Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 11

It’s the little stories like this one that help restore our faith in humanity.

For years, a Post Office in the small town of Pittsburg, Kansas has kept a “God Bless America” banner hanging from the side of their building.

Of course, in the age of political correctness, angry atheists aligned with a Wisconsin-based group, Freedom From Religious Foundation, claimed that the banner violated the separation of church and state.

A few days after the banner was forced down, a local business Jakes Fireworks responded by creating 1,200 “God Bless America” yard signs and banners.

They started passing them out at 11 a.m. and finished by 11:45 a.m.

Now residents of the town are saying you can’t drive a block without seeing a “God Bless America” banner or American flag.

Here are some of the best reactions:

no border

Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 11.06.13 AM

Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 11

Couldn’t be prouder to be an American, are you?

  • malclave

    If atheists don’t believe in God, why are they so afraid of Him?

    • journogal

      Or afraid of a sign/banner that only has words on it. It isn’t actively trying to convert anyone.

      • R_Stephan

        It’s telling me what to do. I can feel it. Feelings matter dangit.

    • grais

      The smart ones, the rational ones, the un-enraged ones aren’t.

      • nukethedems

        Oddly, it takes more faith to be a non-believer. That’s the left for you. Their whole lives are one big contradiction in terms.
        I’d be happy if they’d just stop taking Christian tax dollars.

        • Amy

          It takes zero faith to not believe in a deity

    • Amy

      Yahweh is a fairly evil person so I understand why people don’t like ‘him.’

    • The_Wretched

      I’m not afraid of anyone’s god(s). Their followers putting up gang signs everywhere though are a bit alarming. Why not just keep government free from religion and have it run on the duly passed laws of the country?

  • Fire and Adjust!

    This should happen EVERYWHERE freedom from religion foundation tries to impose its will………… Maybe they’d cut their crap out if they’d see that their idiocy has an exponentially opposite effect…………at the very least their temper tantrums would be glorious to watch……..

    • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!
    • CallsignMissing

      Wow, a bunch of private citizens put up signs on private property – incidentally providing free advertising for a fireworks shop, by the way. I’m sure Jake is happy about that, just as I’m sure that the advertising being provided by you guys was just a by-product and not his primary motive

      What makes you think the FFRF cares about that at all? It’s completely irrelevant.

  • Acuda4me ✓Please!

    If it were me, I point at the building and say “See that blank spot there, that’s the atheist’s equal time message.”

  • R_Stephan

    Atheism is the easiest religion to troll.

    • Banana Republic

      They make themselves easy targets.

    • The_Wretched

      If there is something I learned being raised catholic is that jesus really like trolling. that’s how he rolled, like a troll.

  • JenniferP

    Perfect! God BLESS America!!

  • © Sponge

    There is no law requiring this “separation of church and state” they keep pounding on about.

    The government shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free practice thereof.

    Flying a banner with the name God on it on a public building is not a LAW requiring you to practice a religion.

    • bicentennialguy

      “Separation of Church and State” – another Supreme Court winner. /s

      • Quality

        You mean another winner by Jefferson and Madison and the founding fathers. Who understood that having religion entangled with government was poisonous to them both.

      • JosephBloughs ✓Viagrafied

        “Legislation from the Bench”, proudly in the Constitution since… wait, still checking…. wait… wait…

        • Nullifidian

          I’ll help: since Articles III and VI of the Constitution were written. Judicial review is implicit in these articles, and has explicitly been a part of U. S. jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison. And when you have the Supreme Court weighing on the constitutionality of certain laws, every aggrieved losing party is naturally going to accuse them of “legislating from the bench” regardless of whether the charge has any merit.

          • JosephBloughs ✓Viagrafied

            I’m pretty sure the words “gay” and “marriage” are not in the constitution, but that doesn’t stop them from ruling on the “constitutionality” of both.

          • The_Wretched

            You won’t see ‘1 M + 1 F’ either.

