Apparently this guy has never entered the Supreme Court building and seen the 10
commandments. If Atheists have there way you and I could not sit on a UTA bus,
as an example, and talk about Christ. Why, because we would be on a bus
supported by the government and we would be violating his rights. Or they would
even push that you and I could not stand on a city side walk and talk about
Christ because it is a sidewalk built with public funds and we would be
violating his rights if he walked by. Do not let the Aetheists fool you in
thinking they will not push for this. That is their ultimate goal to take
Christ out of any public venue or place entirely. Mark my word.
You cannot use hypotheticals to vilify Atheist...while defending an
example of your own faith.That, would make you a hypocrite.If you have to make up a scenario to vilify those people you disagree with,
lets be honest about what you are doing.You are lying about them.And the cross, still an example that church and our state are NOT
separate, is still there. Proving the Atheists' right.
The religious issue is very interesting but perhaps a larger question ought to
be why governments disburse public funds for private purposes. If the trustee
of the cross had simply paid for the project with funds raised privately rather
than public funds there would not be any need for a legal challenge.
Pagan, those that believe in Christ allow you to not believe. Please allow
them to believe. The problem with Athiests is they allow no
measure or mention of God and refuse to live and let live. As for
Athiests being any kind of a better people, I turn to Madeline Murry O'hare
and what she taught her children and how her life ended.
Poor atheists, all dressed up for their own inevitable funerals with no place to
go. How about taxpayer money used to fund abortions? Is that a violation of
Pagan: Whether you want to admit it or not this is still a Christian Nation
regardless what your Savior Obama states. He is even more a hypocrite than
anyone else in the country. Just because he went to a prayer service makes him
no more a Christian than you going to a Catholic Church a Christian.It is time that those who are Christian in this country to take a stand
against the bigotry that exists in the society in which we live in against
anyone of faith. The example given is a truthful example that if we fail will
happen in this country. Our religious rights are becoming extinct because of
"Our religious rights are becoming extinct because of the left."A bit ironic, given that this article is about taxpayer funds used on a
cross.No, the religious right does not get everything they want.
Extinct? Hardly. There is little to complain about.
I'm not an atheist, but have to point out that some of these posts seem
very far from Christian. Does Bill (wherever he is) really know Obama's
religious convictions? Doubtful. And is he really suffering from atheist
bigotry? Does Cougar really know what atheists are planning, assuming they are,
in fact, organized in some way? Is atheism really enforceable? Can one know
everything about believers or nonbelievers by the example of a single person now
gone for decades? Come on, folks. We're talking about who pays for removing
a giant cross here, nothing more.
I'm so glad this guy wasted all his time and money on this petty stupidity.
As for Madeleine Murray O'Hare--She was brutally murdered in a
tragic end to her life. Satan does not uphold his followers in the end. What
goes around comes around. I hope she has had a chance to repent in her new life
on the other side of the veil. I would hate to see any child of God have to
spend eternity with the consequences of her actions on earth. Fortunately, God
loves all his children and gives us lots of second chances.
There was a Catholic and Mormon family in Santa Fe, Texas who sued to stop
prayer before school football games. Google Santa Fe school prayer.Do they also need to repent?
@Bill: Kind of like when this "Christian" nation took away the Native
American's freedom to practice their religion, right? Not to mention all
their land. Bet you're not so upset about that, though!
What I find so humorous in some of these comments is people thinking that
Christians "won" this case or "atheists" lost it. What no one
seems to have noticed is that 1) the Supreme Court declined to take the case,
which 2) upheld the lower courts rulings, that 3) the individual suing had a
"lack of standing." Which means, ladies and gentlemen, according to the
courts, that he was not in a legal to position to even file the lawsuit.CougarBlue, hyperbole and hypotheticals do not an argument win. Show me
an actual case where your scenarios have played out.Mountainman, as
I'm sure you're already aware, but so conveniently choose to ignore,
federal law prohibits federal monies from being used to fund abortions.And before you start whining about my beliefs- I'm a Christian, neither
Republican nor Democrat, and find myself a political moderate.
