Vets stand guard over Christian flag ...

Vets stand guard over Christian flag in NC town

There are 61 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Oct 21, 2010, titled Vets stand guard over Christian flag in NC town. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The Christian flag is everywhere in the small city of King: flying in front of barbecue joints and hair salons, stuck to the bumpers of trucks, hanging in windows and emblazoned on T-shirts. The relatively obscure emblem has become omnipresent because of one place it can't appear: flying above a war memorial in a public park.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
The real - NICE

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Oct 21, 2010
Good luck to this group.
Merlin

Las Cruces, NM

#2 Oct 21, 2010
ditto
Thanks

King, NC

#3 Oct 21, 2010
Thanks to all the supporters of our Veterans and citizens!
NObama

El Paso, TX

#4 Oct 21, 2010
The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State can go to hell!!!
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#5 Oct 21, 2010
NObama wrote:
The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State can go to hell!!!
Why? For standing up for the Constitution? For arguing for a religously neutral government so the rights of all are protected?

Going to hell for that?

When are you moving to Iran?

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#6 Oct 21, 2010
What part of the enlistment oath do these fools not understand?

Why do they want to desecrate the 1st amendment?

Damn glad for those who believe in the constitution - real heroes: The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
Tim- St Paul

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Oct 21, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? For standing up for the Constitution? For arguing for a religously neutral government so the rights of all are protected?
Going to hell for that?
When are you moving to Iran?
Nowhere in the constitution does it say Freedome FROM religeon. It says the US shall not establish a religeon. When you actually learn when the Constitution was written and who it was written by and what they went through you can see clearly what they were saying was there was not to be a Church similar to the "CHURCH OF ENGLAND". Nowhere at any point in time was it keep religeon out of every aspect of life. As a matter of fact the greater majority of the people who wrote the Constitution were VERY religeous men and used their spiritual nature to write laws. Or are you going to deny that? Our country hasnt had a "religeously neutral government" in its entire history why the push to get it that way now?
Risky Business

Minneapolis, MN

#8 Oct 21, 2010
How can ONE complaint from ONE individual change something that this town has done for years? Yes, now the other parties have gotten involved, but it started with ONE complaint. That doesn't sound right.
The real - NICE

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Oct 21, 2010
Tim- St Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere in the constitution does it say Freedome FROM religeon. It says the US shall not establish a religeon. When you actually learn when the Constitution was written and who it was written by and what they went through you can see clearly what they were saying was there was not to be a Church similar to the "CHURCH OF ENGLAND". Nowhere at any point in time was it keep religeon out of every aspect of life. As a matter of fact the greater majority of the people who wrote the Constitution were VERY religeous men and used their spiritual nature to write laws. Or are you going to deny that? Our country hasnt had a "religeously neutral government" in its entire history why the push to get it that way now?
I agree with you Tim. I question more the correctness of schools like TIZA that receive state/fed funds to operate, yet teach religion have prayer time etc...

Also yea, one complaint? come on
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#10 Oct 21, 2010
Tim- St Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere in the constitution does it say Freedome FROM religeon. It says the US shall not establish a religeon. When you actually learn when the Constitution was written and who it was written by and what they went through you can see clearly what they were saying was there was not to be a Church similar to the "CHURCH OF ENGLAND". Nowhere at any point in time was it keep religeon out of every aspect of life. As a matter of fact the greater majority of the people who wrote the Constitution were VERY religeous men and used their spiritual nature to write laws. Or are you going to deny that? Our country hasnt had a "religeously neutral government" in its entire history why the push to get it that way now?
You need to go back and retake high school civics. Following your "logic", an atheist or agnostic has no First Amendment rights.

We know that is simply not true. You are also woefully unfamiliar with the many court decisions interpreting the Establishment clause, which are also law whether you like it or not.

You cannot have true religious freedom unless the government is religiously neutral, which requires the government to be secular.

You are utterly clueless.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#11 Oct 21, 2010
Risky Business wrote:
How can ONE complaint from ONE individual change something that this town has done for years? Yes, now the other parties have gotten involved, but it started with ONE complaint. That doesn't sound right.
Because "majority rules" does not apply to civil rights.
Tim- St Paul

Minneapolis, MN

#12 Oct 21, 2010
The real - NICE wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you Tim. I question more the correctness of schools like TIZA that receive state/fed funds to operate, yet teach religion have prayer time etc...
Also yea, one complaint? come on
I dont think any honest person who cares about taxes would say that schools like TIZA should get any federal/state funding. In my honest opinion this school should be like other schools which focus on religeon and get all of their funding from tuition charged to the students attending there and by private sources. No school that uses religeon as its base should receive any taxpayer funds.

