School board caves to atheists over statue. When will someone stand with resolve?

I have always maintained that one of the most important elected positions in America is on the school board — and a recent decision validates that assertion.

Previously we reported on the Madison County High School football team’s monument, donated by a private citizen, that drew the ire of the Wisconsin-based atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation. The monument featured two Biblical verses, Romans 8:31 and Philippians 4:13. This atheist organization of offended individuals demanded the monument be removed, covered, or altered. The decision was to be taken up by the county school board, and yesterday they ruled – the wrong way.

As reported by the Washington Times, “A controversial monument at the entrance of a Georgia high school football stadium will be altered to remove its biblical scripture after atheists complained it was offensive. The Madison County school board voted unanimously Tuesday night to have the monument altered, following a nearly two-hour closed session to discuss the issue, Madison Journal Review reported. The monument gained national attention when it was erected in August. Two different groups sent letters to the school system arguing that it violates the separation of church and state and demanding it be removed. Board member Robert Hooper made the motion to have the Bible verses removed or covered up, saying he did so “with great consideration and concern for all students”, Madison Journal Review reported.”

I just have to ask, why was the school board meeting held in closed session? This was a community issue and why were these elected officials not willing to deliberate and make their decision before the community — the people who elected them to represent their interests on local educational governance?

And I will be completely forthright and ask, when will we have any group that will stand up to these secular humanist atheist groups and tell them to “pound sand” and go away? If they bring forth a lawsuit do not comply. There has to be a point when these destructive but vocal minority groups are met with resolve.

What would have been the problem with bringing the decision before the Madison County High School student body? Who gave the FFRF, a private advocacy group from Wisconsin, any dominion over what is happening in Georgia?

Was there a student or group of students who filed a complaint to FFRF asking their interests be defended? If this religious monument which currently reads, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” from Romans 8:31, and, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” from Philippians 4:13 was offensive — can someone state why?

I don’t think the folks in Wisconsin are coming down to Madison County High for some “Friday night lights.” And nowhere is this monument promoting an establishment of religion or forcing anyone to adhere to the verses displayed. If you don’t like the monument, well, don’t look at it.

According to the Times, “the local newspaper said that as soon as the announcement was made, there was a mass exodus of about 150 people who had showed up, most in favor of the monument. “We are not here as haters, we are here to love all,” said Theresa Gordon, who was invited to speak during the closed session, Madison Journal Review reported. “It seems as if these [atheist] groups are here as haters, willing to spend millions to remove God from [our society], which means they are antichrists by definition – they must have hatred in their hearts to fight so hard to remove him from this small object that was placed for others to enjoy.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Gordon. The definition of tolerance for the progressive socialist Left — to whom secular humanists are allies — is that they only tolerate that which they define as tolerable.

Imagine if Christians attempted to force their beliefs upon the Left — heck, there are some secular humanists like Mikey Weinstein who believe Christians in the military who profess, witness, or display their faith are guilty of sedition and should be court-martialed.

What hatred does this Wisconsin-based group possess in order to target a religious monument in sleepy Madison County, Georgia? What is becoming of our First Amendment right of “freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof?” Oh, I guess the secular humanist leftists will define and declare what freedom of [from] religion is and where there can be a free exercise.

Even more disgusting to me is the lack of moral courage to look these atheists in the eye and simply state — how can something you don’t believe exists be offensive?

I’m deeply disappointed in this school board and its decision because what these folks just did was reinforce and reward the abhorrent behavior, actions and tactics of the Freedom From Religion Foundation who are laughing at them and seeking out the next Christian target to devour — no different than the lions of the Roman coliseum.

If the Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the Obama administration giving $9 million to a Catholic organization to defend illegal aliens — a violation of church and state, using American taxpayer dollars to conduct “political activity” – maybe I wouldn’t be so critical.

FFRF is an atheist bully organization that relies on Christians just taking it and turning the other cheek. Sometimes the only way to deal with a bully is to fight back — something the school board of Madison County, Georgia pathetically failed to do.

731 COMMENTS

  1. Please don’t associate most God loving Wisconsinites with the FFRF. Although they claim this as their home…..they are on the island of misfit toys.

  2. It has become extremely clear that America is no longer a land of Equality under the Law. We now have super anti-Christian groups whose “rights” supercede the Constitution and natural law. If you are an atheist, muslim, or homosexual, you have
    super-rights that allow you to FORCE your beliefs on others.

  3. I am going to teach a very powerful word in our vocabulary. The word is: ‘No’. You need numbers to echo that word. Remember those who ask you to give up this always have ‘and that’.

  4. It’s a double standard to say that Muslims or Budists or Jewish are expected to allow election of Christian statues and not complain about them yet you are complaining about their complaints. It’s kinda like the fact it is alright to have a black Miss America contest but not a white one. The line on this issue has been drawn. Church is seperate from state.

  5. I am on the fence about the removal of any religion from any public sector or event. the reason is this politically correct stance may one day protect us from Sharia Law. Removing Christianity from an understanding of your Constitution is another matter.,

  6. What about separation of Church and State do they not understand?? may of been from a private donor but the School is not a private school.. People just cannot continue to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution should be followed. If it pertains to something they are for it is okay to disregard but if it is a subject they do not like then by all means they want to voice the Constitution. Would they complain if a private donaor gave them Jewish verses to post? Or how bout Hindu or Islam. The whole religious community are not Christians..

  7. its the fucken liberals trying to dictate to you what you should do, what you should believe, these idiots need to be removed from their jobs and escorted out the door. idiots

    • Since 10 idiots seem to think your comments are worthy of an up vote I will reply.

      Sorry, wrong. I am no “fuckin liberal” I am a Savage / Levin conservative – Language, Borders and Culture.

      I am also a free thinker who thinks religion is a stain on the human race and I refuse to allow my government to promote it, against my constitution.

      So try another generalization or better yet, go away. There is some intelligient, interesting commentary here today, and it’s not coming from you.

  8. What Ms. Gordon and Mr. West fail to realize is that they are not fighting the FFRF, they are fighting the Constitution of the United States. All the FFRF did is point out that what this school chose to do was in violation of the Constitution.

    I applaud the UNANIMOUS decision of the school board – at least they realized what had to be done. What the FFRF is, what it stands for, and who it contributes to has NOTHING to do with this issue.

    • You are so gravely wrong it is pitiful. Freedom From religion is a false case, propped up by false people professing they have the right angle…. which THEY DO NOT!!!!!!! There are not protections within our Constitution to help people who are offended. Sorry these atheists are so offended any time they seem to be “FORCED” to read a biblical verse or religious visual display. Poor hearts don’t have the strength to just ignore it? NOOOOOOOOOOOO
      They realize they can bring a lawsuit (as long as those liberal judges have been strategically placed) against ANY public institution because those funds will be made available to the plaintiff. Wow Where do you work and live? Because I plan on suing you for offending me! You are forcing your religion on me.

      • You stated opinions – opinions that may be correct or incorrect.

        Here are some facts:

        1) A law was being broken. A law backed by our constitution.
        2) It was made clear to the school board that they were breaking a law.
        3) The school board decided not to break the law any more.

        Are you asking people to ignore laws now?
        Just because the law insulted you doesn’t make it right to ignore that law. A lawsuit is called a lawsuit because it challenges our laws.

      • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964), applying the First Amendment to state and local governments as permitted by the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.

        What, you thought the lawsuit was brought with no legal basis?

      • You are still too dense to get it. Cite the precise law that was broken. And don’t try the separation of church and state, because that is a no brainer as a bogus charge in this case (and ALL cases brought by FFRF). They are BOGUS group. So…… what law was broken?

      • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964), establishing remedies for violating the First Amendment against state and local governments as permitted by the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.

        What, you thought the lawsuit was brought with no legal basis?

      • What is the broken civil right? Discriminating against heathens and forcing them to look at a religious article? Don’t see it in the law. Discriminating against an atheist by forcing them to look at a religious article? No force is evident. Misappropriation of the incorporation doctrine? Bingo

    • It isn’t in violation of the Constitution. How do you figure that? It wasn’t state sponsored…it was a gift. Freedom of expression under the First Amendment. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. You are supposed to be watching the game, not the statue.

      • You are wrong. Whether or not the item was a gift has no bearing in this case. The item was displayed on Public School Property. It promoted a single religion. That is against the law, and that’s what the school board realized and acted accordingly over.

        I have nothing against freedom of expression – I fought for your freedom of expression! If this statue was placed on private property I would support it 100%. The PUBLIC SCHOOL chose to place it on their property and that’s what makes it wrong. Please understand what the issues are before you argue them.

      • I know what the issues are, thank you. You do have something “against freedom of expression”. Freedom of expression I can express anywhere anytime religious or not. It is your right to not look or listen. You people who want to place limits on freedoms, especially speech have no right to be free. This is Soviet-style thinking. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; not a guideline. It is sad that I fought for your freedom when you have no idea what the word “freedom” means.

        Free. Free to do what I want, say what I want, or be what I want.

      • That is your right, that is not the right of the government. Those kids can, and bet do, pray all they want. The government can not lead them in prayer if that prayer establishes that God is real or that one version of God is favored over another.

        See the difference between you and the government?

        Good, now never make that lame argument again.

  9. Please find the passage in the Constitution that guarantees “Freedom FROM Religion” — I believe you will find that the Constitution assures “Freedom OF Religion”. The freedom to practice your faith as you see fit. The “interpretation” has been, incorrectly, to totally and unequivocally separate church and state — but that is not written anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. if so, please quote it. And a private gift, from a private donor is NOT state sponsorship of anything — it is freedom of personal expression, whis IS guaranteed in the Constitution to every individual — even students.

    • Actually, the Constitution does not use either the phrase “freedom of religion” or “freedom from religion.” This common chestnut about prepositions obscures more than it reveals. In any event, the concept of freedom “of” religion encompasses each individual’s freedom “to” exercise his or her religion and freedom “from” government established religion. There, all prepositions are fairly represented. Happy?

      Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

      That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

  10. This is apparently The Age of Cowardice. Political correctness trumps core cultural values. This mindset is fraying the fabric of what makes us a society. The atheists pretend that a hodgepodge of political citizenry with no cohesive worldview is fine with them: don’t believe this for a second; their worldview is what they want instituted.

  11. This is apparently The Age of Cowardice. Political correctness trumps
    core cultural values. This mindset is fraying the fabric of what makes
    us a society. The atheists pretend that a hodgepodge of political
    citizenry with no cohesive worldview is fine with them; don’t believe
    this for a second–their worldview is most assuredly what they want instituted.

    • The Constitution is the greatest testament of core values in America. This monument offended the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. The Constitution prevailed, core values prevailed. What lost was the cowardice to do nothing against those, like West, who would distort and sully the Constitution. What was brave was taking on the conventional to protect the Constitution. I hope someday you will know that style of bravery.

    • I’ve served in the U.S. Army and I’m a 6′ tall blue-eyed Texan, born and bred. Rubbing scripture for good luck and blindly following books written by desert peasants 2000 years ago isn’t a core cultural value of mine.

  12. I would like to see the ACLU get involved in at least one of these situations.

    Their Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools, dated April 17, 1995: “See You at the Pole”

    11. Student
    participation in before- or after-school events, such as “see you at the
    pole,” is permissible. School officials, acting in an official
    capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an
    event.

    And their NM Religious Liberty in Public Schools October, 2010:

    Athletic Events

    The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses give
    students the right to gather together to pray be-
    fore a game, however, public school coaches and
    other staff members may not participate. Even
    if the coaching staff does not personally partici-
    pate, they also cannot imply that athletes are
    required to participate in prayer circles or any
    other form of religious conduct. Again, coaches
    and other school officials may not encourage or

    discourage student prayer.

  13. Each and every religious person or freedom loving person needs to email or contact this school board and let them know how cowardly they really are.

      • BS! The community clearly was fine with all this until some nobody atheist who hates life and has to make everyone else’s as miserable as theirs cried about it like a moron! How on earth were they breaking the law? This is an out of school event….it’s clearly allowed. Are you going to try and get players who huddle together in prayer to stop too? Worry about your own life, this has nothing to do with you and your hate.

  14. Where are/were the CHRISTIANS in all this? You mean to tell me NOT ONE peep from anyone? I am ashamed at all those who call themselves “Christian” if they sat by and saw this go down without a word. Shame on you. If you do not wake the sleeping Christians soon, you will find yourselves under a yoke similar to what is going on in Houston TX right now, then it’s back to Nazi-style suppression. It’s on the horizon, folks!

    I don’t know if anyone is aware, but getting elected to a school board is the BEST political position in the country. In our county, you get $46,000.00 per year PART TIME plus benefits! The meetings are held in “closed session” and you must be on an “approved” list to speak. The speech must be submitted 30 days in advance in order for the board to prepare a response and deny or allow you to be heard.

      • Once again, what law was that? Laws don’t trump the Constitution, the Constitution trumps the law.

      • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) applying the First Amendment against the state and local governments as permitted by the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.

        Do you know nothing about the Constitution? BE truthful with yourself – have you ever read it? What does the 14th Amendment say?

        Why would you ever make such a silly argument?

  15. West misses the point—and gives voice to the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well.

    While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.

  16. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or
    groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.

    Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf

      • Generally yes. The First Amendment itself limits only the federal government. The Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions–hence the law does reach city councils and public school boards.

      • Google “incorporation doctrine.” to learn how the 14th Amendment applies rights against the state and local governments.

    • However, the Texas Van Orden case in 2005 said it was OK to have a display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas Capital. I believe the Breyer test for secular purpose can be used to defend the statue in it’s location. It is interesting to note that the football players, themselves, chose the inscriptions.

      • I gather you are well acquainted with the law. And it is interesting about the players choosing the inscriptions.

        I typically comment on the general legal principles and not so much on their application to a particular case, since learning and analyzing all the pertinent facts of a case from media accounts is problematic and sometimes tedious–and frankly less interesting to me than discussing and perhaps defending the general principles themselves.

      • The monument fails under Van Orden v Perry. Breyer was the swing vote and he wrote separately, joining the plurality, explaining:

        “The case before us is a borderline case. It concerns a large granite monument bearing the text of the Ten Commandments located on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. On the one hand, the Commandments’ text undeniably has a religious message, invoking, indeed emphasizing, the Deity. On the other hand, focusing on the text of the Commandments alone cannot conclusively resolve this case. Rather, to determine the message that the text here conveys, we must examine how the text is used. And that inquiry requires us to consider the context of the display.”

        He then lists several factors, most of which this statute fails.

        The 10 Commandments were allowed because they were traditional, had been there for 40 years and were a monument to ethics that didn’t promote anything sacred about them.

        This statute is brand new, has no traditional element to it and is rubbed for good luck, suggested it is sacred, by the players. It fails Breyers test and would then likely lose if before the court.

  17. The same school board who voted to remive the verses approved a fund raiser which sells crosses and orher “religious” items. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too

  18. What could be interesting is if the FFRF was sued for forcing the religion of secularism on all of us while denying Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagens, basically any religious group from displaying their religious views in public. I’m not for denying the atheists or secularists their point of view. If we did that, then all of the secularists and atheists could not show their posters and signs in public on billboards and subways during the Christmas season displaying their unbelief. That also means Christians, Jews or any other faith could not display their faith, again, on any billboards or signs on a subway, or in any public building for that matter.
    This subject matter cuts both ways.

    • As secularism refers to the idea of keeping government and religion separate, it is oxymoronic to treat secularism itself as a religion. Doing so would seem to render the very concept of secularism an impossibility–since keeping government and (real) religion separate would itself be deemed a religion in which the government is somehow joined. I’m picturing a dog chasing its tail.

      You also seem to equate secularism with atheism and object that it amounts to forcing atheism on everyone. Secularism is not atheism. Many, indeed the vast majority, of Americans, most Christians, support keeping government and religion separate.

      Moreover, it should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religions, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.

      • Horse pucky. How , so very full of yourself you are. I am so tired of the idea that the 1st amendment protects the government from religion. Read it again. The school and its population are having their free exercise of religion violated by the group from Wisconsin through the school board. Rise up you parents in Georgia. Insist on restoration of the statue. Remove the school board for the secret vote.

        I do not attend any church, but I do respect the right of the parents of the school to have the statue there. The school board is very cowardly to cave in.

      • Individuals have freedom to exercise their religions. A public school–an arm of the government–does not. Rather, the school is constrained by that other part of the First Amendment not to promote or otherwise take steps to establish religion.

      • That other part, the Establishment Clause, is the part that West never mentions, because he knows it destroys his position. West wants his readers angry, not informed. Seemingly, the readers like it that was as well.

      • The local public schools SHOULD NOT be an arm of our Federal Government!!! That is the problem, to begin with!

      • They shouldn’t be an arm of the local church either. I attended a suburban school absolutely dominated by young idiots all too happy to demonstrate how Jesusy they were with their extra-curricular organizations, tshirts with christian slogans, and various other elements of free speech they were allowed to exercise. Honestly, the private Catholic school I attended until fifth grade was less oppressively religious than the public high school I went to.

      • Why is it that when someone introduces fact and does so in a cogent, intelligent style they are accused of being full of themselves?

        Meanwhile the ignorant posts, devoid of fact or cogent argument, are lavished with praise.

        What does that say about the radicals who post here?

      • I am far from a radical. I am an old American who has read and followed the course of the Constitution since elementary school. Dug in deep provided a very cogent, well written post. In it ghe clearly supports the belief of what I choose to call “the later liberal interpretation” of the 1st. It has been fought and hammered between both sides for years. The side Dug in deep has put forth is the exact words that the local atheists and the national atheists argue. It is a misinterpretation. If any of you who read here has the ability, as I think most do, to interpret the Amendment with a mind set as close as each of us is able, to interpret what was meant at the time of its writing.

        The same argument is used by those who take the Treaty of Tripoli and use it to “PROVE” that America is not a Christian nation. It was refuted by learned scholars and the treat itself was modified to remove the passage that so stated.