          • Nullifidian

            Which is precisely what judicial review is. If everything were explicitly laid out in the Constitution for all time and for everyone to see, then there would be no need for interpretation of the text. Obergefell is in the same tradition as the Loving decision, and was reached for the same reason. If “marriage” isn’t in the Constitution with reference to gay marriage, then it’s no more in the Constitution with reference to interracial marriage. Would you like to condemn the Loving decision, then, and bring back anti-miscegenation laws?

          • JosephBloughs ✓Viagrafied

            It’s like you said earlier, it’s implicit. Jjudicial review isn’t actually in the constitution either, usurped by the judiciary long ago. Per the 10th Amendment that power should be vested solely to the states, but many like to pick and choose their favorite amendments and ignore (or outright violate) the rest.

    • Quality

      The 14th Amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment to all levels of government.

      It’s great if people want to put up religious banners on their personal property. But it shouldn’t be on government property.

      • © Sponge

        Again, hanging a sign is not a law. This country was founded by men with a HEAVY faith in God. Sorry, but God is in a lot of what they did and wrote. But they don’t force ANYONE to practice any of it.

        • Quality

          Again, it’s been incorporated by the 14th Amendment. It’s not limited to laws, but all government actions. Do you believe the post office could refuse to deliver mail to Catholics? Or refuse to mail out Republican political mailers? Because if it only applies to laws, both of those actions would be totally fine.

          • © Sponge

            What part of the 14th Amendment do you believe addresses this? What part of hanging a sign bearing God’s name is DENYING anyone anything?

          • Quality

            Incorporation comes through the Due Process Clause.

            To be sure, hanging a religion banner is pretty low on the scale of church-state separation violations. But it remains inappropriate. If you have trouble seeing why it’s a problem, simply imaging it being a religion other than your own. Would you like an “Allahu Akbar” sign at your local post office?

          • © Sponge

            Of course not, but me being offended by something is not me being forced by law to participate in something. I was offended that the White House was lit rainbow after the Supreme Court decision for gay marriage, but I don’t have to participate in it or accept it.

          • Quality

            CSS isn’t limited to you being forced to participate in something.

          • thedeplorableblonde

            If I was living in Oman, I’d expect it and get on with my day.

          • Wardog00

            Stop using all US currency: you are in danger of being evangelized!!!!!!

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            There is no “separation of Church and State” in the First Amendment to be incorporated anywhere.

          • Quality

            You’re right. Madison, who wrote it, and Jefferson, who wrote the inspiration for it, both had no idea what they were talking about. But Christian dominionists who want to enforce Christian beliefs on everyone (while ironically complaining about Sharia law) are right.

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            I love how all you anti-theists abuse a small portion of a quote from Jefferson to push your lie-filled agenda, which includes lying about some supposed “dominionist conspiracy”. You’re insane.

          • Quality

            The only abuse occurring is by Christians who want to use government resources and power to promote their religious beliefs. I mean, I understand that Christianity is struggling in this country, but that’s not the way to help it.

            I didn’t invoke any conspiracy. Christians who want Creationism taught in schools, or Christian beliefs on homosexuality or birth control embedded into law, or for “God’s law” to be above the Constitution aren’t hiding in the shadows. They’re quite direct about it.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            You are the ones dragging birth control into any part of the law.
            Birth control is legal and always will be.
            Now use it and quit making babies you don’t want.
            And if you screw that up, grant your accidental child the same humanity you would to a stray dog.

          • Quality

            I think birth control should be easily accessible and a part of any standard health care coverage plan. Some people feel a need to specifically exclude it. Some people, like Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, think that Griswold vs Connecticut was a bad decision and states should be able to make contraception use illegal.

            Thanks for the stereotyping. Got any more? Maybe something about welfare or being a hippie?

          • journogal

            How is birth control not easily accessible? I’ve never had an issue going to the ob/gyn, getting a prescription, getting it filled, getting prenatal care and having my children – under both Democrat and Republican administrations. And I live in a red state to boot. No one ever denied me of anything, nor stopped me from going to the doctor.

