Not only is it sad, but is a shame that the 13% that do NOT believe in Religon can and DO TELL the 87% what we can NOT do.
when is the 87% going to stand up and FIGHT back and be PROUD of what Religon that they believe in.

Yet another atheist protest that goes to show how much they push there view's on everyone but yet they are misunderstood just read there signs
"Look love is all around you"
Christian's seem to be one of many religion's that do not push our religion and we are very accepting of what ever a person chooses to believe! !

Tim - nobody said you can;t be proud of your religion. Keep it off of the public water tower. Put it on your church and your home. Crybabies whining about losing their privilege.

Kimberly - If what you said was true, there would be no problem with the city taking down the cross. If christian's are accepting of what every person chooses to believe, but there seems to be a huge debate/argument over it now. People that support this are trying to push their beliefs on everyone by wanting it up there.

The FFRF is a nationwide nonprofit organization which is headquartered in Wisconsin. It's not just "a group from Wisconsin." I live in Oregon, and I'm a member.

Bruce: I am also a member of FFRF. Do you live anywhere near McMinnville, OR?

Nope, Portland.

Lucky me, I got to attend the national meeting this year on the cheap, since it was held in my hometown.

Bruce: Did you see Paris at the Hilton? I was there. Loved the Power Point by Dawkins. Dan and I go way back. Had lunch with him last year. Annie Laurie is so smart.

Yep, I was there. I thought Dawkins' presentation was a bit odd - it seemed like two different presentations mashed together, one after the other, to fill time. Dan & Laurie made great cases for how FFRF dues went towards worthy legal cases and public awareness campaigns. Dan's songs were delightful.

But Pete Boghossian's presentation was the most interesting part of it; in the middle of people who were just enjoying being among other like-minded people, he challenged us all to critically examine our own (atheist) belief system, if only to be able to honestly say that we're being open minded as we confront others. A lot of people were a bit taken aback by being reminded that we should take care to hold ourselves to intellectual rigor.

Keep an eye on that Boghossian guy. He's going to become a much bigger deal in the next year or two.

Organized atheism (or as I call it, capital A-theism) is clearly attempting to define itself in the social narrative in one of two ways: Either as a “protected class” much the way we see the LBGT community attempt to position itself, or as a godless religion. This is really their only recourse as most Atheist rhetoric only appeals to other hardcore atheists or juvenile delta bravos — most people, particularly women, reject it on the face of it.

They may or may not answer one day, it all depends on whether or not there (IS) a GOD. If there is, it's GOD's place to judge, and not the Christians walking his earth? You said "these groups disgust me." Isn't that what's wrong with religion, spending a few hours on Sunday preaching love and compassion, but leaving the building and passing judgment and hate? Hypocrisy? You stated "your" constitutional rights are being stepped on? What about the gay and lesbian taxpayers in America? They are individuals who have the "same" rights under our constitution, yet religion comes in to play and you've no problem discriminating against them? Hypocrisy? I agree, it's not like it used to be, and it certainly won't be in the future. In my opinion, Christians only have themselves to blame for a decline in religion. Unbelievable seeing Pastors preaching about locking gays and lesbians up in a fenced wire compound and flying over to drop them food? Sounds all too Hitler-ish to me. Point being, don't anyone their constitutional rights, Christians can't have it both ways.

WOW - Gregory, Awesome statement!! Kudos for being a HUMAN BEING!!
I'm not GLBT or an atheist -- I'm JUST a HUMAN BEING like Gregory!!

Actually, Christ was not born in December - he was born some time between April and September. Many scholars believe it was April because that was when taxes were to be collected and that is supposedly why Mary and Joseph were traveling to Jerusalem. Anyway, as a Jew, my constitutional rights are being stepped on constantly in this country - I should not have to be subjected to your Christian displays on public property, property which is paid for by my taxes as well as yours.

The cross is where he died. is that what is being celebrated when putting it up or wearing it? his death?