        Tell me what a Christian nation is and then more can be said. If the local Synagogue presented our school library with new books and PCs and a plaque with information about the Torah, it would not bother me to see that in my school library. It would most certainly not be the government supporting Judaism.

      • Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

        During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts.

      • There really hasn’t been that much back and forth its been a steady drumbeat, back by the founding fathers, that the Establishment Clause means what we take it to mean now, and you’re wrong on the Treaty of Tripoli.

        The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified with the language and was never edited nor revised. The Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed on July 4, 1805, superseding the 1796 treaty, and not containing the clause. That’s a huge difference.

      • Ah, sir, you caught me– My thrust was to illustrate how the arguments about us being a Christian country are old and never ending. My point is that the statement, as you point out, about Christian nation, was indeed left out in the following treaty and there has been much discussion about the ability of the translator who first wrote it in the original. Also, it is a key argument for atheists who somehow seem to see a message in a translated treaty and the statement “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”. It is one of the few official documents that contained such a statement and as you pointed out it was not included in the updated treaty. That’s as far as I go with it since I have been involved i the same argument for over 8 years here on he web.

        The very fact of its removal speaks for itself. The very words in the 1st amendment speak for themselves and no matter how hard atheists try to change it they cannot. Further were it not for politically correct judges it would never be an issue.

        The consistent evaluation of historic documents by people who are using present mindedness to determine the import of old documents is sure to arrive at false premises.

      • I know people are concerned with outside groups pushing back religious influence that may be seen in government. After reading what you clarified about secularism, I see your point. Our government should be impartial but I don’t think our government can completely separate itself from religious teachings or influence. The natural laws that many religions follows are the same laws that are in our secular laws such as laws against killing or stealing. I think people are very concerned when government or some anti-religious group tries to take away from public view any religious symbols. I’m very concerned when a government, in this case, the mayor of Huston, TX, demands the local churches turn in their sermons or homilies for review in fear of something bad might be said about someone’s lifestyle or be held in contempt of court. Clearly, that is a violation of the first amendment. Our national government is doing the same thing, just not as obvious as what was done in Huston.

      • You are right about government and religion necessarily overlapping at least in some respects. The constitutional separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

        Confusion also understandably arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.

      • Don’t you think our government(s) is/are persecuting Christians at this point? They are bending over backward not to “not offend” members of other faiths, while seemingly not caring about our beliefs.

      • No. Even though Christianity remains by far the dominant religious influence in our society, Christians no doubt have occasionally faced instances of unfairness and the like. But persecution? When I hear a member of that dominant religion express feelings of persecution and such, the image of a privileged child comes to mind–one who, faced with the prospect of treatment comparable to that experienced by others, howls in pained anguish at the injustice of it all and pines for the good old days.

        As an atheist, I know how it feels to hold views not shared and even reviled by many in our society. You may understand then how alarming it is to hear members of the dominant religious group speak of their sense of persecution. History often reveals dominant groups working themselves into a lather about perceived wrongs against them before they lash out to “restore” matters as they see fit.

      • The laws against killing, stealing, and not screwing your neighbor’s wife predate religion. Even cavemen understood that killing someone, stealing their stuff, or raping their woman led to instability.

    • The FFRF was contacted that’s how they found out… someone didn’t like the fake deity words on their public land so they enlisted them to help get them off. You are allowed to display your religious views anywhere that is not tax payer funded. It’s that simple. If you pay for an ad on a billboard that is perfectly fine because that is private business. Just keep your fake religions out of the public parks, schools, or any other place that people pay taxes to have and there won’t be a problem. Atheists aren’t allowed to put up “there is no God” monuments anywhere could you imagine the outrage there would be if that was printed on money or on the front of a courthouse. Christians would lose it.

      • “Fake deity”? Just because you don’t believe, doesn’t make it fake! That is offensive! Would you talk to a Buddhist in that manner, or a Muslim? I am a Christian, and I would not!

      • That’s way over the heads of these people. Besides, buying a copy of this statue and putting it on the edge of their yard, facing the street so every passerby could see it, would require them to actually put their money where their mouths are.

  19. Since it has been ruled that the test for constitutionality of religious expression is based on property ownership, clearly the only resolution for Christians is to somehow reduce the government to its original scope and size. The central government has a vested interest in “owning” your children’s activities and influences; hence their benevolent offer to “freely” and universally educate the citizenry. It’s nothing more than job security for the non-contributory public sector.The actual cost in dollars to effectively educate the average child from age 5 to 18 is a small fraction of what is spent. The greater cost is to the parent in time (you can easily convert this to dollars also) and the effort to organize a system that will provide a superior knowledge base for their offspring. Unfettering ourselves from government intrusion is going to require cutting the purse strings to education and waiting for a generation of intelligent people to systematically starve the behemoth bureaucracy that we’ve been feeding for decades.

  20. Such a shame to see another institution cave in to the intolerant and self possessed views of groups like this. A sign of the times that any mention of God is so ‘offensive’ in a world full of things that should really offend them. These atheists are nothing but a bunch of intolerant, self possessed bullies that really only want to impose their religion of nothing on everyone else based on their ‘outrage’ or being offended. Who cares if they are offended, what law or article of the Constitution says that being offended gives you the right to be catered to? The students of this school should protest until it is brought back, it was a gift, a tradition and part of the school pride. Don’t like God’s word on it? Don’t look at it. Problem solved.

    • The Establishment clause of the first amendment makes that statute illegal on state or federally held property. By placing a statue to a specific god, quoting a specific god’s scripture, the state establishes that god.

      We aren’t intolerant. If you have a private school, you are welcome to have all the statues you want. And in your homes, your churches, your privately held businesses…wherever you want, that is privately owned property.

      The first amendment of the constitution bans such religious symbolism from being put into our state and federal property, however.

      • You know, I don’t believe that at all! Why is it that the left is trying to make Christian Churches perform marriages for people of the same sex, then! You should all stand up for the churches, and fight for them, if you believe this way! Fight as hard to keep people from taking away our right to religious freedom, as you fight against what you think is us making you “look” at something that promotes our faith!

      • Who says I don’t?

        A church, like any other place of business, has the right to refuse service to anyone.

        Now, I think it’s disgusting that your churches don’t pay taxes, and I find it morally reprehensible that christians think it’s their right to limit other peoples legal rights due to the narrow minded hate filled dogma in the bible…

        But if a church doesn’t want to marry a couple, or a religious zealot doesn’t want to bake a cake for a religious person? That’s that person’s right. It makes them a scum bag, but it’s their right.

      • Please explain how placing that monument ‘establishes’ a religion? If there was a poster on a school wall with verses from the Koran would the muslim religion be established? If a teacher chooses to fly Buddhist prayer flags in their room will the Buddhist religion be ‘established’? Like a famous line in Princess Bride, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”. Those fleeing religious persecution in Europe to come to America would laugh at what is feared these days, such as a monument with a few verses on it.

      • While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from passing a law or some such to establish a national religion, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

      • I still believe that the word establish is not used properly. When the monument is displayed, nobody is saying “this is now Christian property, this is now a Christian school.” Now, when the President of Uganda dedicated his nation to God, that is establishing a Christian nation 🙂

  21. Fight back?? Forget defending yourselves from bullies… The school boards in many places have done away with that also. Kids here are no longer ‘allowed’ to defend themselves. If they do..they’re considered part of the problem and punished right along with the perpetrators. It boils down to ‘we’ve allowed(voted in) the insane, to run the asylums’!

  22. “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.”

      • When will you religionists ever learn the difference between the public and private sphere? How many times do we have to try to get it through your heads? I know you were on the previous blog thread.

        You can worship any deity or god or prophet you want on your own property, with your own money and preach it to your own kids, (even though that is really child abuse)

        You can’t force promote one religion over another in the public sphere.
        You can’t have a school promoting one religion to impressionable kids

        It’s not hard to understand the difference. That’s what separation means.

      • When will you haters of everything get it through your thick skull that nobody is forcing anything on anybody! When you stop and realize this is something this team and it’s players wanted. Will you now forbid players to huddle together and pray during a public school sporting event? It’s the same thing. You are the people shoving your hateful ways down everyone else’s throats. Try looking in the mirror, you are doing the very thing you try and accuse others of. Separation of church and state meaning is this school forcing this on anyone….HELL NO! Now, get over yourself, you aren’t as smart as you seem to think you are.

      • Did the team really want it, or are they just a bunch of kids who have been indoctrinated into that religion since birth? We don’t send 6 year olds to Saturday political lessons, but we’ll send them to Sunday religious lessons.

      • Separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. That the government is not to interfere with the free exercise of religion does.

  23. || I just have to ask, why was the school board meeting held in closed session? This was a community issue and why were these elected officials not willing to deliberate and make their decision before the community — the people who elected them to represent their interests on local educational governance? ||

    Likely because they were discussing legal strategy and legal risk. That is a common exception to the open meeting laws in the United States. It’s called executive session in most states. If the meeting was public, the Atheist would have an unfair advantage in the lawsuit. How can person like West not know something as basic as this?

    || If they bring forth a lawsuit do not comply. ||

    The court system was put into place by the founding fathers so as to avoid mob rule, vigilantism and general civil unrest. That West holds the founding fathers and the rule of law in such contempt is, sadly, not surprising. West seemingly is itching for a civil war. My advise to Mr. West – get the hell out. The Army kicked you out because you were a lousy American and now America wants you out as well. If following the rule of law is too much to ask of you, as it was in the Army, then just get the heck out. Don’t foment civil unrest, don’t encourage people to break the law … just leave.

    || What is becoming of our First Amendment right of “freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof?” ||

    That’s not what the Constitution says, you chuckle-head. Here’s the real quote:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    That you are so intellectually lazy and so contemptuous of the US Constitution that you can’t even be bothered to show it the respect of quoting it right demonstrates that you don’t give a dang about the Judea Christian principles this great country was founded on.

    Good men and women have fought and died for the Constitution, and not so you can lie about it over some lame fight about a schoolyard monument. If West will lie about something so trivial, you have to know he’ll lie to you about the big stuff as well.

    The issue here is the Establishment Clause. The reason West left it out is because respecting the Establishment Clause is why the monument has to be altered so to not seemingly endorse (establish) Christianity as a preferred God, or even that God exists at all.

    Additionally, West lied to you about what the Constitution contains because he thinks that you’re too dumb to know the difference and that you’ll mindlessly attack anyone who does.

    Prove West he’s wrong, prove that the Constitution does matter and that lying about it a sin. Let West know he needs to be honest with you with your comments and by withholding your donations to him.

      • I’m just an average Joe with some time on his hands. Registered (R), never voted for Obama. Who are you?

      • I’m an ex-democrat. I’m registered independent, but I pretty much vote Republican. Dukakis was the last Democrat I voted for.

      • Fair enough. I can tell you this – I most assuredly did not vote for Dukakis. I was registered as a (D) that year (AZ republicans can be a bit right-wingish for my tastes) and he drove me back to the (R). 🙂

      • No, it’s the law. You don’t like the rule of law, then change it, peacefully, but you’ll only be empowering the atheists and their lawsuits.

    • “The court system was put into place by the founding fathers so as to avoid mob rule, vigilantism and general civil unrest.” This is only used where liberals want it to be used, though, right??? It didn’t do a thing for Missouri, when the “mobs” ruled!!

      • You’re unhinged. Those people were jerks on the same scale as West hopes to make you. You like that the thugs in Ferguson did, then you follow West and do the same. The rest of us will laugh our bums off when the police take after you with batons.

  24. And these MORON’S listened to People from Another State, who would Never attend a Game. What a bunch of Low Life people to have been elected to the School board
    by People, who have no B**LS to even speak up, I am proud that I moved from this Chicken Chit state

    • I wish they would get the hell out of Wisconsin. They just give us a bad name and should shut up and leave, I will even help them pack…..

  25. Allen, I’m surprised to see you bring this up again, considering the last 2 times:

    http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/10/atheists-run-amok-now-challenging-statue-georgia-high-school/

    http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/09/atheist-group-wants-ban-prayer-university-tennessee-games-stick-heads-fourth-point-contact/

    The responses were overwhelming against your position and in fact the constitutionalists fairly well shut down the religionists seeking to force their superstitions on everyone else, including my kids.

    I doubt any new insight will come out of this new thread.

    And your web site is so laden with ads that it’s almost unusable.

    • Christians are not “religionists”! That word is offensive to me. Will that encourage you to stop using it? Or are you only interested in what offends your friends??

      • Well…. What would you prefer? Theist? Dogmatic Slave? Bronze Age Superstitionist? I seriously don’t know what to call you. You are sitting here shouting, “Out of the 3500 known deities throughout human history, I am convinced that MINE is the correct one! Pay no attention that this is what every religion throughout history has claimed! And my belief system should be the one everyone is forced to follow! I don’t care if the governing document of my country states that any governmental facility shall not show preference for one religion or another!” We all here are atheists, you included. True atheists just took the logical step and took it one god further.

      • I think a good term is Jesus follower. That is what many Middle Eastern (and other) Christians call themselves. It’s not a religion to follow, it’s following Jesus. I don’t believe any Christian is forcing anyone to do anything. Almost anything they do IS offensive to others, just as Jesus claimed it would be.

      • Catholics are not Jesus followers. They are church followers. I know I was one. They don’t really look at the bible even, it’s church teaching that is paramount.

        Jesus didn’t write a word. We don’t even have second hand versions, the New Testament is all 3-5 times removed.

      • I’m not in a position to judge which Catholics are Jesus followers or not. Some are, some aren’t. Same in any church. Everyone is in process and on different points in their spiritual journey. Not everyone who comes to church has to have it all together, in fact, those that don’t are in need of God’s grace all the more. Also, you may not believe it is true, but Scripture is inspired, meaning that God showed men what to write. And I trust that the copies made were by scribes who were very careful in what they did. Are there some textual errors? Sure. But not any that change basic tenets of faith.

      • I’m copy/pasting from my previous thread sorry, but the other side is regurgitating so much I have to do same.

        RE: Scripture as Inspired -The texts / canon have been widely discredited by modern textual analysis

        -They were not written by the people in whose names they were written. No Mathew didn’t write Mathew, Mark didn’t write Mark, etc.

        -They weren’t written until decades and some cases a hundred plus years after the events they describe.

        -They were modified over 100’s of years by hundreds of scribes and ideologues of various persuasions who manipulated the texts. (Helms)

        -Not a word in the New Testament was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

        -The followers of Jesus were written out by the followers of Paul

        -It has been clearly shown that the New Testament was written to conform to the Old Testament so that the new religion could gain credibility from conforming to the ancient Judaist texts.
        Jesus didn’t ride into Jerusalem on a donkey as written in Isaiah. They wrote that into the New Testament to make it look like a fulfillment of Isaiah. Get it? That formula is all over the text.

        -The first Bible that lay people could read wasn’t written until 1500 years after Christ. No doubt after all that human manipulation it came out as the perfect, inerrant word of God…

        -The apocalyptic predictions and predictions that Jesus would return (John, etc.) …. have been flat out wrong as were specific predictions in Deuteronomy, Zachariah, Luke, Mathew… All
        wrong, wrong, wrong. (Harris)

        -The New Testament misquotes the Old, or just gets stuff flat out wrong. If you read the book critically, which few practitioners do, you will find literally thousands of
        cases where the New Testament cherry picks from the Old or flat out misinterprets or misstates things. (Helms)

        -Each of the 4 “synoptic” gospels of the New Testament present a different story of Jesus and his death and resurrection. They differ not just on trivialities but on the core concepts which Christian dogma is based such as divinity and resurrection. The historical approach was to merge them all into 1 mega gospel story. But modern methods of textual analysis reveal there are 4 different stories written at different periods by different people, basically correcting each other. One by
        a Jewish convert, one by a Greek speaking pagan convert, etc. By comparing and contrasting the different versions we can see changes that were made in each and figure out the motivations by studying the history of the period. These revelations don’t play well with the notion that this is the word of some higher power. It plays more like this is an early version of The Sopranos.

        This sort of Biblical analysis is fairly new. For starters, historically people didn’t have the freedom to think critically about the Bible. The study of Biblical texts and archeology is
        cutting edge stuff, with crucial new discoveries having occurred as recently as the 1970’s with the translation of Nag Hammadi scrolls and the Dead Sea Scrolls only a short time prior. Recent archeological discoveries in the 1900’s include the tombs of Caiaphas and Herod and the possible tomb of Jesus, his wife Mary and son under a condo in Talpiot, a suburb of Jerusalem (Tabor) So why do the 2000 year old interpretations still stick to our shoes like a wad of Bazooka Joe?

        -Modern Biblical scholars and theologians no longer say that Jesus actually performed any miracles at all (including your local parish priest – but he won’t tell unless maybe you buy
        him a beer and dig). Not sure if that news has gone out to Mr and Mrs Front Porch. Hope I didn’t burst too many bubbles here. Repeating: The scholars within your own religion no longer believe in miracles attributed to Christ.

        The writing is just not that good:

        -As Sam Harris points out in Letter to Christian Nation, the Jains and the Zoroastrians elucidated superior “commandments” than the list in the Bible, the first 4 of which are solely about praising a jealous, petty, legalistic, deity. The others are fairly mundane regurgitations of admonishments from every culture n recorded history and not worthy of any higher being. Really, the writing is not that good.

        -There are some 26 prior versions of the virgin birth story, the resurrection story and half the other Christian myths prior to advent of Christianity. Sorry, you didn’t invent this stuff, you are just rehashing it, poorly. Like Godfather III.

        -References to Old Testament books in the New Testament are wrong. They get stuff wrong, and misquote the ancient books, no kidding

        -The Old Testament books have been found to be falsified themselves, ie: Daniel which pretends to be written 600 years before it was actually written and then pretends to see the future.

      • To me a religionist is someone who is not content to worship in private, they need to force me to participate in a government forum.

        Matthew 6:5, Jesus says, “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.

