• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists demand town remove church welcome signs

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A group of perpetually-offended atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are threatening to sue a small Wisconsin town because of two welcome signs.The signs, which were posted some 50 years ago, read, "The Churches of Oconomowoc Welcome You."
Click here for a free subscription to Todd's newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!
The Freedom From Religion Foundation said the welcome signs are unconstitutional because they are not neutral toward all faiths.
"It endorses religion over non-religion and Christianity over all other faiths," FFRF attorney Ryan Jayne wrote in a letter to town leaders.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is on a national crusade to eradicate public displays of the Christian faith. They typically target communities that do not have the financial resources to fight back.
Click to expand...

https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/atheists-demand-town-to-remove-church-welcome-signs

UHG... these intolerant ****s... the signs aren't hurting anything nor are they "unconstitutional". Bullies the lot of em
 
Some prefer to live in a vanilla world...my philosophy is variety is the spice of life...
 
Renae said:
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/atheists-demand-town-to-remove-church-welcome-signs

UHG... these intolerant ****s... the signs aren't hurting anything nor are they "unconstitutional". Bullies the lot of em
Click to expand...

1. You can rest assured when reading a Todd Starnes piece that you are not getting the whole story. He's pretty bad. Why on earth are you citing him?
2. OK, so the FFRF has a complaint. A pretty meritless one, I will say, but a complaint nonetheless. This must mean All Atheists Are Bad.

Why not say even "Atheist Group demands ..."? No, "atheists" demand. As if all atheists rose up in unison and demanded that Oconomowoc, WI remove its signs.

Trust me, 99.9% of atheists could not give less of a ****.

"Bullies the lot of em"

The lot of who?
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
1. You can rest assured when reading a Todd Starnes piece that you are not getting the whole story. He's pretty bad. Why on earth are you citing him?
2. OK, so the FFRF has a complaint. A pretty meritless one, I will say, but a complaint nonetheless. This must mean All Atheists Are Bad.

Why not say even "Atheist Group demands ..."? No, "atheists" demand. As if all atheists rose up in unison and demanded that Oconomowoc, WI remove its signs.

Trust me, 99.9% of atheists could not give less of a ****.

"Bullies the lot of em"

The lot of who?
Click to expand...

I was talking about this lot. This group. They like going after easy targets that can't fight back, it's accede to their demands or face court costs that are far too high. This sets a precedence. This is bad. I don't like this sort of tactic no matter whose doing it for whatever reason.
 
Renae said:
I was talking about this lot. This group. They like going after easy targets that can't fight back, it's accede to their demands or face court costs that are far too high. This sets a precedence. This is bad. I don't like this sort of tactic no matter whose doing it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Those ********ers don't always go after soft targets.They have been trying for over twenty years to remove this war memorial cross.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy
 
Renae said:
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/atheists-demand-town-to-remove-church-welcome-signs

UHG... these intolerant ****s... the signs aren't hurting anything nor are they "unconstitutional". Bullies the lot of em
Click to expand...

If they are official city signs, paid for and placed as only identifying signs of the city, than they may have a point. But only then. If they want to have other signs, place them just behind the first sign saying "and so do the atheists and other people of Oconomowoc".

If they are placed on private land and/or paid for by private funds, they should not sue anyone because than it can hardly by unconstitutional.
 
When I view DP on my phone it often cuts off the ends of thread titles. So I first read this thread title as "Atheists demand town remove church".

I am an activist atheist and even I thought that was going too far. ;)
 
Peter King said:
If they are official city signs, paid for and placed as only identifying signs of the city, than they may have a point. But only then. If they want to have other signs, place them just behind the first sign saying "and so do the atheists and other people of Oconomowoc".

If they are placed on private land and/or paid for by private funds, they should not sue anyone because than it can hardly by unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

They are official city signs.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is no problem for a sign to be there.. it just can't be a public sign for government. That violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

Did Congress make a law enabling that sign?
 
Atheists: Religious people are always trying to force their views on me!

Atheists: That sign has to go!

:lol:
 
RAMOSS said:
They are official city signs.
Click to expand...

Well that makes it an issue IMHO, private signs fine but not if the community pays for signs that promote a certain religion.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think the problem with too many atheists is they don't get laid enough.

Oconomowoc? Really? :roll:

Wikipedia:
The racial makeup of the city was 96.0% White, 0.5% African American, 0.2% Native American, 1.0% Asian, 1.1% from other races, and 1.2% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.5% of the population.
Click to expand...

I remember in high school we traveled out there in a car for a party. We were all black dudes. We were drinking too and in the car. Never got to the party because some cops pulled us over and took us to the station. They ended up letting us go though.

Anyways... it's very white town. And I'm not talking Albanian whites.

Might be some Hindu Indians out there though and a sprinkle of Muslims maybe. I mean really... "keep it moving" that town is not bothering you and is a speck on the map.
 
FastPace said:
I'm starting to think the problem with too many atheists is they don't get laid enough.

Oconomowoc? Really? :roll:

Wikipedia:


I remember in high school we traveled out there in a car for a party. We were all black dudes. We were drinking too and in the car. Never got to the party because some cops pulled us over and took us to the station. They ended up letting us go though.

Anyways... it's very white town. And I'm not talking Albanian whites.

Might be some Hindu Indians out there though and a sprinkle of Muslims maybe. I mean really... "keep it moving" that town is not bothering you and is a speck on the map.
Click to expand...

Um... wow.
 
Bodhisattva said:
They are idiots and as far as I can tell... the churches are not violating anything related to Separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...

If it's on public property they are.

Nothing to do with Separation of Church and State, which is not a Comstitutional issue.
 
jimbo said:
If it's on public property they are.

Nothing to do with Separation of Church and State, which is not a Comstitutional issue.
Click to expand...

If the Church is legally placing a Welcome Ad, then they are not violating any laws.
 
Peter King said:
If they are official city signs, paid for and placed as only identifying signs of the city, than they may have a point. But only then. If they want to have other signs, place them just behind the first sign saying "and so do the atheists and other people of Oconomowoc".

If they are placed on private land and/or paid for by private funds, they should not sue anyone because than it can hardly by unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I agree. :thumbs:
 
Bodhisattva said:
If the Church is legally placing a Welcome Ad, then they are not violating any laws.
Click to expand...

True, that's a given. The question seems to be whether the signs are on private or public property.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Show in case law where local or state gov'ts aren't covered by the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

The Constituition. As written States CONGRESS shall make no laws establishing a religion, and later states anything not noted herein is left to the states there is no wording about seperation of church and state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom