basis, monthly basis, weekly, daily, hourly. Doesn’t matter. However, once they leave it there “permanently”, they have planted the flag of religion on ground held in common for all Americans. For the government to then be complicit in that taking is Constitutionally prohibitted through the Establishment Clause.
Report Post »misteryuck
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:19pmREAD IT AGAIN! CONGRESS…. Shall make no law respecting AN (not THE) esablishment of religion… How is a statue of someone who is supposed to represent “Jesus Christ” on “federal (we the people’s) land constitute CONGRESS Making a law that repects AN establisment of religion?
Report Post »Inquiring minds want to know….
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:25pmI am honestly glad you asked that, Mister Yuck.
See, Congress acted when it created the Department of the Interior. And then, the DoI acted when it created the U.S. Forestry Service. And then the USFS acted when they established that part of the federal lands may be taken for exclusive religious use.
Since Congress only has those few and enumerated powers given it by the people in the Constitution, they could not have granted the power to respect the establishment of religion on to the DoI.
Since the DoI does not have the power to respect the establishment of religion, it could not have granted that power to the USFS.
Since the USFS does not have the power to respect the establishment of religion, they erred in granting the petition to take land held in common by the federal government for such a purpose.
Q.E.D.
Report Post »misteryuck
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:10pmOne with hollow points….
Report Post »You keep saying THE establisment of religion…
The 1st Amendment says “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting AN (NOT THE) establisment of religion…
What Establisment of religion is getting a law passed by congress respecting it (A particular establisment) by allowing this statue or graven image to remain here in this park?
You keep exchanging AN for THE and that is not what the constitution says.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:21pmYou do realize that by using the word “an” is a more wide reaching prohibition on actions by the government than using the word “the”. The government is prohibitted from establishing ANY religion as preferred. Every specific instance of an attempt to establish a religion as preferred may be referred to specificly as attempting THE establishment of religion.
Honestly, once you start arguing grammar like this, you’ve admitted you have no other arguments left. It’s not like the word “an” in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment gives you some kind of wiggle room around its prohibitions.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:22pmUnless, of course, you don’t understand what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Report Post »selloursouls
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:27pmSo LPHP, because Congress created unconstitutional Departments that forcibly took land from states and now considers itself the owner of the property, not the states, it is now a law that established a religion on top of the mountain? I have a problem allowing the federal government to own over 50% of some of the states out West, but at least your priorities are set right. I mean that statue is the obvious beginning of a nationwide attempt at a theocracy revolution. Your attempt at removing everything of a Christian ideology from government property is simply forcing your religion onto us in place of that statue. I would like to know if you would even have known that statue was there except for the efforts by your religious fanatical group.
I guess once that statue is gone you will be able to sleep better. I am curious if you would support the removal of a religious symbol from state property, not federal. I bet we would see just how constitutionally inclined you are. The mural of the prayer at the Rhode Island school is a perfect example. No law was passed for that and no one was forced to read it or follow it and Congress or the Feds had no part in it, no religion was established, words were simply conveyed asking for personal improvement. I bet you support the girl. Must be great to live in a world of double standards.
Report Post »misteryuck
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:29pm“IS” was Clinton’s problem….
Report Post »Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion prevents a particular ESTABLISHMENT of religion from being granted special favor or RESPECT. An establisment of religion would be the first babptist church of danbury conn, or the third methodist church of springfield…
What estalisment of a religion was being granted respect through a law passed by congress where by leaving this graven image of Jesus would benefit? ( I hope that question came out in an understandable way)….
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:38pm@ Sell Our Souls:
“So LPHP, because Congress created unconstitutional Departments that forcibly took land from states and now considers itself the owner of the property, not the states, it is now a law that established a religion on top of the mountain?”
Extraconstitutional, not unconstitutional. The Department of the Interior is part of the President’s Cabinet, which is also extraconstitutional. “It is not a law” I don’t understand what you mean here. Nothing in your previous text refers to anything like a law. Congress is not a law, it’s a legislative body. States are not laws, they are sovereign powers. Please clarify.