  26. The “government” in no way has promoted religion here Doug. The “government” did not order the statue to be erected. The “government did not mandate what the inscriptions be. The “government did not require anyone to bow down and pray to the statue.

    Twisting the Constitution has be a goal among socialists for well over a century. But the Constitution does not stutter. “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.” Nothing like that happened here until the Board of Education acted against the people in violation of the law of the land.

    • As the witticism goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is that the government (in the form of the public school) has erected and maintained a sculpture that displays religious messages at its football stadium. That the sculpture was donated does not in the least change the fact that it is the government that erected and now maintains the religious display.

      To comply with the First Amendment’s constraints on government actions regarding religion, the government’s action must have a secular purpose, must not have the effect of advancing or endorsing religion, and must not foster excessive entanglement with religion. Here, the government’s erection and maintenance of a sculpture displaying religious messages has a religious rather than secular purpose and plainly has the effect of endorsing or promoting religion.

      You can bet that the school’s attorney saw the handwriting on the wall and advised the school accordingly, and that is why the school board voted unanimously to remove the religious messages from the sculpture.

      • See that is where you are mistaken. The government is not supposed to be running our schools! We, the people, are supposed to be able to run our own schools. We locally, should be able to teach our children, and decide how our schools should be run. Why is someone from hundreds of miles away even allowed to complain about another part of the country???

      • That you wish our schools were not run by the government hardly renders me mistaken. The fact is, though, that the schools are run by the government, so there you go. We need to apply the First Amendment accordingly.

      • Do you mean that because a scripture is visible, then the school is using that to ‘endorse or promote’ a religion? You would have to be able to read the minds of the administrators to know that is their purposeful intent.

      • The law looks at both purpose and effect. In assessing purpose, courts look not just at the “subjective” intent of individual school administrators, but also the “objective” intent evident from the nature of the display. While it is conceivable that one would display religious messages for some non-religious reason, that appears not to be the case here. In any event, with respect to the effect of the government’s display, it plainly promotes religion.

        In a suit, these would be factual issues decided on the evidence presented. I suppose the school district’s lawyers assessed the case, saw the writing on the wall, and advised the district accordingly, which likely is why the board voted unanimously to remove the religious messages.

      • I assume they looked at the motive for the donation. I have not read that yet but I will see if I can find it. I guess they will scrub the Scriptures and put encouraging notes instead, like “Go For It!” I’m sure that will inspire the athletes.

      • Witticisms aside, the fact that the truth does not concur with your opinion, does not make the truth merely my opinion.

        I was not giving my opinion I was quoting the constitution. The very one which grants the federal government no authority to establish or regulate public schools. Congress has not established a law in this matter and the Constitution was not violated by bible verses on a statue.

        If local people want particular phrases on a statue, and local authorities do not, then the people have a means to address that. After all, those local authorities are elected and so serve at the people’s will.

        Nothing in the Constitution gives a group of people from one state, the right or authority to legislate, impose (or threaten, as in this incident) their beliefs, practices, desires or lack thereof upon the people of another state.

      • While the First Amendment limited only the federal government, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions–hence the law does reach the city councils and public school teachers. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend similar constraints to state and local governments.

      • All I see in the 1st amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (no law was made here), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” I don’t see anything about public schools not being able to have a monument with scripture on it. I don’t see a limit to free exercise of religion in any particular place. Just saying, I’m going by the actual words in the 1st amendment.

      • I will look at it, thanks. I’m not saying this as a cop out, but I don’t believe every legal decision is correct. Just look at Prohibition, lol! Given the plain speech of the 1st Amendment, I think some later legal interpretations infringe on the free exercise of religion.

      • Absolutely! It’s just as much mine as yours. And I shouldn’t have to worry about my kids being exposed to your dogma at what should be a non-religious public school.

      • Then donate a real, ligimate – as for the purpose of expressing your religion, in a positive manner, with no malliciousness – statue and ask that it be erected as well to give hope and positive vibes and protection from injuries to all their teammates and friends, for the football team when they’re entering their stadium, and IF your statue, that does not speak of hurting, harming, or has any negative language on it, is not allowed, THEN you protest and demand that the other ones are removed as well.

      • Nope, that’s not how this works. Religious dogma has no place in state and federal property. No religious dogma, from any religion.

        At least, not if you go by the “first amendment” of the “constitution” at any rate.

  27. May I ask what type of “monuments” would be acceptable on your publicly funded property Drakar? How about behavior? Should that also be limited? Individual or group prayer for example?

    • Holding privately organized prayer sessions on public grounds is legal. You’re trying to present a slippery slope argument when there isn’t a slope. Government entities are not allowed to erect monuments, even if privately funded, on government property, when the sole purpose of that monument is to promote the views of a particular religion.

      • There have been no other religions asking to do the same. IF there were, and THEY were denied, you’d have an argument. For now, you don’t.

  28. Soon the hate filled atheists will make sure they take away the right for players to huddle together in prayer before a game. How is that any different than this? Atheist’s are the root of evil. Maybe if they just worry about their unhappy life and try and fix their own problems they won’t be so worried about things like this that are not hurting anyone!

    • Read this blog post and the other 2 West posts on the subject, including the responses. Then tell me who is expressing hate. Who wants to punch who in the mouth or who thinks who should be segregated or shipped out of the country.

  29. Every parent and every supporter of this team needs to have t-shirts printed up with these exact same bible verses and wear them to every single game, in the face of these crybaby whiners.

    • What you may not get is that no one would care, including the FFRF, or me.
      People can say what they want. The government cannot promote religion.

      • It wasn’t the gov promoting religion, it was the people! The people are to run our schools, not the government! The liberal government is more and more trying to brainwash our kids!

      • This is wishful thinking to avoid the obvious. While I suppose one can envision that “the people” run “our schools,” it simply cannot be denied that they do so by establishing a government entity, i.e., a public school district, with governmental powers exercised by an elected board. Can’t get much more “governmental” than that. It is the school district, not the “people,” that owns and operates the football stadium, and it is the district that has erected and maintained the religious display. That is clearly “government,” and not “individual,” action.

      • No, sonny. There are more levels of American life than da’ gub’ment and the individual. There are municipalities, counties, cities and states. You want to throw your life over to the gub’ment, be my guest. But you have no idea how many of us don’t.

        Congress has passed “no laws respecting an establishment of religion,” here. But it has, if it backs the fascists here, “prohibited the free exercise thereof.”

      • While for some purposes “American life” might be divided into many “levels” as you posit, for purposes of applying the First Amendment, it is critical–absolutely necessary–to determine whether the speech or action at issue is that of the government or an individual. No way around it.

      • Uh, no. Don’t make the tragic mistake that just because you choose to be a gub’ment stooge, that everyone does.

      • Except that the establishment of that government entity was done by Democrats, who want larger government to oversee all aspects of our lives. The Federal Government’s job is to protect the people and Secure our country.

      • Hate to break the news to you, but the government had nothing to do with this discussion UNTIL, like fascists, it decided to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Zeig heil, Jimmy Boy. Der Fuhrer would be so proud of you!

      • No one got in the way of free exercise of religion. Those students who hold those beliefs aren’t stopped from believing. We just don’t want your religious dogma cluttering up our schools.

      • Nothing to see here folks, keep moving. Move along. Some interesting and illuminating comments below from Doug Indeap.

      • God doesn’t teach us to punch them in the mouth! Although, Jesus did drive the money changers out of the temple, he mostly taught love and peace. We are to love our fellow man, but it would be nice if they could find it in their agnostic or atheist heart to love us too!

      • We don’t have an atheist or agnostic heart. We have a regular heart, capable of bearing love and morality and beauty same as any other. To illustrate, here is a list of free thinkers. you will find that much of the beauty and intellect produced by the human race came from atheists.

        You can see more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists

        Lawrence Krauss
        James Randi
        Dave Barry
        George Carlin
        Jodie Foster
        Katharine Hepburn
        John Malkovich
        Randy Newman
        Penn and Teller
        Mark Twain
        Confucius
        Lucretius
        Benjamin Franklin
        David Hume
        Thomas Paine
        James Madison
        Napoleon Bonaparte
        Lord Byron

        Charles Darwin
        Edgar Allan Poe
        Elizabeth Cady Stanton
        Walt Whitman
        Susan B. Anthony
        Robert Ingersoll
        Andrew Carnegie
        Thomas Edison
        Luther Burbank
        Sigmund Freud
        George Bern. Shaw
        Clarence Darrow
        Robert Frost
        Albert Einstein
        Alfred Hitchcock
        Ernest Hemingway
        George Orwell
        Howard Hughes
        Ayn Rand
        Francois Mitterrand
        Isaac Asimov
        Gene Roddenberry
        Charles Schulz
        Marcello Mastroianni
        Richard Burton
        John Chancellor
        George C. Scott
        Carl Sagan
        John Adams
        Ralph Waldo Emerson
        Johannes Brahms
        Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky
        John Q. Adams
        Woody Allen
        Lance Armstrong
        Clara Barton
        Ingmar Bergman
        Irving Berlin
        Bjork
        Andrew Carnegie
        Charlie Chaplin
        George Clooney
        Nicolaus Copernicus
        Claude Debussy
        Dorothy Parker
        Frederick Douglas
        W.E.B. DuBois
        Ralph Waldo Emerson
        Bill Gates
        Butterfly McQueen
        Thomas Jefferson
        Angelina Jolie
        Scott Joplin
        Frida Kahlo
        James Joyce
        Abraham Lincoln
        Jack London
        John Lennon
        Giuseppe Verdi
        Herman Melville
        James A. Michener
        Gertrude Stein
        Jack Nicholson
        Leslie Nielsen
        Joyce Carol Oates
        Blaise Pascal
        Brad Pitt
        Ron Reagan
        Tony Randall
        Steven Soderbergh
        Rod Steiger
        Richard Jeni
        Robert Louis Stevenson
        Sting
        James Taylor
        Leo Tolstoy
        Gore Vidal
        Voltaire
        George Washington
        Frank Lloyd Wright
        Frank Zappa
        Robert G. Ingersoll
        H.G. Wells
        Ted Williams
        Bruce Willis
        Walt Whitman
        Jesse Ventura
        Julia Sweeney
        William Shakespeare
        Andy Rooney
        Eleanor Roosevelt
        Ferdinand Magellan
        Burt Lancaster
        Ricky Gervais
        Indira Gandhi
        Henry Fonda
        Louis “Studs” Terkel
        Sigmund Freud
        Robert Frost
        Richard Dawkins
        Matt Dillon
        John Stuart Mil
        Bertrand Russell
        Virginia Woolf

  30. “They knew that to put God in the constitution was to put man out.
    They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought.
    They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping or in the keeping of her God the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship or not to worship that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed.
    They intended to found and frame a government for man and for man alone.
    They wished to preserve the individuality of all to prevent the few from governing the many and the many from persecuting and destroying the few.”
    ― Robert G. Ingersoll, Individuality From ‘The Gods and Other Lectures’

  31. On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.
    But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly.
    The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position one hundred percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are?
    And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
    And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.
    ~Barry Goldwater

  32. God will judge and punish these fools. Just where will this world be when we allow then to eradicate God completely? ?

    • Wow, your God sounds so lovely doesn’t he… Really your God is that mean and pathetic that it would punish people who actually decided to use their own brain and dismiss his existence…If you god exists (and btw he doesn’t) and you think this is appropriate, your delusional and sick

      • Just like a healthy body gets rid of a virus, Matty boy. (yes, I’m suggesting you are analogous to a virus, in case you’re uncertain).

      • Sounds like you’re the delusional & sick one, Matt. So if you’re so smart then enjoy Hell because that’s where you’re going. Praise God & to Him be the Glory forever & ever Amen!!!

      • Hmm A belief system that teaches if people don’t follow it, they will burn in a hole in the ground somewhere forever…
        Cool. As an atheist I call new rule. If you don’t become an atheist you will have to spend eternity in a Catholic church kneeling and sitting, then kneeling, then sitting, then…

      • Just about every act of genocide can be laid purely at the feet of religion…that, alone, makes completely getting rid of the concept worth while.

      • Your first mistake is confusing God, Who’s NOT a concept, with religion. Your second mistake is blaming God for genocide when in reality that was done by man & man alone in his unwavering pride & arrogance…kind of like you are right now.

      • Read your old testament. This took about 3 seconds of web searching:

        A number of cases of mass killings of people, apparently at God’s behest, are recorded in the Old Testament:

        1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
        2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
        3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
        4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3;Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
        5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

        Hard to find a more egregious, spiteful, hateful, petty, insecure, murderous, licentious individual than the god of the Old Testament. Worship him? I don’t even come close to respect.

        Burn in hell because I don’t bow down to these 2900 year old stories? To say I have better things to worry about would be trite.

      • ‘There was a time when religion ruled the world.
        It was known as the Dark Ages.’
        –Ruth Hurmence Green

      • Really? Fascism/Naziism is a religion? Sorry to say it, but it’s not surprising that you would think so. Besides Islam, tell us what religion practices genocide.

  33. How can sooooo many that follow and spew such hate and bigotry still consider themselves CHRISTIANS is waaaay beyond me! There is nothing CHRISTIAN like coming from Allen (rob these loons blind) west nor his followers.

  34. I am offended that people don’t believe in God, do I stand alone? Non belivers have a following of a few christians have a following of thousands, why is not one person standing up to this?

    • No, you do not stand alone. I firnly & confidently put my faith in The One, True, Living God & His Precious Son , Jesus Personally, I would like nothing better than to stand up against this & everything else that’s wrong in this country, Teri. Unfortunately, I can’t get anyone to stand up w/me. It’s past time for another revolution. Our very freedom is at stake.

      • You want a theocracy based on your mythology. I want a government based on logic and common sense. When it comes time for your revolution, remember that atheists can buy AR-15s as well.

      • Well then throw out all the laws that were based on Biblical principles. Sounds like you’re more comfortable in a free-for-all, do-as-you-please, law of the land. Not quite sure how that’ll work out for you, but I can make some very good guesses. How’s the logic and common sense coming from this administration going?

      • And by the way, Ursh, God is FOR freedom, and that’s why you have a brain and free will….you should thank Him sometime.

      • The biblical principles you’re speaking of predate the bible. There are general rules that every society in the world follows, regardless of religion, because murder, theft, and rape lead to instability. I didn’t vote for Obama, quit assuming that anyone not as fundamentalist as you must be some hippie liberal socialist.

    • Teri and Terrie,

      Offended that people don’t believe in God? That offends you?

      Let me ask this: Do you believe because of facts that you have or out of faith alone?

      Religion is part of what is wrong with the entire world. Do you think the problems with terrorism worldwide would improve without religion? How about the 28 or so wars going on right now over religion? The Palestinian – Israeli conflict? Muslim insurrections in 20 or so countries? Hindus and Muslims?

      And you sit in your pew and deride the people who would remove this 2000 year old curse off the backs of the human race? Do you know that we are the most hated minority in the US? I can never win a national election because I am a non-believer and the Christian believers wouldn’t have it. Your freedom is at stake because I don’t want my government espousing religious views on my kids? You want to start a revolution against us? Doesn’t it sound stupid when you hear it played back?

  35. This, more than anything, shows you what Allen West is all about. He pretends like he’s really, truly concerned for this country and wants to make sure he gets true conservatives elected to office. However, he’s just saying these things to his supporters so he can grift whatever money he can from them. It is all about running a con game on those idiotic enough to believe in him. He just takes, takes, takes. Just don’t expect him to give back. That’s not how the game is played….

  36. Dear Atheists: If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. The rest of us have the right to express ourselves…just like you do. After the elections, things will be changing. Hold onto your hats. The intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution under this muslim president and the coddling of those who oppose God, thus belong to satan (that’s you) will soon end. And, by the way, doesn’t anything the muslims do offend you. I couldn’t help but notice that you are all too AFRAID to challenge them.

    • While “the rest of us” as individuals have the right to express our religious beliefs, the government does not–and that is what this case is about.

      • And when, exactly, was the football team elected? You are fighting for a losing cause. You may worship the “almighty” gub’ment all you like. But if you think those of us who are free are going to join you, by force, you are sadly and tragically mistaken.

      • What are you talking about? The “football team” didn’t erect and maintain this religious display on the team’s property. The public school, i.e., the government, did. No amount of squirming or arm waving will change that fact. Until you come to grips with that, it is all but impossible even to discuss how the Constitution applies to this case.

      • No, government stooge, the school allowed the free exercise of religion of a group of individuals.

        Hey, fire up the ovens, buddy. We know it’s coming. You are no different than the fascists who tried to exterminate the Jews for their religious beliefs. And you will end up the same as your fascist fathers.

      • Under the Constitution, the school can and must “allow” individuals to exercise their religions. No dispute there. The school though hardly just “allows” individuals to exercise their religions by itself erecting and maintaining a sculpture displaying religious messages of its own. In doing all that, the school (i.e., government) acts and speaks itself.

      • I know it’s difficult for a government stooge to see it, but the school is not the government. Free people understand this. Once you decide to stop being a government stooge and be a free person, you will understand too.

      • The school is public, therefore, governmentally funded. This makes it a government institution. Your Tea Party hat is a little too tight, isn’t it?

      • I have 2 comments. 1. Is this group offended by our money that states ” in God we trust” 2. I have found that after really talking to an atheist, they deny God because something happened and they are angry with Him,:in reality they believe he exists but must deny Him in order to rectify their hurt. Pray for them, because weather or not Gods word is displayed for all to see, we Christians already know His promises, I just think we want to share with others Gods love. Fight for God, but do it with love!

