Whiteville cross debate continues

Oct 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Jacksonsun.com

WHITEVILLE - Whiteville residents say efforts to have a religious cross removed from the city's water tower will not stop members of the "mostly Christian" community from expressing their beliefs.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of2,535
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WHITEVILLE Whiteville residents say efforts to have a religious cross removed from the city's water tower will not stop members of the "mostly Christian" community from expressing their beliefs.

"They may get the cross down, but at the same time they're not going to destroy the spirit," said Roger Alston, co-owner of Whiteville Auto Parts and Hardware.

He planted a 10-foot-tall, 5-foot-wide white cross on a small plot of land outside his business, which he said was mostly symbolic.

"We just want to show as much support as we can," he said.

Alston is helping organize a community cross giveaway in response to a request from the Freedom From Religion Foundation that the town remove a cross from atop the public water tower.

His store will host the volunteer effort to make crosses for Whiteville residents interested in planting them on their property the goal to show that despite that complaint of one individual, the community is Christian-based, he said.

Tim Lewis, another Whiteville resident, said he was born and raised here and that removing the cross would not say much for the community or the American people as a whole.

Lewis, owner of a local animal feed company, said he plans to build a cross on top of his building, one of the tallest buildings in town.

"Our country was built on that cross," he said.

Last week the Freedom From Religion Foundation the nation's largest association of atheists and agnostics threatened to sue the town after months of ignored complaints about the water-tower cross. Foundation officials have said the complaints were made on behalf of a Whiteville resident.

"It is unlawful for the Town of Whiteville to display a patently religious symbol such as a Christian cross on public property," foundation Senior Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert said in a news release. "The Whiteville cross, displayed on the Town water tower, unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity."

Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said Monday that the law has not changed, "and our opinion hasn't changed."
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

They want us to believe that the problem is that tax dollars were used to place the cross on the tower. No tax dollars were used. They want to bring up separation of church and state. The cross has been there for 8 years yet now its a problem? The cross in Somerville has been there for 43 years and nothing has been said about it. Why don't they attack our currency??? That sounds more important than a cross in a small town. Unless they know it's a fight they can't win. They say that religions attack them but they are the ones that initiate the problems. If all this is about money then why worry with something as trivial as a cross on a small town water tower??? Tax dollars are wasted by our government all the time. If they just want the cross down because it convicts them spiritually then just say so.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Roger Alston, nobody is trying to destroy your spirit. Nobody cares if you put a 50 foot tall cross on YOUR property and light it with an industrial flood light. Nobody cares if the "community" wants to say they are Christian, that is apparent from the sea of tacky green Jesus signs in your front yards. What cannot be tolerated is saying the government is Christian because then it becomes a theocracy.

There Mayor is a little two-bit cry baby who was given ample opportunity to respond to previous letters but rather chose to ignore them. When the FFRF finally give an ultimatum he comes out kicking and stomping because he can't just ignore the problem any long. What an immature git.
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ha ha ha ha!!!!!! You guys are the cry baby's!!!! Get a life and stop trying to make out that you guys are the under dogs. Your just the minority and want to take offense to a small cross on a water tower in the middle of nowhere! Stop tilting at windmills and attack something that really matters to your cause.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

2

american vet wrote:
They want us to believe that the problem is that tax dollars were used to place the cross on the tower. No tax dollars were used. They want to bring up separation of church and state. The cross has been there for 8 years yet now its a problem? The cross in Somerville has been there for 43 years and nothing has been said about it. Why don't they attack our currency??? That sounds more important than a cross in a small town. Unless they know it's a fight they can't win. They say that religions attack them but they are the ones that initiate the problems. If all this is about money then why worry with something as trivial as a cross on a small town water tower??? Tax dollars are wasted by our government all the time. If they just want the cross down because it convicts them spiritually then just say so.
No, the problem has nothing to do with where the money came from, everyone who has followed the story knows the money came from churches but that only hurts your argument. The cross a been there 8 years because the city government was adept at ignoring letter after letter that was to them advising them that the religious display on government property was a violation of church/state separation.