            Now, on the other hand, I didn’t expect and still don’t expect taxpayers to pay for anything. It’s my responsibility to pay for myself, not anyone else’s.

          • Quality

            It is pretty easily accessible. I think it best if it’s even more easily accessible, particularly amongst the poor, who stand to face the worst consequences in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

          • journogal

            It is accessible to the poor at the clinics. They have to go. They have to be proactive. They aren’t victims that can’t take care of themselves.

          • Quality

            The clinics that you want to lose their funding?

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            There are more women’s health clinics by orders of magnitude than the abortion mills you’re so proud of.

          • spaceycakes

            oo lies, miss liza–she answered your claim. You changed the subject

          • Quality

            That’s directly applicable to the subject.

          • journogal

            You – so you know me personally? Can you please provide my exact words saying this? I only speak for myself, so I’ll await your credible proof where I’ve said this. Surely, you wouldn’t have put words in my mouth.

          • Quality

            I apologize if my assumption was unwarrented. Do you support the defunding of PP or no?

          • journogal

            You also assumed I was referencing PP; actually I was talking about health clinics.

          • Quality

            PP is included in health clinics. Do you support the defunding of PP or no?

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            That birth control thing. Why do you want 80 year old nuns to pay for your birth control? Can’t handle being responsible for your own actions?

          • Quality

            I don’t want 80 year old nuns to pay for my birth control. They were given a method to opt out of coverage.

          • globalcrap

            Your commie self loves that American money, with “God” on it

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            Which Christian laws require women to cover themselves so men without self-control don’t get all worked up?

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            I don’t know. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings any if my special lady thought it was Halloween every night of the year…

          • Finrod Felagund

            Show me where Madison called it “separation of church and state”. Jefferson was Ambassador to France when the Bill of Rights was being passed by the First Congress and didn’t write about “separation of church and state” until years later.

            Sorry, but the facts just knocked your argument down and kicked it in the crotch.

          • Quality

            Madison didn’t call it the separation of church and state. But he clearly explained it’s purpose: “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation

            of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their

            conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined

            together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to

            conform.”

            Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statue for Establishing Religious Freedom, which was influential in the formation of the 1A.

            Sorry, but your silly semantic argument (“he didn’t use that exact phrase!!!”) and ignorance of Jefferson’s work caused you to kick yourself in the crotch.

          • Finrod Felagund

            He used “establish a religion”, just like the First Amendment says, which means no Church of the United States.

            Get that through your thick skull, moron.

          • Quality

            It was a 52-word quote. Why did you stop at the 6th word?

            Additionally, can you tell me why you’d like to live in a nation where the government pushes a particular religion or beliefs?

          • Finrod Felagund

            Beat up that strawman! But I guess you can’t win any arguments without putting words in other people’s mouths. You’re doing it with Madison, after all.

          • Quality

            What’s the strawman? Are you saying you DO support church-state separation?

            I didn’t put any words in Madison’s mouth. I’m just quoting him. Here’s the quote again. Maybe this time you can get all the way through it.
            “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation

            of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their

            conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined

            together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to

            conform.”

          • Finrod Felagund

            You still haven’t figured out what it means to “establish a religion”, and until you do, idiocy will continue in you.

          • Quality

            “Establish a religion” doesn’t only mean to create an official federal state religion. And *even if it did*, you’re still ignoring the rest of the quote which clearly describes other actions (compelling people to worship in any way, giving any sect a pre-eminence) also prohibited by the 1A.

          • Finrod Felagund

            You keep saying the First Amendment says things it DOES NOT SAY. Maybe you’re confused with the USSR Constitution, which DOES say that the Church and the State are separate.

            You need remedial reading lessons.

          • Quality

            You keep saying it says things it doesn’t. It makes a broad statement and you’re making it extremely narrow. I’ve provided support for my interpretation straight from the writer himself.

          • Quality

            You didn’t say what the strawman was. What was it?

          • Finrod Felagund

            You were putting words in my mouth, illiterate cretin.

          • Quality

            What words did I put in your mouth?