      • Kerri, I don’t know who you talked to, but they must have been very new to the idea of Atheism. I have heard this lie before from Christians. Or are you in denial? You honestly cannot conceive that people actually do not believe in any form of god whatsoever? Some of us have actually read the bible, found it to be contradictory and quite an eye opening insight into the cult mentality. One of the fastest way to Atheism is to actually read the Bible. No lie. You can look it up. Google is your friend in this. We don’t hate Christians. We don’t hate god. How can we hate that which we don’t believe exists? That’s like getting angry at Santa for not getting me that new BMX when I was 6. We look at Science for answers because it can be proven. Wait, before you come up with the same old “Evolution is only a theory!”. That is true. But, I’m sorry to tell you, by definition, that makes your god merely a hypothesis. By the way, “In God We Trust” wasn’t added onto our currency until the Civil War, when a well known minister somehow convinced the Secretary of the Treasury it was a good idea, and Congress passed the idea in 1864. I suppose the argument could be made that the passing of that law in the first place was unconstitutional. An interesting idea, thank you for that. Even “Under God” wasn’t in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. I will be happy to discuss any other aspects of Atheism you have questions about, if you don’t mind me asking you questions as well.

      • “Kerri, I don’t know who you talked to”
        “I have heard this lie before from Christians”

        – If you don’t know who she talked to how do you know she’s lying?

        “Some of us have actually read the bible, found it to be contradictory ”

        – well maybe “some of you” have not and use hatred for their reason. For someone who portends to be against contradiction you sure are full of it.

      • Explain the contradictions in his post, because I didn’t see any. Of course, people who need to sit in a big room once a week so somebody can explain passages of a book to them can’t really be expected to possess high marks in reading comprehension, I suppose.

      • The jews weren’t exterminated for their religious beliefs, they were exterminated for their ethnic and cultural beliefs. I could explain more, but I’m guessing that any history lessons would be lost on you if they didn’t feature Jesus in a cowboy hat.

      • As noted elsewhere, that the sculpture was donated does not in the least change the fact that it was erected and maintained by the government.

      • Who cares..the 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion! Show me what law they have made! You cannot because they have not made any law!

      • While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the Congress from passing a law establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

      • There is 200+ years of federal court rulings, including Supreme Court rulings, that define the legal boundaries of First Amendment rights.

        Your willful ignorance of those laws and rulings does not mean they don’t exist.

        And Doug did provide you with a link that you clearly did not bother to even look at. That’s because your more interested in spewing your mind-numbingly ignorant nonsense instead of actually understanding the issues.

      • It it would be just fine sitting on private property or public property where monuments of all kinds of faiths are legal.

        A public school is not one of those places.

      • That’s my point, Neil. It is legal as long as all kinds of faith ahve the same opportunity. This school has not denied any other faith the opportunity to place a statue. IF they did, AND the school denied them, THEN there would be an issue. This one statue, that is (as far as we know) the only statue with religious tone to have been considered to be placed on the grounds, does not meet the criteria of “establishing” any one religion.

      • 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. Congress did not make any law governing this statue and there is nothing on the statue that establishes any one religion and Congress CANNOT prevent this school from exercising their right to believe in God! The school is not telling YOU that you have to believe in anything or practice any kind of religion! You DO NOT have an argument! The 1st amendment is there to protect us from evil people like you!

      • You have no clue what you are talking about. The Constitution enumerates rights. It is not the totality of the law.

      • Okay, let me explain it in terms clear enough for you. Private individuals can raise money and donate it to a public school to put up a big screen in the stadium or basketball arena. Doing that doesn’t give them the right to play a bunch of christian/muslim/jewish/satanist/hindu promotional videos on it during public functions. If some religious group were to rent the property during a time period that doesn’t coincide with a public event, such as a football game, that group is free to use the facilities and equipment to promote religious messages.

      • COO COO LOL Like your boss man Jim Becks says, “Read the article” Previously we reported on the Madison County High School football team’s monument, donated by a private citizen, that drew the ire of the Wisconsin-based atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation. You two are making a laughing stock out of yourselves.

      • Wrong the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. The government IS NOT supposed to deny Religious expression it is supposed to remove Religious exclusions. And not allowing Christians (or any other faith) to express their faith is exclusion and Unconstitutional.

      • Failing to distinguish between government and individual speech can only make a hash of any analysis of the First Amendment, since it protects the former and constrains the latter.

      • “Failing to distinguish between government and individual speech “so the government is not supposed to follow the Constitution? Freedom of individual speech, freedom OF religious expression and freedom of the press are the first and most prominent rights we are granted in the Bill of Rights. The law of the land. Government IS NOT ALLOWED to prohibit the free expression of ANY of those rights and that includes prohibiting an individual who works for the government. They do not give up their first amendment rights. A government worker is free to display whatever religious imagery they want. They are NOT however allowed to suppress the freedoms of someone else’s faith in the name of the government which is EXACTLY what atheists in the government are doing. It’s unconstitutional and it WILL be stopped.

      • As I noted earlier, it is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion because the First Amendment protects the former and constrains the latter. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school coaches instructing students or administrators deciding to erect and maintain monuments), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.

        Here, nothing has been done to stop any individuals praying
        if they like. The only question concerns the school itself displaying religious messages.

      • You are wrong.

        Government employees have personal rights yes. But when they are acting in their governmental capacity they may not use government resources or property to promote their religion.

        The same is true of all employees. You are free to follow whatever faith you wish, but if you are making phone calls using your employers phone during hours you are being paid to work to fund raiser for your church, you can be fired. If you use the company email server to blast out an email message to the company’s employees on how they can be saved by accepting Jesus, you can be fired.

        You are not the government. And your personal freedom to exercise your faith does NOT include using public schools to put up monuments.

      • Wrong. Public schools do not have a Constitutionally protected right to religious speech.

        Individual people do (and apparently some businesses, but that’s a different discussion)

        The government does NOT and insisting it does is just a clear indication that you are completely ignorant of the basic principles are country was built on.

    • Dear Christian who is Clearly Ignorant of Constitutional Law:

      You’re right to express yourself has not been restricted. You are not a public school and it is the public school that cannot display this monument legally.

      The federal court rulings that define the Establishment clause law that is being violated by this monument existed long before this current president was in office and you developed your obsessively ignorant fascination with thinking he’s a Muslim.

      If Muslims put a monument with quotes from the Qur’an on it public school grounds, the organizations involved in this case would go after it in a heartbeat.

      • I sure would go after it in a heartbeat. This country was founded by Christians, for Christians. Muslims do not care anything about this country except for the freebies they can get. (Did you read about the muslim women picketing the food bank…a place that gives them FREE food…to make them only furnish them with halal foods…how ungrateful).
        That is my feeling. However, the Constitution does grant freedom of speech and they would have a right to say/do what they please, but they had better be ready to fight…which muslims usually are.
        The days of ‘political correctness’ are now coming to an end with the impeachment and execution of obama and his hordes.

  37. Replace the School,Board. The people put those good for nothing leaders in, take them out. If they do not …then they deserve to be trampled on. I am sick of one or two people changing something they do not want when 99% is left out and all because a school board!fears a law suit. Sorry leaders.

    • I’m sick of people who aren’t smart enough to understand that Constitutional law applies even when it’s just one or two people being protected.

      I’m sick of people who trample on the First Amendment because it means they don’t get to continue to believe their personal choice in religious lifestyle is above the law.

      And I’m especially sick of people who are too stupid to understand that undermining those First Amendment protections today when they are a majority is going to bit them in the self-satisfied lily white butts when they are eventually a minority.

  38. I have the resolve & want nothing more than to stand up for God & what’s right in His Eyes. Who will stand with me right now?

  39. When will you Christians admit you’re essentially no different from the Taliban? Stop trying to force Jesus on us! Stop religiously raping us.

    • MH, how is Jesus being forced on you? Are people holding your head so you have to look at the monument? Or better yet, like the Taliban, are you having your head cut off it you don’t look at it? As Col. West said, why are you so offended by someone you don’t believe exists?

      • Christians are doing everything in their power to promote their religion. Donating the abovementioned statue to a school is merely another attempt in a long line of attempts to impose Christian theocracy on those of us who are not Christian. Everywhere I go, I am forced to see your churches, your monuments, your activists, your oppression of anything different and progressive. Therefore, I call it religious rape, because I am not nor will I ever be Christian. So yes, my head is being held and I am being forced to look at it, as there are very few places I can go to get away from it.

      • Well, I truly feel sorry for you that you are feeling ‘raped’ by Christians. I guess I can relate, by how I feel by an Obama bumper sticker. But, I just move on with my life and realize there are much more important things to be concerned about. I sincerely hope you find peace in your life and that living in America does not become too burdensome. If so, there are lots of other places that are doing an even better job of pushing Christians out of the country. Iraq is one, most of the Christians in that country are either dead or have left.

      • Sometimes I feel like a casualty of the culture wars. I don’t have a problem with people who have faith in a god; my problem stems from being harassed by people who believe in god. I wish more Christians would understand that by being the majority they have undue influence. I wish Allen understood that statues like that tend to make some people like myself feel unwelcome in public.

      • Actually you’re a casualty of satan and you are unwelcomed any where! Take your hatred some where else! Thank you!

      • Maybe that’s why MH feels so unwelcome when near a bit of scripture on a statue and such. It sears his/her soul.

      • People get tired of being harassed for their beliefs, too. Forcing Christians to conform to your unbelief doesn’t engender any support for you. Live and let live. We won’t force you to attend church at gunpoint or cut of your head if you don’t. Just leave us and our symbols alone. Act like rational adults not spoiled children who must have everyone do things their way or they’ll throw tantrums.

      • I can’t wait to see what you do when Islam because a huge force in America like it is in Britain. You’re going to soil yourself.

      • Yes MH will be happy and thankful for Christians at that point. Once muslim populations get to a certain size they really do start putting out real intolerance like in France or Sweden.

      • Please explain how people praying is harrassment. Please explain how a statue makes you feel unwelcome. You have a victim mentality that is oppressing you, not anyone else.

      • I am truly sorry that you feel like a casualty, that you feel harassed, and you feel unwelcome. The big problem with social media is that there is no way to tell someone’s tone of voice or feelings behind what is being written. Believe me, I am not answering you sarcastically or flippantly. I wish you peace in your daily life and all that you encounter. I do know as a follower of Jesus, I would never want to cause you to feel unwelcome and harassed. I can only guess, but I’m pretty sure that the person who donated the monument did not want to offend anyone, but to encourage and inspire. Can you give them the benefit of the doubt and know that you are totally free to have different beliefs and values than what they have?

      • Atheists want to “rape” Christians of their beliefs. Why do you waste so much time worrying about Christians and their Savior if you don’t believe God exists. Ignore what you dislike and move on.

      • Shut up more often. If you want to bring God into every sporting event, than please admit that God apparently only really likes one team each season. For every state champion in High School sports, there are hundreds of schools that went home losers. Apparently Jesus didn’t love them enough to make them champions…or maybe they just got outcoached, outplayed, and outjesused by the other team. Maybe if they jesus harder next year, they’ll take home the trophy?

      • Maybe God is not so concerned with who wins or not, but what develops in your character when you win, or lose.

      • Dude IF we were doing everything in our power you wouldn’t be here. You really think we have flexed our muscles? You are foolish then. We are told by our faith to NOT oppress others. And we don’t. I know what’s upsetting you, the fact that we think sleeping around whenever you feel like it is a sin. Do you go to jail in America for it? NOPE. Do you get mutilated in America for it? NOPE Yeah our figure wagging at you is SOOO oppressive. How about you talk to the Christians in Iraq about oppression…OOPS you can’t they’ve all been BEHEADED. The stupid is STRONG with you.

      • How long will it be, though, before Christians in this country resort to violence? When you once and for all lose the war on gay marriage? When you realize the rights of non-Christians must also be respected?

      • I for one pray everyday it will never come to violence but it seems that Atheists are dead set on it. You have no desire to live with Christians, your statements have proven that. It’s ‘the seen and not heard’ nonsense. So how does a situation like this get solved? I think history has shown the progression of your abuse over and over and over again. Unless boundaries are set and respected WHICH is what the First Amendment is, a set boundary which is NOT being respect by Atheists, I don’t see a good outcome.

      • Agreed, but unless there is lessening of false accusations in both sides a a true desire to live together, I don’t see how this can be peacable. Always hopeful 🙂

      • “Everywhere I go, I am forced to see your churches, your monuments, your activists, your oppression of anything different and progressive.”

        “Oh, the persecution!” “When will it end?!” Man, grow a pair sissy!

      • Well then I guess the only thing for you to do to end your oppression is to leave. This IS a Christian nation by the numbers and obviously we are not going to hide for your benefit. Why would we? We have our rights too, not just you. No one is holding your silly head LOL! Maybe the only thing remaining for you to do is to strike out your own eyes, but we don’t want you to do that. We want you to just be an adult and ignore unless you have some right over Christians, which you don’t.

      • A “Christian” nation where most of the “Christians” go to church maybe twice a year, if that. Oh, and they also love porn and R rated movies glorifying violence and sex. That’s just going by the numbers, of course. Somebody is buying all that porn and going to all those R rated movies and, if it’s a Christian nation, logic dictates that it must be Christians supporting those industries. 🙂

      • That is a sweeping generalization of people. Because you love those things and a few nominal “Christians” might doesn’t mean true Christians enjoy those perversions. Most of us have better values and don’t waste our money on filth.

      • Yes, that’s why prominent evangelical christian leaders and politicians keep getting caught with male prostitutes, soliciting homosexual intercourse in airport bathrooms, texting sexual messages to teenage congressional staff, etc. Also, read the post above you. It’s no secret that the most publicly morally righteous people are often hiding some seriously kinky private practices. I figure that everyone is free to do what they want, as long as it involves consenting adults.

      • The difference between you and any Christian is faith and accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior. That, and that they are saved and you are not.

      • Saved from what, exactly? I grew up Catholic, btw, so God already loves me more than you. What if I told you your lord and savior was a brown-skinned Jew with curly black hair, who couldn’t read or write?

      • There are actually a lot of Christians who don’t go to church, many churches have become corrupted. Having faith as a Christian is a personal position and relationship with Christ. Fellowship is not necessarily a requirement. One does not need a church to have faith. As to your issue with porn, maybe you’re the one buying it all lol! Your logic is a little strange.

      • Kudos on explaining that someone can have faith without a public display of it. Hopefully someday more Christians will get a clue that their religion is about their personal relationship with their God, rather than a platform for publicly displaying how holy they are. I would say that “fellowship” did more to destroy my faith than anything else did. People should keep their spirituality to themselves because, if their beliefs are correct, it’s going to be them standing alone before their God on judgment day, and their congregation and church groups aren’t going to be there to soak up the blame for a life lived poorly.

      • People came to America to ESCAPE religious persecution. Now you are saying if you’re not Christian then leave? In this country we have the freedom to choose whatever religion (or none) we want. If you don’t like the idea of people being able to choose their own religion then YOU need to leave.

      • Now that’s not what I said. Never said if you are not a Christian then you should leave. Pay attention and try to not read what you want to read – read what someone actually writes.

        She was complaining that she is so overwhelmingly oppressed by Christians that she feels religiously raped. That is just a bit over the top. That we are actually holding her head and making her look at religious symbols. I don’t think so.

        I love the idea of people being able to do what they jolly well please. But don’t jump up and down in here screaming religious rape and that anyone is forcing you to look at anything. Just ain’t so. She’s got issues lol.

        My ancestors where here before those who came on ships to escape persecution. She can just look away, ignore or leave. She has not known persecution.

      • I speak figuratively of rape, of course. However, Christianity is everywhere, such that it is impossible to avoid it 99% of the time.

      • What an ugly figure of speech. Of course it’s impossible to avoid, Christianity if the largest religion on the planet. Maybe you should just stop trying to avoid it. Take a zen approach if it bothers you so greatly.

      • I don’t reasonably believe that donating the statue was an attempt to force the school and everyone there to become a Christian, or even to live under Christian principles. It was an encouragement to those who do live for Christ, and by the pictures I have seen of the football players and the monument, they appreciate that encouragement.

      • Col. Allen West and Cornel West are two different people. Allen West is a patriot and Cornel West is another race monger like Sharpton, Jackson, Holder and Obama.

      • Sorry, but the “you don’t have to look” argument is pathetically childish and suggests a real ignorance of Constitutional law.

        The reality is that constitutional law says any action taken by the government that promotes a specific religion without a secular reason for doing so is a violation of the First Amendment.

        The silly hand waving about not looking at it or the Taliban doesn’t change that.

      • It would be helpful for a rational and respectful debate not to call someone pathetic, childish, or ignorant. You don’t know a thing about me yet you call me names and malign my character.

    • Explain how anyone is trying to force anything on you? Nobody said you had to read it, all you need do is ignore it! You’re scared is all! You think by getting rid of anything that references God he will just go away! I got news for you, he won’t go away and you’ll meet him face to face one day! I pity you!

    • How is a family praying to themselves in public, or a team putting up a statue with symbols THEY feel brings they luck “trying to force Jesus on you”? Dude I can’t give two craps if you believe in Jesus or not but step on my Constitutional rights to display MY faith and my American nature will slap you down. STOP trying to demand a communist nation where Religion is oppressed. If you want that move to China.

      • This has nothing to do with families praying.

        It also has nothing to do with individual team members who pray.

        It has to do with public schools being prohibited by the Constitution from promoting specific religious beliefs or speech without any secular purpose.

        A monument with two Christian scriptures on it is clearly the promotion of a specific religious speech.

        Why is that so difficult for people like you to grasp? Your personal religious rights have NOTHING to do with public schools.

        Public schools do NOT have religious rights. And your personal religious rights are NOT restricted by a public school not having religious rights.

      • They are NOT prohibited from having a private donor put up a religious symbol. THAT thought of disallowing such things completely violates the First Amendment. I know you Libs HATE that pesky thing called the Constitution but it’s here to stay. Which will mean all this Unconstitutional oppression of faith WILL end. IF a Religious person wants a symbol put up and they pay for it, they can on ANY public property it is 100% protected under the Constitution. Atheists are trampling on the Constitution and trampling on religious freedom. The government IS NOT allowed to stop Religious expression. Read the Constitution. You bank on a treaty and a letter to give you the right to take away the rights of others. I bank on the actual law which states you can’t. Done.