You are incorrect mom. There is plenty to celebrate in December without the folklore (and hypocrisy) that is Christmas The Winter Solstice for example, which marks the astronomical New Year, the return to longer days and the prospect of renewed life in the spring. This is a festival that predates Christianity and spawned many of the traditions the Christians later borrowed to celebrate Christmas, such as decorating trees, putting up holly and mistletoe, burning the Yule log and giving gifts. Or how about celebrating the ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15th, 1791. You know the Bill of Rights don't you? The document that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof;..." In other words, government should remain neutral when it comes to the endorsement of either religion or non-religion. And it does not matter if the majority want to have Christian symbols displayed on public property. Our constitution was written to protect the minority FROM the majority. And finally, please learn how to spell "atheist" correctly. "Here endeth the lesson."

Mom: You are catching on. There really is no reason to celebrate December 25. It's all about making big corporations richer. There was a time, long ago, when Xmas wasn't as exploitative as it is now. In Dickensian times, it was a necessary provision to offer some relief to the impoverished working class by compelling affluent land-owners and merchants to offset the disparity. Today, it's the other way around: Buying gifts benefits the affluent land owners and big corporations.

I've worked plenty of jobs where people don't get paid time off for Christmas. So do a lot of people. And it's had nothing to do whether that employee believed in God or not.

Why are atheists having a "pissy fit?" Because government property is being used for religious displays. Simply that. Have religious displays on private property instead , and there's no problem.

As a Christian, your constitutional rights are being defended by groups like these. If religion were allowed to become the law of the land, chances are it wouldn't be YOUR religion. Your religious rights would be far more in jeopardy. Remember, the pilgrims fled from a "Christian nation" for a reason.

It‘s laughable that militant atheists invest so much time and money into trying to prove something doesn’t exist. It may not exist to YOU, but it surely does to billions of Christians around the globe, so get out of my life and stay there. Just because you have something missing in your life and you can’t figure out what it is, don’t try to make our lives just as unhappy as your own.
Concering Hitler, he was really more of a pagan. He simply identified as Christian when it suited him politically, but in reality he believed in all kinds of goofy stuff. However, in the case of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot — those jolly fellows were atheists through and through.

Jay, the God of Abraham's existence is not the issue here, at all, and neither is atheism. There are many Christians who, as well, do not support religious displays on public property.

Logic dictates that true freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion, an axiom protected by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

It never ceases to amaze, how protecting religious freedoms for all is so often criticized by the some of the very people who benefit the most from it.

Good questions Ms. Rose. Why do I have to take vacation days for my holidays? Last year my entire company was closed for good Friday, as always, while I had to take a vacation day for Passover the very day before. You can celebrate/observe your religious beliefs on your own anyway you want, as long as it doesn't hurt others. I will fight for the right for you to do so. But the Constitution provides for separation of church and state. Putting up YOUR religious symbol on public property 100% violates the Constitution. I am not an atheist, far form it, and believe there is only one G-d, with many way to approach Him. But I do not force my beliefs on you and you may not legally do so to me in the great USA. And, yes, I have offered to work on Good Friday for one of my holidays instead, to no avail. I have worked on Xmas so that Christians do not have to do so. I never received any courtesy in return--in 50 years of working.

Thank you for working for me.... (not being a smart ass.)

Lets compromise, let the religions have there holiday's off and work on the days that other religions celebrate. As for athiest they do not believe in anything so they can work all of the time.
Why is it that the minorities with the big mouth pieces can get there way even though they step all over the majority.
Leave the government out of it and let the people involved settle it.
Or is it the big mouth pieces ,making noise, that scares people.
A lot of you will not like this, Well to damn bad. I have rights too, no one, including the government, should be able to take the away our rights. Not even Zars of the United States of America.

If people would read the Consitution they would see that all it says is that Congress can not set up a State Church. Freedom from religon no......freedom of relgion yes. It is really that simple. This country was founded on Judio-Christian beliefs.

Joe, you need a better understanding of the Establishment Clause. Our country cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Even many people of faith agree with this. The "free exercise thereof;" does not mean someone can force government to support their own personal religious views. Individuals are free to worship however they please, as long as it remains a matter of private conscience and is not practiced on taxpayer-owned property. To say the country was founded on Judeo (not Judio) -Christian values is antithetical to the purpose of a completely secular and godless constitution.

Good Friday is not a federal holiday. Christmas is.

And pointing out that having Christmas as a federal holiday violates separation of church and state doesn't help your argument, it hurts it. Perhaps Christmas should be removed from the list of federal holidays, thanks for bringing it up! We'll get to work on that.

