King Residents Fighting for Christian...

King Residents Fighting for Christian Flag

There are 475 comments on the Fox 8 WGHP story from Sep 20, 2010, titled King Residents Fighting for Christian Flag. In it, Fox 8 WGHP reports that:

After King officials voted to take down the Christian flag at the Veterans Memorial in Central Park, dozens of people are asking for city officials to reconsider.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox 8 WGHP.

First Prev
of 24
Next Last
Angelus1967

Clemmons, NC

#464 Oct 7, 2010
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
not religion, salvation... there is a difference...Jesus was God in the flesh. that was God that died for you..the trinity 3 in 1.. life is in the blood.. covering is in the blood... redemption is in the blood and it had to be shed to cover you... just as blood had to be shed to cover adam and eve's nakedness in the garden... he still loves you, and waits for you even as you spit in his face.. you dont care now but you will care one day..
That is a HUGE load Wondering. Those are beliefs for you and other Christians but guess what? There are only 2.4 billion Christians worldwide out of 6+billion people so you do not have a majority. You are the largest but not the only and hardly a majority so we don't need to listen to or see all of the symbols of your worship.
I very sincerly doubt that I will EVER care about god or any of your religion...that's for y'all so do not try to force it on the rest of us.
U D Side

Mocksville, NC

#465 Oct 7, 2010
Angelus1967 wrote:
<quoted text>
You just GOTTA love all the people from King and other parts of NC who say "most everybody in King is a Christian". Sadly, they are right but "most everybody" do not get to make the rules and laws of the land, we had some very smart and forward thinking men who put on paper how the country should run and it's worked pretty well.
I am not a Christian and do not care about god, JC, or that dumb*** Christian flag. I DO care that my tax dollars are used to help pay for a place that only seems to represent Christians. I..........
I think these are very good answer:
Georgetown Hoyas wrote:
The Veterans own the memorial and the city owns the small patch of land that it is on. The city should give,rent of allow the Veterans to buy the land. From what I have read, there are plenty of people willing to buy the land for the Veterans. I don't think that the City of King has endorsed one religion to govern the citizens. The mayor, city manager or council members did not put the Christian flag up, the Veterans did. You seem to want to rule people with an iron hand. Did the city violate the establishment clause, I don't know. That would be decided by a judge, and their opinions vary. It is not for you, the ACLU or me to decide.
King Sentry wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of this discussion is irrelevant. The white flag with a blue canton and a red cross, that is being referred to as the Christian flag, is still flying at the Veterans Memorial in the King Central Park.
Congress makes law. Courts make rulings and establish case history. Rulings of all courts may be tested time and time again.
If the flying of the flag under discussion is heard by a court and the court rules against the city and issues orders for the removal of the flag, and the city does not respond accordingly, the city would then be in violation of the court order. But, as of this time, no case against the City of King has been filed.
It appears that the only action so far, is that the flag protester has awakened a sleeping giant across the USA, ie the "Christian Faith".
King Sentry wrote:
The flag issue will be settled in court (if necessary) probably based upon whether the city of King, in this case has a claim to “government speech” as ruled by the supreme court in a 2009 ruling in favor of Pleasant Grove, Utah in allowing the display of one monument and refusing another based on the right of speech by a government, referred to as “government speech.” Even tho King probably is on solid ground under that decision, I question the wisdom of a decision that grants "government speech".
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_PleasantGr...

You Decide
Seek Truth

Mocksville, NC

#466 Oct 7, 2010
Angelus1967 wrote:
<quoted text>
....... listen to or see all of the symbols of your worship.
I very sincerly doubt that I will EVER care about god or any of your religion...that's for y'all so do not try to force it on the rest of us.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hbr 9:27

Since: Oct 10

Clemmons, NC

#467 Oct 7, 2010
Seek Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hbr 9:27
Well. I guess I'll take my chances with the xian "judgement". I personally do not believe there is anything to that except scary stories in an old book so I'm not too terribly worried about it.

Since: Oct 10

Clemmons, NC

#468 Oct 7, 2010
Sullivan wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't have to wait for their taxes to triple, before that happens the city will turn it over to a private committee. There are several offers in. Donations have been coming in from all across America.
Soooooo, Central Park will become a for xians only place then? Hey, that's just great. I wonder how long it'll take me to get the last several years worth of taxes back from the town since I won't have use of a park I've been helping pay for upkeep on?
Nick

United States

#470 Oct 8, 2010
Valleygirl needs to clean up her vulgar mouth
seek truth

King, NC

#471 Oct 8, 2010
Angelus1967 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well. I guess I'll take my chances with the xian "judgement". I personally do not believe there is anything to that except scary stories in an old book so I'm not too terribly worried about it.
The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding. Pro 9:10
No Jesus Exists

Englewood, CO

#472 Oct 9, 2010
Seek Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hbr 9:27
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

The Truth.