      • That the monument was donated does not change the fact that it as the public school (i.e., an arm of the government) that has erected and maintained it. This is government, not individual, speech about religion.

      • The minute a private donor puts up some statue advocating Sharia Islam or Laveyan satanism, you and your ilk will be up in arms that a public school allows such blasphemy.

      • No, you are flat out wrong. I don’t know where you got your information about the First Amendment but it is seriously incomplete and mistaken.

        No one has the right to just use public property in any way at all that as they wish, religious or otherwise and your insistence that they can is just asinine. You cannot just walk up and put signs all over public park lands. You can’t put a billboard up on the side of a public schools. And just because someone puts up the money to buy a monument with Scripture on it does not mean a public school must install it.

        Your ignorance all seems to hinge on the stupendously idiotic belief that if it is not specifically written in the Constitution that means it’s not law. That’s not how Constitutional law works. The Constitution enumerates rights and it is the legislation and judiciary that write and enforce laws that enact those rights.

        Add on top of that the your ridiculous inability to grasp the concept that right individuals have to express religious speech does not mean they get to do so by using government property or resources.

        Basically, you have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

    • If you don’t like it, don’t look at it, don’t read it. That’s what the Supreme Court said about porn. Sam logic applies here. Oh, and if you really, really don’t like it, don’t take our tax dollars either for your personal use either.

      • No, the “Sam(sic) logic” does not apply here. Though I do find it really amusing that you apparently can’t tell the difference between the free speech of private citizens (pornography created and purchased by individuals) and religious speech promoted by the government (a Bible Scripture inscribed monument on public school grounds)

        It’s a pretty clear indication that you really have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Constitutional law.

    • Religious rape is reserved for Islamic militants who kill you if you don’t agree with them. Christians don’t care you agree with us or not. If you don’t believe in God, why is my belief offensive?

      • You seem to be alarmingly ignorant of Christian history. But then people who enjoy the modern Western secular democracies that protect them from the violent acts that occur when religions and governments mix often are blissfully ignorant of the past.

      • Please cite modern Christian atrocities committed in the last 50 years. The news is filled with isl*mic atrocities every day.

      • Google “Christian terrorist acts” and you get at least 10 articles of events that occurred in the last 10 years. You’re welcome.

      • I would not consider anyone in the Army of God to be Jesus followers. They are after their own agenda, not God’s.

      • I am not offended by your belief, as you have every right to it. I do worry about Christians turning to violence as they continue to lose ground on some social issues, however.

    • 1. Your disbelief has no impact on my belief, but I will not behead you, force you to convert (a BIG deal to God, by the way. It’s called FREE WILL), charge you a tax, or do anything else to you to make you believe in what I believe. I will pray for you, though. (so scary, huh?!)

      2. Which is more irrational….my belief in God, or you being offended by something you don’t believe in?

      3. Your belief has no impact on God’s existence. He exists whether you believe in Him or not.

      4. You may have some psychological issues, possibly in the realm of paranoia….”Stop trying to force Jesus on us! Stop religiously raping us.” Again, I will pray for you.

  40. I guess the statue built to Satan will go off without a hitch in Oklahoma huh…??? Will no one stand for God??? You people have come at the behest of Satan himself as prophecies in the Holy Bible foretold…..but you know in the end who will win and who will be thrown in the pit…I feel sorry for what is about to come but God has tried every way he could to have just one stand for him..now we all have to pay for the wickedness of the Devil himself…all I can think of are the words my sweet Jesus on the cross said. ” Father forgive them for they know not what they do “

    • Atheists deny God, but that doesn’t affect the reality of His existence. They are as annoying as a swarm of gnats and just as relevant in eternity.

      • Cool story bro. No one in recent times has come back from a lengthy death to verify your mythology, and your entire faith is based on oral stories written down over one hundred years after they allegedly happened. Don’t stop believing, and definitely don’t ask any questions, because that’s hard, isn’t it?

      • You show how foolish you are by calling an older woman “bro”. It makes it virtually impossible to take seriously anything you utter. I live a happy life knowing there is a God who loves me. I died on the operating room table and saw heaven and people I loved who died long ago. I have peace about dying because I know where I will spend eternity. You, not believing in God, will be lucky if you only rot in your grave rather than spending eternity in hell. How sad to go through life not believing in anything greater than your puny little self. When each of us ceases to breathe and are finished with our earthly bodies we will have confirmation.
        Please leave me alone. I have better ways to spend my time than dealing with you.

    • You are completely free to stand for God … on your own property or the property of your church or on public spaces where it is legal to do so.

      You are not free to do so by using the public schools.

  41. “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein

    • hmmm funny, up until the 60’s (when the commies took over the Dem party) CHRISTIANS seemed to be doing just fine. I guess that’s what Heinlein meant when he said “almost” because Christians fall into the other end of the spectrum considering they invented the US government and established checks and balances in the first place to protect freedom. Even Bill Maher agrees with the fact that Christians ARE NOT radical and cultish. Perfect example of what I’ve said is true, this article which shows the abuse of atheists. If Christians were intolerant there would be NO atheists.

      • How not surprising that you are completely oblivious to the embarrassingly ignorant irony of pointing out that the majority was doing fine before they had to take minority rights into consideration.

      • funny how completely oblivious you are to the fact that Kennedy who was the biggest voice FOR civil rights was shot in the head by a commie. As was his brother, Malcolm X and many believe Martin Luther King Jr. And funny how you believe the LBJ who referred to African Americans as the N word even gave a crap about their community apart from raping it for votes. You’re a tool.

      • Minority rights have nothing to do with any of this. Most minorities were actually Christians. Who are still being persecuted by the ignorant and the muslims.

      • yes commies, they did exist back then and it’s what they were called. Now I’ll be 2 like you, “pointing and laughing at how you didn’t know that” hahahaha hmmm grow up

      • Just like Obama was pointing and laughing at Romney for saying how Russia would try a resurgence of communism. And now Putin, who pines for the days of mother Russia, bends Obama over whenever he desires. You and The Cat are idiots.

  42. And what are all those “non-believers” going to say when they die and find out that there really IS a GOD. Would love to see them with the egg on their faces.

  43. Most Christians find atheists offensive, but we can’t get them banned or removed. God will straighten them out someday. We must deal with them for now.

  44. “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.

    I want someone to please point out to me exactly what law Congress has made that respects ANY religion! They have not made any law! period! The school has every right to erect what ever statue they choose to erect!

      • Applied by the courts means that it is an interpretation by someone other than they who wrote the Constitution. They wrote it in plain unlegalized English so that anyone could understand it. Quite unlike how lawmakers write laws today so that no one can understand them. Or in other words, the court screwed up.

      • The notion that the Constitution needs no interpretation by courts, and that you can do as well on your own, is too ridiculous to take seriously. In any event, the point of the paper is to describe the law AS IT IS currently, so that discussion by even those who disagree on what it SHOULD BE can at least predicate their discussion on that common ground.

    • Yes, they have made that law. You are just ignorant of it and how it works.

      Start with the concept that public schools do not have religious rights and that individuals in public schools do have religious rights but do not have the right to use the public school to promote their own personal choice in religious lifestyle.

      • Putting this statue on their property did not deny anyone of their religious freedom, nor does it establish a religion. People like you twist the intended meaning of the law. I suppose you also use the word “intolerant” alot, too?

    • That’s a stupid statement. How, exactly, do you label “Right Wing” Christianity, as opposed to Liberals who are Christians, Libertarians who are Christians, Independents who are Christian, so on a so forth……..and the statue that has scriptures from the Bible are not “graven images”. Don’t comment about things you know nothing about – you remove all doubt of your ignorance.

  45. Pathetic. The school board doesn’t know it’s job and obviously doesn’t understand the Constitution. What do the parents and students think of this?

    • (snort) It’s actually the exact opposite. Preventing their school district from spending large amounts of money in a legal battle they can’t possibly win is exactly their job. Too bad they didn’t do their job to begin with when they could have prevented the Christian scripture inscribed monument from being placed on school property at all.

      • Washington would NOT agree with your inaccurate assessment. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

      • Above and beyond that being an appeal to authority fallacy, it does not say what you are implying it does.

        Nothing in that quote is an argument against what I posted. Washington is talking traits he believes each individual American and specific politicians should imbue, not using the government to establish or promote a specific religion.

        So sorry Frank, you can an A for your ability to cut and paste quotes from larger works you probably have not read, but you fail on comprehension.

      • Let me put this as plain as can be for a liberally uneducated individual such as you. How can we expect people to behave morally without a belief in GOD. That is an apt summation of what Washington wrote.

      • Boulderdash.
        Morality was stolen by religion not sourced by it. Morality is intrinsic to humans and animals and thrives better on reason than on theology.

        Religionists claim to be a source of morality but their faith is based on immoral writings in the New – and especially the Old Testaments – and immoral practices from the Dark Ages to the
        Catholic Church pedophile scandal. Religion has always been a dismal example of morality.

      • Thanks for the feedback. Do you have any other thoughts on specifically what is wrong with my argument that religion is not the source of morality, but has in fact been a poor source of morality in the world?
        Anything possibly at 7th grade level?

      • Well Jim, if you were to actually have an original thought, that would be nice. Have you ever read any of the constitution or any thing written by the founding fathers? If you ever had you might see that religion was where they got many of their ideas from.

      • I think the enlightenment was a more powerful source of ideas for them. A rejection of the kind of religiosity that has poisoned the landscape of America since the Commie scare of the 50’s. They mostly believed in a creator, saw Jesus as a wise person, but did not believe in any of the supernatural stories added to the bible by theologians. They didn’t believe in a God having any interest in overseeing the affairs of man. Many attended church, but it was mostly as politicians, much the way Obama went to Christian church simply for appearances.

      • There you go thinking again, don’t you know how dangerous that is for someone like you? Your first job is too understand what you are reading because that has obviously escaped your intellect. I never talked about the mass stupidity that swept the country in the sixties, of which you are an obvious victim. From your statements I would guess that you are an atheist, and probably never served in the military. You know what they say about war, there are no atheists in fox holes.

      • That’s not fair to the family of Pat Tillman and to the 40000+ atheists in the military fighting for your right not to have to pound the prayer rug 5 times a day.

      • Wow, what planet were you born on? Sounds like you’re a Blowbama speech writer. You absolutely make no sense.

    • This is a public school, correct? Then the school board did the correct thing in having the monument altered. If you allow Christian monuments then you must also allow Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanic and all other religious groups the right to erect a monument. It’s either all or none, you can’t pick and choose when it comes to public schools.

      • Except that you need to understand that none of those other religions were denied anything. They’ve never petitioned or asked, or tried to donated a statue or anything else, to reflect their religion, or lack thereof. HAD that have been refused, and ONLY the statue reflecting Christian scripture been alloed, you might have a leg to stand on.

      • You are presuming that simply because someone donated this sculpture to the school, it is the individual donor, and not the school itself, that is displaying the religious messages. As I understand the facts, it is the school that has erected and maintained the sculpture. It makes no difference whether the school paid for the display out of its own pocket or obtained it by donation, the school itself is the one doing the erecting, displaying, and maintaining of the religious messages.

      • Nope, you missed it. i am saying that the school cannot establish, or promote, one religion over another. They are to remain neutral. IF, say, someone wanted to have a Buddha statue put there as well, and THEN the school said “no” to that, THEN they would be esablishing one religion over another. In this case, they have not denied any other statues, and they are not establishing one religion as THE religion of that school. That is how the law was intended – not prejudice to one religion over another.

      • I think we are not disagreeing, but I am pointing out a step to consider before getting to your equal-treatment point. As I’ve noted in earlier comments, it is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion because the First Amendment protects the former and constrains the latter. With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case (which I think is what you are talking about), the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.

      • The symbol in question was not placed “by the government”, nor “on its land”. Just because the federal government pulls money out of one of our hands, and then places it back in the other, are we then supposed to allow them to completely wrest control of our schools, along with the plot of land on which they sit, from local communities? To be completely honest, the fact that your miserable, whining carcass is still sucking oxygen from the atmosphere offends me terribly. What can we do about that??

      • What are you talking about? As is plain from the article and comments, the government that erected and maintained the monument in this case is the public school, not the federal government.

      • Okay, now you’re trending from ridiculous to delusional. Time to say something meaningful or its to the “ignore” file you go.

      • Ridiculous. Public schools are operated by state and/or local governments. That’s why they’re called “public.”

  46. School board caves to legal common sense and an understanding of how the Constitution works instead of listening buttsore Christian victims who can’t tell the difference between a person’s religious right and a public school.

    There, fixed that headline for you.

    • Then why didn’t Jesus return in the lifetime of the author of Mark as was clearly called for in 13:30, or the lifetime of Mathew as in Mathew 10:23 or Luke as in 21:32? Why didn’t the son do what the son said he would do?

  47. Let’s not blame the school board, they only act on what is in front of them, the atheist stand their ground, we, as Christians, stand back, gripe and complain, Luke warm, that’s what we are and He will spew us out of His mouth.

  48. All of the atheist-Christian cross talk that West incited is misplaced. Separation of church and state is not an atheist concept.

    It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

    This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

    • On Conservatism…
      I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look
      on every new theory as a danger,
      every innovation as a toilsome trouble,
      every social advance as a first step toward revolution,
      and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.”
      – Alexis de Tocqueville

      • Funny how you attribute that quote as a response to conservatism yet nowhere can that be found. Especially since the modern conservative movement did not begin until the 1930’s. Good lib-scum liar.

      • Guys, feel free to poke at each other over politics, but note that the Constitution’s separation of church and state is not a leftie-rightie concept either.

      • Yeah, yeah, that’s addressed at length in other comments. Feel free to chime in there–perhaps with something a little meatier.

      • Jeez, can you people read the previous posts before you repeat these statements? This has been debunked, soundly. We are getting hoarse repeating ourselves.

      • Yes, it also NOT in the Constitution. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the Constitution. Never was never will be. No court can over right or overrule the Constitution. If you wish to rewrite it, good luck.

  49. The “Separation of Church and State” does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. It is a phrase that people have inaccurately invented in an attempt to explain the First Amendment. What it actually says is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    In its original context, this statement meant that the U.S. would not have an official “state Church” like England. The English government officially supported the Church of England, using taxes to support Anglicanism. The founding fathers, who promoted the Revolutionary War, did not want the same kind of church.

    This is the extent of this statement from the First Amendment. There is nowhere in the Constitution that forbids individuals from mixing faith and politics or from sharing their faith in a state-related function or location.

    The sad thing is, the Church has allowed Atheist groups to walk over the truth of the constitution and seriously mislead what “separation of church and state” means. To the founding fathers, the First Amendment existed to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.

    • While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

    • 220 years of jurisprudence on the issue says you are wrong.

      The founding fathers, including T. Jefferson, prove you are wrong.

      You’re reverse-engineering the Constitution to make your radical claim seem plausible.

      Stop sullying the Constitution.

      • Sir… I am assuming you are talking about the term “wall of separation” written in 1801 in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Association in Danbury, when he wrote… “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declare that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.'”

        In 1985, Chief Justice William Rehnquest stated it correctly when he said, “Unfortunately, the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.” Relying on a vague metaphor written by a partisan politician who was not even present (he was in France) during the writing of the Constitution is grossly inappropriate and leaves a false impression that the courts have the ability to declare unconstitutional many religious practices that are not actually unconstitutional.

        There is no “reverse-engineering” on my part at all. However, there appears to be some confirmational bias on your part. Try researching what the WRITERS of the constitutions actually wrote and not your own personal agenda.

        that
        act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
        should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
        prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of
        separation between Church & State.” – See more at:
        http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm#sthash.LXzvot8H.dpuf

      • Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

        The quotation by Rehnquist is interesting in that it comes from his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree. For his claims regarding the intended scope of the First Amendment, Rehnquist recites the various revisions of the precursors of the First Amendment and the debates on those in the First Congress and then simply asserts that “[i]t seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison’s thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects.” Rehnquist’s conclusions, though, hardly follow from the evidence he recites. Indeed, the opposite conclusion is more logical. Madison initially doubted the need for any amendment on the subject because he considered the matter beyond the government’s power anyway; since others insisted on it, though, he was persuaded to introduce a proposed amendment. During the discussion in the First Congress, some expressed a desire to focus the amendment on establishment of a national religion by law. Madison was generally comfortable with much of what others proposed, including that, and he actually made a motion to add the term “national” to a precursor of what later became the First
        Amendment. As it turns out, though, those versions of the proposal were rejected. The term “national” was omitted and broader phrasing was employed in the First Amendment as ultimately adopted. The explicit consideration and rejection of language focusing the amendment on establishment of a national religion suggests that the ultimately adopted version is not so focused.

        Not only does Rehnquist’s conclusion not logically follow from the evidence he offers, but Madison, the very founder whose intent he purports to champion, repudiates Rehnquist’s views in other documents Rehnquist simply ignores. See Madison’s Detached Memoranda, a part of which I quoted in earlier comments. Note too that during his presidency Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes.

        In any event, it bears noting that Rehnquist’s is a dissenting opinion of a single justice who failed to persuade even one of his colleagues to join him. The irony is that by offering such a full throated, yet obviously weak argument for the just-no-national-religion claim, Rehnquist effectively undercut it by making so plain the relative strength of the evidence and argument favoring the contrary view.

      • Todd well said sir I hope that more well informed people such as yourself come forward to spread truth upon this world which in my eyes seems so distorted and confused as to what is even real anymoreaso God bless

      • No, I am not. I’m referring to 230 years of jurisprudence that states that the United States is not in the business of recognizing or establishing a religion. That quote – you know that it came in the dissent, as that has been pointed out to you many times on this board. That you continue to use it as IF it were actual law is disturbing and unprincipled. When you quote Rehnquist, you are quoting a losing argument, and as such, you simply lose as well. You really need to read the writings of the founding fathers. While “separation” is only used a few times by five founding fathers, the sentiments of separation are used by at least 20. There is no magical incantation from the words separation – we only need to follow the Constitution to know that you are wrong, just as Rehnquist was in 1985.