Sorry atheists, neither you nor your lawyers can read. The First Amendment does not ban the display of religious signs anywhere. A cross in a parking lot at a war memorial neither establishes a religion as a national religion, prevents you from practicing your (non) religion, nor impairs your right to free speech. In fact, its removal limits the free speech of those who believe in God and and inhibits their free practice of their religion. Your arguments also show disrespect for the wishes of the military families and friends who put the symbols there.
They have an even greater right to express their respect and wishes than any of you do. The Establishment clause has been misinterpreted by dishonesy atheists for years into something it does not say. Try reading some history and the Constitution. Then you might actually gain some understanding. The establishment clause is there to preserve religious freedoms. The framers of the Constitution wanted there to be no official state recognized church like there was throughout Europe. That is it. Like I said, go do your homework.

"They have an even greater right to express their respect and wishes than any of you do."

Try telling that to Pat Tillman's family or the families of different faiths, who have lost loved ones in the military. The privilege to exhibit religious symbols in memoriam on public propety dedicated to honor fallen soldiers, is not a "greater right" of Christianity.

It is also entirely irrelevant, as the issue here is about a municipal water tower, not a war memorial.

"In fact, its removal limits the free speech of those who believe in God and and inhibits their free practice of their religion."

No, it does not. What it does is help guarantee those rights by keeping the government entirely secular. What part of that do you fail to understand, exactly?

"The establishment clause is there to preserve religious freedoms."

Correct. Which, by necessity, requires freedom from religion... all religions; no exceptions for Christianity.

"The framers of the Constitution wanted there to be no official state recognized church like there was throughout Europe."

Again you are correct. Displaying the Christian cross on state property, publicly funded by taxpayer money, is official state recognition by the promotion of Christianity.

This really is not that difficult to understand. Keeping the government entirely secular in no way limits free speech or the right to practice religion, in fact, doing so enforces those rights.

The FFRF is a nationwide non-profit organization. Just because they're based in Wisconsin doesn't make them a "Wisconsin organization," any more than the Red Cross is a "Washington D.C. organization" or the Coca-Cola corporation is an "Atlanta, Georgia" company. Referring to a national organization by where it's originally headquartered does not make it a local group. Although people like to use the "Wisconsin group" reference for the FFRF to make them seem foreign and small, they're as much a nationwide organization as any other. I'm an FFRF member and I live in Oregon.

Furthermore, the FFRF doesn't get involved in issues unless there's a local complainant - which means that at least one person in Alsip called them for legal help regarding this issue. That person's complaint is the basis of their letter, and had the mayor chosen to fight it, that person's residency would be the basis for the complaint having legal standing in court. Out-of-state groups can't file lawsuits in local court jurisdictions. What you're forgetting is that there are real human residents of Alsip who don't want their taxpayer-funded and government-owned water tower used as a religious display.

Then you, zula 5, have some very serious issues! As said before, a WI "foundation" should not have ANY rights outside of WI!

sure you do, and you probably what christmas off too and the rest of the holidays

YOU ARE JOKING! I live in Alsip and the cross has been ther for years. This is such a sad day that people from other states can open big mouth and are little town has to back down.............sad so sad;

"The cross has been there for years!" is not a legal defense.

"I've been beating my wife for years, and nobody complained until now" is not a legal defense either.

Good for you Karen, I can't agree more.. if the Atheists dont like it.. well dont look .. Let those of us who love the Holiday and the reason for the season enjoy it...
I put up decorations on my lawn and let anyone try to stop me..
Time All Christians' start to stand up and sue the Atheists for taking our protection to have our religion ....

Richard .... no said you cant put up anything on your lawn...

Karen, I am with you! One way around this is instead of having the Christmas display on town property, have it on private property, without any town funding. This way these anti-christmas groups can't say anything.

Maxine - YES!!! Have it on private property, without any town funding.
You're like the only one here who gets it.

Freedom FROM religion, NOT freedom to impose your religion on everyone else.

You say one thing, the Supreme Court says another. They're the ones who get to determine what's constitutional.

There's over a century of rock-solid jurisprudence regarding religious displays on government property. To object to the state of affairs is to display a breathtaking ignorance of the law.