The currency says "In God we Trust" and is a common motto that has lost its religious implication according to the Supreme Court. You will notice that our money does not say in Jesus or Allah we trust.

The problem was initiated when a patently religious symbol was placed on Government property thus becoming an endorsement of one religious sect over all others. The problem is about to be resolved either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Like I said at the start, it is not about money but the state mixing with the church by placing religious symbols on government property. The cross doesn't convict anyone spiritually, that is just plain silly. Claim that non-believer is "convicted" by your cross is as silly as a Muslim claiming that you are "convicted" by the Koran. I'm sure you hold the Koran to be meaningless just as I hold your little religious symbol to have not real meaning either. I know what you are thinking, why should the cross come down if it has no meaning? Because the Government is to be neutral toward all religious and those who have none. By the Government of Whiteville allow the Christian religious symbol to be placed on Government property they are making a defacto endorsement of one religion over another and that cannot be allowed in our constitutional republic.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

[http://www.usconstitution.net /jeffwall.html]

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical events as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

----------

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

FreeThinker82 wrote:
<quoted text>No, the problem has nothing to do with where the money came from, everyone who has followed the story knows the money came from churches but that only hurts your argument. The cross a been there 8 years because the city government was adept at ignoring letter after letter that was to them advising them that the religious display on government property was a violation of church/state separation.

The currency says "In God we Trust" and is a common motto that has lost its religious implication according to the Supreme Court. You will notice that our money does not say in Jesus or Allah we trust.

The problem was initiated when a patently religious symbol was placed on Government property thus becoming an endorsement of one religious sect over all others. The problem is about to be resolved either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Like I said at the start, it is not about money but the state mixing with the church by placing religious symbols on government property. The cross doesn't convict anyone spiritually, that is just plain silly. Claim that non-believer is "convicted" by your cross is as silly as a Muslim claiming that you are "convicted" by the Koran. I'm sure you hold the Koran to be meaningless just as I hold your little religious symbol to have not real meaning either. I know what you are thinking, why should the cross come down if it has no meaning? Because the Government is to be neutral toward all religious and those who have none. By the Government of Whiteville allow the Christian religious symbol to be placed on Government property they are making a defacto endorsement of one religion over another and that cannot be allowed in our constitutional republic.
Ha ha ha!!! That's the best you can come back with??? The letters haven't been coming for 8 years. Get your facts straight.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

american vet wrote:
Ha ha ha ha!!!!!! You guys are the cry baby's!!!! Get a life and stop trying to make out that you guys are the under dogs. Your just the minority and want to take offense to a small cross on a water tower in the middle of nowhere! Stop tilting at windmills and attack something that really matters to your cause.
The day will come when a majority muslim town will put a loud speaking on top a water tower to broadcast calls to prayer and you will shit your pants. You will be acting out of sheer personal hatred for a completing religion and I will being calling for its removal for the same reason I am on the side of the people calling for the removal of your religious symbol.

This is about stopping religious nonsense on all fronts from infecting Government. If you want to give yourself over to wish thinking and myth it your liberty to do so. You may, however, use government as a tool to spread your superstitions and legends.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I didn't say the letters had been coming for 8 years, but you are wish-thinker and wish-thinkers love to build straw-men to attack. There were letters that preceded the one telling the Mayor he was about to be taken to Federal court but he ignored those. What did he expect would happen?

Also, there is no statute of limitations on violations of the constitution. You are acting as if after a certain amount of time passes then it is just OK. Get real man.

Now he wants to let some religious group come in and defend the city at no charge. OK, but the courts have already decided these kinds of cases. The city will lose and end up having to pay the fees of the FFRF attorneys. Why not just the right thing and stop making an mole hill into a mountain.
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

FreeThinker82 wrote:
<quoted text>The day will come when a majority muslim town will put a loud speaking on top a water tower to broadcast calls to prayer and you will shit your pants. You will be acting out of sheer personal hatred for a completing religion and I will being calling for its removal for the same reason I am on the side of the people calling for the removal of your religious symbol.