        Again – when you quote a losing argument, you are losing the argument. See how that works? Rehnquist lost that case, just as you have lost this discussion.

      • Wow… I guess as you put it, I am “quoting a losing argument” and as you said again, I am “quoting a losing argument”. Time will tell.

      • Hey dope. Prove Todd wrong. Show the class where “Separation of Church and State” exists in the Constitution. And if you want to bring up the FF………………

        George Washington
        1st U.S. President

        “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
        –The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

        John Adams
        2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

        “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
        –Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

        “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

        “Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”
        –Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

        “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”
        –Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

        Thomas Jefferson
        3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

        “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
        –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

        “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
        –The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

        John Hancock
        1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

        “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
        –History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

        Benjamin Franklin
        Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution

        “Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

        “That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

        “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

        “But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.”
        –Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790

    • You are so right. Thank You for clearing this up for everyone. I thought I was the only one that understood the first amendment.

  50. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

  51. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of, and freedom from religion.
    That being said, Romans 13:1-7 says to obey authority, while Matthew 6:1 says not to practice your righteousness in front of others.
    I would say that the school board did not cave to atheists, but the words found in their own bible.
    As for fighting back against bullies… chapter and verse on that, please?
    You feel you are being bullied for your faith, but I sincerely doubt you were on the plains of Golgotha, nailed to a cross for your beleifs. Get some perspective.You’re not even in a Muslim country being stoned to death for blasphemy
    Before any of you, and I mean ANY of your right wing Christian conservatives decide that you want to “fight back”, open your bible and read Matthew 5:10-13 and think about it.

  52. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” First Amendment.

    In the context of 1791, Congress was not to create a state religion (European model), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. A citizen was free to be a Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic or Methodist etc. This does NOT imply freedom from religion as the atheists say. They have it both ways today: not only have they misinterpreted the lst Amendment, they have managed to hide the fact that atheism is a religion.

    • Atheism is a religion like not believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny is a belief. It isn’t. Just because you can’t wrap your brain around an idea or because it doesn’t fit in your little box of “reason” based off personal experience and limited perspectives doesn’t mean it is wrong. How… simple.

      • Atheism is a belief form. So in it’s own way, as far as so many are so intolerant of Christianity, Atheism is definitely a religion.

      • Absolute bunk. This has been debunked in the other 2 West threads on the subject. Point has been debated and lost by theists and religionists. Maybe you can read those posts, then see if you have a new angle.

      • I missed the part where you even began to show that.
        You might search the other 2 West Blog posts for the terms: Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”

      • That I belong to the Atheist religion. Read your own comment 4 lines up.
        BTW: Does your pastor know you have such a potty mouth?

      • I’m Messianic Jew, we don’t have “pastors.” But my Father knows I don’t put up with arrogant, trashy people like you, yes. As for “potty mouth,” I don’t cuss/swear, but apparently you do because you seem to be accusing me of something you do very readily.

  53. ATTENTION: (Stephen, Toddius, Todd, Tad, Tadmester…)
    Please read the previous posts before you repeat tired old statements that have already been hashed out so you don’t annoy people who are looking for fresh insight rather than the XXVII rehashing of whether the constitution mentions the words “separation”, etc. Jeez.

    • What are you the moderator on Col West’s blog now, arrogant prick. People will write what the hell they want to and don’t take directives from you LOL

      • No, I’m not the moderator. I’m just an interested party who is tired of people posting before reading. It’s like people who post a question on a product site without bothering to read the manual. Don’t you hate that? It wastes space and time and disrespects the forum. But thanks for the information about what people will write. That was very informative.

      • Get your own blog if you want to be in charge. People can say what they want when they want. Deal with it – scroll idiot.

      • That’s true, but thanks for pointing out. Very useful. Anyone
        can say what they want and that includes people who are trying to make it more interesting and useful by preventing redundant posts.

        So you might try some of your own advice and deal with it.

      • Jim – you aren’t in charge, you deal with. Just because you find it redundant does not mean everyone else does. Good grief you have a big head; try to censor people cause you already covered it LOL Maybe someone else can say it better than you.

      • Just to be clear to the others who are reading this who have something to add other than attacking people.

        I’m not trying to be in charge, no one ever said that. Not trying to censure anyone. I’m saying to read what others have said and if you have something to add, add it to that thread, don’t start the 57th thread with the same point that has been discussed at length already. And if you are going to make the same point that has been made and debated, maybe after reading you’ll find you have nothing new to add. In that case I would suggest you don’t. It’s basic etiquette in these types of forums, nothing new.

      • Pipe down Blowbama bot. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. This is a 1st amendment country and open forum. If you don’t want to hear opinions that differ from your ideas, hit the road Jack and never come back. you are sad.

      • So you made a point of responding to someone who called me an arrogant prick, to tell them they “called it right”. Now do you know what I meant by potty mouth, self identified Jewish messianic lady? Way to practice that religious piety.

      • You, Jim, are an arrogant prick who can’t keep his mouth shut. You continually show everyone on this board what a know-it-all you are! I bet at a cocktail party you’re a hoot! You probably sand in the center and love to tell old jokes that everyone laughs at out of feeling sorry for you!

      • OK 70 year old Jewish messianic lady. I’m sure everyone is glad to have you speaking up for them. I suppose they are too shy to do it for themselves.

      • No need to apologize to the Blowbama communist, he feels he’s as untouchable like the King communist leader he worships.

      • This is not for you, your’re below the level to which I would normally respond but I think it might be interesting to others.

        I’m not a liberal. You can read my posts, I don’t hide them like some people. Click on my name.

        I’m a conservative. I think Barry Hussein is a Muslim, Socialist, Anti-American turd, to use the vernacular, which I think you will understand. I also think liberalism is a disease, a genetic defect to be exact. I think it has infected so much of our population that we may not be able to disinfect it.

        And I also think religion is a curse on the human race which has caused more death, destruction, misery than any other.
        There’s a dichotomy there. Nuance. It has taught me to see through people who make assumptions and generalize.

    • There are over 400 comments right now, Do you expect everyone to read every one of them before expressing an opinion. Have you read and digested all of them? And if you have, you are probably one of the few

      • Fun having your litte LOL’s hanging there under my posts like little dingleberries! You missed a few though.

  54. Screw those idiots from FFRF, their first problem is that there is no statement in the Constitution or any other piece of legislation that promotes freedom from religion. IT’S FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Quit listening and bowing to these morons and follow the truth of CHRIST!

  55. So, under threat of lawsuit the school district followed the Constitution. Too bad not a one of them would pass a civics class. But I guess they can learn.

  56. If Atheists don’t like the statue, then why don’t they get one of their supporters donate a statue that represents their belief in “Nothingness”? Demons are waiting on them in the Fires of Hell if they don’t wake from their stupor!

  57. Well they may as well remove all the urinals too, for everyone involved in this decision lacks the equipage to pee standing up.

      • I am a Christian. What about the crusades? I was speaking with a Muslim a few weeks ago and his contention is that all humans are the same. He said that the Muslim religion is new compared with Judaism and Christianity. What did the Jews and Christians do when people did not agree with their theology?

      • I’m 72 and have studied religious history and don’t remember seeing a time when they didn’t. The Crusades were about Muslim aggression and Christians getting fed up with it and fighting back.

        The Spanish Inquisition, which went as far as Rome, was a different thing altogether. That was collective insanity, to say the least.

      • Things in the ancient past should stay there. Christians today do not kill you because you refuse to believe as you do. But Muslims? Ask the Christians and others in Iraq that are being told to convert to Islam or die——and beheaded when they refuse.

      • It IS time Christians stood their ground and not back down – not for ANY reason! “Turning the other cheek” isn’t about letting people tromp all over your Constitutional rights!

    • So very right. Nothing has been the cause of more bloodshed and senseless violence than religion. Yet they claim to have the moral high ground because they get their ethics code from a bunch of dusty old ancient scrolls. HA!
      I just don’t understand why Christians don’t get that, while they are the majority party in this nation, according to the logic of the constitution, if government endorses one religion, it has to endorse all religions, meaning there would be some laws passed pretty quick that the mainstream Christian majority wouldn’t like. Look no further than Pakistan or Sudan or Saudi Arabia to see an example of the consequences of state-backed religion. Theocracy has, and always will be, the worst form of government.

      • I just don’t understand why people don’t wake up & realize that Christianity is what gave us this country! All of the founding fathers where either Christians, or agnostics. And, since when is it wrong to try to teach people to not steal, or cheat, or kill, or any of the other wrongs that trouble this country? We are slowly becoming a stench in God’s nostrils, & when He says enough, this country has had it. We’ve already seen some of the warnings, tornadoes, earth quakes, forest fires, hurricanes, & so on. I pray that people wake up & realize what’s going on, before it’s too late.

      • Two were Jews, but you’re right, most were Godly men! And schools now are teaching they were all atheists! It’s so ludicrous it’s ming boggling!

      • No thanks. Thinking people can find the answers. You’re an incredible bore and no matter how you niggle me, I’m finished with you.

      • I couldn’t have said it better. There is another Sodom and Gomorrah in the making. Only the Lord knows where we are and what we will face.

        Jeremiah 50:40
        As I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah along with their neighboring towns,” declares the LORD, “so no one will live there; no people will dwell in it.

      • Sorry to disappoint you but, those of us Bible and God fearing people are not the majority. We and our Lord sure do pray though that the numbers change.

      • Atheists murdered over 100 million last century. Atheism brings nothing but ruin and misery everywhere it goes.

      • That argument about Stalin and Mao has been debunked so thoroughly so often but it seems to keep coming back. Here is the short answer: they weren’t fighting for their atheist beliefs. They weren’t following some Gospel of Richard Dawkins that instructed them to commit atrocities:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-101-hitler-stalin-and-mao

        “They both had mustaches too, does that mean moustaches cause tyranny?

        You want to see ruin and misery? Study the histories of countries that are theocracies, when religion has been in control. You will see the most dismal human misery, until today.

      • WRONG. Not debunked. Stalin and Mao were evil men who killed MILLIONS of their own people. You seem dismally ignorant about history!

    • Oh, please, I have heard all this before. Watch kids on a playground. They fight. It’s human nature. Religious beliefs are only an excuse.

  58. Perhaps the school board didn’t “stand with resolve” because they knew they would be on the wrong side. Fortunately for everyone, including religious people, there are provisions in our government that say religious principles cannot be legislated, and governing bodies cannot endorse any religion over another. This article is an example of the ultimate hypocrisy of religious people because the Christian majority is angry with an atheist group who (correctly) claimed that a statue with bible verses on public school property is equivalent to government endorsement of Christianity, yet that same Christian majority would be absolutely furious if a statue of Krishna or a plaque honoring the prophet Muhammad were erected on school grounds. They would be clamouring for its removal long before the atheists got there. Christians want government to “stand with resolve” for their religion only, when legally, ethically, and in all common sense, that simply isn’t possible.

    • You are totally wrong. Schools are NOT government. And, the statue was donated by a private donor. Government had nothing to do with it. And, by the way, people that don’t stand against this, will in the end, lose it all.

      • “Separation of Church and State” isn’t to protect the State from religion; It is to protect the Church from the State.
        Honestly, I do not know why atheists are so intolerant of the beliefs of others. They force their inability to tolerate any sign of religion onto others, and act as if they are the victims. No, they are immature and cannot get past their own myopic views.
        We have freedom of religion in this country, not freedom FROM religion. Most people don’t freak out at something like this stone, or seeing a cross, or a Star of David, or other religious symbols. Atheists need to learn how to “live and let live.”

      • Exactly!

        Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn’t see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn’t believe in?!

      • They need to retake American History 100 classes and learn what our forefathers wrote and fled because of being forced to follow a religion of their govt. If they will not live according to our U.S. Constitution, don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

      • Did you happen to take the time to read what Doug Indeap and others have said on that point already before you jumped in? I’ll sum it up for you: you’re wrong, but I really can’t be bothered rehashing it. Read.

      • I read what he said and I’ll rehash it for you Jim: There’s nothing in the Constitution about ‘Separation of Church and State’. And these people are not violating the Constitution.

    • And if it had been a plaque honoring Mohammad, there would not have been one outcry. it’s only Christianity that can be ridiculed and talked bad about without lawsuits and complaints. The day will come, however, that you stand before the God you say does not exist, and face your mistake–too late.

      • OO, agreed, we try to save all the lost we can, but some cannot see the light and will suffer as we live in a true paradise.

  59. “Imagine if Christians attempted to force their beliefs upon the Left….” When did they stop? A local radio station goes ALL CHRISTMAS MUSIC during December. I called and asked why. The person who answered the phone said the owner of the station was a “good Christian.” I don’t listen to that station any more. Why didn’t anyone in the school speak out? What happened to the first Black people who sat at the lunch counter?

    • That’s your choice. I have celiac and won’t go to a restaurant that will not accommodate me. My choice. That person owns the radio station and can play whatever music he/she chooses to. It’s their money paying for it. It’s like when people were complaining about Howard Stern. Personally I don’t like him and don’t listen to him or watch his show. It’s my choice.

    • Christmas music is some of the most beautiful of the year–i wish we kept it on all year. You people call us hateful–you are the hateful ones–and God himself calls you fools–Ecclesiastes 10:2—“The heart of the wise man is inclined to the right–but that of the fool to the left”. Our faith is an important part of who we are. what do you have? Just a desire to take away what we have! You will not succeed.

      • FYI: I love classical Christmas music and I do listen to it year round. (no one has to keep it on, I have my own CD player).
        I am also an atheist, although I don’t like that term.
        I listen to the music in my own car and home, and I don’t force anyone at the local town council meeting or football game to listen to it.

  60. What do atheists sacrifice or are FORCED to give up when someone of faith prays or practices their religion?,…. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !

    • Maybe they’re afraid it will rub off on them . . .

      Face it, atheists, like Big Gay, are TOTALITARIANS! There is NOTHING “tolerant” about them!

      • I was taught that you get what you give, …if it’s intolerance they give it’s intolerance they’ll get….

      • I think you are a totalitarian. You insist that everyone pray to your god. You’re intolerant of anyone who doesn’t want their government supporting someone else’s 2000 year old superstitions. How would you like it if a bunch of Muslims were praying on rugs on center field before a game? Shouting Allah Akhbar?

      • Nobody is forcing anyone to pray to any god. And the government is not supporting this statue. It was put there by the community and fascists like you demand it get taken down just because you hate Christianity. Ah yes, atheists at their best. You would have fitted in perfectly in the Soviet Union.

  61. Only people who are TRUE born again individuals will stand against this. People back when confronted by satan & his minions are not sold out to Jesus, so they cave. Atheists sure spend a lot of time worrying about a Person they claim doesn’t exist. If He DOESN’T, then why all the upset over Scriptures & crosses? What’s next, we will no longer be allowed to gather at our churches?? People who are straddling the fence need to get on one side, or the other. (By the way, the devil owns the fence.) Jesus said if we deny Him, He will deny us to the Father.

  62. I hope that your mentioning the Wisconsin location of FFRF was not meant to subtly hint that they should butt out of MS politics. FFRF is a world-wide organization that includes many MS citizens among its members.

    • If it were up to me, I wouldn’t subtly hint about anything. I’d just tell them that our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion and they should take their atheist philosophy and stuff it in the closet that once was occupied by their number one allies in the assault of American religious freedom, the homosexuals and quit trying to use the law to force the rest of us to stuff our Bibles in that closet. The FFRF is most absolutely an anti-freedom and therefore anti-American organization.

  63. I thought about starting up a Dial-A-Prayer for atheist. They could dial the number, and I promised them no one would answer …. but they said that was offensive, too. Go figure. The thing about bullies, there just really isn’t any way to make them happy.

  64. The real bottom line? The reason atheists find anything Christian offensive is that, deep down, though they won’t admit it, they know God exists, and that they are wrong. Christian symbols make them feel guilty because they won’t admit it.

    • Nope. You’re a lot more offensive in a lot more ways than that. Your smug presumption that deep down we actually believe your hideous god is real, for starters.

      • Yeah because worshiping a God who commands us to love others as ourselves really is a hideous thing. What a sad, pathetic lot atheists are. They really are bottom of the sewer. No wonder they’re so despised. Thank God the constitution wasn’t written by such cretins.

      • Is calling us a “sad, pathetic lot”, “bottom of the sewer” part of following your commandment to love others?
        News flash: It was written by people just like us!

        What would you do about this if you absolute control?

      • OK then, as long as you only called us a sad, pathetic lot, bottom of the sewer and cretins – and don’t hate anyone – it’s all good, thanks for clarifying.

  65. Atheists are the fluff of the lunatic fringe. So WHY is everybody so intimidated by those loons that they bend over and grab their ankles every single time?

      • The very document which which uses Christianity as it’s basis and guarantees freedom of religious expression everywhere?

      • Nope. The imaginary god of the christian myth is actually not mentioned in the constitution, thankfully.

      • That’s because the constitution is not a religious document. It’s a document on how the government should function. However, it was inspired by Christianity and the Bible as were the founders. Read the Declaration of Independence.

      • No, not that one. It’s more about the US constitution, which in no way is a Christian document. The ideals from which it came are more derived from the enlightenment and are based more on reason and individualism than on any Christian theology or doctrine whatsoever.

  66. Here is a unifying thought for pondering. All this atheist – Christian animosity will quickly fade once the Muslims get more of a foothold here. Probably sooner rather than later.

    Britain and France are lost already.
    We are all atheists to the 1.6 Billion Muslims. All going to their hell.

    • Note to self: Interesting that in 2 days no Christians have taken the opportunity to chime in on the idea of a unifying thought. The idea that atheists are not their biggest threat and vs versa. Aren’t the religious the ones that reach out and try to spread peace and harmony. Hell no, read this page.

