This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


woonsocketcross

Cash-Strapped City Backing Down in Fight Over Cross

The Wisconsin group challenging the constitutionality of a cross on a war memorial in Rhode Island says it expects to prevail without the type of long legal battle that unfolded over a prayer banner ordered removed this year from a public high school.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote to Woonsocket Mayor Leo Fontaine this month saying the Christian cross on a 1921 monument on city property is unlawful because it violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said the group expects the cross will be removed without legal action.

"We expect to prevail without going to court," she said Wednesday. "Our assumption is that the city does not realize the law."

Council President John Ward told The Woonsocket Call this week that he agrees with those who say the cross is more of a historical symbol — like the grave markers at Normandy, France — but he said the financially struggling city can't afford to get dragged into a legal battle.

Continue reading at www.foxnews.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • dntmkmecomoverther

    Wow. Look how the degenerate legal system has turned our fight for freedoms into an economic battle. Let this be a lesson learned hard: Freedom is not Free…but it's worth fighting for. We can not let the degenerates in our society win anything; lest their thirst be quenched and they demand more.

    • Evermyrtle

      We are truly in the last days. There is a great movement to deliver the world of the GREAT EVIL DESTROYER, JESUS CHRIST, HIS PEOPLE AND ALL THAT PERTAIN TO THEM.

      Matt 24:9 Then , shall they deliver you up to the afflicted,a nd shall killy you: and you shall be hated of al nations for my name' sake .

      10. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

      Luke 6:22 Blessed are you, When men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the SON OF MAN'S SAKE.

      23. Rejoice you in that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven: for int he like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

      I John 3:13 Marvel not that the world hate you.

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        We have been in last days for 2000 years. See inspired words of Peter about that…

        • Mexseiko

          The last 2000 years did not have Israel. Because of Israel's presence we read Ezekiel 37 like an old newspaper article, and Ezekiel 38 like an article written in advanced waiting for events to go down to be printed and released.

  • KnowTheTruthToday

    Evil will prevail temporarily – but the end of the story, not yet.

    • aldotoo

      Yeh Christ is coming back soon and those atheists will have to kiss the Son lest they perish. Blessed are oall those who put their trust in Him Psa. 2:12

      • msjallen

        After death, there is no second chance when unbelievers face Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of time.

    • Bob

      Yeah, & We know in the final chapter who wins, & it AIN'T them!

  • Bayou Castine

    Freedom OF Religion – NOT freedom FROM Religion.

    Taken from the article: "The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote to Woonsocket Mayor Leo Fontaine this month saying the Christian cross on a 1921 monument on city property is unlawful because it violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state." Show me exactly where this 'principle of separation' exists in the Constitutition. It does NOT exist. All this 'separation' mess stems from a letter written by Jefferson to a group in [I think] Kentucky.

    These people need to quit shoving THEIR beliefs on US.

    • Old colonel

      Castine,

      You are exactly right. There is no "law" of separation of church and state. What's next, scraping the religious symbols off the historic government buildings in D.C.? The founding fathers understood the abuses of both church leadership and state leadership. They also understood the Old Testament Jewish law and patterned the Mayflower Compact, Continental Congress and U.S. law after it. You can't separate us from our Judeo-Christain roots. We need to elect leadership with a moral conscience and understanding of our founding principles.
      By the way, after 37 years in the U.S. Army, I never found a "foxhole atheist".

      • Evermyrtle

        The liberal JESUS hating ones are trying to destroy the first amendment.

        Amendment I
        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 Govennment for redress of grievances.

      • daves

        Do you understand how this helps us keep our freedom to worship as we please? Should a Jewish person have to feel their liberty is threatened because of Christian symbols in their town?

        • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

          No. __

          • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

            the question is this, does the presence od a cross threaten anyones liberty?

          • daves

            That is the question. There is a long history of discrimination against Jews in the U.S.

          • rich

            Used to be. No one is more supportive of Israel today than the evangelical church. I am one. I have an Israeli flag even at my house.

          • daledor

            Absolutely correct! Christians and Jews are brothers as long as they believe God's Word. Just like the Jews we Christians can operate under the Law of Moses or be free by the grace of God. When we purposefully place ourselves under the Law then we struggle to do right but when we seek God and desire to be intimate with Him, applying His Grace freely to our lives and to others, then we learn to do right because we want to please God and bless others rather than put on shackles of bondage trying to keep the Laws of Moses rather than choosing to run quickly to God and get forgiven and go on with our lives (desiring to do what is right and growing closer to God so His goodness overcomes our badness.

            Essentially, if you focus on keeping all the rules then you are trying to please God through your actions and somehow earn your way to Heaven then you can't do it and will be frustrated. However, if you focus on the solution rather than the problem by accepting God's grace and getting forgiven (forgiving yourself and others and loving God, yourself, and others) then you recognize that God loves you as you are and simply helps you to grow to be more like Him – He is very patient, not standing over you with a stick – ready to beat you up when you do wrong. God is love, He is not like Satan in no way!!!