Your town can have all the displays they want, on private property. Let's see if any of those complaining about it are actually willing to donate land and/or building materials to erect one.

the only time we get offended is when it involves us. if the govt is doing it, then you better believe you are paying for it ( you being the taxpayers ) religion doesn't bother me at all, as long as it isn't thrown into my face, just like i don't go around preaching to others about atheism. to each their own. why does it take religion to make people good. why not be good for yourself? i don't understand.

I don't see any atheists "spewing venomous hate" over this.

Christians, on the other hand...

No need for me to go back to school. The phrase “separation of church and state” is NOT in the Constitution of the United States. The phrase came from a LETTER, written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

And, as I wrote earlier, the First Amendment does not ban religion, but does maintain that Congress (the government) will not establish a religion.

First Amendment:
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.

Karen- nobody is stopping you from exercising your religion, or assembling. You are free to wear a cross, have a cross on your house, pray, worship, be in a prayer group, go to church, etc. You are NOT allowed to use PUBLIC TAXPAYER money to support a particular religion - in this case, a cross on a public water tower. Why is this hard?

Again, nobody is stopping anyone from worshiping. No one is prevented from decorating their private homes, or going to church, or praying, etc. The government is NOT oppressing you by not allowing PUBLIC MONEY to be used to support your particular religion. I don't remember seeing any Yom Kippur or Ramadan displays on the Alsip watertower. The uproar would be something to behold.

Hi Jon,

I realize that no one is preventing anyone from displaying Christmas, or other religious related items, on their private property.

I see that some people are claiming that display of a lighted cross violates the Constitution because it violates "separation of church and state". This phrase, this specific phrase IS NOT in our Constitution.

Some have INTERPRETED the display of the lighted cross by the Village of Alsip to be violating the First Amendment, with respect to the fact that Congress will not establish a religion.

If people are going to use the Constitution to defend the "rights" of the atheists, they really need to understand what the document states.

Zula, this "organization" is soooo far off the intelligence mark it is laughable! I think the FFRF should be counter-sued for all the problems they cause! They are no better than the West Baptist Church!

You're Right - NKG - the civil rights group who stands up for the separation of church and state is EXACTLY the same as the Westboro Baptist Church. It sounds like you've been drinking the bottles under the sink again.

So Karen - you are right that "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. For many years now though, the Supreme Court (both left and right leaning) has interpreted the Constitution to uphold this principle. The Constitution is a living document, as it was intended (think suffrage and prohibition). To your point, do you really think it would be a good idea to abandon the principle of separation of church and state? You think a theocracy would be the right way to go? Do you think your opinion in any way is molded by the fact that you are in the Christian majority? Step back and walk in the shoes of a minority religion for a moment and objectively think about how you would feel.
The final point now makes me think however that you are simply lying for Jeebus.
You seem to want to infer that the Chrisitian cross in this case is just all about Christmas and should not be construed as being a religious symbol. Yet you and your fellow loving Christians going apoplectic over its removal betrays your real intent. Ah, hypocrisy - it's what separates us from other animals (that and fear of vacuum cleaners).

Karen, do you know who also spoke of separation of Church and State? Jesus. "Render unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and render unto God what belongs to God."

Karen - regarding the 1st Amendment as written, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That which is explicitly prohibited to Congress (aka. the federal government) is also prohibited to all of the States, as well as counties and local governments; a municipality cannot vote to violate the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, the 1st Amendment might as well say "the Village of Alsip may not establish a religion."

That is why putting a cross on the water tower is unconstitutional.

Ca'mon jon... No one here would complain if Worth honored other religions holy days, would they? They would find some kind of their own version of the constitution and blame illegals.

I am an Alsip resident and I support that the Mayor did not want to take on the financial burden of a lawsuit.

What I do think, however, is that the RESIDENTS of my town should be the ones to decide this issue.

Seems like we are wasting a lot of time and money on this subject. Christians are just like any other people that don't want to be discrimated against and it is offensive for people to celebrate the holiday and for retail to make most of their years profit off a holiday that no one is allowed to recognize.

Who is not recognizing christmas?

Karen - how exactly would the RESIDENTS decide a court issue? You do realize that there is a such thing as a judicial branch, right?

Did you spit on their candy? I bet you saw a lady paying with food stamps and hop into a caddy too... Right...

It may not be a secular holiday, but it's a secular water tower, and that's a secular public school.