Since: Oct 10

Clemmons, NC

#474 Oct 11, 2010
seek truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding. Pro 9:10
Hey seek truth - I do not FEAR the LORD. Even if I believed in his, what good does it do to fear your own god? Jeez...
Douglas

King, NC

#476 Oct 17, 2010
When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" This was radical and gave equal citizenship to believers/non-believers alike. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution once. This country was never intended to be a nation of one faith be it Christian or other. The founding fathers wanted to avoid the religious strife that spilled so much blood in Europe and the rest of the world.

The original pilgrams that came here, came to find a place to worship as they pleased but once settled they did not allow others that same right. Either you belonged to the local congregation or you had to leave. Religion freedom that is spoken of in our laws does not really exist here. People of alternative or smaller faiths that are widely accepted frequently have to hide what they believe or lose their jobs and sometimes more-I know, it's happened to me twice now and I will most likely never work again because of it. Many Christian supporters of this flag issue complain they are tired of Christians being attacked- how about stop attacking others faiths and maybe others will be more accepting of yours. I am totally open about religion and accept all other religions, it's too bad that the Golden Rule which should read-treat others as you would have them treat you- actually reads -treat others as you would have them treat you ONLY if they have the same faith as you.

My solution for the flag is to leave the flag pole there and share it with a flag for every faith that has lost soldiers in service to America. Someone needs to remember, our troops are not fighting for a God or Gods, they are fighting for our nation, for ALL of us. Troops have died that are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan/Pagan and many others-go to a few military graveyards and look for the symbols. Many faiths died to keep our country strong and respected, honor them all not just the majority. These men and women fought and died for our country no matter what their faith, honor them all or do the non-Christian fallen not deserve the same respect?
Douglas

King, NC

#477 Oct 17, 2010
Actually I live in King where the fight is going on, for some reason it says I am from Lewisville.
U D Side

Sanford, NC

#478 Oct 17, 2010
Douglas wrote:
When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" This was radical and gave equal citizenship to believers/non-believers alike..........
Some may view it differently

Note:“Article VI ban (applicable to federal officeholders only)”

Note “Article I, sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution, which deferred to state qualifications for the electors of members of the U. S. House of Representatives.”

Quoted Text:
Professors Kramnick and Moore find further evidence for a godless Constitution in the Article VI religious test ban. Here, too, they misconstrue the historical record. Their argument rests on the false premise that, in the minds of the framers, support for the Article VI ban was a repudiation of state establishments of religion and a ringing endorsement of a radically secular polity. The numerous state constitutions written between 1776 and 1787 in which sweeping religious liberty and nonestablishment provisions coexisted with religious test oaths confirm the poverty of this assumption. The founding generation, in other words, generally did not regard such measures as incompatible.

The Article VI ban (applicable to federal officeholders only) was not driven by a radical secular agenda or a renunciation of religious tests as a matter of principle. The fact that religious tests accorded with popular wishes is confirmed by their inclusion in the vast majority of revolutionary era state constitutions.

Professors Kramnick and Moore also blithely ignore Article I, sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution, which deferred to state qualifications for the electors of members of the U. S. House of Representatives. This provision is significant since the constitutional framers of 1787 knew that in some states--such as South Carolina--the requisite qualifications for suffrage included religious belief.

Significantly, there were delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia who endorsed the Article VI ban but had previously crafted religious tests for their respective state constitutions. The constitutional framers did not appreciate this apparent contradiction, which arises under a secular construction of Article VI. The framers believed, as a matter of federalism, that the Constitution denied the national government all jurisdiction over religion, including the authority to administer religious tests. Many in founding generation supported a federal test ban because they valued religious tests required under state laws, and they feared that a federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments. In other words, support for the Article VI ban was driven in part by a desire to preserve and defend the instruments of "religious establishment" (specifically, religious test oaths) that remained in the states.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles...

This is an area that bares more scrutiny.
U D Side

Sanford, NC

#479 Oct 17, 2010
Douglas wrote:
.......... Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution once. This country was never intended to be a nation of one faith be it Christian or other. The founding fathers wanted to avoid the religious strife that spilled so much blood in Europe and the rest of the world..........
For the most part the above is close to being correct. "This country was never intended to be a nation of one faith".

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms:" Not quite. The first amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is not religion that is to be excluded. It is federal laws respecting religion that is prohibited. Big difference.

Yes our the founding fathers wanted to put an end to the state controlled church primarily because they were compelled to tithe to the Church or England whether they considered themselves a member or not. Therefore many were taxed and then forced to tithe and then had to support their own independent faith. Our Founding fathers wanted religious liberty, NOT a neutral zone.