But in the whole, the rest of the sentence simply describes an impossibility. There can be no law, rule, regulation, or action of any government from the city/county level to the federal level which has the effect of establishing a preferred religion anywhere in the United States of America. Period.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:39pm“Your attempt at removing everything of a Christian ideology from government property is simply forcing your religion onto us in place of that statue.”
The absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because your religion may not be favoured by the state does not mean it can prevent you from practicing it yourself. That’s the Free Exercise Clause at work. A field which contains a church is manifestly promoting a Christian religion. That same field before the church was constructed was not promoting Atheism. If a church is abandonned, falls into disrepair and is razed so the field can return to its previous state, it is still not promoting Atheism.
“I am curious if you would support the removal of a religious symbol from state property, not federal. I bet we would see just how constitutionally inclined you are.”
I am a Constitutional Constructionist. As such, I understand the 14th Amendment’s impact on First Amendment jurisprudence, specificly that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education and Free Exercise Clause https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut have been incorporated https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights under the 14th Amendment’s prohibition upon the state actions that might establish preferred religions or inhibit private religious exercise.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:40pm“The mural of the prayer at the Rhode Island school is a perfect example. No law was passed for that and no one was forced to read it or follow it and Congress or the Feds had no part in it,”
As I mentioned above, with incorporation, the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause apply all the way up and down the levels of government. Neither a law passed by Congress, nor a rule, regulation, motion, or action of a public school board may violate the Establishment Clause.
“no religion was established, words were simply conveyed asking for personal improvement.”
It’s couched in the language of prayer, bills itself as a prayer, and presupposes the existence of a god. It’s promoting religion in general. The fact that it‘s not billed as an Episcopalian prayer or doesn’t refer to god by the name Yahweh does not obscur the fact that it is promoting religion.
“I bet you support the girl. Must be great to live in a world of double standards.”
I do support Jessica Ahlquist. And there is no double standard. One standard, the Establishment Clause works just fine for all. You can no more hang a banner in a public school proclaiming the existence of gods than I could hang a banner in a public school proclaiming that gods do not exist.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:47pmBugger all. There was a post in between those two that the submission system ate. Let’s try that again with just my responses and not your quotes this time…
The absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because your religion may not be favoured by the state does not mean it can prevent you from practicing it yourself. That’s the Free Exercise Clause at work. A field which contains a church is manifestly promoting a Christian religion. That same field before the church was constructed was not promoting Atheism. If a church is abandonned, falls into disrepair and is razed so the field can return to its previous state, it is still not promoting Atheism.
I am a Constitutional Constructionist. As such, I understand the 14th Amendment’s impact on First Amendment jurisprudence, specificly that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education and Free Exercise Clause https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut have been incorporated https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights under the 14th Amendment’s prohibition upon the state actions that might establish preferred religions or inhibit private religious exercise.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:56pmJoy of joys. NOW the middle comment shows up…
Well, I guess I can take the opportunity to actually AGREE with you on a subject I didn’t address above, and that is that it is criminal the level of takings that the federal government has done in seizing control of so much land in so many states.
It’s even more atrocious when you can see the degree of theft visually. http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343
If for no other reason that it is the status quo in my beloved Indiana, I would enjoy seeing a Constitutional amendment to restrict the central authority (federal government) from exercising this kind of control over any more than 2% of any state, territory, or protectorate. If that went through, there would be a whole new land rush in the west.
Geez! There almost ISN’T a State of Alaska. nearly 90% of that state is owned by the feds.
Of course, just to bring this around, this question has no bearing on the issue of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 6:54pm@LESBIANPACKINGHOLLOWPOINTS (1)
This is a long response, but I’m addressing your plethora of posts. It was much like slogging through a Turkish toilet; one may find something of interest, but mostly it just makes them feel icky.
For all your posturing on the establishment clause, you atheists seem to have very little understanding of it as written in the Constitution. Much as the Supreme Court has mangled this in the mid-to-late 20th Century, it’s no surprise that modern-day atheists would too, given that its perversion falls in line with their ideology.