          • CrazyDaze✓veridicous

            How is it incorporated into the 14th Amendment? I can’t see where it states anything about government actions?

          • Quality

            Incorporated by the 14th Amendment, not into the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights, where applicable, apply to the states. They can’t violate 2nd Amendment rights, or stop freedom of speech, or prevent freedom of religion. Are you just getting hung up on the “Congress” portion of the 1A?

          • Wardog00

            I bet you use US currency, which has the US motto “In God We Trust”. SCOTUS has already ruled that this is not an establishment of religion; a banner essentially saying the same thing as our National Motto is not an establishment of religion

          • Quality

            The Supreme Court doesn’t often like to rock the boat, and has allowed “ceremonial deism”, which are things they say have been around so long that they’ve lost all religious meaning, like In God We Trust as the (second) motto.

          • Wardog00

            And the banner on the post office would be in the same category and should not have come down.

          • Quality

            Seems like a bit of a loophole there. If you get away with a violation for long enough, it becomes tradition and it’s no longer a violation?

          • Wardog00

            Good enough for the Supreme Court, good enough for me.

          • Quality

            I guess that means you agree with all their other decisions on Separation of Church and State?

          • Wardog00

            Generally I do agree with their decision. I disagreed on several, like Dredd Scott and RoevWade; and on the Kelo decision.
            Most of the time they get things right.

        • The_Wretched

          Only the same men left that god out of the Constitution and instead refer to nature. the other two ‘god/religion’ mentions were negative, as in keep god(s) out of government.

      • grais

        Technically, I believe you’re right. I just can’t understand what they really think they’re accomplishing. Especially now, after this reaction. I mean, what’s the friggin’ point?

        • Quality

          The point is government neutrality towards religion.

          • grais

            Not really much of a point, then.

            I’ve also noticed that someone here is as afraid of your posts as that group that’s so afraid of that God Bless America banner. I’ve tried to converse with you elsewhere, but, alas, you’ve been shut up by someone.

            I’ll leave now, disgusted. Have a nice day.

          • Quality

            I have noticed some of my posts being deleted, but didn’t see any in this thread. Lovely.

      • bicentennialguy

        This should help you out.

        http://tinyurl.com/2d2hlmc

        • Quality

          Sorry, dominionist propaganda isn’t very convincing. This writer looks like he’s a fan of David Barton’s Jefferson Lies.

      • tops116 ✓Quipper

        If atheists have a problem with God being on government property, then I encourage all atheists to give me their money for safekeeping.

        • Quality

          lol

          • Fingolfin

            Why not? Your money has God on it, aren’t you butthurt?

          • Quality

            Not at all.

          • globalcrap

            If your receiving welfare and free stuff ,in your O Bogus self “God”doesn’t matter.

          • Quality

            I don’t receive any form of government assistance.

          • globalcrap

            More liberal socialist O BogusB S.

          • Quality

            lol, so you literally believe that anyone who supports Separation of Church and State is on government assistance?

          • globalcrap

            Just all you O Bogus Atheist that are on free stuff

          • Quality

            Among religious demographics, atheists/agnostics rank the highest in educational attainment and are second (to White Catholics) in income. Your claim falls flat.

          • globalcrap

            More liberal O Bogus free stuff B S

          • Quality
          • Wardog00

            Proof once again that education does not necessarily imply intelligence. But good to know that White Catholics are doing so well in income.

          • Quality

            How does that prove education doesn’t imply intelligence?

          • Wardog00

            And you keep on proving I am right.

          • Quality

            Good answer. Very substantive.

          • spaceycakes

            not all–the rest just hate the ‘haves’

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            They love money more than they hate God.

      • Crakalakin

        The First Amendment simply states the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Was there a law passed I don’t know about where the US establishes a religion?

        P.S. I’m an atheist.

        • Quality

          Respecting means “related to”. The government will make no law related to the establishment of religion.

          Per Madison, what this means is:
          “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation

          of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their

          conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined

          together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to

          conform”

          Essentially, the government should not promote any religion.