Too bad there isn't a PRIVATE (not tax payers) citizen who would agree to "foot the bill" for the cross & shut down the FFRF & atheist & keep their traditions. Shameful how some organizations feel they can control others.

It would be great if a PRIVATE organization hosted the cross and got it off of our water tower.

A private group supporting the cross display on private land wouldn't "shut down the FFRF" at all. They'd be perfectly happy with that result.

Besides atheists, there are others who do not celebrate Christmas. I am a religious person. I am a teacher. I had to take personal days for 35 years to celebrate my holidays. I have many friends who are doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who DID work on Christmas, so their Christian collegues to have the day off. Being that the schools are CLOSED, what was I to do? Sit on the front steps of the building? Christmas is a National Holiday. Everything ( or pretty much everything) is closed. What do you propose those of us who don't observe Christmas do - besides going to the movies and eating Chinese? I DO have a problem with my tax dollars going to support public, religious displays. I do not have a problem with what my neighbors, friends and local churches do on their property. Religion belongs in our homes, churches, synagogues and mosques - not in the public square. Christians need to get over the "persecution complex" and realize that while they may be a majority in the US, this is NOT a "Christian" country. Realize that there are "others" here, and we pay taxes, and probably do not want to support public displays of religion. Oh - Merry Christmas!

Well said Gilda!

First of all, I've worked plenty of jobs that make me work on Christmas. The government does not actually force employers to give paid time off on that day. The federal government does give that day off government employees, however.

I'd be fine with your suggestion of removing Christmas from the list of federal holidays. I agree that it does fudge the line in separation of church and state, but as it doesn't mandate any explicitly religious behavior (people who get the day off can do whatever they like) it's not particularly egregious.

Christmas still exists.

I agree, however I think the spot should be rented out, to say a church or wealthy individual, and provide money to the village. This should resolve the issue of spending tax payer money.

Grunty—That's an interesting idea.

Says Who!
How many years was this done? Why did not someone say something long before this? If you don't like it, don't look at it.
It is the Supreme Court That is interpeting the laws, when there job is to enforce the the laws as they were written.

The problem is that "the spot" is a local water tower. It can't reasonably be "rented out," since it's needed to serve the community. Another spot should be chosen for the display.

There was a Winter celebration long before the christians took it over...complete with trees, yule logs, and gifts.

That's right, because there are no other xian billboards out there - totally new idea. And no one is ever subjected to all of the church marquees as they drive around.
Trust me Jimmy, the xian message is getting out, just fewer and fewer people are buying it. And what happens when non-believers erect a sign that says something as innocuous as "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."? The xian persecution complex kicks in full tilt, and it's typically vandalized. More xian loving. Hmmm - it's almost as if you guys are a little too unsure of your own mythologies, and react strongly when someone asks too tough of a question.

Alsip has put up the cross for over 30 years.

And, no, Alsip does not put up a manger for Easter. In fact, no city puts up a manger for Easter as it is more of a Christmas display to put up a manger (since that represents where the Christ-child was born and Christmas celebrates his birth).

Karen, that was the point - the cross explicitly references an event that occured on Easter (Christ's crucifixion), so it's not particularly Christmas-y.

"Don't look at the giant lit-up cross towering over the city."

That's nice.

wow... black slaves were used for hundreds of years. (a lot longer than that cross was hanging there) then some people who didn't even have slaves ruined it for everyone. If they didn't like the idea of slavery than don't have a slave. just another example of some group standing up for the rights of the minority while the majority suffers.

Crosses are worn by may people that are not Christians you are defining it as Christian.

/like

The "out of state group" who would ultimately decide it is the U.S. Constitution.

And gnosticism is not agnosticism.

So if a majority of residents voted for a Muslim crescent moon, you'd be cool with that? Well, given your comment about minorities pushing people around, I would guess, no.

The majority of citizens back in the 40's and 50's thought it should be unlawful for blacks and whites to marry. Are you getting the whole "tyranny of the majority" thing yet?

If it really was just "stupid cross stuff," then there wouldn't be a possible lawsuit threatened over the removal of it.

Indeed. Let's all just forget about this and move on.

I guess the nice thing about our country is you can at least object to it where in many countries that would not be allowed and you might be killed for objecting.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

I know, I know. Facts are stubborn things.

The U.S. has always been founded on the concept of inalienable rights. If you oppose that, then you've never liked the U.S.

