A Giant Cross in Dugger, Indiana Must Come Down (Fixed)

Spent some time arguing this earlier in the week on the Star’s site.  Lots of the usual red herrings about ‘offendedness’, at least one threat of harm to the complaintant accompanied by others calling them cowards for remaining anonymous.
Lots of ‘Sell to cross to a church to thumb their noses at nonChristians’ and ‘Satan is taking over America.’ With a dash of ‘This is such a trivial issue’.
 
A reasonable number of reasaonable people, thouhg, pointing out that this is against the law, which is the problem.
 
More than I’d expect from an ‘In God We Trust’ license plate state.
 
Oh, and one history teacher who checked my facebook page so he could revile me for being an atheist and having been ‘suckered’ into engaging with me.

This place needs a statue of Charles Darwin to go along with the cross. I’m sure the Christians wouldn’t mind. After all, “If you’re not for it, don’t look at it.”.

That thing is so ugly!!! I would have hated it even as a Christian. From the time I’ve spent in Indiana, they definitely do not understand what “aesthetically pleasing” means in the slightest.

 Violation of the Constitution, for starters.

I only ever drive through Indiana, but it seems that this sort of thing is pretty common.  It’s one small step on a very large path.

I’m surprised nobody’s compared the cross to the one standing behind it with all the wires on it.   But hooray for the city doing the right thing, even if they’re mealy-mouthed about it.

It really does not matter whether the cross is or is not doing any harm: that’s a red herring. 

What matters is that the land is government property, and the cross violates the law.

Honestly enough, I do not care if you erect crosses all over the nation, so long as they are on your personal property. 

It is an act of State endorsement of a religion which harms all people who are not a member of that religion by implicitly telling them they are not full members of the society

These are the same kind of people who complain about an atheist billboard on private property or atheist advertisements on a bus, and those things are only in their face a little while and not paid for by the government.

I read a lot of the comments over there, there just doesn’t seem to be any way they get it through their head. They don’t understand “separation of church and state,” the establishment clause, they don’t fathom its intent and mangle it into whatever they want, they assume it’s not bothering anyone that lives in their town because whoever it was is no doubt afraid to come forward, and they think we’re offended over “nothing.” If it’s “nothing,” why is moving it somewhere else like the government telling them they can’t believe in Jesus anymore than when the cross wasn’t there before two years ago? No, they are hard-headed.

A lot of them even say they don’t care what everyone believes, it doesn’t bother or concern them, and it’s everyone’s freedom of religion. They just don’t fucking get it.

My favorite comment is from an absolutely deranged person, apparently:
Kim Evans · Kokomo High School
BTW, NAMBLA is North American Man Boy Love Association. 35% of our Senators and congressmen belong to it. Their creed is when a boy reaches 12 years old, it’s his decision only if he wants to have sex with an adult male. Now, do you still support the sick homosexuals?Absolute gold.  What does that have to do with anything, you ask?  Hell if I know, but I guess we constitution-mongers  sure got told, eh?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

No law has been made, (That I know of, I think it’s just a town putting a cross up) and this is certainly free exercise of religion – maybe you meant to say,  “violation of the court’s interpretation of the constitution.”

How can you say that?  There’s someone on that comments board who claims to be the person who decides who is or isn’t Christian. 
They have to be, as I understand it, either Crazy, Lying, or telling the Absolute Truth, and all but the last option is theologically impossible, according to C.S. Lewis.
Therefore you must be some commie nazi liberal.
QED

Didn’t they have some kind of vote-like exhibition whether to put the cross right where it is? If the town council decides unanimously or one single person (that would be, uh, tyranny, a little bit actually) granted permission to post the cross on public land, that’s establishment. That’s imposing a governmental establishment of a religion or preferred religious belief. The members of the governing body are still free to practice their religious beliefs but the government business is to stay neutral. Not atheist, neutral, no cross, no star of david, no crescent moon, no “there is no god”, no buddha, no establishment whatsoever with regard to anyone’s religion or promoting a lack of one.

When the government prefers Christian symbols over the rest of them, the rest of us are not plainly free to believe what we wish. Christians just don’t get it because the government is not disagreeing with their beliefs, but taking the cross out of public property establishes no religion, and doesn’t take away any of your rights to believe whatever you like. The very idea that whoever reported this to FFRF hasn’t come forward indicates a lack of freedom to believe whatever he or she wants. Clearly this is because the very government of the town where they live has established a single religion, letting dissenters know their kind isn’t really welcome, that this isn’t their America. That’s what the harm is. But I predict you will be too dense to understand that your “freedom of religion” established on government property takes freedom of religion away from someone who disagrees with it.