        • Bayou Castine

          Why do you think/believe a Jewish person will feel 'threatened' by the Cross – or any other symbol?? I have NEVER felt 'threatened' by any Jewish symbol, or person.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are a part of the dominant religious group in the USA. There is no reason for you to feel threatened.

      • JayMarie

        I think you should take a trip to D.C. and visit some of those sights. I think the Washington Monument would be a good place to start. I understand the religious symbols are there, but can you see them? Not likely. Ask a park ranger and see how far that gets you. They are already removing the knowledge these symbols exist. Remember the battle over the D.C. visitors center inscription?

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Let me introduce you to them.
        http://militaryatheists.org/expaif.html

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" This gets broken down into two areas. The first is the Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". Thomas Jefferson made sure the intent of this clause was well understood with his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In this letter he stated very clearly that there was a "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the expression "Separation of church and state." Thomas Jefferson didn't see himself as writing a minor, unimportant letter because he had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general, before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

      The second part of the amendment, the Free Exercise Clause", is what the Christians try to hang their hat on in regards to be allowed to do anything in regards to their religion. However, the courts have generally ruled that while most individual religious exercise is allowed, this does not prohibit the government from passing laws that impact certain religious practices. The first case to examine this clause was Reynolds v. United States. This was a case dealing with the prosecution of a polygamist. He tried to argue protection under the Free Exercise Clause, but the court ruled against him.

      Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

      While it is true the exact words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, the concept is certainly there. It is similar to the idea of the Trinity being a concept in the bible, even though the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the bible.

      • George L

        Yes but if you read the history of hte debate the justices did not take the time to actually go the the constitution to see what it really meant. In 1802 they were trying to have a state run religion which is against the constitution. Don't read into something that you want others to believe.

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        God will not suffer our foolishness forever, – or much longer, if my reckoning is correct. As has been preached since John the Baptist came: Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is near at hand.

      • keyboardshark

        Jeff says: "The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

        Notice that the first word is "Congress". The First Amendment, if we read it just as it stands, tells us what Congress may or may not do. So I have to ask the question, If a city erects a cross on public property, for example, what does this have to do with Congress making a law? Obviously, absolutely nothing.

        The whole problem then is the unfortunate twisting of the meaning of the First Amendment by using a private letter out of its historical context to mis-interpret it to mean just the opposite of its original intent. The Amendments, yea even the whole Constitution itself, were designed to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

        “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
        Patrick Henry quotes (American Lawyer, patriot, and orator, symbol of the American struggle for liberty, 1736-1799) http://thinkexist.com/quotes/patrick_henry/

        Private letters should not be used as a basis for interpreting our laws, regardless of who writes them, and especially, in the case of the First Amendment, where such a use radically changes the plain meaning of the words that one would understand simply from an ordinary reading. Jefferson himself thought so:

        "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
        – Thomas Jefferson
        (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
        Source: Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.J…

        The phrase "Congress shall make no law" clearly indicates that it is a limit on Congress, yet somehow it has filtered all the way down to the local level, and is even used against the very people the Amendment was designed to protect. The mythical 'separation of church and state' unfortunately lives on, despite the fact that Jefferson himself attended church services in the US Capitol Building for several years.

        "Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.

        Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor."
        http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp…

        Once these slippery-slope interpretations have taken hold, loss of freedom is sure to follow.

        "Do the people of this land…desire to preserve those [liberties] protected by
        the First Amendment… If so, let them withstand all beginnings of encroachment.
        For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanquished liberty
        is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch for a saving hand
        while yet there was time."
        – George Sutherland
        (1862-1942) U. S. Supreme Court Justice
        Source: Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 1937 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.S…

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          "Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up."
          - Robert Frost

          It is not just Jefferson, but many of the founders also agreed with the concept of separation of church and state.

          James Madison
          (1751-1836; principal author, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; 4th U.S. President, 1809-1817

          Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460. According to Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 39 ff., Madison's "Remonstrance" was instrumental in blocking the multiple establishment of all denominations of Christianity in Virginia.)

          The only ultimate protection for religious liberty in a country like ours, Madison pointed out–echoing Jefferson;–is public opinion: a firm and pervading opinion that the First Amendment works. "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 56. Madison's words, according to Gaustad, are from his letter of 10 July 1822 to Edward Livingston.)

          At age eighty-one [therefore, in 1832?], both looking back at the American experience and looking forward with vision sharpened by practical experience, Madison summed up his views of church and state relations in a letter to a "Reverend Adams": "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others." (Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad, 1987, p. 39.)

          John Adams
          (1735-1826; major leader at Constitutional Convention in 1787; 2nd U.S. President , 1797-1801)
          We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu. (John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 234.)

