Freedom From Religion Foundation attacks Florida city hall
The Wisconsin group, Freedom from Religion Foundation, has set it’s sights on Longwood, Florida’s city hall, according to Fox News. The city inherited a cross from the traveling wall that is a wooden cross with the phrase “We will never forget their sacrifices” – meaning the sacrifice of veterans.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, however, argues the Christian symbol should not be in a government building.
The Wisconsin-based group, which says many veterans are members, says the tribute could just as easily be placed on a non-religious statue or picture.
The FFRF boasts that it has such luminaries on it’s board as Ronald Reagan, the junior, and Mike Newdow – the fellow who sued to remove the “under God” phrase from the pledge of allegiance – both are deep intellectuals who are completely qualified to comment on public life and the relation of folks to their religions. Ronald Reagan, Jr. is quoted on their website; “Unabashed atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.” Good for him in his struggle to be the polar opposite of his father.
Anyway, the mayor of Longwood isn’t backing down. From Fox35;
“We absolutely believe the cross should stay in City Hall,” Durso says, “it was really a generous donation from a veteran who lives in the City of Longwood.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation wants it gone. The Wisconsin-based group sent a letter to Longwood, saying it’s a “government endorsement of Christianity,” and a “blatant violation” of the separation of church and state. Richardson says it’s an American ideal that all veterans fought for.
“Not all veterans would agree with having it there,” Richardson says, “we have many veterans who are members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.”
The group wants the cross moved to private property. The mayor calls this a tempest in a teapot.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
Dane Cook describes his chance meeting with Commissar:
https://youtu.be/j8nyrz0O1Qk
Wisconsin group butthurt over a cross in Florida.
Let that sink in, snowflakes. You worthless fuckers had to to 1500 miles out of your way to find something to get your unbelieving panties in a fucking wad over.
Now go suck start a howitzer.
To to…to go.
Need more coffee.
Awesome. Suck start a howitzer. I’m gonna steal that one! 🙂
^This, much better than suck start a .45!
Suck start a B52.
Yeh, go back home and kiss the maggot muslim senators ass you freaks voted for!
Think about how much happier this world would be
If Mikey Whinestein would just disappear like me.
Dear Atheist group,
Lemme know when you actually find the phrase “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. Free hint: It’s in the paragraph just above “health care.”
In the paragraph just below the right to privacy.
I hear that argument more and more these days. It is a non sequitur argument.
The writings of Adams, Madison and Jefferson are riddled statements that support exactly that.
The Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education clearly state that it was intended to be a wall of separation. Of those sitting on the court at that time I believe all of them were Christians.
Both Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge’s dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state”
The Constitution does not directly say many things that are implied. It does not directly say you have a right to own automatic weapons for the purpose of killing an intruder in your house. The implied intent is that if you are allowed to own one you have a right to use it.
of course, the actual language of the first amendment makes the fond wishes of Jefferson and Adams–who were trying to use religion to divide the nation along political lines–absolutely incorrect. Starting from the poisonous tree of 19th century bigotry does not lead to a 21st century enlightenment.
The (unintended) humor of this often heard fool’s errand (show me the magic words) arises from the jokester’s supposition that his audience is more ignorant than he is. That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Where is the law that Congress made in this regard.
An understandable question, but one founded on misconceptions. First, separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It rests on much more than just the First Amendment. 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. Second, your question makes much of the First Amendment’s references to “Congress” and “law.” To the extent you posit a 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? That makes no sense. 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 simplistically and literally would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are “made” by actions by both… Read more »
And you forgot, in all your rambling and babbling, that the Constitutional First amendment, that Jonn so correctly quoted, only applies to FEDERAL laws. It does NOT apply to STATE laws. At that time, the 13 states, each had their own state religion and religious qualifications to hold public office (selected or elected).
Obviously, this all disappeared and was forgotten over time, but it was there at the start of our country’s founding. The FedGov of that time DID NOT interfere with the state’s religious rights, and neither should Whiney Mikey.
Perhaps if you had actually read to the end of my rambling, you’d have noticed I already addressed that very point.
So, you’re claiming that we have to enforce things which aren’t actually in the Constitution. Dumbass bullshit. Just typing a whole bunch of words doesn’t make you smart, or even literate apparently.
Holy “f’n”sh!t my brain hurts after that!
And somehow, this has now become a prohibition on the practice of non-atheist belief systems by those elected or appointed to office? What an incredible perversion of the written text? Would not that prohibition fall afoul of the “no religious test” verbiage? Let alone, the language of the 1st Amendment.
Yes, atheism is a belief system like any other. Phrasing it as “no there isn’t” does not get a free pass from that state of belief. “Cant prove a negative’ is why any logical argument requires a positive statement as a starting point.
You cannot demand atheist-compliant behavior from Americans, Andy more than one could demand conformity to any other belief system.