Most on which the militant godless base their outrage has little to do with the constitution, but about further expanding the reach of Everson v. BOE, the 1947 SC decision that has held up over the years in a rather spotty manner. As the constitution says nothing of a “separation of church and state”, the “wall” spoken of by the SC comes from a Thomas Jefferson letter written 13 years after these clauses originated, yet this has been applied in the most nonsensical way imaginable.
Since atheists mention logic so much (despite their constant misuse of it), can you please explain the logic of how an allegory written by Jefferson should seriously be used as an authoritative declaration in regards to the establishment cause, despite the fact that that Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of those clauses, and his letter post-dated the Constitution by 13 years?
I can hear the gears turning already.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 6:59pm@LESBIANPACKINGHOLLOWPOINTS (2)
Additionally, please learn your etymology. In the context of religion, and in the language of the 1700s, the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” simply referred to “government sanctioned or financed”. It was designed to prevent the government from creating a state-church a la The Church of England. The Congress of 1789 wanted nothing more than to nip in the bud any attempts to create a government-financed or sanctioned ecclesiastical body.
When the Supreme Court makes statements like “the First Amendment contains no textual definition of ‘establishment”, they are intentionally being evasive, as no textual definition was required in the 1700s, the meaning was clear and oft-used, speaking directly to what were considered the “establishment” churches of pre-revolutionary America, in which all citizens were required to attend, contribute tithing, etc, etc. This is simple history.
Of course, why should we expect the Supreme Court to know history any better than the average atheist? This interpretation is ever more laughable than the attempts by liberals to spin the 2nd Amendment as applying only to militia, and when these attempts fail, they (much like atheists in the case of religion) attempt to pile on regulations and legal red tape in order to litigate their way to victory.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 7:05pm@LESBIANPACKINGHOLLOWPOINTS (3)
If the establishment clause was seriously intended to mean that religious iconography couldn’t be displayed on government property, or a governmental body couldn’t begin with a prayer, then the founding fathers were nothing but massive, throbbing hypocrites, and we should be ashamed of them. These men prayed before every congress, the majority of them mention God at nearly every turn, they allowed religious symbols in and on government property.
It would surely be entertaining to read your take on how this reconciles with the so called “wall of separation”.
The other problem the atheist has is a cultural one. Government is of the people, it reflects culture, and America has been and still is a predominantly Christian culture. For the atheists attempting to litigate culture out of Government, it’s akin to playing a game of Whack-A-Mole. Our currency, our pledge, inscriptions in our government buildings, crosses at our military cemeteries, the list goes on and on.
As for your comment regarding Christians “leaving you alone”, which for you equates to public religious displays…you live in a predominantly Christian culture. You may as well be asking to remove NFL football from the public square. No matter how atheists try to spin it, the establishment clause does not equate to removal of religion from the public square, even though they really, really, really wish that it did.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 7:16pm@LESBIANPACKINGHOLLOWPOINTS (4)
Given all of this, atheists know that they are in a culture war they can’t win, so their social autism takes over and they throw a fit. So, when atheists choose targets such as underfunded government agencies, small towns, school districts, etc. they understand that these organizations will likely fold simply because they lack the money for a legal defense. The atheist throws a litigious hissy fit, and watches their target wilt. Eventually, we the people will get fed up with these attempts at “lawfare”, and respond accordingly.
On a side note, I’m looking forward to the day atheists attempt to get the crosses removed at Arlington. Best of luck with that, by the way.
Last but not least, outside of clearly not understanding history, etymology, or the fact that the “separation clause” is a dubious 20th century creation with a spotty record, your religion bashing is equally ignorant. Your comments about rituals and Catholicism and paganism reveals that you know little of the difference between idolatry and iconography, and your grasp on how sainthood worked in the early church, followed much later by the canonization process, seems tenuous at best.
Lucky for you that you’re not alone in this though, as you are hardly the only atheist with intellectual honesty problems. You atheists should really hit the books before posting nonsense like this.