Uh-huh. When a legally purchased atheist billboard goes up on an advertiser’s post, it offends sensibilities. When a bunch of Christians put an explicitly religious symbol (I know, some misinformed judge declared cross to be a “non-religious” symbol, but “Jesus saves?” Come on.) on public land, it “ain’t hurtin’ nobody” and “don’t look at it.” Gotcha.

Perhaps you’re right, given the utter seriousness of my reply.  I must learn to take these serious theological discussions less to heart.
I mean, it’s only the single most important fact in the universe.

 The 14th amendment means that state and local governments can’t make laws or ordinances that support religious establishment.

I don’t get all that fuss around a torture device. You might think that if skyfairy, who has been nailed to it, would’nt want to see that stuff again. I wonder how’d they react if somebody puts an iron maiden or an ass spreder torture pyramind on his lawn…

Then you can fart and say “don’t smell it”

 “maybe you meant to say,  “violation of the court’s interpretation of the constitution.””

Court interpretation is kinda how our legal system works. Did you fail civics or something?

I’ve an easy fix: Hang an S&H Green Stamps sign under it and call it a day . . . .

Take it down and put it up on private property. Simply as that. In fact every piece of private property in town should have a giant cross that says “Jesus Saves”. Regardless of what people say, religion is forever. God is truth. God is love. Think about the children, think about the morality that would be lost without Gods word. I’m sorry but goodness exist because God is real. Father, forgive them; for they not know what they do.

Poe’s Law: It is impossible to create a satire so extreme that no one will take it seriously.

 Poor Jackie! You’re still too dense to get it! Nobody is offended by the cross. What offends is when the government endorses a religion by putting up the religion’s symbol on government property. We would be just as offended if the government put up a sign saying “There is no god” on government property and we would work to get that sign taken down as well. If we ever come through your town, we will gladly admire all the crosses on display along the highway as long as they are not sitting on government property – and we will even be polite enough not to leave a note behind saying “I wonder why people spend money on silly displays like that rather than using their resources  for a good cause…”

I won’t continue a bashing argument with you. As I said, a mistake was made and it will be corrected. I thought I made it clear that I understand the reason behind your request. Oh, excuse me, demand. I find it sad you can’t make yourself clear without name calling. Many on here however are offended by the symbol of the cross. Read the comments yourself. They hide behind your argument. As far as ” our resources” this was privately built by a few people by hand and materials donated for the most part. We have helped many people thru many difficulties, because we are a small town and we pull together. You shouldn’t judge what you have not taken the time to learn. Have a great day!

They did they said well do we need to take all the powerlines down on the sides of the county road bc they are shaped like a cross!

 Well, at least we can agree on your first sentence there. 🙂

Yes, the morality that says it’s okay to stone children who curse their parents and force women to marry their rapists. Seriously, you don’t want to go down this road with morality; it’s not an argument you can win.

 Made up things that people believe in are hardly the most important “facts” in the universe.

The “truth” of the Christian god is no more or less important than the “truth” of Scientology or leprechauns. They are all silly and irrelevant, and making fun of them as such is a very legitimate discourse.

Calling someone dense ie: stupid, is name calling. You do understand not to call your children that don’t you? Gee I hope so with all your education! If your reading skills are up to par you will see both authors use the word in a detrimental manner. (that means in a mean way) or maybe your just…what was that non offensive word again…oh yeah DENSE. (remember that means stupid). Again I will repeat for those that are…what’s that word again… Oh yeah DENSE..(remember that means stupid) I get it, we get it, it will be fixed as we are not purposely unlawful people. When it was done the board who approved it didn’t realize their mistake. Not knowing something does not mean you know it and are ignoring it. I would love you to please tell me the reference material you have found that not knowing something means you are ignoring it. It’s your statement. Please clarify or were you just being…what’s that word again…oh yeah DENSE,(that means stupid)? I’m sure your not offended ? Have a great day!

Like they would know who Darwin is?

This is only an issue because Christians are the ONLY group that insists on erecting such displays. The ONLY thing that even comes close is when Jews display a Menorah  around December. And that is primarily in response to the Christians insisting on displaying Nativity scenes.

No other group displays such symbols so blatantly. No other organization, religious or otherwise, places icons or quotations on their lawns or cars as much as Christians do. Such displays, being on private property, are perfectly legal (assuming they don’t violate some other law), but they are still annoying. The last thing non-Christians want to see is such displays where they are NOT legal.

My only problem with these fights is they come from Washington based groups with axes to grind, not the local community. If someone in the community had a problem with it it’d be different. I think this kind of this is statute abuse. Jefferson was not referring to this in terms of church and state. This is the speech of the community not of the government…..I like the land sale approach though.