          • Crakalakin

            No, not essentially. It explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It speaks SPECIFICALLY about passing laws and doesn’t infer anything at all about promoting anything.

          • Quality

            Yes, essentially. You’re ignoring that all federal actions operate through Congress by way of law or funding (which is also law). Incorporation then extended that to the states.

            Alternatively, you’d have to believe that anything in the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the states, and they could, for instance, confiscate any guns you own, or refuse to give you a trial.

          • Crakalakin

            No, the 14th Amendment exists so that all states will operate under the authority of the Constitution. That’s basic high-school government.
            You are still ignoring the text of the First Amendment and Madison’s explanation of it. Both are very clear. It simply prevents the federal government, and by passage of the 14th Amendment, the states; from establishing a religion or forcing people to adhere to religion, or not to adhere to religion, by law. Nothing about what may and or may not be displayed on federal or state property is even inferred. In addition to the very clear language, there is plenty of historical precedence to show this to be the case.

          • Quality

            Yes, that’s what incorporation is. Bringing the states under the authority of the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. States can’t strip you of your guns, or deny you a trial, or ban your speech, or get involved in religion. Madison’s quote is in now way limited to forcing people to believe anything. It should not compel people “in any manner”, nor allow any religion to gain preeminence.

          • Crakalakin

            “Get involved with”? Not quite. That is WAY to vague and that’s no accident.

            The states may not make a law establishing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

          • Quality

            I’d agree with that, but all government actions flow through the work and funding of the legislature. Surely we wouldn’t believe that the executive and judicial branches can freely violate these Constitutional protections.

          • LibLieExposer

            Conveniently forgetting the following clause in 1A: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

          • Quality

            It’s not forgotten at all. They go hand in hand.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            The standard according to the anti-Christians is Freedom of all religions other than Christianity.
            You’re not atheists or anti-theists. You are anti-Christians.
            Wear the label proudly. Many before you have.

          • Quality

            Get off your cross, fake martyr. I support religious freedom for all Americans, including Christians, and want the government to stay out of religious matters altogether.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            No you do not.
            You act like Muslims are poor, defenseless oppressed people when they are the bullies. And you bully Christian references out of everything you can.
            Just because Christianity is the predominant religion in the US, based on its founding, doesn’t make it right to try to stomp it out in the name of fairness.
            You must be one of those freaks that thinks racism is ok as long as it’s against white people because there’s no way a white person can be a victim of anything.

          • Quality

            Listen, if you want to just assign positions to me, you can talk to yourself.

            I support government neutrality. The problem is that you have a sense of entitlement and want special Christian privileges. Losing your special privileges doesn’t make you a target of bullying.

          • Wardog00

            Then stop using American money if it offends you so much.

          • Quality

            It doesn’t offend me. I really don’t care.

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            I didn’t see any cross for her to be on, and she never claimed martyrdom. It’s more lies from you, because you serve the Father of Lies, and the Truth is in neither him nor you.

          • Quality

            She claimed that people were coming after Christians and trying to deny them (alone) freedom of religion. That’s fake martyrdom.

            Father of Lies? How quaint.

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            Her claims are true, and martyrdom requires death. So, yes, you’re a liar, serving your father Satan, the Father of Lies.

          • Quality

            Martyrdom does not require death. It can involve suffering or persecution, the latter of which is precisely what was being complained about.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/martyr

            How are her claims true? Who has attempted to strip Christians alone of religious freedom? No one.

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            Oh, stop. Christians “must provide abortifacients.” Christians “must accommodate abominable false weddings”. Christians “must hire atheists to teach in Christian schools.” Christians “must teach the falsity of evolution.” Christians “must abstain from abstinence-only sex ed.”

          • Quality

            Not a single one of those line items (most of which are ridiculous) is specific to Christians.

            Sorry that following the law or learning about the world is such a problem for you.

          • spaceycakes

            ‘fake’ martyr? So you do think there are some ‘real’ ones out there?

          • Quality

            Of course. There are many Christians in the world who suffer persecution.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            Islam makes more martyrs per day than any other religion.