Be seeing you.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 3:53pmLes-
Report Post »I believe the LGBT has the strongest lobby group in the country. Given that group represents @ 1.5 – 2% of the population, folks shouldn’t wonder why the country is so divided. It wasn’t Bush by any means but the progressive movement to treat everyone as a genderless, faceless and godless group. It won’t happen, ever. Isn’t being gay or heterosexual ultimately about “sex”…so knowing it is a woman that you desire, are you allowed in female locker rooms? If so…why?
zman173rd
Posted on February 3, 2012 at 1:49am@ BAD_ASHE I see Lesbian Packin Hollow Points ran away from your arguments and went on a lesbian tirade. I very much enjoyed your repsonse to her. And to LPHP, your argument was well WRITTEN abeit, not complete. You know I think when some folks are lacking in some areas they try to make up for it in others. No one really cares if your a lesbian, but you wear it on your shoulder as a badge of honor? And no one really cares if you don‘t believe in a GOD or Higher power or whatever’s out there. Can’t you just let folks live their lives? You are a bit of an antagonist, I wonder why? I think it’s called Justification . Again, Thanks Bad_Ashe for the history update/lesson/ refresher. Keep em comming.
Report Post »BODYBAG
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:53amI’ll let my good friend Johnny Cash speak for me:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2vqthsJdCBw#!
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:05amNice image of such a “man of god” at 3:30 in that video.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:26pmLPHP,
Report Post »Johnny walked the wrong paths to find the right one. His entire career in music is a prime example of the duality of man also the ignorance of youth and wisdom of age.
One would think a pro-gun lesbian could comprehend duality….liberal/conservative ideologies in the same title.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:14pmHomosexuality is inherently neither Right-Wing nor Left-Wing, Liberal nor Conservative. And I hold my pro-gay policies to be essentially Conservative in nature.
Getting the government out of the marriage racket handily serves the small government ideals championed by Conservatives, while demanding government get more deeply involved in more people’s lives to enforce a Constitutional amendment to limit marriage to exclusively between one man and one woman, however you define those terms, serves the Liberal ideals of empowering an ever expanding government to enforce “fairness”, however you define that term.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 2:55pmLPHP,
Report Post »You’ld be the enigma if lesbian and conservative. Using general terms when you think sky it‘s blue water it’s wet and lesbians it’s liberal. never the less you get my point about Johnny. He’s was a Christian not JESUS he like all of us sinned at one time or another. Christianity isn‘t a life free from sin it’s a life fighting sin every striving to learn from mistakes………
rsanchez1
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:44amThis is the only time that these radical idiots care about the Constitution, and they’re interpreting it wrong.
Report Post »the wireworker
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 4:54pm“OBEY THE CONSTITUTION”
Report Post »atheist cannot use the constitution, it is inspired by the book of “DUETERONOMY” that is in the bible and they don‘t believe in the bible so they don’t believe in the inspiration and intent of the constitution, so how can they use something they don‘t believe in to remove something else they don’t believe in…?
atheists where do your rights come from?
MBA
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:38amUh, the Constitution states that the Government does not have the authority to “create” a government religion that everyone has to be a part of–not that independent religions cannot be a part of government. The Constitution also says that everyone is create equal — so the people who want the statue of Jesus have just as much right to keep the statue. Atheists have no Constitutional right to prevent another US Citizen from showing their religious preference. If they don’t like it, don’t look.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:13amEssentially incorrect in every facet.
The Establishment Clause is not about creating a religion. It’s about establishing that any given religion is preferred over any other.
The “all men are created equal” phrasing is not in the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which bears no weight of law.
Nothing about preventing government conducted religious rituals prevents individually conducted religious rituals.
Report Post »americanidiot
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:39amYou should probably start packing some real facts with those hollow points. It clearly says that congress shall pass no law and that is it! It is really that simple, we have just as much of a right to see it as you to not see it. The idea of “seperation of church and state” didn’t come about until the 70s and no where in the constitution does is say those words. The constitution couldn’t have existed without the declaration. All the constitution is lay out a design to protect the ideas of the declaration. Study, learn and pray for yourself and your friends…. I will be
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:03am@ American Idiot:
Report Post »Your screen name is appropriate.