    • Note to self: Interesting that in 2 days no Christians have taken the opportunity to chime in on the idea of a unifying thought. The idea that atheists are not their biggest threat and vs versa. Aren’t the religious the ones that reach out and try to spread peace and harmony. Hell no, read this page.

  67. Once again the majority of Americans have to take a back seat to a low life godless minority. This is your liberal progresive agenda at work. Time to fightback yet?

    • Until the majority of americans choose to remove the freedom of religous excersize and establish a mandatory state approved religion, then the goverment(its affiliates, its employees, and its institutions) must not have any religeous bias. Putting Christian verses on state property shows bias. If you would like to live in a theocratic society i would suggest syria.

      • No it doesn’t. In NO way does it force anyone to go along with a Christian belief! Even the Supreme Court has the 10 Commandments behind where they sit!!

      • But is it biased if the state property did not pay for it? It was a donation from what I understand. This is a topic that can go back and forth for decades, and it has. No I have no intention of living in a theocratic society, but isn’t that what atheism is all about? Some can argue that being an atheist is practicing a religion. So if we remove all Christian symbols from around the country, from every state building, court houses, schools, township houses etc. Isn’t that mandating a state religion?

    • Do you know how many conservative atheists are out there? Me neither, but it’s a lot. We support the Tea Party, (except for their evangelical Christian bent) and the Convention of States and Mark Levin. If you don’t know what those are then I am more conservative than you. And I think religion is a curse on the human race that needs to finally go away. It has abused us for 2000+ years. Enough already. End the 2000 year old mythology. Read the Bible. Critically.

      http://theatheistconservative.com/

      • Thanks for link. No, Mark would not agree with me on religion, but your conclusion eludes me. Perhaps my position has too much nuance for you, so I’ll try to clarify. My point was that I am a conservative except for the religion part. Cabiche? I am a conservative, and also an atheist. So yes, I am not in agreement with most other conservatives on that point. I am promoter of Conventions of States, I have Mark’s books and Michael Savage’s too. I would vote for Mark for president. I care more about my country than I do about this issue (plus I don’t think Mark would take us to a theocracy).

        Not that I need to prove conservative bona fides to you, but someone asked me how has liberalism destroyed the country and here is my response:

        http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/10/atheists-run-amok-now-challenging-statue-georgia-high-school/#comment-1615448167

      • That argument about atheists murdering millions – presumably referring to Stalin and Mao – has been debunked so thoroughly so often but it seems to keep coming back. Here is the short answer: they weren’t fighting for their atheist beliefs. They were not following some Gospel of Richard Dawkins that instructed them to commit atrocities:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-101-hitler-stalin-and-mao

        “They both had mustaches too, does that mean moustaches cause tyranny?”

      • Sorry, dim jim, but no, it has not been debunked. It’s FACTUAL! And just your ignorance about it shows why America is in the trouble it’s in!

      • They were atheists Jim. Stop trying to rewrite history. Not just Stalin and Mao. Pol Pot, Castro, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, King Il Sung..the list goes on…

        Atheism and Islam..the two most destructive ideologies of our time.

      • You are just spewing forth, not responding to my points at all.
        Maybe you can try again and look at my argument, then counter it with something factual. I’ll repeat it for you: I say they were not fighting for atheist beliefs any more than they were fighting for their mustaches or goatees. That is that their atheism was incidental and not causative.
        Do you have any counter to that, other than “They are atheists Jim”
        Let’s stick to just that point, please.
        You are half right on the Atheism and Islam point.

      • I do know what the Convention of States is and I don’t agree with it. Its ripe with the possibility of corruption. Until such safeguards in place that will guarantee, that the Bill of Rights will NOT be amended, that the reversal of several amendments will not happen, I will not support a COS. As for Mark Levin, love him, read three of his books and for the most part agree with him.
        However, that being said, I don’t agree 100% with him. And the concept of faith is one of them.
        Why do you want religion to finally go away? What harm is my practicing my faith do to you? What harm is there in a statue that the players of a ball game respect, perhaps say a prayer to before playing a game?
        You say that religion has been abused for 2000+ years, well the Constitution has for at least 200 years, should we say it needs to finally go away and we have anarchy? There are a lot of things that offend me that atheist do, but I don’t take them to court, I don’t sue them, I let them alone to practice their RELIGION, because that’s what atheism is, it is a religion.

      • Short answer is because religious people don’t mind their business. There is 2000 years of history of them not minding their own business. There are people today jumping over the fence in Mexico to come and kill us because of religion. There are 28 wars being fought in the world over religion. And it’s freaking 2014! WTF? What harm is it doing? Are you serious? Ask the 200 million people killed in the name of Islam and Christianity. It continues to today.

        Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, because of the hatred spewed at them by religionists. We have no chance to win a national election.

        From previous post on another site by Doug Indeap:

        Blue laws” in many states restrict what can be sold on Sundays based on religious considerations.

        The phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

        The phrase “In god we trust” was added to U.S. coins in 1864 and to dollar bills in 1957.

        Those professing religious beliefs are attempting to control what is taught in public schools so as to conform to, or at least not conflict with, their dogma. They seek, for instance, to have creationism or intelligent design passed off as science in public schools.

        So don’t ask what harm your faith is doing. It’s very well document. Do a critical read of the texts and the history around them.

      • WHAT “religious people”?? Muslims? Or are you speaking of Christians who DO “mind their business”! It seems to me that YOU don’t mind your business!

      • Short answer is because religious people don’t mind their business. There is 2000 years of history of them not minding their own business.

        There are people today jumping over the fence in Mexico to come and kill us because of religion.

        There are 28 wars being fought in the world over religion. And it’s freaking 2014! WTF?

        I have to use a fake name when I post as an atheist out of a very real threat that some crazed nut, following the divine teachings of the gentle carpenter from Galilee, will drive by my house and throw a cocktail at it. Our position has been so poisoned by the religious. A poll of parents found that they would rather have their daughters marry a muslim than an atheist. What sort of belief system spreads such poison? We are seen as the lowest of the low by a large swath of society. Where was that the case before? Think Rome 300 CE and think Christians. Now you want to talk about hypocrisy? As soon as the Christians became the approved religion they started killing pagans, then Jews and it continued into the 20th century.

        What harm is it doing? Are you serious? Ask the 200 million people killed in the name of Islam and Christianity if they feel any harm. It continues to today.

        Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, because of the hatred spewed at them by religionists. We have no chance to win a national election.

        From previous post on another site by Doug Indeap:

        Blue laws” in many states restrict what can be sold on Sundays based on religious considerations.

        The phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

        The phrase “In god we trust” was added to U.S. coins in 1864 and to dollar bills in 1957.

        Those professing religious beliefs are attempting to control what is taught in public schools so as to conform to, or at least not conflict with, their dogma. They seek, for instance, to have creationism or intelligent design passed off as science in public schools.

        So don’t ask what harm your faith is doing. It’s very well documented. Do a critical read of the texts and the history around them.

        (Accidentally posted as Guest, please disregard dupe post)

      • Don’t mind the repeat post. There is no way I can justify what happened two thousand years ago, and I won’t try. There is no way I can justify the injustice that happens today in muzzie countries, and I sure the hell won’t try. Most Christians, like myself just want to be left alone, I’m not bombing abortion clinics, at the same time I’m not sending my kids off to liberal universities. I believe in evolution, I also believe in the Bibles telling of creation. Both can live side by side, its no big deal, so if creationist, and evolutionist can live side by side and believe in both, where is the harm? Like I said, I’m not justifying the actions of some Neanderthal zealots, or the extreme versions of the evangelistic. I’m just saying, there is NO HARM in having a statue that the players touch, pray or get comfort from.

      • Need to draw the line and the place to do that is where your personal practices and beliefs become government sponsored. That’s a poor legal description, but that’s the idea. If we don’t have that line, religionists have shown over 2000 years that they will create a theocracy around their particular belief. You are paying the price for what happened over last 2000 years in a way. And the track record of religion is so hideous that I think it’s right that that is so. If the monument had strictly pagan symbols on it I might not care.

      • Oh HOG WASH! We have a RIGHT, given by God, to express our faith, as long as it doesn’t cause harm to anyone. And Biblical faith only causes GOOD, not harm!

        Take your “freedom from religion” and go away!

    • Ridiculous. A school is no place for your stone – age voodoo superstitions. Religious delusion has retarded human civilization far too long already. Keep your invisible sky genies and imaginary gods to yourself, please. Some of us are OK here in reality.

  68. Curious that some direct their ire at those who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not, as is often complained, purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.

    West misses the point—and cheapens the discussion of constitutional issues by pretending that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well.

    While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.

    • Glad you’re back, it has been a madhouse around here. I think an evangelical megachurch got out somewhere in the bible belt and they all ran to their computers.

    • There’s nothing in the Constitution about ‘Separation of Church and State’. This is an idea that came in 1947 from Hugo Black, a Democrat, anti-Catholic bigot and ex KKK member Hugo Black.

      • I address the separation of church and state in a response to your other comment above (and in several other responses to this post).

        The KKK-anti-Catholic smear against Justice Black is sometimes offered as an explanation for his opinion in Everson v. Board of Education–even though nothing in his opinions remotely supports that claim, all nine justices agreed on the principle that the First Amendment called for separation of church and state (so it was hardly just Black’s doing), and Black led the majority of five in holding that the principle did NOT preclude state funding of transportation of students to parochial schools. Not only did all nine justices in Everson read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.

      • As I don’t agree with it, it was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, but it goes back further than that. At least that’s what I’ve found out, several articles and opinions point to this date as the opinion of the SCOTUS, also that Justice Black referred to it in his majority opinion. This will be an ongoing debate for decades to come. No one wins, and I believe that is the point of the whole thing

      • I’m not sure of your point. In any event, it bears noting that some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

      • Mr. Doug Indeap. It is very frustrating that I can’t say this in a private message, but thank you for standing up for our freedoms. I was raised Christian and it was a combination of my own common sense and my interactions with people like “flower” that made me diverge away from it. I accept ALL people of ALL religions and I commend you for standing up for what is fair. Thank you.

      • Ahh the blame game, huh? Gosh Erin! You needed other people to draw you away from faith because you couldn’t decide on your own which way to go? How sad for you! But truly, I’m sorry you didn’t even have faith to begin with, you were probably just “testing the water” to see if you agreed with what you saw.

        That being said, we believers conform to God’s ways, rather than expect Him to conform to ours. You were apparently just looking for your ears to be tickled. Be well.

      • Flower,

        I want to thank you too. For giving everyone a close up view of the intolerant, petty, insufferable, humorless, vengeful, attacking posture of the all too typical religionist. In your case a so called 71 year old Jewish Messianic something or other with a vocabulary that includes such phrases as “arrogant prick” who feels the need to reach out and attack a young girl who has made a total of 2 posts.

        I suspect you are a 20 something goth living in your mothers basement, but no matter, I encourage you to keep posting, you likely have no idea how much you are helping our cause.

        Thanks

      • Thank you for your kind thoughts, Erin.

        The principle of separation of church and state works to the benefit of people of diverse beliefs. Theists and atheists (and those of other beliefs) alike can–and do–embrace it. Sure, people may disagree about how it should apply in particular circumstances, but the general principle merits support by people of all stripes.

        I appreciate hearing of your experience and how you’ve come to value standing up for what is fair. Be well.

  69. Amazing, jim becks thinks He has a unifying idea/thought when all he’s done is berate everyone’s comments and interject Hate and discontent for 2 days while passing himself off as a Bible Scholar that hates Religon. Frankly jim we don’t give a damn what you think or feel and Your opinion couldn’t possibly matter less and if You see yourself as a future victim of muslim violence that’s really sad but also no skin off our noses so You just keep on Bitchin about everybody and everything jim and We’ll just keep on laughing at you.

    • This should have been posted as a response to my post, not at the top level.
      Glad to hear you are not concerned about Muslim violence. I think you must be the only one.

      • Just out of curiosity, Jim, why do you behave on this board like you’re the top intellect? You truly are an arrogant little man!

      • Here’s a suggestion Flower: Stop attacking me and try to say something more intelligent than what I said. It will raise the level of discourse instead of lowering it, and make you look a little bigger than you do now.

      • I couldn’t pick one of your posts jim because there are just too many to choose from and since We all have to be subjected to your niggling views I felt a top level post was appropriate. You keep hounding people for not reading previous posts while you clearly didn’t even read mine. I said nothing about not being concerned with muslim violence [ if You see yourself as a future victim of muslim violence that’s really sad ] maybe you got it that time dim/jim. Personally, I’m quite prepared for the ragheads or any other buttheads that want to do harm in my vicinity because like most other rational Human Beings, I know that We are Our best protection because genius, ex-hall monitors like yourself will still be talking or typing when the SHTF

  70. Has anyone looked into if these atheist groups might be aligned with Islam. To me it seems that it’s only Christian monuments that they are fighting so hard to remove. Islamic monuments aren’t touched because they aren’t offended, or is it that Islam told them to take a hike.

    • The notion is ridiculous. We all hate freaking Islam. If you have any examples of any Islamic monuments in public schools or other violations please post the details and I will personally take them up with FFRF or Americans United and report back.

      • We are in agreement here. The FFRF needs to go after Islamist infiltration and I have told them so. This is the big threat.
        Here is a previous response of mine. I can’t get disqus to give me the link to it.

        Unfortunately that is true – for the Madison based FFRF group – because they are liberals and suffer from the cognitive dysfunction known as cultural relativism (ie: they only despise what is white and European and everything else is good). It may not be the case for other atheist groups.

        But don’t forget the 40000+ atheists in the military fighting for your right not to have to hit the rug 5 times a day and pray to Allah (Pat Tillman was one) We also have ACT For America which fights the poison of Islam in the US head on. They are not atheist but I don’t think they call themselves a Christian group, so I guess they are secular. In any case they are fighting the good fight and I support them financially and would continue to do so even if they were to take on the Christian label.

      • ???
        I didn’t say you hate freakin Islam. I said I hate freaking Islam. I would add that IMO if you don’t hate freakin Islam you are not awake.
        You are the one generalizing here. How about we drop the liberal conservative stuff. This page is not a liberal conservative issue. It’s atheist-religionist issue primarily, and should be a constitutional issue but that’s too much to ask.

      • Your post I received in my mail-box:

        “???I didn’t say you hate freakin Islam. I said I hate freaking Islam. I would add that IMO if you don’t hate freakin Islam you are not awake.
        You are the one generalizing here. How about we drop the liberal conservative stuff. This page is not a liberal conservation issue. It’s atheist-religionist issue primarily, and should be a constitutional issue but that’s too much to ask.”

        From your post 3 days ago:

        “We all hate freaking Islam.” ‘We all…” reads pretty much like a generalization to me…by definition including me!

        But we agree on one thing, It IS a Constitutional issue. This is a conservative blog. The vast majority of posts on this issue, denouncing the school’s decision are decidedly conservative and intolerant. Count them yourself.

      • Point taken. I actually noticed my wording and so removed that line. The one you see on the blog is always the latest. I see why you made the comment.

        Funny how people see things through different lens. You see as liberal-conservative and I see as atheist-religious. When I look at the posts I see lots of vitriol from the religious side, you see it from the conservative side. Same people but I see the problem as their religiosity, not their conservatism. Actually doctrinaire ideologues on either side are equally annoying to me.
        Yes the site is conservative but the 3 blog posts on atheism have been not hounded that aspect and I thought that was appropriate.

        I do think it results in better discussion if you keep the political stuff out of discussion on religion. I think Doug I agreed with that.

      • I’m not so sure I can agree with you about the religious/political nature of this issue. Admittedly, this is only from my experience on this blog, that by and large to religious right and the conservative right are indistinguishable. Review some of the posters’ transcripts. It perhaps raise some questions for you. Grist for the mill…

      • I find the behavior of these conservative Muslims appalling. And that’s who they are: conservative deranged Muslims. But I do not hate the entire religion of these outliers who refuse to enter the 21st Century. By extending your logic, I should hate all Italians because of the Mafia, hate all Whites because some are White supremacists or White separatists and all Blacks because of the DC shooters. I do not hate an entire group because of the actions of a minority. And don’t even get me started on example of American actions in WWII, Vietnam, OIF and OEF. My point is, hate justifies those actions that that turn us into them.

        “We have met the enemy, and he is us” – Pogo

      • First, I call them “orthodox” Muslims – that is, the one’s that practice what is written in the Koran. (And I think appalling is pretty soft description of that video.)

        Second, You have not extended my logic, you have subverted it. Looks like this is going to take a lib-conservative turn, my bad.

        Your response just exemplified the second biggest threat we face as a nation: Political Correctness.

        http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/10/atheists-run-amok-now-challenging-statue-georgia-high-school/#comment-1615448167

        The notion that attacking ideas is the same as attacking people is pure politically correct thought, a product of modern liberalism.

        Peter Boghasian covers this well in his book “A Manual For Creating Atheists” in the excellent chapter “Faith and the Academy”.

        I repeat: I hate freaking Islam

        To be clear, I didn’t say I hate Muslims. I am attacking a system of beliefs that I have read in detail and which is flat out diametrically opposed to the principals America stands for.

        I am not attacking any person. Many so called Muslims don’t want to chop our heads off, but these people are not practicing the system called Islam, as it was written by Mohammed.

        Today, it is anathema to criticize ideas because modern liberalism has polluted the minds of an entire generation with the notion that doing so is attacking people.

        As a result we have a generation of mindless foot soldiers, incapable of a critical thought, joined in a government, media complex. And here we are, with a closet Muslim empty-suit-in-chief, on the slippery slope to third world status.

        Finally, I’M NOT ATTACKING YOU. I’m saying the idea you just stated exemplifies a way of thinking that I think is the second biggest threat we face as a nation. NOT YOU, I don’t know you. But I have to call out those ideas as I see um.

      • First, I a strong opponent of, “political correctness. It is a canard for people who fear “offending” anyone. I refuse to accept the “X-American” lables. Terms that were introduced by the Census Bureau. More political correctness.