But schools and religeous "monuments/flags" are something completely different. I mean all you have to do is look at when the ACLU sued because a state (Utah I belive, but could be another state in that area) had erected crosses at the points where Police Officers had been killed. But since it was a cross on public land it was "advocating religeon". When it was doing nothing of the sort and was mearly representing the officers killed in the line of duty. Or a situation similar to this where a flag representing Christianity is a war momorial where the greater majority of those people who served and fought in that war were in fact Christian. If a city/state has an overwhelmingly majority of people who are represented by this "flag/monument" then they are doing nothing but honoring their roots. This is something where the ACLU and the courts really have no right getting involved.
Tim- St Paul

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Oct 21, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "majority rules" does not apply to civil rights.
There is no civil right that says you have the Freedom FROM religeon. Only 1 that says Freedom to PRACTICE religeon. Yet the US Constitution actually ONLY says the US Govt shall not establish a religeon. For anyone with even the slightest grasp of history knows this means exactly 1 thing and ONLY 1 thing. It means no Church similar to the Church of England.
Risky Business

Minneapolis, MN

#14 Oct 21, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "majority rules" does not apply to civil rights.
Perhaps, but one person shouldn't be able to decide what's right for everyone else. They call that a dictatorship.
Tim- St Paul

Minneapolis, MN

#15 Oct 21, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to go back and retake high school civics. Following your "logic", an atheist or agnostic has no First Amendment rights.
We know that is simply not true. You are also woefully unfamiliar with the many court decisions interpreting the Establishment clause, which are also law whether you like it or not.
You cannot have true religious freedom unless the government is religiously neutral, which requires the government to be secular.
You are utterly clueless.
Actually you couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

An atheist or agnostic person has the same rights as ayone else. The right to either practice religeon in their house of worship or in their own home. Since they dont follow any religeous docterine then they are free to NOT practice a religeon. This doesnt mean they have some right to NEVER have someone elses religeous beliefs affect their life. I dont see Christians running around trying to force atheists or agnostic people to conform to the Church or Christianity. This would be what would need to be stopped but not something like flying a flag in memory of those who died before.

It truely is sad when someone cant even understand the most basic concept of religeous freedom means you get to choose what YOU BELIEVE IN. Not what you see or what comes into contact with you. If you dont believe in god that is your choice, but your wish to not see any type of religeous icon's isnt a right. Its a wish, and sadly everyone else is just as able to worship and show their beliefs as an atheist/agnostic would be able to do. Once again, the US Constitution doesnt say you have the freedom FROM religeon.
Ft Hood

King, NC

#16 Oct 21, 2010
PlacitasRoy wrote:
What part of the enlistment oath do these fools not understand?
Why do they want to desecrate the 1st amendment?
Damn glad for those who believe in the constitution - real heroes: The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
Oh, yes, yes what wonderful groups! NOT! Here is the latest from the ACLU: The ACLU Sues to Prohibit "Targeted Killing" of Foreign and U.S.-Born Terrorists
The Ft. Hood victims and their families are being kicked in the teeth by the ACLU.
You, are an idiot.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#17 Oct 22, 2010
Tim- St Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you couldnt be more wrong if you tried.
An atheist or agnostic person has the same rights as ayone else. The right to either practice religeon in their house of worship or in their own home. Since they dont follow any religeous docterine then they are free to NOT practice a religeon. This doesnt mean they have some right to NEVER have someone elses religeous beliefs affect their life. I dont see Christians running around trying to force atheists or agnostic people to conform to the Church or Christianity. This would be what would need to be stopped but not something like flying a flag in memory of those who died before.
It truely is sad when someone cant even understand the most basic concept of religeous freedom means you get to choose what YOU BELIEVE IN. Not what you see or what comes into contact with you. If you dont believe in god that is your choice, but your wish to not see any type of religeous icon's isnt a right. Its a wish, and sadly everyone else is just as able to worship and show their beliefs as an atheist/agnostic would be able to do. Once again, the US Constitution doesnt say you have the freedom FROM religeon.
You completely misunderstood my post.

You are also wholly incorrect in your wild guesses about what I want and what my personal beliefs are.

Try again.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#18 Oct 22, 2010
Risky Business wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but one person shouldn't be able to decide what's right for everyone else. They call that a dictatorship.
The Establishment clause does not do that, and that was never something I proposed at all.

Straw man argument = fail.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#19 Oct 22, 2010
Tim- St Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no civil right that says you have the Freedom FROM religeon. Only 1 that says Freedom to PRACTICE religeon. Yet the US Constitution actually ONLY says the US Govt shall not establish a religeon. For anyone with even the slightest grasp of history knows this means exactly 1 thing and ONLY 1 thing. It means no Church similar to the Church of England.
Tell it to the SCOTUS, because they have rendered dozens of decisions that don't meet your standards.

And their word is, literally, law.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#20 Oct 22, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to go back and retake high school civics. Following your "logic", an atheist or agnostic has no First Amendment rights.
We know that is simply not true. You are also woefully unfamiliar with the many court decisions interpreting the Establishment clause, which are also law whether you like it or not.
You cannot have true religious freedom unless the government is religiously neutral, which requires the government to be secular.
You are utterly clueless.
Actually the vast majority of freedom from religion lawsuits have been filed by religious people. The over turning government ordered prayer was filed by several Jewish families. The right to refuse the pledge to the flag was filed by Jehovah Witnesses or 7th Day Adventists.

Want to fly some religious good luck charm, do it on your own damn property. Not the public's.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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
Looking for Terry Walden Apr '16 info please 1
charlie lawson (Aug '07) Feb '16 Laura 87
Awesome Hairstylist (Nov '15) Nov '15 Client 1
Review: Boutique Hoarders (Sep '14) Aug '15 Amanda 3
Should I take suboxen (May '15) Jul '15 ANTIgallia 2
does anyone know john pickering (Apr '15) Jul '15 nope 2
Blackburns Store (Jul '15) Jul '15 Cool Stang Daddy 1

King Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

King Mortgages