Al J Zira
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:05am@LPHP: I think if you check the gajillion of laws books in the country‘s code of justice you’ll find the Declaration of Independence as the first law of the land.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:07amFree exercise clause anyone? You know that pesky bit of the constitution, that the Supreme Court has upheld for course of the existence of the United States? When it came to these types of disputes?
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:14am“The idea of “seperation of church and state” didn’t come about until the 70s and no where in the constitution does is say those words”
Not entirely true, maybe correct if you count the 1770′s, but more like the 17780-90s. The concept appears in Jefferson’s notes and letters.
However, nearly everyone in the present take Jefferson out of context.
You can find ‘seperation of church and state’ issue written about by various historic figures throughout the existence of the United States.
One fine example, is President Grant, wrote, that government schools should leave out religious, atheist, and pagan dogma, and just teach ‘good common education’ that could be shared between all beliefs. Without stepping on anyone’s beliefs.
Yes, he included ‘athiests’ in his view of ‘seperation of church and state’, as being just as much of a problem when it came to educational indoctrination. He strongly believed it was up to parents to choose the ‘spiritual’/or lack there of, path for their own children.
Report Post »guns-an-bibles
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:03pmAmen, Brother…… or Sister!!!!!
Report Post »guns-an-bibles
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:05pmamericanidiot
Your not such an idiot!
Report Post »Nunyunuwi
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:34amExactly, it was the Judges legislating from the bench… (they can’t do that but do anyways un checked)
Amendment 1. ” 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.”
Ok where exactly is ANY separation clause? I don’t seem to see it. also we have today the abridging of freedom of speech if it is Pro America, Pro Constitution, Pro Freedom. Also we do have abridging of the press (media), as for the right to Peaceably assemble, well the Occupy anything but reality Zombies have destroyed that idea as they Assemble Violently with intent to destroy, litter, threaten, Riot around America, and Seize buildings and lands. This Nation is what happens when folks do Not read, know, understand the rules, US Constitution etc. Thats why the NEA founded by Leninist types with a goal to destroy America are now destroying America by erasing its fundamentals of History.
Report Post »God Bless the Republic of America!
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:28amNone are so blind as those that refuse to see.
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:33amAtheists, Gays, OWS, are carrying out the bottom up part of Obama/Van Jones’ American Dream. IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve are carrying out the top down for OSI Global Dream of George Soros. Leaving the inside out being herded to their new world vision/order.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:59amI’m a gay conservative and got off the plantation awhile ago! S.E. Cupp is a conservative atheist, she’s off the plantation. We are the anomaly of course. The majority of gays, atheists, and all of OWS are useful idiots for the NWO.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:15amAnd I’m a gay, Atheist Conservative, and I burned the plantation to the ground when I left it.
Report Post »CodexMan
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:32amWhat is it about a simple statue of Christ that affects people so much? Perhaps it reminds the atheists of their sinful life and they don’t like that. Lets put out more statues of Jesus out all over the place. Perhaps the atheists will get so mad they burst into flames.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:34amThese atheist are the evil minority and should not get their way. Evil is relentless. Not all atheist are evil, but those that try to destroy our expression of faith are evil.
Report Post »riverdog1
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:03pmor statues of islamic worship. thats okay to right, or are you anti constitution as well.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:27amAs Colonel West has said, “Bring it on Baby”. It is time to confront these misfits and derelicts of society with the finest attorneys available and have a showdown at OK Corral, the Supreme Court before Obama gets a chance to appoint another liberal, and stuff their erroneous doctrine and fallacious interpretations right down their throats. It profoundly can be done. Got to be preceded by and bathed in prayer, mountain moving prayer.
Report Post »Itsourtime
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:26amYou’re right!! It’s time for all of us who believe in the Constitution to do something about this. A small minority is dismantling our history and our rights that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. We need to join together in unity and fight this. We can no longer sit idly by and watch this happen. Every time the courts produce a decision in favor of this minority, it makes it so much harder for us because the courts use prior decisions to make the next one. We must do something!! Let’s rise up now and put an end to this assault on our religious freedom before our freedom no longer exists!!
Report Post »wboehmer
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:24amWaaaaaa . . .
Crybaby liberals only cite the Constitution when they make up stuff it doesn’t say!