          • keyboardshark

            RE: Madison quote:

            "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"

            I do not see anything that I would disagree with. Madison is simply warning against the establishment of a national religion, such as Christianity, or a national denomination. I agree that government should not force the citizens to worship a certain way, or even to worship at all. That was the whole point of the First Amendment–to curb the power of the Federal Government to compel the people to join a particular religion or worship a certain way. It was intended to be a one-way door, but unfortunately, modernist judges have turned it against the people it was supposed to protect.

            Madison echoed this idea in the 2nd quote at age eighty-one: "The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever,…" In other words, no government interference into the rights of the people to worship as they please, or not worship at all.

            RE: Adams quote

            "In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker."
            Here, he is highlighting the abuses that occurred in Europe, which the Pilgrims and colonists fled from to come to America.

            "In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New."
            He points out that even in Massachusetts, abuses had occurred at the hands of the government, lending further weight to the idea that government should not force its citizens to worship a certain way.

            "The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated."
            He is noting that Christianity itself is not the problem, but rather the "extraneous ingredients" which have been added, a reference to practices or beliefs not found in the Bible.

            I see nothing in the quotes that would argue against the plain wording of the First Amendment. What I do not see, however, in either the quotes or an examination of history, is the modern concept of "separation of church and state" where it is a two-way door rather than a one-way door.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is not a modern concept as it goes back to when Jefferson initially wrote the Dansbury letter.

            The quote you did not reference states this very clearly.

            The only ultimate protection for religious liberty in a country like ours, Madison pointed out–echoing Jefferson;–is public opinion: a firm and pervading opinion that the First Amendment works. "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 56. Madison's words, according to Gaustad, are from his letter of 10 July 1822 to Edward Livingston.)

          • keyboardshark

            But if Jefferson himself believed there should be an absolute separation, why did he attend church services in the US Capitol building for several years, even as President? Obviously, his understanding of 'separation' and the modern understanding of it are two different things. The original intent was a one-way wall of separation to protect the people from government overreach, not a prohibition of religious expression on government property as it has morphed into today.

            "Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor." http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            People are complex and laws are difficult to make entirely black and white. The idea of an absolute separation is impractical. But that does not mean we should not strive for it.

          • Dionesius3

            Jeff has a long-standing reputation of not seeing the simple facts, but instead "filtering" all information through his own personal "modern bias" he is totally lacking in the ability to see that "modern" assumptions and modern interpretations of language are usually vastly different from the assumptions and interpretations of our Founding Father's.
            To even discuss this issue intellegently with him you must define EVERY term both historically and presently, and even then it is at best an excercise in futility.
            The fact that Jefferson attended church services in a federal building means that "People are complex and laws are difficult to make entirely black and white…"According to Jeff. His assumption is that Jefferson was at best acting in an manner inconsistent with his personal beliefs and thus Jefferson was a "Complex" person. What Jeff misses is that it is also a possibility that Jefferson was NOT acting in a manner inconsistent with his personal beliefs. He was in fact doing what he always did, acting VERY consistently with his personal beliefs. And his personal beliefs were that Governments had no right or business establishing any religion. But that does not mean that Government had to remain completely away from ANY relationship with religion. And so for him it was a simple matter that He as president could not mandate religious attendance and participation but he could easily allow a "Church" to use the capital building for "church" services anytime without there being ANY issue whatsoever.

    • T Edgmon

      It was a new England state. One of the original colonies.

    • guest

      Danbury, Conn.

    • bigDhog

      Atheists and the ACLU have taken a simple Constitutional principle and turned it into something it is not! Bayou Castine is RIGHT; it is freedom of religion and NOT freedom FROM religion. The principle of the separation of Church and State is quite simple at its' base; it simply means that the government cannot tell you who, what, or how you worship….that's all. It was written into the Constitution because so many people fled England due to religious persecution. The King of England made the Church of England the official religion of the land and the only legal Church that its' citizenry were allowed to attend or be imprisoned or killed.

      • bigDhog

        We, as a country, have become way too tolerant and bend over backwards to appease a small fraction of people that want to make much ado about nothing, while the religious majority is slowly stripped of its' rights and religious freedom. Obozo cancelled the national day of prayer and then turned right around and had a Muslim day of prayer. It has become so bad in some large midwestern cities that Muslims are allowed to gather once a month on public property to have a weekend of prayer and worship. When Christian groups ask for the same privalages they are denied with the excuse of it may be considered 'Hate Speech' and cause civil unrest among the Muslim population. Are you kidding me?!! Immigrants typically have to assimilate to become part of the country they have moved to not the natural born citizens having to assimilate to the minority.

        • bigDhog

          We, as Christians, need to do whatever is necessary to make ourselves heard. Tell our senators and congresspersons to speak up for the rights of its' consituents and quit being so politically correct. If we do not do something soon it is going to become a Godless country and our rights to gather at the Church of our choice will be stripped away. Parents, raise your children in the Church and give them a solid Christian foundation so that they may carry on the fight when we are gone. I fear for my children as to what kind of country this will be when they reach adulthood. In November we have a responsibility to those that paid the ulimate price and to our children that conservative values be promoted and that we are still One Nation Under GOD!!!