RE: xscribe,... the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1cor 1:18)
You 'allow' me to be an atheist?1) Is that an atheist
cross?2) The fact that you ignore that a person is so arrogant that
they 'allow' another person to do anything, supports why Americans are
turning away from religion.It does not 'allow' others to
do anything.Your beliefs should not IMPACT anyone, but yourself.And at the very least, my tax dollars don't have to support it.
Re: ". . . federal law prohibits federal monies from being used to fund
abortions."If only.You apparently missed the article
last week about extending abortion "benefits" to female servicemembers.
Or maybe the articles detailing all the federal grants to the primary provider
of American abortions, including the liberal sophistry that those federal funds
don't "directly" fund abortions, just the organization's
operating budget, so all its other revenues can be channeled entirely to fund
butchery of the innocent unborn.That's a truth liberals love to
"conveniently choose to ignore."
I never noticed in this article where the desired point of this lawsuit was the
removal of the cross.
Shimlau, good point. It had only to do with public funds being used on the
Good for the Supreme court. Religious Tolerance is not accomplished by the
abolishment of religion from the public eye. I hope there will be many and
diverse expressions of religion protected by our inspired Constitution for
endless generations to come.
If using the people's money to fix a cross is OK, then it must also be OK
to use our money to fix a Menorah, or to fix a crescent and moon object, or a
statue of Buddah. The public support of religion must include any religion
To everyone who thinks this is all OK and sees no problem using public funds for
religious purposes, I'll simply say "be careful what you wish for."
All the same arguments can (and likely will) be used to enact Sharia law in a
large Muslim community (e.g., Detroit). Not to sound too hyperbolic,
but I think we ignore the genius of Jefferson (i.e., the wall of separation
between church and state) at our peril.
Cats wrote:"As for Madeleine Murray O'Hare--She was
brutally murdered in a tragic end to her life. Satan does not uphold his
followers in the end. What goes around comes around."Expressing
any sentiment that a murdered person got what they deserved is not only
unChristian, it is inhumane and sick.As for the huge, big cross, I
don't want my tax money to pay for such nonsense.The fight for
freedom from religion will go on.
Scientist: You had me, I was in agreement with your whole post, right up until
you decided to state that it is a fight for "freedom FROM religion". I
think the exact wording is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
CougerBlue you presume that, " If Atheists have there way you and I could
not sit on a UTA bus, as an example, and talk about Christ. Why, because we
would be on a bus supported by the government and we would be violating his
rights. " You really shouldn't assume or presume anything
about anybody based on what appears to be anecdotal rhetoric. I rail against
tax exemption for religious corporations whenever appropriate. Which with our
current economy is appropriate on near all state's budget's issues,
especially education and social services budget. I oppose any use of public
lands or funding for recognition of religious holidays or traditions. Once a
bible thumping holy rolling christian well versed of the bible. I'm now a
Jesus living atheist. And if you and your friends wished to talk
about me buddy Jesus whilst on public transportation I surely wouldn't
oppose. As long as it was kept conversational and not testimonial for a captive
audience. You really should consider that citizens like me,
sworn by oath to protect and defend the Freedom OF Religion are doing exactly
that when we strive to keep Separation intact before Establishment becomes a
@NedGrimleyFreedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to
claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right NOT to
see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in
our nation. What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from
the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be
free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious
form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion
because they are two sides of the same coin. Many people don’t realize
— or don’t care (as many seem to here)...that real religious liberty
must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that
people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are
adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones
enforced by the state. I see the usual clueless comments! "The
ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and
refuse to investigate.” "The fight for freedom from religion will go
The issue here isn't whether people are free to observe their religious
beliefs, but rather, whether public funds should be used to advance a particular
set of beliefs. Those who call for more religion in public life, in schools and
in civic events make one error: they presume that the religion being supported
and advanced will be their own religion. Would they really approve if the
religion being taught in public schools were Islam, Judaism, Hari Krishna, or
Scientology? Will Baptists be happy with their children being taught Mormon
doctrine, or will Mormons be comfortable having their kids learning to recite
"Hail Mary"? Principles of law and precedents apply across the board,
and the support given to your own beliefs may be given to very different beliefs
when demographics change. Incidentally, just where does the belief
originate that Christians should erect huge crosses in public places? I
can't seem to find the scripture commanding that they do so.