        I am still not yet willing to accept your proposition that there is a distinction between Islaml and Muslims. Seems like saying there is a distinction between Christianity and and Chiastians or Semitism and Jews. Can’t quite get my head around that. Grist for my mill I guess. I have to study Islam for myself.

  71. West got this discussion off on the wrong foot with all this atheist-Christian nonsense. The Constitution’s separation of church and state IS NOT AN ATHEIST CONCEPT. Entirely different subject folks. If you want to spar about atheism-theism, have at it, but you aren’t coming close to talking about what this case is about.

    • You obviously don’t understand the Constitution you pathetic progressive troll (don’t give us this nonsense you’re a tea party conservative, we don’t buy it). Separation of church and state simply means that there is no state sanctioned church (ie a Church of the United States like a Church of England) and that religious institutions stay out of government. It does NOT prohibit the expression of religion in any public sphere.

      • While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

    • Sorry but there’s nothing in the Constitution about ‘Separation of Church and State’. It’s a phony concept. This concept came in 1947 from Hugo Black, a Democrat, anti-Catholic bigot and ex KKK member.

      • Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

        That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

        To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).

        The notion that the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional separation of church and state is all Justice Black’s doing as part of some KKK anti-Catholic conspiracy is laughable. It bears noting that all nine justices in the Everson case read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, and indeed all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.

      • Hugo Black was ex KKK was he not? And even Black’s son admits that he hated the Catholic church. And your post makes no sense. You’re saying that ‘Separation of Church and State’ is implied just because the Constitution calls for limited government and no religious test. If that’s the case, why did this ‘Separation of Church and State’ clause not come into effect until 1947? And was it really necessary? American never even came close to becoming a theocracy before then. No, it was just an effort by the progressives to attack any form of religious expression by Christians.

        The fact remains, it is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the government to fund any religion, religious monument or religious activity.

      • Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

        During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts.

        It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

        This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

  72. Everyone is afraid of the lawyers and the way the liberal judges will rule. They fold because of the idiotic cost involved through the legal system to fight for what is right. They go to the first court date, the judge says that the liberal idiots are right, then the school has to appeal, they go higher on up and the next judge says yeah, that last judge might have been right. Now they need to go to the state supreme court and take a chance…You see where I am going with this. In the end, it would probably cost a couple of million to fight for what is right. Need to put an end to frivolous law suits and start charging the lawyers that bring this crap to to court. That would be a start to stop these money hungry ambulance chasing lawyers in the first place. Hit them where it hurts…Their pocket.

    • Exactly the same way that the environmentalists operate. They cherry pick the judicial district and judges to file their lawsuits.

  73. Question: What separates Christian religionists, insisting people attending public, government sponsored events participate in their superstitious practices, from the Islamists making the same demands in Libya, Syria, Iraq…?

    Answer: A Constitution and people who, hated and despised, are willing to draw a line and say keep your personal beliefs and superstitions on the other side of this.

    The FFRF are liberals and that’s a shame. But they are also defending the Constitution.

    • The Constitution is clear. It does not prohibit freedom of expression or freedom of religion, even in the public sphere. The analogy with Syria and Iraq is not valid. Islamists in those countries are seeking to impose religious laws on entire populations. That’s not the case at Madison County HS.

      • The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.

        With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.

      • This statue was not provided by the secular government. It was an individuals right to provide it free and it is each student’s right to follow or believe in what the statue says or not. Its being there forces no one to read or believe in it. Especially if you are residing in Madison, Wisconsin you do not have to look at the statue/monument, or a picture hanging on a wall in some government office.

      • Regardless of whether the government (in the form of the school district) obtained the sculpture by donation or purchase, it is the government that has erected and maintained it on its property. If you want to suppose that the government merely allowed someone else to display his or her sculpture on the district’s property, get ready for others to ask for equal opportunities to display their religious messages.

      • Why do you make such a giant pissing contest out of a simple disregard for property?! It was symbolic to believers, so the school chose to remove it. PERIOD. It’s VERY clear that more and more, federal, state and city governments want to destroy Christianity!

        Stop making it about other religions!

      • No, the school chose to remove it not because it was symbolic to believers, but rather despite that it was symbolic to believers and because the school’s display of religious messages violated the Constitution. Sometimes it really isn’t all about you.

      • Uh WRONG. The school doesn’t even have the ABILITY to violate the Constitution! Only CONGRESS can do that! Have you even READ the Constitution! What the school did was take away Christian’s Constitutional rights!

        Gosh, I’m am absolutely amazed at how few Americans understand the U.S. Constitution! I was required to take classes about it in the 8th grade, yet schools no longer teach it!

        Remember the part where it says “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”?? Hmm?? ONLY Congress!! Not the schools, not any other branch of government!

      • While the First Amendment limited only the federal government, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions–hence the law does reach the city councils and public school teachers. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights’ constraints to state and local governments.

        Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf

      • The courts have been wrong about this point in the Constitution for several years! Just because a court ruling rules on the side of the left who hates Christianity, doesn’t mean they are keeping the Constitutional law!

      • Okay, if you don’t give the courts any credence, perhaps plain old rationality will lead you to see the folly of your simplistic semantic interpretation. You make much of the First Amendment’s references to “Congress” and “law.” By your literal reading, are we to suppose the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of one or more religions? Nonsense. First, Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President’s veto, so to read the language as simplistically and literally as you suggest would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are “made” by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. By the literal reading you suggest, it would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion–a manifestly silly result. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.

        In any event, watch what you wish for. Any such crabbed reading of the First Amendment would mess with the free exercise clause as well, and enable the Executive to take steps restricting the free exercise of religion.

        While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from enacting a law establishing an official religion, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

        While I understand that you dislike the First Amendment as understood by the courts, it is nonetheless telling that no court in the history of our nation has ever read the First Amendment to mean as little as you now suggest.

      • Sorry, I didn’t read your entire post. You don’t seem to have a simple grasp on what the U.S. Government does or does not do. So instead, you choose to sermonize.

      • Too bad. Had you not already closed your mind, you might have benefited from the bit I have learned about law from practicing it over several decades.

      • Doug is is right Flower. My experience with this blog, is that conservatives only want the Constitution to apply to them. We liberals want the Constitution to apply to EVERY ONE!

      • I would replace the words liberal and conservative above with atheist and religionist (ie: someone who wants to impose their religion on others).

        It’s not a liberal conservative issue. I am a conservative and an atheist. There are a lot like me and more every day.

        If we start debating liberalism and conservatism it will take us off track. Doug Indeap resisted the urge previously, you might follow his lead.

      • In REALITY, the Constitution DOES apply to everyone! Leftwing moonbats want to twist it and make it apply to things I was never meant to! They also want SPECIAL rights, as in the Big Gay Lobby!

      • It’s NOT about government, Flower. It’s about the Constitution. At least get that straight. There’s a BIG difference.

        Maybe I can simplify this even more. Public schools are just that. PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Religious representations of ANY religion are inappropriate in any public schools are a violation of the Constitution. Be they Muslim, Atheist, Tao, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, et al.

        As I have posted before. If parents want their children to receive a particular religious education, they have the option and freedom to enroll their children in the religious school of choice. I have absolutely no problem with that. Yes, I am a Libertarian. If that makes me an Atheist in your mind, so be it.

        Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one’s beliefs, the Atheists have become the activists on this matter. However, this opposition could have been initiated by members of ANY members of the religions I noted above.

      • At least SCOTUS is upholding the Constitution on this issue. If I were you, I would, and am, more concerned that SCOTUS is deciding in favor of carving away at personal privacy and limiting voting rights.

      • Sadly, little man, there are no rights in the Constitution for you to be protected against being offended! LOL!!

        GET OVER IT!

      • The five activist judges (Scalia, scAlito, Thomas, Roberts and (too often) Kennedy have shown contempt for the Constitution. But pray, on what basis would the protesters sue? That they have a right to have a public school district endorse their religion at the expense of others?

        Now, the district could declare the site a public forum…the Satanists have a beautiful statue all ready to move in if they do.

      • “at the expense of others” … WHAT expense?? The fact that they are OFFENDED by those who have faith in God?

        Oh PLEASE! Get over yourself!

      • You misunderstand. Those contesting the government’s action are offended by its violation of the Constitution–and not by the beliefs of other citizens, regardless of whether they agree with those beliefs.

      • At the expense, for example, of Satanists who would be perfectly happy to put their monument up next to yours.

        Are you saying you’d have no problem with that?

        Or would you be “offended.”

        Anyone who thinks this is about “offense” and not the Constitution is offensive to me…but as long as they’re not on a school board somewhere it doesn’t make that much difference in the law.

      • If Satanists wanted to spend the $60,000 that the piece of marble cost, then let it be. God is the judge.

        And, by the way, the 1st Amendment was written regarding Christianity, not Satanists! Gosh, you and those like you are SO brain dead when it comes to understanding our Founding Fathers and the reasons they put safe-guards into our Constitution to protect Christians! That’s why Christians CAME to this country, so they could BE without the government interfering!!

      • Not only do I “feel) (wrong word BTW – a “feeling” is mad, sad, glad or scared) Voter I.D. is limiting voting rights, I deeply BELIEVE it limits voter rights. Else why do we carry around voter registration cards.

        In Illinois, all I have to do is walk in, sign the for for a ballot, my signature is compared against their copy of my voter registration and I am given a ballot. Any other requirements/obstacles thrown in the way of a voter, are nothing but some kind of poll tax; outlawed the last time I looked!

      • Well oddly enough, other countries use Voter I.D. quite effectively and they’ve found that it limits VOTER FRAUD!

        So your “feelings” are misplaced. American NEEDS Voter I.D. in every state to assure there will be no VOTER FRAUD!

        You’ve been drinking the Kool-aid, little man.

      • Do some of your own research on voter fraud. The 2012 elections? 3 documented case in Texas. Big threat. BTW, notice, I’m not directing insults at you. Able to exercise the same respect!

      • I’ve done a LOT of research on voter fraud.

        You seem to want to bury your head in the sand (or up your back side) about it.

      • Research? For instance? Your last sentence is rather crude and certainly does not promote veracity as far as I am concerned.

      • Not to worry. I am not holding my breath. Especially since Florida’s chaos scandal that resulted in SCOTUS appointing a president for the first time. Your, I expect, hero, GB II. Now THAT’S voter fraud!

      • Taking a class in 8th grade makes you FAR from an expert on the constitution. You are Christian. And you are giving ALL other Christians a bad name by being so self-centered and ignorant. It is people like you that are causing so many others to stray from the church. They don’t want to be like YOU.

      • I didn’t just take the class in 8th grade, Erin, nor am I Christian, I’m Messianic Jew and have studied government for many of my 50+ years. Your anger and irrational attitude is noted.

      • Uh, WRONG. Since the school receives money from Congress, by definition, the school is part of the federal government and governed by the Constitution.

      • And the Supreme Court blew it in the Hobby Lobby decision. It will come back to bite them in the hindquarters. Scalia is largely to blame–he appears to be declining in mental faculties, by the looks of his demonstrated errors in recent opinons.

        BTW, “following the Constitution” does not mean “Christians get whatever they want.” Which is what Hobby Lobby says.

        SCOTUS blows it once in a while: Dred Scott, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby. They’ll get reversed on the last two just as the first one effectively was. This time it won’t take a Civil War…I hope.

      • Splitting hairs. I stand by my position that public schools are PUBLIC schools. Religious representations, OF ANY KIND DO NOT BELONG IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! First Amendment!

      • When America was new, and strong, there was a copy of the Bible in every classroom. Our Founding Fathers felt that it should be taught in schools.

        You’re welcome to ignore God, but you will meed Him one day.

      • First, post a citation or link that supports your claim of a Bible in every school and that the founding fathers supported it.

        Second, I am Irish-Catholic, and we sent our son to a Catholic middle school. Couldn’t afford a Catholic high school. We workeded at a community metal healthough center. Helping people repair their shattered spirits and souls.

        Be careful about the presumptions you make, Flower. They are beneath you.

      • Um, wrong, even Congress cannot violate the Constitution. Sadly, the only branch currently doing that is the Supreme Court with its Hobby Lobby failure, as one example.

      • Stop trying to say it ISN’T about other religions. Replace the display with one honoring the Koran and tell me you’d fight to keep it there.

      • Do what???? I said what I MEANT to say! This is about people trying to rid the country of Christianity! GET IT?!

      • I get it. You’re ignorant of the Constitutional issues involved. Your ill-informed opinions are noted, but court after court all the way up to SCOTUS has said you’re wrong. GET IT?

      • Yep and the courts are anti-Constitution! That is a proven fact!

        GET IT?!

        America is losing it’s moral compass and spiraling into an abyss while you leftwing zealots watch and applaud!

      • America IS losing a “moral compass” which brought us slavery, abuse of women, cover-up of child abuse, and persecution of those who don’t agree with your fairytales.

        You can play pretend all you like, but you follow a religion which has supported all of those things to the detriment of society. And it’s about damned time that society grew up and stopped believing in those fairytales.

      • ran, the “moral compass” is the reason we’re losing America! That’s sexual imorality, almost 60 million unborn Americans butchered, etc. Those are things real Americans with strong values are fighting AGAINST. Those are things those like you who hate America are trying to hold onto!

        The histroy of fallen society shows that sexual imorality was why they collapsed. Two men or two women together, then their wanting to be accepted as “normal,” then beastiality, pedophophilia, etc.

        Christianity has held those horrific things in check for 200 years, but Satan knows his time is short and he’s pushing harder and harder for his evil to be considered NORMAL.

        It’s clear to see you’re on his side.

  74. I’m offended by the name of this atheist group ” Freedom From Religion Foundation “, so I feel they should have their organization name removed from anything I could possibly read, and their charter revoked.
    It works both ways……Doesn’t this sound more like Freedom of Speech ” being taken out of our Constitution. Remember Germany with the burning of Jewish books so Nazi’s wouldn”t be offended.
    How about using your Freedom of Choice….” IF YOU DON”T LIKE IT< DON"T READ IT OR LOOK AT IT ", and you won't be offended !!!

    • The common canard that this is all about people easily offended misses the point. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well.

      While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.

      • When my daughter was in choir they sang Christmas sings in the name of art. My sons band played Amazing Grace in the name of art. This was art. Should not have been touched. Did any one from Georgia complain? I doubt it.

      • I agree with you that tolerance and patience are virtues to be valued and practiced in many circumstances. Witnessing the government violating the Constitution may not always be one of those circumstances. In such circumstances, we may better appreciate the ones who raise their hands and question the government’s actions even when doing so may not be popular. Sure, if the government makes an isolated innocuous misstep, letting it slide may be fine (don’t sweat the small stuff, etc.), but if the government is just starting what promises to be a continuing practice beyond the bounds of the Constitution, we can only hope that someone will be brave enough to stand up and say something.

      • So you can’t tell the difference between singing a song and a monument with scripture from a specific sect of Christianity?

      • The monument holding the 10 Commandments is specific to ANY “sect” of Christianity AND Judaism!

        Or weren’t you aware of that little fact????

      • There is a Protestant version, a Catholic version and a Jewish version of the 10 Commandments that are easily recognizable to people that actually know something about the Bible.

        Or weren’t you aware of that little fact????

  75. See what we have to put up with here? UWMadison, another liberal cesspool. Why do these groups go poking their nose in where it’s not wanted? (Not that we want them in Wisconsin either – ) Just like the unions bringing in people from other states to protest at the Wisconsin capitol and trashing the building. All they do is cause division and chaos.

    • Why direct your ire at those seeking to uphold the Constitution rather than those who cause division by violating it?

      The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the Constitution serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

      • Where does the Constitution say all of the things you just said? “Congress, Congress shall not establish” does not say religion of any kind shall not be allowed in the public domain. There is no “separation clause” in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. By the way, your principles are different than my principles and are not mentioned in the Constitution.

      • You’re either ignorant or being intentionally obtuse. It is long-settled law that the limitations the Constitution places on the federal Congress apply to every level of government and its organs, including public schools.

        And you’re wrong about the “no separation clause” argument. No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson wrote precisely the opposite to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

      • So, the fact that I disagree with 5 unelected men on the subprime court and the precedent they set, makes me ignorant or obtuse. Then I guess their are a lot of ignorant people in this country.
        Also, Thomas Jefferson’s opinion did not make it into the final construct of the First Amendment, did it?

  76. If they don’t believe in God, Jesus or our Bible then WHY does it bother them ??? That proves they believe there IS A GOD and that offends them..What Hypocrites !!!

  77. It’s not about Religion Folks, this is just one of the tactics that has been employed since the end of WWII, by the LOSERS of that conflict, to attack and breakdown the Morality and very Fabric of the American Society or Way of Life. The Socialist Party (Communists) knew that the only way to defeat the USA was to get inside the Country and form subversive groups that would ultimately cause the Breakdown of the Traditional American Family Unit. You can pick ANY Organization that pitted Family against Family and Race against Race and Yes, Sex against Sex and You’ll have located the Enemy amongst US that has brought Us to this place. The Fights for Equality were just smoke screens for subversion that blew the American Family to Pieces. We’ve been transformed from a Nation of Families to another Third World Country of HEATHENS… almost. Our Faith in GOD is what made Us a Strong & Great Nation in this World but turning from that Faith makes Us Weak and Assures Our Destruction.

    • One could point to the Republican “Southern Strategy” of the last generation or so as a case in point of pitting Americans against Americans over race and the like for partisan political gains, but then that would only lead us further afield than your comment already has. You’re right in at least one respect: This is not about religion. Rather, it is about upholding the Constitution.

      • Sorry, Doug, but pitting blacks and whites against each other is a Democrat strategy! The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make a living doing that! And a hefty one at that!

      • What have I gotten away with? If I’m so “mollycoddled,” why am I living on a small, fixed income of Social Security?

        Furthermore, why are you trying to fight with an older woman? Is there something you hope to gain???