        • daves

          I will bet you $1,000 that President Obama never canceled the national day of prayer. You keep spreading this lie despite God's commandment not to bear false witness.

          • bighoss

            You would win that bet, daves. The ignoramuses who keep posting that nonsense never seem to bother to fact-check anything that is derogatory to the President. They comfort themselves with the notion that it must be true since the source they received it from despises the President as much as they do.

    • rich

      There are two things in life of which I am most ashamed. One is that I live in Illinois, the corruption capital of our beloved country. But just as much is the fact that I graduated from the Univ. of Wisconsin. This so called Freedom From Religion Foundation was formed by a bunch from UW and since then has made a lot of noise. Their total membership is quite small but they have big mouths. They proclaim massive growth but have reached only about 17,000. Wow!

      • bighoss

        And their successes have been aided by the blithering, bullheaded ignorance of so many theocrats who keep offending the Constitution and providing ample fodder for the FFRF to use in promoting their objectives.

    • William L McCaughey

      I find it interesting that the cross has been standing since 1921!! If this is unconstitutional, why wasn't it removed back in the 20s??? Obviously they had a different take on the First Amendment back then. The presence of the cross was NOT unconstitutional back then and it is NOT unconstitutional now! Unfortunately the regard for religious expression guaranteed by the First Amendment is no longer present in this day and age. People no longer have the guts to stand up for what is right. The bullies, under no restraint or opposition, will always get their way until they meet their match!

      • Mistertea

        You're completely wrong, Mr McCaughrey. Interpretations of the Constitution change over time, and that changes the Constitution; just as changing the quantity of different ingredients changes the recipe.

      • bighoss

        A lot of things have been unconstitutional since 1921 and before, but have not been rectified simply because the community where such practices were carried out has been entirely or dominantly supportive of the particular unconstitutional practice. As we become more and more multicultural, there will be many cases where the kind of endorsement of one particular religion by agents of government will finally be opposed and declared unconstitutional by an offended minority. Live with it. It is the way the constitution works.

  • GGB

    Atheists that live in that town should petition for the removal but the godless pukes that wander the country looking for a fight should be given that fight!! There is no seperation of church and state, the state shall not establish a church… completely different. Leave the cross up, let more Christian crosses populate the Great American States!!!

    • skipfoss

      I agree with you 100% Christains across then ation should send support for this city to fight these ant-Christ slime and then petition the court to have these people removed as a public nusience and for inciting riots , also they should be made to prove where it is written in the Constitution the statute the expressly states that there is a seperation of church and state ,it is not there the only place it exist is in the minds of these progresive commie pukes

      • bighoss

        More knee-jerk rambling blather from yet another ignorant guardhouse lawyer who does not understand the constitution.

        • Vladimir

          You are wrong again, bighoss. Read keyboardshark's post on this topic and learn.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Bighoss is completely right. The concept of separation has been with us since the founders wrote the Constitution. It is continually reaffirmed by the Supreme Court every time they hear a case on the topic.

  • Blanche

    The cross is a symbol of Christ. The symbol might be taken down but they cannot get rid of Christ. They will stand before God in judgement someday and account for this.. May God have Mercy…

    • Evermyrtle

      Absolutely, it will live in our hearts, the hearts of HIS people forever. That cross is the symbol of HIS unmeasurable love for HIS people, where HE proved it when HE died on that cross, for us..

      • daves

        And who needs a cross to keep God in our hearts.

  • tommyboy

    What constitutionl principle ? R.I. needs a good con.lawyer. To the baracades, The unruly mob is at the gate!!

    • Jane

      Unruly mob = atheists with signs and blogs? I liken it to an angry mob of yore, but instead of torches and pitchforks, they have Bunsen burners and telescopes.

  • Force the Issue

    Let's hope a Christian group decides to sue over it's removal , forcing the city into a legal battle if they want to remove it.

    • bighoss

      Sure, and thereby compel the city to spend taxpayers' money in a lost cause. Real smart, Force..

  • Tom

    The Freedom from Religion Foundation has funding from some source that Freedon Loving Americans and Christians SHOULD boycott. Will ZIONICA find out and update this story, soon. Hit the F.F.R.F. in the wallet.

    • pcsrocky

      Excellent idea! I think Christians in general and Catholics particular, need to start using the courts to countersue on much the same grounds. Our right to freedom of religion is being destroyed. The concept of separation of church and state was to prevent the State from dictating to which religion your money would be donated for you. It was not meant to delete God from any public place. Just check out who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, check their actual beliefs THEN try to promote your complaint. And, yes I was purposely vague in who to check out.