The display, statement, etc, by one does not infringe the rights of others. The silencing of statements and displays most -certainly- infringes.
Mikey Whinestine’s congenital case of asshurt must be flaring up once again.
It must hurt being that fucking stupid….
That, or he’s low on funds and needs a fresh infusion.
Anyone want to join me in establishing a “Freedom from Freedom from Religion Foundation Foundation?”
Mikey: You being offended by something which you claim has no impact upon your life is just too stupid for words. Quit insisting that any of us care about what offends you.
Wanna be an atheist? Fine by me, Mikey. Worship a tree, or not, makes no dif to the rest of us.
Now, must get to work figuring out how to set up that anti-Mikey foundation. Might want to use another name…
The FFRF is not affiliated with Mikey Weinstein. Mikey founded the MRFF. Neither is Mikey an Atheist…he is Jewish.
That being said, their antics are not that far from what Mikey generally does but it is a mostly civilian organization.
Monuments that are Islamic in nature should not be displayed in a court house. Monuments that are from Scientology shouldn’t be either. I think thats pretty much true of Adamites, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Marcionism, Nazarenes, Gnosticism, Bardaisanites, Basilideans, Carpocratianism, Nicolaitans, Sethianism, Simonians, Valentinianism and my favorite people of faith that followed the teaching of Clement and believed the union of man with God was through consumption of semen as allegedly taught by Jesus Christ.
Not sure about the rest of you but I can do without an ancient Christian statue of someone masturbating into their own mouth when I get my drivers license renewed.
The only kind of cross that really offends me is one that is burning.
Its not the cross that is the problem, it is the fact that if they allow that religious symbol then they have to allow an Islamic one that is dedicated to the Muslim loons that we killed in the name of Allah.
That kind of shit will offend me.
So Dave… if I identify myself as New Age Reformed Lithuanian Amish, should to expect to be persecuted?
Sure, persecution whether real or just perceived is the badge of honor that will gain you entrance to the Victims of Belief Society.
I will defend your right to be a victim, just dont expect me to eat semen.
This is much worse that anyone could have imagined. Not only does Longwood have that cross in its city hall but it evidently sponsors and promotes…stay calm…a Christmas Parade. Unbeleveable! City employees march in the parade, including firemen and police. Streets are blocked off from traffic for the parade. And, worst of all, the city promotes the parade not as a holiday gathering but a Christmas Parade. I’m sure you are as appalled as I.
The horror!!!!
Last time I checked, Christmas was still a national holiday. Until that changes, they can suck it.
Christian crosses are great if you’re into that sort of thing. Just keep them out of public institutions, even in the south.
Go climb a rock, then fall off, Joey.
Why haven’t you cleaned up the puke in the first graders bathroom, Joey-boi?
So does that mean that Spaghetti and Meatballs should be banned because eating it might offend followers of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The Constitution expressly protects releigious expression. It does not manadate a ” least offensive denomination” that just, coincidently of course, resembles Atheism. it cannot be interpreted hinsestly to prohibit certain people from making any expression other than confirming to one particular belief system.
So “no you cant” is as prohibited as “yes you must”. Even for politicians.
Christian crosses are great if you’re into that sort of thing. Just keep them out of public spaces, even in the south.
Are you trying to be obnoxious by posting the same exact thing twice in a row, Joey? Or are you just not very bright?
Why does it have to be either/or, TOW? Joey is both obnoxious and dumber than the rocks he claims to climb.
All the nasty shit going on in the world and this is important business to people like you Joe… FFS…
Such a dildo.
So, only atheist-compliant displays are acceptable? When did that belief system become specially protected (established?) under law?
Just because one believes in a closed universe of random happenstance, does not give it a special privileged status over other belief systems.
That runs into the claim by many Atheists that Atheism is not a religious belief. Personally, I’ve always felt that Agnostics have more right to make that claim. At least they admit what they don’t know!
I can not speak for everyone of course, as was pointed out by Seth Andrews a while back I don’t have all veterans on speed dial but Mikey seems to.
I get asked a lot by people what the difference is between an Atheist and an Agnostic. In general they are not different degrees of the same thing. They describe two different things.
Atheist defines what I know. I have absolutely no evidence I can test that proves there is a God or ever has been one of any kind. I am therefore Atheist in what I know.
Agnostic defines what I believe. I do not believe there is a God of any kind. However, I do not rule out the possibility that there could be some kind of Being that many would describe as a God somewhere in the universe. I am therefore Agnostic in what I believe.
Speaking for me, one describes knowledge and one describes belief. I am therefore both Atheist and Agnostic. Kinda of like being both a Lawyer and a Christian…the terms describe two different things.
Yours is the best explanation I’ve seen in a very long time. Best of all, it allows for acceptance of others when they inevitably are different from us both in their beliefs and their knowledge.