Report Post »huey6367
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:19amSeparation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Read it. It’s not there. Next subject, please.
Report Post »imsteph
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:24amBut this is:
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
atheists have forced THEIR religious cult of NO GOD on us for long enough.
Report Post »i am fed up with these turds.
smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:36amCongress shall make no law resepcting the establishment of Religion or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THERE OF.
Report Post »I say give the atheist what they demand and follow the Constitution courts haven’t to constitutional authority to promote or banned any religious practices. that would make all restrictions no religious practices like say prayers in schools unconstitutional as the goverment has no rconstitutional authority over religion. Every rule by every court would be overturned and all religious issue revert back the people who can vote on this themselves. The 10th amendment says all powers not granted to Congress by the CONSTITUTION revert back to the state and the people. And the 1st amendment states removes all powers over religion from the federal government
I.Gaspar
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:12amHuey,
Report Post »The way the libs, atheists, and marxists whine about “separation of church and state”, you’d think it WAS in the constitution…right after Gomer Pyle yelling “Citizen’s Arreyest! Citizen’s Arreyest!”
Inlightofthings
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 4:44pmIMSTEPH
So can it be seen this way:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The purity of this has no bearing or restriction on where religious symbols can be placed. The “law” is obviously referring to written text and I think that the non-sense about separation of church and state is starting to be discovered for what it is – prohibition on religion. I see no “equal time” clause as the country wasn’t founded by Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists etc etc. America was founded on Christian principles and nothing else.
If don’t all agree to that very basic premise, all men will never be created equal…ever.
I’m thankful over the years we did interpret “all men” as including blacks, hispanics etc. Obviously native africans were viewed as property and not “men”.
Continuing my rant, I don’t just want to be created equal to you as a neighbor, co-woker etc. I want to be created equal to our founders and forefathers who were allowed to have the 10 Commandments displayed in Government buildings, who were allowed to pronounce as a nation “In God We Trust” without ridicule or a lawsuit, who were allowed to display nativity scenes in local court houses etc. What is going on now is prohibition of religion.
Report Post »Nemo13
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:11amAtheists need to STFU. They would STFU if people stop giving them a soapbox to stand and cry on. Atheists: Go start some psycho cult somewhere in the desert and pray to your great nothing ALONE. We don’t need ya boring us to death, we have bigger concerns.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:42amYou should really learn to come up with a more intelligent response to atheists. Try starting with learning why atheists are wrong.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:04am@Vernon
You are wasting your time again Vernon.
What is it that you hope to accomplish in your lifetime?
And if by some small chance you achieve that goal……..
Does it matter?
Highly illogical……..these “evangelistic atheists”
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:11amTalk about misunderstanding History & the Constitution! Atheism is a Religion of Pagan Nature… and they want the Government to adopt the Religion and suppress other Religions.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:28amMaybe Ford could demand that all the GM billboards be taken down as they are offended by their presence. Is this not the same deal ? Or maybe Sears decides they don’t like the looks of Walmart advertising and decides their offended. . This religious attack by the left wing radicals has got to stop somewhere and if courts are hell bent on supporting one side of the issue we know what comes next.
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:56amUh, atheism does not have roots in Pagan religions. In fact, it was the Roman Pagans who called the first Christians atheists because they did not believe in their gods. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the theist god.
Report Post »kentuckypatriot
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:08amObey the Constitution you say??????????? LMAO…. like that’s gonna happen…
Report Post »expatinontariocanada
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:08amAtheists obviously haven’t learned how to read. Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. Words mean things people! Right next to that statue is your monument to atheism. Yep, nothing for nothing.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:17amFrom where I sit, atheist is a religion in and of itself, so the question here for a court is choose one religion over another, it’s as simple as that. Now apply the constitution. Judges are so lame, where do we find these people.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:45amHKS,
Report Post »Atheism is not only an anti-christian religious cult. Their attacks are center at one religion and one religion only. Fact is they should be brought up on charges of hate crime at least in the court of public appearance.