    • Evermyrtle

      I was unaware that people in this country were not free from religion, if that is their choice. They are not fighting freedom from religion.They are fighting to force us, who love JESUS CHRIST from recognizing HIM. We do nothing to threaten their "freedom of religion" which was and is a freedom from the day we are born. They are wasting their time, we will always remember and love HIM.

      The aim of the liberas anti-CHRIST people, is to remove every Cross the is standing anywhere in the world.

  • Jerry

    The people that want to take down the cross live in the same neighborhood.The only problem is,these people know that the Christians/Americans are a weak people,and will not even leave their home to do anything about it.I mean Damn! Oprah might be on TV,what`s more important than Oprah…your country? Please!!

    • George L

      Jerry I could not agree with you more. Christians have to get off their duff and stand up for their beliefs, just as these groups beleive they are doing. God did not tell us to hunker down and take it, he said to love them, but He Himself got upset with the money changers.

  • James

    I note that this is just another example of lack of principles and courage by elected officials, it is easier for them to "cut and run" than "stand and fight" for something so simple and honorable as a cross intended to honor the fallen men from generations past who gave "All" to guarantee freedom to folks who just don't deserve it! This kind of behavior is becoming all too common. I wonder how many of these elected elites are backing up and "dumping on" their greatfathers!

    Shame, Shame, Shame!

    • Evermyrtle

      You hit the a nil with "cut and run." We have done this, never speaking up against the evil surrounding us until it almost too late. TV is so corrupt, even many of the game shows, that it is difficult to find anything decent to watch. What do we do? Boycott? Oh, No,No, NO. We millions of us just sit and watch and ENJOY.

  • aldotoo

    Yeh Christ is coming back soon and those atheists (heathens) will have to kiss the Son lest they perish. Blessed are oall those who put their trust in Him Psa. 2:12

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Every generation has believed that Jesus is coming back soon. They have all been wrong. You will be wrong as well.

  • Marilyn

    Where are the Veterans Rights groups? Where are the veterans families? Where are the churches? Where are true American's? People, now is the time to STAND.

  • Oldsolder1941

    No place in the constitution does it dictate that there is a total separation between church and state. You have to remember that when the constitution was written, our founders had just been relieved of the Church of England and they did not want a National religion. They wanted everyone to enjoy the freedoms they fought so hard to win. The country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but allows a religion to flourish no matter where it comes from. By dictating the removal of religious symbols, are we not, in essence, restricting the free exercise thereof.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      No, we are simply not using public land to support one religion over another religion.

    • skipfoss

      Why is there no out cry to remove the symbols of the Jews and Islamic Jihadist, I have not seen or heard them any where and why are there no more christians to stand and fight these anti-Christ slime .If the churches and associations put there money to gether they could rid our country of these low life POS and there president but their money means more to them than Christ . I am totaly shocked that they have not started to have cross's removed from military grave sights, since Christians do not have the guts to stand and fight. My body is torn and I very limited use of my legs from standing and fightinng for this country and the first thing I saw after spending three tours ,was a bunch of long haired freaks carring signs calling me and the others with me baby burners and murders ,now we have them and more progressive slime trying to take away our religion and FREEDOM

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Where are all these symbols of the Jews and Islamic Jihadists that are on public land? For that is the issue. If the cross was on private land, there would be no issue at all.

  • PaulthePatriot

    Let me get this straight . . . a Wisconsin group is challenging a cross at a War Memorial located in Rhode Island. How does that affect Wisconsin. Have WE THE PEOPLE become so shallow that we are unable to stand on our own two feet and challenge these atheists? Come on Rhode Island, where are all your citizens standing against a group from Wisconsin???? The whole State should stand with this town. And as so many of the writers on this comment have written, show me in the Constitution where it says we'll have no crosses standing? The Constitution of the United States, amended by the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1, states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . "

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      The cross on public land is an establishment of a religion.

      • Vladimir

        Did Congress make a law establishing a religion? No, then the Constitution has not be violated. Read the Constitution.

      • Vladimir

        Okay, Jeff, let's say that "the cross on public land is an establishment of a religion." And let's say I want to worship with this religion. Where do I go? Who do I see to join? What are the tenets? If this religion is now established as you say, who is funding it? I've looked in the Yellow Pages and I can't find this established church. Try looking up congressionally established churches on the internet. Find them? I don't think so. And how long has that cross been there? SINCE 1921 and still we can't find this established church??? WHERE IS IT!! Have I been paying taxes to support this established religion? A CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND DOES NOT A RELIGION ESTABLISH. Try thinking, it only hurts a little.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Since every Christian church uses this cross as a symbol of their god, it would be very simple for you to find a place to worship using this cross. I have thought about this issue. Which is why I actively oppose it.

          • Vladimir

            The subject is establishment of a religion. Displaying a symbol establishes a religion??? I think it takes just a wee bit more than that to establish a religion. Can't point to the specific law that congress passed to establish this religion, can you? Answer is NO. That's because the constitution forbids congress from passing a law establishing a religion. How do you get from that to displaying a religious symbol on public land is establishing a religion.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yes, because it is stating that religious idea is more important than other religious ideas.