          • Quality

            True, and most of them are also Muslims.

            But what does this have to do with the fact that American Christians aren’t persecuted?

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            Says the zealot persecuting Christians.

          • Quality

            How am I persecuting Christians?

          • spaceycakes

            LOL

          • Quality

            That’s funny?

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            So you’ll get right on protesting Obama’s religion-related parties in the white house?

          • Quality

            If Obama is spending taxpayer money to promote religion, that should absolutely be stopped.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            But posting a banner with God Bless America isn’t spending taxpayer money. Why does that have to be censored?

          • Quality

            Who paid for the banner? Who paid for the building its on?

          • globalcrap

            American’s tax payers who believe IN America, something you liberals know nothing about

          • Quality

            Really? So the taxpayers who didn’t want the sign were able to somehow divert their tax money?

          • globalcrap

            Free loaders don’t care about America, they just use the system, and do not pay taxes.

          • The_Kat ✓vilified

            Yours went to Planned Parenthood. Mine went to a “God Bless America” banner.

          • Quality

            Sorry, that’s not how tax dollars work.

          • globalcrap

            Your Washup -dc using our tax dollars , not yours ,for planned Murder-hood

          • The_Kat ✓vilified

            It is if you don’t want your money spent on a banner and I don’t want mine spent on Planned Parenthood. It sort of washed it out in the end.

            Would your response be different if the employees chipped in and had the banner made but hung it on the Post Office?

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            Who paid for the White House, where Obama throws religious parties?

          • Quality

            What religious parties are your referring to?

            And, in case you ignored it, I already stated that I’d oppose any taxpayer money used by Obama to promote religion. Your attempt to inject Obama into the conversation is a failure.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            President Obama Hosts Iftar Dinner at the White House

            July 15, 2014
            https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/15/president-obama-hosts-iftar-dinner-white-house

            President Obama Hosts a Ramadan Iftar Dinner at the White House

            June 23, 2015
            https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/23/president-obama-hosts-ramadan-iftar-dinner-white-house

          • Quality

            Yeah, that strikes me as mildly inappropriate, like the Christmas tree lighting and Easter celebrations.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            “God Bless America” sign that’s been in place for 15 years: wildly inappropriate, tear it down!
            President throwing parties for Muslim celebrations: mildly inappropriate, but let’s not make a big deal out of it because he’s like, totally a Christian, not a Muslim even though we hate Christians & love Muslims.
            Maybe you can explain why it’s so important that Obama is a Christian to the people who love Muslims & hate Christians.

          • Quality

            I specifically said this sign was low on the scale of CSS violations. It is mildly inappropriate. Were it my town, I wouldn’t raise a complaint.

            Is there a reason why you ignored the Easter and Christmas events?

          • spaceycakes

            LOL–‘should’…riiiight

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            Hanging a banner does not compel anyone to worship. You have every right walk away and ignore it. Nor is “God bless America” a strictly religious claim since it doesn’t say “Jesus”, “Allah”, “Gaia”, or “Yahweh” to use a few examples. God in this context is completely general.

          • Quality

            “God” is a strictly religious term. It would obvious exclude any religions without gods, any religions that doesn’t use that term, and irreligion.

          • Wardog00

            According to the Oxford Dictionary, there is no religion without a God or gods; unless you want to start including something like consumerism as the new religion

            Definition of religion in English:

            noun [mass noun]
            1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion

            More example sentences
            Synonyms
            1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions

            More example sentences
            1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion

          • Quality

            The Oxford Dictionary doesn’t say that at all. Definitions 1.1 and 1.2 contain no language about gods at all and definition 1 clearly allows for religions without gods. For example, a religion which included a karmic force and reincarnation would not involve gods. Some forms of Buddhism contain no gods.

          • Wardog00
          • Quality

            Yeah, I JUST addressed that.

          • Wardog00

            Buddhism doesn’t fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches “the way things are.” He said
            nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not.