This is about stopping religious nonsense on all fronts from infecting Government. If you want to give yourself over to wish thinking and myth it your liberty to do so. You may, however, use government as a tool to spread your superstitions and legends.


I've been in the middle east and fought for this country and had to listen to it every day and guess what it didn't convert me cause it didn't bother me. I didn't care cause I knew I was the minority there for being a christian. I didn't hear the Christian people that live there trying to get it stopped. They learned to live with it. Their faith keeps them strong and it doesn't bother them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

american vet wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been in the middle east and fought for this country and had to listen to it every day and guess what it didn't convert me cause it didn't bother me. I didn't care cause I knew I was the minority there for being a christian. I didn't hear the Christian people that live there trying to get it stopped. They learned to live with it. Their faith keeps them strong and it doesn't bother them.
First off, regarding this debate, and only this debate, your service for the country adds no weight to your argument. Your service does not change the law and it doesn't change the constitution.

Your claim that the Christians "over there" said nothing only means that they were well aware that they would be killed along with their entire family for speaking out against the official state religion, Islam. Those countries have no constitution to keep religious nonsense out of the government and guess what, you had to go over there and fight partly as a result of that fact.

So regardless of your willingness to tolerate it, I know a majority of Christians would not as evidenced by the fact they whole slew of them tried to prevent a Mosque from being build on private property here in Tennessee.

BTW, their faith kept them ignorant and subjugated to the tyranny of Islam. Faith is gullibility, it is the rejection of reason in favor of superstition & wish-thinking.
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FreeThinker82 wrote:
I didn't say the letters had been coming for 8 years, but you are wish-thinker and wish-thinkers love to build straw-men to attack. There were letters that preceded the one telling the Mayor he was about to be taken to Federal court but he ignored those. What did he expect would happen?

Also, there is no statute of limitations on violations of the constitution. You are acting as if after a certain amount of time passes then it is just OK. Get real man.

Now he wants to let some religious group come in and defend the city at no charge. OK, but the courts have already decided these kinds of cases. The city will lose and end up having to pay the fees of the FFRF attorneys. Why not just the right thing and stop making an mole hill into a mountain.
It was a mole hill until you guys started. Now put you climbing gear on cause win or lose it's gonna be a climb.
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

FreeThinker82 wrote:
<quoted text>First off, regarding this debate, and only this debate, your service for the country adds no weight to your argument. Your service does not change the law and it doesn't change the constitution.

Your claim that the Christians "over there" said nothing only means that they were well aware that they would be killed along with their entire family for speaking out against the official state religion, Islam. Those countries have no constitution to keep religious nonsense out of the government and guess what, you had to go over there and fight partly as a result of that fact.

So regardless of your willingness to tolerate it, I know a majority of Christians would not as evidenced by the fact they whole slew of them tried to prevent a Mosque from being build on private property here in Tennessee.

BTW, their faith kept them ignorant and subjugated to the tyranny of Islam. Faith is gullibility, it is the rejection of reason in favor of superstition & wish-thinking.
My service holds no weight ha ha!! You people want to quote one of our founding fathers that wrote one of the best documents ever written. It was an open ended document so it could be changed if needed. We don't live in their time!!! Catch up with the times man. If he were alive today and saw how this country was going he would stroke out.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

OK, I'll go with your analogy.

On the surface the moles of religion make holes everywhere it can dig its little claws into government. Secularist come along and start getting rid of the mole hills as they pop up because we know if we don't keep the religious moles in check they will completely screw up the foundation of our system of government. That is to say, it will turn into a quasi theocracy. But the religious moles cry foul because they put a lot of hard work into sneaking that mole hill into government and after all, nobody said anything for 8 years.

Well, sorry moles, but every mole hill has its day and that day has come for the mole hill in Whiteville. Let the churches that put up the money for it find a nice church yard or cotton field for their symbol. Just so long as they keep it out of our Government.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

american vet wrote:
<quoted text>
My service holds no weight ha ha!! You people want to quote one of our founding fathers that wrote one of the best documents ever written. It was an open ended document so it could be changed if needed. We don't live in their time!!! Catch up with the times man. If he were alive today and saw how this country was going he would stroke out.
Now, now, now, there you go misrepresenting what I wrote. I didn't JUST say that your service holds no weight. I said with regard to the argument it adds to weight. I was quite specific on that point so don't go trying to twist my words around.