          • Vladimir

            Is your statement on the monument or did you infer that somehow. Other people could infer something altogether different. Is Congress prohibited from inferring one religion is more important than another? No! Read the constitution. Congress can't establish a religion or make laws prohibiting people from practicing their religion.

            Congress isn't making any statement because Congress has nothing to do with that monument. Congress certainly isn't establishing anything, BECAUSE CONGRESS IS PROHIBITED FROM ESTABLISHING A RELIGION!

            Do you see the difference now? The Anglican Church is an established religion. Look around you, has congress established a religion. Are federal public funds filling church coffers as donations with no service or product required in return? Not in the U.S, An established church such as the Anglican Church receives public funding. Name a church in the United States that receives public funding? Congress has followed the Constitution and passed no law establishing a religion! The existance of that monument did not establish a religion!!!!!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is allowing one religious group to place their symbol on public land. Where are the symbols of the other religious groups on this same public land? That shows preferential treatment which is prohibited.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      It is outrageous that a group from another state might butt into the affairs of a different state. You know like those organizations that were not based in CA yet decided to actively support Proposition 8 in California.

      For example, Focus on the Family (FOTF, or FotF). It is based in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

      Or the The American Family Association (AFA). It is headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.

      Or the National Organization for Marriage which is based in Princeton, NJ.

      I cannot imagine why those groups decided to go looking around the country for an issue instead of only being active in their own state.

  • PaulthePatriot

    So, has Congress passed a law that states no government building or grounds can have a religious symbol on it . . . I think not!!!!! When are we going to stand up to all this nonsense? Oh, maybe when we are over run with socialist and communistic people who want to take our lives, religion and homes away from us and a President who may use an unlaw executive order to make it all so. Will we then stand up to it? We went to war to stop a tyrant in Germany and to defend our borders from a tyrant nation in the Pacific . . . yet the trojan horse has entered our government complexes and we let the tyrant run lose! God Save America!

    • msjallen

      Right, and the only reason our country will go under is because too many people have turned their backs on God.
      2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

      As goes the believer in Jesus Christ, so goes the Nation.

      • Evermyrtle

        AMEN!!!

  • Dark_Archer

    more left wing anti Americans . these are the scum that support obama the commies ,socialists .marxists , atheist and of course the social leeches that need the taxpayers and the govt to take care of them hopefully some one will step in and defend this memorial from the scum of America

    • Chris

      We are all equal you clown. We are not "commies" that's just you hurling meaningless nasty epithets instead of using facts.

      We are not "scum". We have a right to our opinion. You have no facts to support your crazy faith and cannot even agree amongst yourselves as to what it is. You were brainwashed by your parents into believing something that isn't true.

      • Bobseeks

        You are indeed scum dilbert because you are a liar, a fool, and because you mock GOD. People just like you built the ovens at Auschwitz, the gulags in the USSR, and the forced labor and re-eduction camps in Red China and Marxist/atheist Cambodia. They were scum and you are no different than they.

  • Linda F.

    Members of an atheist group behaving like a bunch of hate-filled bullies, taking advantage of a city's financial crisis? You're kidding me! I never thought I'd see the day! (Eye-roll)

    • Chris

      Actually the group was formed because the evangelicals in the United States Air Force Academy were and still are acting as egregious bullies. Taking advantage of rank to proselytize to students. Ostracizing people of other and no faith.

      • Vladimir

        What's your source for that allegation?

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Linda, I am not surprised you are confused. It is normally the Christians who act like bullies in these situations.

  • http://yahoo.com guest

    It's really funny how the "separation of church and state" is pulled out of the woodwork when it suits them, but when the government is trying to levy rules on religious groups they forget all about it. And that was the purpose in the beginning; to keep the government out of the church's business.

  • OrlandoRican

    Go ahead. Keep turning the other cheek. Let's see how this works out at the end.

    • madmemere

      Don't know about anyone else, but I have NO CHEEK left to turn – -STAND YOUR GROUND!

    • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

      Romans 12:18
      If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

  • Esteban Cafe

    In Muslim circles the legal tactic of suing until the target capitulates is termed "Lawfare." When the antagonist group has more money than their target, they simply 'buy justice' (as they term it). This is what you Americans need to guard against: a form of "justice for sale" in which Justice is bought and sold like a blindfolded harlot. This is not a Christian emanation of your Founder's vision for the United States of America. Your trial lawyers appear to be at the heart of this matter, much as they were in Christ's time.

    As Shakespeare said a bit harshly: "First, let's kill the lawyers."

  • silvernotes

    There is no "constitutional principle of separation of church and state." Get educated on original documents, not propaganda that the left would like you to believe is factual history (like history books from mid 50's to now).