Modeerf?

Just like these idiots in the Midwest who protest military funerals--when does this stop?! I am so sick of the way this country is headed and am actively researching other countries after being born here 68 years ago. This is NOT the wonderful scenario I grew up and was raised in. It is becoming completely remote from those wonderful days. They were days of innocence and wonderment and are sorely missed. The voices of a very few miscreants who have nothing better to do can ruin the joy for so many. Ludicrous and sad. To those who support such doltish behavior--HUMBUG TO YOU ALL!

" researching other countries to live in"....
This is to funny...

Budo is comparing someone who stands up for their right not to have a specific religion jammed down their throat with a taxpayer funded religious display with the non-humans of the Westboro Baptist Chuch. Budo is living proof that gray hair does not equal wisdom.

budo - Rio De Janeiro has an enormous statue of Christ towering over the city. If living under giant displays of Christianity is the "wonderful" past that you require in order to be happy, I recommend Brazil.

Jon, No ones rights are being trampled on by having a cross anywhere. I urge all people of fair mind to band together to oppose morons like you who feel so threatened by the sight or the presence of an item of a religious nature. If you don't believe it it, why are you so obsessed with its removal? Are you so offended by the thought that some higher power may judge you after you die. You can avoid that fate if you would just stop being a jerk.

Right, Frank. I'm sure you would be happy to see an Islamic crescent on Bridgeview city hall. Might not be singing the same tune then.

And nowhere did I say I was not a Christian. You assume too much.

Frank, its a question of taxpayer dollars. That's the basis upon which any legal complaint can be filed. The water tower is paid for by tax dollars. Therefore, it can't be used for religious displays.

Put the cross up somewhere else, on private property, and nobody can do a thing about it. Nobody would even try to. Which proves the point that nobody is "offended by seeing it." Rather, it's an offense to the constitution of the U.S.A. when placed on public property, as would be the case for any other religious symbol.

Jon, Per your comment regarding the Islamic Crescent, allow me to congraduate you on being an equal opportunity bigot.

Frank is calling me a bigot now for pointing out the hypocrisy and short shortsightedness of the fanatics on this website.

Would you or would you not be OK with the religious symbol of another sect on a public building? In light of the massive freakout about the idea of serving Islamic compliant halal food at area public schools, this is quite funny. Dissonance much?

"if some 1 ownes a store or , they ought be able 2 put up anything they want"

Absolutely. The FFRF doesn't dispute this. Put up whatever you want over your store.

"pple should have right 2 sign a pettion to do something they want public the majority win its that simmple"

Actually, the U.S. Constitution has certain protected rights that can't be voted away by the majority. It's listed in the "Bill of Rights." Even if 99% of your town wants to take away your rights, they don't get to. That's what "rights" are all about.

Jon, i agree with your points.. and i have many skills... not just reading skills ...

I agree with Bob. Not to mention Jon is one of the few on here who has impeccable grammar :)

Which friends... and what countries... maybe the problem is you... first step is to get beyond the denial.

Protection of minorities (esp. religious minorities) from the tyranny of the majority has been a bedrock principle of the U.S.A. since its founding.

All this "country is going downhill" talk must assume that you're well over 200 years old.

Jay,
You have the contact info? Make the call. From your post it appears that you live there. I'll back it up from here in NJ if I can help.

How many times has the ACLJ won a case forcing a local government to put up a religious display?

Here's what the ALCJ has to say about public religious displays:

http://aclj.org/christmas-holiday/public-christmas-displays

According to this, they wouldn't take your case.

They should put it up somewhere else.

Oh, if only Alsip had some religious people or churches that had a bit of land to give a new home to the cross...

Re ACLJ:

"Sad that group from another state tells a town what they cannot do. Disgusting."

THAT WAS THE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD! How quickly that's forgotten. Apparently the issue isn't the out-of-towners.

Jay,
Read your posts, Sent an email to jsekulow@action.aclj.org as soon as I got home from work. I will pass this on to all in my addressbook.

ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.

@Jay Wesley—Do you want to comment for a story? Please email me at nicks@patch.com with how I can contact you.

I doubt they will be able to help. Here's their resource page.

http://aclj.org/christmas-holiday/public-christmas-displays

It doesn't matter, the mob is about to call Fox News!