Precedence for Chrisianity in the public realm:
http://godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bible_verse_i...
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles...
U D Side

Sanford, NC

#480 Oct 17, 2010
Douglas wrote:
..........The original pilgrams that came here, came to find a place to worship as they pleased but once settled they did not allow others that same right. Either you belonged to the local congregation or you had to leave. Religion freedom that is spoken of in our laws does not really exist here..........
As I have stated previously in other post your interpretation of "Religious freedom" through Religious exclusion is unfounded. Today their still are religious, closed societies, such as the Amish where young adults have to choose to continue in the community's faith or leave. This is not prohibited under the constitution. This is a far cry from what is happening in King.
Douglas wrote:
..........Many Christian supporters of this flag issue complain they are tired of Christians being attacked- how about stop attacking others faiths and maybe others will be more accepting of yours. I am totally open about religion and accept all other religions,.........
As I recall everything was quiet and peaceful until some coward decided to appeal to the ACLU to strong arm the City Council. I am not sure what faith this individual is if he even claims to have one. Furthermore three other individuals decided to write an open letter to the stokes news threatening to contact the ACLU. I am not sure what faith two of these three are either. With this said I cannot see how one can claim that Christian are attacking anyone’s faith. It is these individuals actions not their faith that may have them feel a little heat. If they had chosen to live in peace I doubt they’d be feeling attacked.
Douglas wrote:
..........People of alternative or smaller faiths that are widely accepted frequently have to hide what they believe or lose their jobs and sometimes more-I know, it's happened to me twice now and I will most likely never work again because of it..........
Since I do not know the circumstances of where you worked, why you lost work, or what you believe, I cannot comment accept to say that if your beliefs cause an employer to loose business you will likely have to go. If you stand up for your convictions there is usually a price to be paid. Maybe you'd have better luck somewhere where you are less of a minority.
Douglas wrote:
..........My solution for the flag is to leave the flag pole there and share it with a flag for every faith that has lost soldiers in service to America. Someone needs to remember, our troops are not fighting for a God or Gods, they are fighting for our nation, for ALL of us. Troops have died that are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan/Pagan and many others-.........
There is a misconception that this monument represents all veterans nation wide. This is not the intent. This monument is to represent local veterans. It was the local veterans that selected the flags and the local veterans that are flying a Christian flag over their monument of which they invested their own private monies in, over and above tax dollars. Personally I am not opposed to additional flags as long as they are culturally significant to the local community as this is a local monument. Furthermore I am not opposed to incorporating any symbol recognized by the US military on individual pavers. However the City nor the veterans can be expected to redesign the monument every time a citizen gets and itch. However in the end this is the local veteran’s Freedom of Speech. Just because we live in a reprehensive democracy where everyone is represented it does not mean all views will be satisfied.
King Sentry

High Point, NC

#481 Oct 18, 2010
U D Side wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have stated previously in other post your interpretation of "Religious freedom" through Religious exclusion is unfounded. Today their still are religious, closed societies, such as the Amish where young adults have to choose to continue in the community's faith or leave. This is not prohibited under the constitution. This is a far cry from what is happening in King.
<quoted text>
As I recall everything was quiet and peaceful until some coward decided to appeal to the ACLU to strong arm the City Council. I am not sure what faith this individual is if he even claims to have one. Furthermore three other individuals decided to write an open letter to the stokes news threatening to contact the ACLU. I am not sure what faith two of these three are either. With this said I cannot see how one can claim that Christian are attacking anyone’s faith. It is these individuals actions not their faith that may have them feel a little heat. If they had chosen to live in peace I doubt they’d be feeling attacked.
<quoted text>
Since I do not know the circumstances of where you worked, why you lost work, or what you believe, I cannot comment accept to say that if your beliefs cause an employer to loose business you will likely have to go. If you stand up for your convictions there is usually a price to be paid. Maybe you'd have better luck somewhere where you are less of a minority.
<quoted text>
There is a misconception that this monument represents all veterans nation wide. This is not the intent. This monument is to represent local veterans. It was the local veterans that selected the flags and the local veterans that are flying a Christian flag over their monument of which they invested their own private monies in, over and above tax dollars. Personally I am not opposed to additional flags as long as they are culturally significant to the local community as this is a local monument. Furthermore I am not opposed to incorporating any symbol recognized by the US military on individual pavers. However the City nor the veterans can be expected to redesign the monument every time a citizen gets and itch. However in the end this is the local veteran’s Freedom of Speech. Just because we live in a reprehensive democracy where everyone is represented it does not mean all views will be satisfied.
U D Side, I admire your thoroughness in researching the facts on the constitutional issues at hand. You're correct in describing how the flag issue will be settled. Denominations of the different religions or what they believe will not be a factor of consideration should it get to the courts. The issue will be whether the city of King has “government speech” as applied in the Pleasant Grove, Utah decision. Another factor that may be considered would be whether the flag represents a monument. The defense attorneys may decide to use the argument that the flag is a monument by the fact the “flag statement” has represented a certain statement for a long enough period to be classified as a monument. That's tricky. For then the courts must decide how long is long enough. If evidence is allowed of the Christian crusades 1095-1291 then the flag is a monument. If not then the monument classification would be questionable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 24
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

King Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Boutique Hoarders (Sep '14) Aug 23 Amanda 3
Kendra Dawn Smith Aug 20 Warned you 1
Should I take suboxen Jul '15 ANTIgallia 2
does anyone know john pickering Jul '15 nope 2
Blackburns Store Jul '15 Cool Stang Daddy 1
News War Vet Asks King To Remove Cross From Memorial (Sep '10) Jul '15 NOT in ILL 46
News N.C. town sued over sculpture of soldier with c... (Jan '15) Jun '15 Spotted Girl 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

King Mortgages