    This smacks of bullying if you ask me. I am getting tired of a handful of minorities scarring our government in to their ideology compliance. Like any bullying, keep it up, and they are going to get smacked down hard by the majority at some point…which I think is getting real close!

    • Vladimir

      Thank you! The U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Did Congress try to establish a religion? Of course not.

      Liberals who must destroy the Constitution in order to take over our country are doing it bit by little bit.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        There are more ways to establish a religion than passing a law. Allowing one religion free reign over and above other religions is one such way.

    • Mistertea

      Silvernotes, if you really think there is no "constitutional principle of separation of church and state" then why are religious tests, to limit eligibility for public office, banned? That's in the Constitution. You ought to read it sometime.

  • msjallen

    God has a purpose for evil power to punish: this leads to great evangelism. Evil has to run its course when evil leaders rule a nation. Think how fast Christianity spread even under the rule of the Roman Empire.
    Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
    Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over ALL rule and authority;
    Luke 18:27 But He said, "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God."

    • Evermyrtld

      You are right, GOD is leaving us to our own. If we want evil, or if we who do not want evil, but sit back back and say not a word against evil, only tolerate it, HE will just leave us alone, until that great day comes which, HIS people are anxiously waiting, for. Then HE will take HIS final stand against the evil as it stands, today.

    • Melody

      And in the meantime…. stand up for Christ at all times and witness to those who want to tear down the cross because they don't understand what it represents and the salvation it offers.

  • Peggy

    I've read the book of Revelation – I know the end of the story!!! God wins!!!!!

  • Sherie

    An intelligent attorney? “Our assumption is that the city does not realize the law."

    "My assumption is that most ignorant people in this country do not realize the law." We have the right to express our religious convictions any way we feel. Freedom of religion. Why in the world do we allow these Godless people (tools of Satan) to infringe on our constitutional rights? We are called to be peacemakers, but at the same time are supposed to stand
    up for what we believe. We need to find our spines again. Political correctness and the ACLU etc. are running over the rights of God fearing people. Wake up guys, the cross can stay, it has been there since 1921. The world thinking has changed but God has NOT and will NOT!

  • Byron

    That Cross, WHATEVER !!

  • coconuisse

    The council president has the answer that these liberals want to hear. "We can't afford a lawsuit so we will allow these radicals to trample our religious beliefs". THAT'S what groups of progressive thugs want to hear! All they have to do is threaten a lawsuit and anything that smacks of morals or decency or (heaven forbid!) religion will be quickly swept under the rug. Hooray for the United Socialistic States of America! (Name change pending.)

  • CincinnatusSPQR

    That group in Wisconsin doesn't deserve one KIA for their freedom but since they so vehemently are out to destroy the freedom of those who served for theirs – let them all go to the top of the line and let's re-instate the draft so they can immediately do their share the next time we are attacked. They want to fight? Let's give them the maximum opportunity to fight; maybe then their desire to fight at home won't be so urgent. Many of us veterans fought, so we wouldn't have to fight at home; now these @#E$% are forcing us to fight again. First we fought for them, now we have to fight them; let them pick up arms and go overseas to have their right to say, otherwise they need to …

    • Bayou Castine

      The Freedom from Religion Foundation is holding us hostage. It is like one person with a firecracker holding our military at bay. Read this: .The follow is quoted from the Freedom from Religion website at http://ffrt.org on April 28, 2012.

      “FFRP tops 17,000 members – in 2011”
      “The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which began with 3 original members in 1976 and was incorporated nationally in 1978, has grown to more than 17,000 members nationwide.”

      THAT IS SEVENTEEN THOUSAND MEMBERS and our leadership wilts. The average 1st grader has more spine.

  • VIRGINIA

    There is

    nothing in the constitution about separation of Church and State. It says Congress shall not establish any religion People should read up on something before they go making false statement and put anything in writing

  • PaulthePatriot

    They hadn't even filed a law suit yet and already the City cowers to a threat. What happens when a real situation threatens the City, will they cower then too? I guess we can expect all these things to happen because Jesus said, "When you see these things come to pass, look up, your redemption draweth nigh." (paraphrased) Guess we just never thought they would come to the United States of America. When those who believe are mysteriously taken from this world, then those who want to face real problems will have them and Jesus will have true believers sheltered from the great tribulation which the stage is now being set and soon will be played out!

    • Evermyrtle

      They might be afraid not to be "Politically correct.' That is a horrible disease that is going around.

  • http://www.kidon.com/media-link MalikTous

    WHAT 'constitutional principle of separation of church and state'? The Constitution only specifies 'Non-Favouritism' of any peaceful religion over any other peaceful religion, not 'separation'. These theocratic extremist idiots need to abandon this stupid effort and go back to kiddy garden or first grade to learn about the Constitution. I'd answer by adding a six pointed star and a shrine to Ganesha to the cemetery, as symbolically showing that we're more than just 'christian', we're co-existing citizens of all peaceful faiths.