Since the mayor isn't pressing it, it will die down. If he had chose to spend Alsip's tax dollars on defending it in court, then it would escalate. But no news agency wants to report on a moot point.

I agree - all of these people above can't seem to understand why it is a bad idea for Alsip to sponsor one particular religion over the others.

I agree Debbie: It's disgusting to have had that symbol of torture and death sitting up on that tower for so long. It's about time that it comes crashing down.

That's a great idea!

Maybe if all of the Christians in Alsip did it, it would make for a far lovelier display!

Are you seriously that dense? Try using the Google to search the Interwebz. You will find your answer - see if the Supreme Court's ruling is uplifting to your xian sensibilities. While you are at it, read up on the Pledge of Allegiance and McCarthyism. Learning is fun.

That was added in 1956, during the McCarthy era communist witch-hunts. Before that, our money used to say "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many, one").

So, another example of religion being used by the small-minded to divide us where we formerly had been united.

Silly comment - nobody is proposing that.

Sadly, a lot of Christians in small towns would rather shove their religion in the government's face than practice their religion themselves. Seriously, it's more important to them to force their religion on the public than to merely express their religion privately. If they aren't allowed to use their religion to shove crosses down the throats of the public, then they don't care about their religion at all. From their point of view, it's a weapon or it's nothing.

Wow - gibberish

No, the FFRF would definitely get involved if a local person contacted them about that too.

However, it would be a nice thought if the Alsip water tower put up a menorah during Hannukah, a crecent/star during Ramadan, and a cross before/on Christmas. That'd be pretty nice. However, the mayor of Alsip stated that such a system would also be too cost-prohibitive.

Nobody is saying people can't display what they want - in their homes, on their property, on a church. Keep it off of the public Alsip water tower!
Why is this a difficult concept?

This country was founded on Christianity? Epic fail. You really should return that David Barton DVD...like now.

Christians can display whatever they want. So can anyone else.

The government (who owns the water tower) cannot display one religion's symbol.

This is really simple.

Also, this country was not founded on Christianity. It was founded on Enlightenment philosophy.

Cori,
Christianity is a religion. All the others you listed are denominations (groups who have the same fundamental Christian beliefs, but view some things within that religion a little differently). Welfare and the other things listed are not religions, therefore they do not fall under the 1st amendment. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

First, Christianity is a religion. The other things you mentioned are denominations of that religion.

Second, I wish my tax dollars didn't go to war, but they do. But there isn't a Constitutional amendment against war. However, there is one against the establishment of religion.

Third, if our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, then name one of them.

Luckily, Mayor Kitching is smart enough to have sought the advice of consul on this matter. There is no case. Research the issue for 5 minutes and you will see that. Your comments about being a sissy and the devil(?) are equally ridiculous. Grow up.

It's not a question of merely having guts, it's a question of the ratio of guts vs. knowledge of the Constitution.

It would be great if the cross were on private property and paid for with private funds.

The government is not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" relative to religions freedom if the water tower cross is removed. You are not being prevented at all from exercising your religion. Sorry.

It is simply not appropriate for Alsip to support a particular religion by paying for a latin cross to displayed on its publicly funded water tower - especially when there are no other religions represented as part of a broader holiday display. It is the city of Alsip, not the Christian Kingdom of Alsip.

Read about the WWI memorial cross in the Mojave Desert. Interesting solution, and similar to what you propose. Cap'n, this case is open and shut. No one will take it - it's a waste of taxpayer resources - you will lose with 100% certainty. The government simply cannot use public funds to promote any brand of faith. That is not prohibiting free exercise of religion - you can pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster all day long. You just cannot use public money to buy a giant meatball and put in on the water tower, which is government property. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend, and why they don't grasp that it protects them as much as anyone else.

The town can hardly lease their water tower to a private organization. Alsip needs water.

VERY WELL SAID. MAY GOD BLESS YOU.

Jackie, I don't believe that for one celestial minute. You don't believe in a god. If you apply make-up, then you are a hypocrite and a liar, or both. Your god has given you a pure and pretty face, yet you don't trust your own god so you go about making another face to suit your fancy. Repent darling.

A comment was removed because it contained profanity that violated Patch's Terms of Use.

"I guarantee if your neighbor put a cross in his front yard that you had to look at all day long, you would complain and file a lawsuit on your neighbor."