The constitution is an open-ended document but it may only be changed via the amendment process. It may not be changed based upon the wishes of one vet or the collective will of local churches.

I would agree that they would stroke out, the amount of power the federal government has amassed is far more than the founders ever intended. The fact that the states have been stripped of their powers to keep the federal government in check and made to be wholly subordinate to the federal government, no matter if the federal government is acting outside its constitutional powers, is depressing.
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FreeThinker82 wrote:
OK, I'll go with your analogy.

On the surface the moles of religion make holes everywhere it can dig its little claws into government. Secularist come along and start getting rid of the mole hills as they pop up because we know if we don't keep the religious moles in check they will completely screw up the foundation of our system of government. That is to say, it will turn into a quasi theocracy. But the religious moles cry foul because they put a lot of hard work into sneaking that mole hill into government and after all, nobody said anything for 8 years.

Well, sorry moles, but every mole hill has its day and that day has come for the mole hill in Whiteville. Let the churches that put up the money for it find a nice church yard or cotton field for their symbol. Just so long as they keep it out of our Government.
Ha ha ha!!! I'm proud to be a religious mole that makes you sooooo miserable. That cross on the tower in a small town is going to destroy the whole country???? Who has delusions now??? You people crack me up!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The founding fathers of our country did not create a religious or christian government.

The Treaty of Tripoli

In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
american vet

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FreeThinker82 wrote:
The founding fathers of our country did not create a religious or christian government.

The Treaty of Tripoli

In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I never said it was ha ha ha!!!!! Your silly!!!!! I like you ha ha ha!!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

american vet wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was ha ha ha!!!!! Your silly!!!!! I like you ha ha ha!!!!
That post was not addressed to you but to everyone. You are the silly one silly, as if all I am concerned about is you and not the larger audience of readers. If I intend for a response to be directed at you specifically, you will see your statement quoted before mine or at least start our with your screen name. Otherwise consider it a general FYI for everyone.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

american vet wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha ha!!! I'm proud to be a religious mole that makes you sooooo miserable. That cross on the tower in a small town is going to destroy the whole country???? Who has delusions now??? You people crack me up!!!
I never said that one cross would destroy the entire country now did I? Come on now vet, you need to learn how to make rational arguments and now fallacious straw-men. You're not going to get very far in this debate if keep debating imaginary people in your mind. You are also not making me miserable, the cross is not being taken down because anyone is miserable, it is being taken down because it violates the principles of church state separation.(The miserable person is the Mayor because of the egg on his face.)

The cross on the government water town represents a mixing of religion with government. Government's role is not religious in nature and religion's role has nothing to do with governing the people. Mixing the two has never been a good idea, government is suppose to offer equal protection to all people. By putting up a Christian religious symbol the Government of Whiteville is sending the message that non-Christians are second class citizens and not deserving the same protections of the preferred religion.

I could just keep repeating that it is unconstitutional but most Christians glass over and just turn stupid when you tell them that. I am trying to explain the reasons behind not mixing them or in this case allowing one to infest the other.

-----

On a side note, for someone who is a vet you sure write with a style like you just finished high school with the multiple punctuation marks and the extended "soooooo". You do realize that kids write like that.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of2,535
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Middleton Discussions

Search the Middleton Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
TN Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in... (Oct '10) 36 min WTSenior 138,762
TN Should state mandate immunizations? New require... (May '11) 2 hr WTH 8,871
Real Estate Agent 11 hr Yep 3
Bolivar Tennis courts and swimming pool 20 hr Summer Fun 5
Do you believe in a god? (Mar '13) Thu truth 208
Beautiful Blonde Thu Jesse James02 4
What Does That Mott Woman Hope To Gain? (Sep '11) Thu truth 11
•••
•••
•••
•••

Middleton Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Middleton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Middleton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Middleton
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••