Great description Dave, although there are some that will argue that you cannot be both. Those are the ones that piss off atheists, agnostics and believers equally.
It should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, 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.
Yes, Madison does not get enough credit for crafting our foundation. Jefferson turned to him on many occasions for eloquence.
What I think has been lost to a great degree is our duty as citizens to defend the right of our fellows to shout at the top of their lungs that which we have spent a lifetime in opposition to.
Sadly, we do not teach American History as it unfolded but rather leave it to the pulpit that is neither accurate or honest.
My belief that there is no God is not more important than my neighbors belief that there is one. All I expect is reciprocity.
So, “neutrality” just happens to be that which conforms to Atheism, and anything else is non-neutral?
Rather convenient.
This, the founders scribed against prohibition of, as well as mandatory. The government may neither forbid nor require, -any- display, by -anyone-.
Ones beliefs do not gain a special privileged (nor established) position by stating them as “no there isn’t”.
If not a belief system, please show proof. Note, this requires starting from a positive statement, not a negative, or you would be logically invalid.
If you view atheism as without religion then yes it would conform to an “atheist” standpoint. Atheists, agnostics, it all seems to require definitions as we all love to label each other.
Dave Hardin gives a great explanation, for himself as he states clearly. As another heathen non-believing crank I’ll give a short answer for myself.
I don’t even think about it, not at all not ever. I give god no more thought than unicorns, or fairy people, or the ants laboring in my yard. Unless there’s a problem I never spend a single moment contemplating any sort of supreme beings.
I work, I relax at home, I workout, I sail, I do whatever it is I do and I never think about god until someone else brings it up. Usually to tell me about their concerns for my immortal soul.
The government not promoting any religion does you no more harm than the government not promoting golf courses in South Carolina. There are some things the government should not do, period. It changes nothing in your belief system and changes nothing about my thoughts regarding your belief system.
The interesting thing about christians is that they’ve enjoyed the privilege of a society sharing everything about their belief system for so long that any attempt to alter that feels like oppression to them.
That’s the most interesting thing about privilege, until it’s challenged most people don’t even know they have it.
What is also interesting it that most of you here who claim christianity don’t believe in the elephant god of India anymore than I do….if you can consider why you don’t believe in that elephant god of India, perhaps you can understand why I don’t believe in your christ….
Ghandi once said, “I like your christ, he is so unlike your christians….” there’s something in there for all of us I suspect.
So why doesn’t the FFRF sue to have the Satanist display removed from the Oklahoma courthouse?
I’ll wait…
Good question. If a rock that says you are not allowed to lust after my wife is not allowed on the property, we can probably do without one that is glorifying the Dark Lord.
I am not a God of any kind that I am aware of so feel free to lust after my wife. I am up for anything that brings me some peace a quiet at the house.
Because they’re assholes perhaps? If christ is offensive satan should be more so….
It seems to me that the perpetually offended by everything they disagree with, metaphysically speaking, have way too much free time on their hands. Their time would be better spent thinking of ways to solve world hunger, or at least doing something useful for society. And they never seem to be concerned about the one “religion” that wants to exterminate or subjugate the entire population of the planet. I think we all know which one that is.
“exterminate non-believers” is what I meant.
Funny how some “no acceptable Christian display” types become silent acceptors of another Abrahamic faith, one that has both an ancient and recent head-busting reputation.
Cowardice much?
Go demand that politicians and military folks refrain from Muslim displays, with the gusto and zeal with which has previously been directed at Christians.
No?
Dhimmi much?
Any remotely honest person will say “I base my actions on my beliefs”. I have zero objections to people in authority making those beliefs plain. I can then vote, or not, as appropriate.
Expecting most practitioners of beliefs to hide it, so as not to offend those who have other beliefs, is -dumb-. Not to mention, clearly contrary to the written word of our Constitution.
Thos I know who practice a belief system often called “Atheism”, generally just chuckle at displays of deity-based beliefs. They seem the most sincere in their practice. The ones who keep shrieking “Cant say that! Cant say that!” seem weakest. If the magic words have no power, why fear the invocation of something you doubt?
I am not trifiled one whit by someone evangelizing their flavor of world view, as long as I get to speak to mine. The minute I am told “Oh, no you cant, I invoke the magic words of the USA:
“Fuck off, idiot. I will do as I please.”
Some of us don’t care about a cross in a cemetery at all, it doesn’t bother me if folks find some comfort over the loss of a loved one with a display like that. We had some fool locally complain that a cross that’s been in town since before any of us were born was causing him some form of harm…they had a public hearing…I enjoyed speaking and explaining as a non-believer it wasn’t much different than if they put up a totem pole, or a light pole with cross member at the top. It’s without meaning for me, consequently if something holds no meaning where is the harm to anyone who finds no meaning it?