No, I would not. Nor would I have any basis for such a lawsuit.

Lots of neighborhoods have ostentatious Christian lighting displays during the holiday season. Lots of people like visiting those neighborhoods to look at them. Even us atheists enjoy checking them out.

The basis of the law involved here goes all the way back to the founding of the country. It's not a recent development - it has ALWAYS been this way. If you think the country is "going downhill" because of it, then you must be well over 200 years old.

Hi Jon! Could you reach out to me? I'd like to talk with you about the story. My email address is nicks@patch.com and my phone number is 630-666-8863. Thanks.

LOL. "I'm being oppressed because I'm not free to jam my religious beliefs down the throats of others".

Pamela—Do you mean "freedom FROM religious persecution?"

The poor, downtrodden, beleaguered 75% majority under such persecution. How ever will they survive?

Nick - no, Pamela clearly means "freedom OF religious persecution."

She is wrong, but that's what she believes.

Take if off of the money, then as it was originally made prior to the bigoted witch hunt in the 1950's

E Pluribus Unum is a far, far better and more inclusive motto. We should return to it.

Read up on ceremonial deism, and how your pet phrase has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". I'm guessing that is not what you had in mind, but it works for me, and I don't believe Odin the Allfather or the baby Jeebus gets teary eyed when I stuff a dollar into a strippers g-string.

Ah yes, atheists should not be allowed to use money... "It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark ... so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark..." Revelations 13:16-17

Never thought "In God We Trust" would turn out to be that "mark," but in light of your argument it makes a certain sick kind of sense.

If that court case makes you feel hopeful good for you!!! I mean that sincerely, dear. It's a long shot but certainly with merit, even though very small. I am not pushing anything. The days of the 'majority' pushing it's beliefs on others is over. One would hope slavery abolition, women voting, civil liberties, more women's rights, etc, should have each been enough to open peoples eyes. I am confident we are heading further in the direction of what our founding fathers were thinking about. And state's rights, heck yes!!!

Anthony - you rascal you - did you read past the first paragraph, or are you lying for Jeebus? The issue of the cross on public land wasn't at issue - that was clearly illegal. What was at issue in the case was how this was resolved. The government traded the small parcel of land with the cross on it to a private citizen/organization in exchange for land elsewhere. The case brought before the Supreme Court was around the legality of that land transfer and attempts to skirt the law. The cross indeed is still standing - on PRIVATE land!
You sound like the screeching far right of the Repub party that is going to double-down on the social/moral positions that led to the Repubs getting their butts handed to them in Senate races. By all means, keep digging. Yes - if more idiots like Scalia get on the court, the law could change and we could try out theocracy as the next experiment. Thankfully Obama won and will appoint 2 if not 3 liberal justices.

"...but because of the right of the majority the party will adapt."

The Republican party isn't doing so hot on that "majority" thing, last time we checked.

Donate your money and time to something useful, like feeding hungry children, better books at schools, children with no homes, adult literacy, volunteer for hospice, deliver food for meals on wheels. There are countless ways to assist your community, furthering a religious agenda, as far as I can tell is not the useful.

The way to where???

LOL. Sure it is.

In theory, the mayor could have done that, because he's not establishing one religion over another. But I'm sure many of the same people screaming here about oppressed Christians would poop their pants in rage if they saw a Muslim crescent on the water tower. Plus, there's the "and so on." Scientology is an officially recognized religion (for tax purposes). Are you going to be OK with a giant e-meter on the water tower for part of the year?

Don't forget the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - the true Pastafarians. Those fundamentalist Church of the FSM people are seriously misguided. May you be touched by his noodley appendage.

Ramen!

The mayor recognized that putting up other displays for other religions would have made it legal, but he doesn't have the budget to do that.

I agree that it would make for a lovely, inclusive display, but there's a cost factor involved.

Better to move the cross to a private location and collect private donations for a replacement display.

Abe Lincoln, George Washington and MLK were real people. Your Jesus is fiction.

Abe Lincoln, George Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all U.S. citizens. That's a significant difference regarding a U.S. holiday.

You're not real either.

Thank you STM - for sharing your faith in God! God showed you His Grace - it's amazing that we all get exactly what we need! (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me). Have a very Merry Christmas!