Anti-christian bigots…..when I start seeing anti- jewish bill boards, or budda was a fat liar flyers,and Allah isn‘t real and there’s no mecca…..then they can claim to be unreligious……but until that happens they are just anti-christian bigots
HKS
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:30am@smith, they go after christian religion because they can, try that with Muslims and they get their heads cut off, it’s a calculated effort. Christians are easy to persecute and always have been, others not so much. ie there cowards.
Report Post »selloursouls
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:35pmHKS, your point about atheism being a religion has been my argument for some time now. What we need to do is make others understand the definition of a religion and that atheists are a religion. The word religion can be interchanged with the word ideology. My conservative beliefs can be considered a religion. The progressives have successfully made war on God and with the removal of God from every facet of government it becomes easier for those natural or God-given rights to slowly disappear. Unfortunately, atheists are simply useful idiots.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:07am“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Q: Where in this line does it support the atheists argument?
A: Nowhere.
Stand up people of faith we are being silenced by these atheist fascists!
Report Post »marvs2
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 4:41pmLesbian_Packing_Hollow_Points has written more than anyone I know about the things that she knows less about than anyone I know. She really has a knack for displaying her ignorance. She needs to study the Constitution of the United States before she tries to quote it, and she needs to study Catholicism before she tries to describe its beliefs and practices. You’re right, UBETHECHANGE – making laws prohibiting religious acts, practices, statues, etc., is blatantly UNConstitutionial! As you say, the Constitution very clearly states in the very first amendment that “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion; or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”! Apparently, none of these atheists and objectors are able to read that far into the Constitution – yet they claim to know what it ways. The same with Catholicism – LESBIAN_PACKING_HOLLOW_POINTS has made beaucoup statements about Catholic worship of Saints and idols, etc., which only prove that she has no idea what she’s talking about. She should at least spend a few hours in an RCIA study group to learn the basics of the religion which she so adamantly and ignorantly condemns! A perfect example of “Open mouth, insert foot!!!”
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:01pmYes. I who posted links to Everson and Cantwell and to the article on incorporation via the 14th Amendment, *I* am the ignorant one here.
Report Post »Arruba
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:05amThe Supreme Court decision removing religion from the public square was a huge mistake and a misinterputation of the 1st amendment. “Congress shall make no law for or against” in laymans terms it means “Govenrment mind your own darn business” the supreme court desision has given the minority legal permission to terrorize and force the majority to submit to their will and whims. One can’t help but wonder if the justices were so short sited to not see this coming or are puposely contributing to the progressive destruction of Liberty? It’s no freedom of religion that our forefathers risked their lives for, it’s government approved religious persecution.
Report Post »ZeroOff4impact
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:05amAtheists the evolution of ignorance and arrogance. Yes I said it !
Report Post »flatdaddio
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:02amI agree, there is nothing stopping the atheists from not believing on public property,
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:09amThere is Nothing in the Constitution that says anything about any Government prohibition of religious displays. And I certainly find NO reason to allow Any atheist or Infidel dictate to America what the Constitution declares as law.that would be no different than having the Ku Klux Klan dictate to Aemrica what race relations ought be.
Report Post »mapgirl10
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:01amThis statue does not violate the constitution. Congress did not pass a law making this stature our religion. Please atheists get it right or look like the mess that you are!
Report Post »proudtohaveserved
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:01amCongress 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.
I am so tired of people infringing on my right to practice. Especially in the cases of national monuments erected to honor those who have served and passed.
Report Post »NEAF
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:43amOh, let’s obey the constitution. Only when is convinient for them.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:00amThe National Cathedral in Washington is a cross-shaped church, atheists should sue to have it demolished.
Report Post »Sola Scriptura
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 8:58amI don’t see any atheists here..just anti-theists…Do they have nothing better to do then just LOOK for things to sue and take down?
Report Post »PCKaz
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 8:54amI wonder if any of these idiots actually know what freedom of religion means. The government is prohibited from preventing the free practice of religion – not from associating in any way with anyone who isn’t an atheist. It’s more accurate to say that the government is violating the Constitution by stopping religious expression on public property!
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 7:23pmPCKAZ
I agree!
It’s time to start calling it for what it truly is: Religious Prohibition.
Report Post »