  • ONTIME

    This just gives another example of how the tax money you give a government is used against you in a unacountable way, now that the money for keeping these people in a job is jeopardized by unecessary spending for frivolus law suits, the shoe is on the other foot and it's not fitting well. Elitism loves to use your money to tell you what to do.

    Looks like this government can use more income adjustment………

  • Richard Colonel

    For once and for all, there are people who are offended by the victorys and morals of an earlier time and they have got to get those things that are reminders of those morals which have fallen or been thrown out of the way, so they can therefore continue in their haphazard ways which continue to lead them astray. Knowing full well, that one day they will be hollering, "Why me! Lord! What did I ever do to deserve this?"

  • Chris

    Sometimes even I think MRFF oversteps the mark and I think this one is pretty bad. Mikey Weinstein gets a little bit too overenthusiastic. He is right so many times and the Air Force is egregious in its evangelism but that doesn't mean you have to pick on targets like this.

  • madmemere

    Council President Ward should tell this Wisconsin group to "take a hike"!

  • Andy

    Too bad the good people of that city don't chip in to help pay for the legal fight before them.

  • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

    I say don't fight it in court, I say gather the townspeople with guns and torches, and pitch forks, and dare the Atheists to remove the cross. Get some guts. Those to whom the memorial was erected had he guts to fight. Backing down to heathens will not make them go away. Take a stand now, or next week you can kiss your churches good-bye too!!!

  • Mike

    When will the people read the Constitution and realize that these anti-Christian groups are lying to everyone. Amendment I states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Most people that have a brain know that this means that Congress shall not pass a law forming a State Religion. It does not state anything even remotely reference to separation of church and state.

  • Melody

    Everyone of those who fear the cross….. should be more concerned with the one who suffered on the cross…. and is coming back to claim his own. Get ready…. he knows who you are…. and he knows who doesn't believe in Him.

  • edi nachman

    I give these wicked anti Christs three and a half times and they are gone!

  • Stephen

    The city should contact the ACLJ and they would take on the legal battle for them.

  • Bayou Castine

    This whole issue seems to be an effort by one small group of people. Google "The Freedom From Religion Foundation".
    The follow is quoted from the Freedom from Religion website at http://ffrt.org on April 28, 2012.

    “FFRP tops 17,000 members – in 2011”

    “The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which began with 3 original members in 1976 and was incorporated nationally in 1978, has grown to more than 17,000 members nationwide.”

    Folks, that is an organization of 17,000 people, SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE!! And this mayor, ilts citizens – and all the rest who bow down to this group do not even have jelly as a backbone. Whatever happened to OUR 'rights'??

  • Granny

    All atheists should be deported and told not to return, they can go to Communist countries where they won't have to see any religious symbols. They will be a great deal happier and so will the American people. May god have mercy.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Atheists have every right to their opinions and their citizenship, whether you like it or not.

  • InHisName

    Hey, Rhode Island community with the cross/monument: If you will contact "The Alliance Defense Fund", based in Scottsdale, Arizona, they will take on that crowd from Wisconsin, legally, at no cost to the town involved. They exist purely to fight this stuff, and they have some of the sharpest lawyers in the U.S.A. In other words, they win those cases! I don't know their contact number, but anyone with a computer can find it. Remember: it's at no cost to you. —

  • Bill F.

    PUT UP A CROSS: A good way to stand up to the ungodly atheist that are destroying our country is to put up crosses on your property and encourage others to do so. I have up a large cross in front of my home that lights up at night.

  • wesley

    what kind of legal standing does this wisconsin group have when it come to a cross on a war memorial in rhode island. they are not in the same time zone. they are not a bordering state. they are not from rhode island. they are not even in the same federal court district. the city will not have a long draw out battle and get to keep the cross and all they have to do is say this group has no right to bring this case forward in the first place. it is funny how you can be offended by something you have to go well out of your way just to see. maybe they should go to court to get the lower case "t" changed for it looks like a cross and they have to see it everyday.

  • http://zionica.com/2012/04/27/cash-strapped-city-backing-down-in-fight-over-cross/ Tom

    A very good way for people/cities to put an end to the crazies who are so anti-Christian and anti-Christian images is to begin deeding these objects and the walls, sites, and monuments over (or at least the supposedly offensive objects and the particular part of these structures to which they are attached) to prevalent and securely placed honorable Christian churches or the like so that the supposedly offensive items and their adjoining places on these structures are no longer owned by government entities and then the new owners can maintain them through private funds and volunteers who are soundly enthusiastic about maintaining these items. Then the people trying to foist their intolerant stupidity on others can go do something with themselves. They have more than worn out their welcome and can go keep their rights to be a pain to themselves instead of violating other peoples rights with their stupidity.

  • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

    Put up as many crosses on private land as your hearts desire. That is perfectly legal.