          • Quality

            It’s pretty dependent on the flavor of Buddhism. Some are full of supernatural beings and mysticism. Others are like Humanism: Siddhartha Edition.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            But not one religion is my point.

          • Quality

            I don’t understand your point. It’s not a violation if it favors more than one religion?

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            No. It’s not a violation because it doesn’t choose one religion over another. Part of the reasoning behind the 1st Amendment is because at the time, and for instance, if someone wanted to serve political office, they needed to be a member of the Church of England.

            I don’t care if someone is an atheist, Buddist or Gaia worshiper — as long as they don’t tell me I can’t be an open Christian. Again, hanging a banner with those three little words infringes on no one, because it’s not forcing anyone to worship any God.

          • Quality

            Choosing 2 religions over the rest, or 3 over the rest is the same thing as choosing 1 over the rest.

            Here’s that Madison quote again. Note the “or two combined together”.

            “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation
            of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their
            conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined
            together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to
            conform.”

            Do you a law that says “Only Catholics and Protestants can serve in office” would be acceptable because it includes more than one belief system?

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            You’re twisting my words, and you’re ignoring my point. I’ll state it one more time, and if you don’t get it, not my problem.

            A banner with three little words does not compel anyone to worship anything, and there is no punishment if someone chooses to ignore it.

            To add: Nothing in the Constitution says you must be protected from being offended.

          • Quality

            I’m not twisting your words. You got hung up on it not supporting one specific religion. The point was that it clearly supports some religions over others.

            CSS isn’t limited to actions which involve punishments. Simply promoting religion is a problem.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            I don’t get how a simple sign is “promoting” religion in the first place, especially since the Founding Fathers didn’t have a problem with mentioning God — public or private. Otherwise, they never would have signed the Declaration of Independence.

          • Quality

            You don’t get how a big sign is promoting something? Isn’t that what advertisements are? The meaning of the sign is “The US Post Office supports this message about God”.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            Yeah? So? If they wanted to put up a sign about the opening of a new mosque, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Because, again, no one is forcing me to do anything.

          • Quality

            I would. Even setting aside the religious aspect, why does the mosque deserve free advertising?

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            Why not? For me, it’s about treating all religions (or lack thereof) equally, and not silence all of them for the sake of a few who have no faith in a higher power.
            So if you wanted to put up a banner below the “God Bless America” that said, “God is Dead,” go right ahead. I’ll even help you hang it up — as long as the other one stays.

          • Quality

            We’re in some agreement here.

            IF the post office wants to make their walls a public forum where anyone can place banners, that’s fine. But there’s zero indication in this case that the post office walls were being used as a public forum.

            This is something that has come up many times in CSS cases and it usually follows the same pattern: Christians put up display => legal challenge ensues => Christians say it’s a public forum => atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Satanists start putting up displays => Christians revoke public forum policy. It’s not about free speech or religious expression; it’s about Christian privilege.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            What other Christians do or don’t do is irrelevant. We don’t punish everyone because of the bad actions of a few. We either treat everyone fairly, or we don’t. There’s no middle ground.

          • Quality

            Cool. Then the Post Office either becomes a public forum, or doesn’t have any religious banners.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            May as well repeal the 1st Amendment, then.

          • Quality

            What?

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            “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.”

            The beauty of the First Amendment is it covers many rights in few words. It is the epitome of concision.

            The removal of the banner is not only a religious rights (and its free exercise thereof) violation, but is also a freedom of speech violation.

            The 1st Amendment is to protect people while in the public square (including and especially public property) to voice their opinions and, yes, proclaim their faith and religion. To say that “they can’t do it in public, but if they want to do it in private, or on private property, we can’t stop them,” is a violation — again — of the 1st Amendment. Freedom, by definition, cannot constrained by geography.

            For without public dissension, public discourse and public worship, we are no longer a free nation. You take away the rights of one, you eventually take away the rights of all. Nothing about any of the Bill of Rights says they’re an either/or proposition based on what someone agrees or disagrees with. It encompasses all. Period. Hence my comment about repealing the 1st Amendment, because that’s exactly what you seem to be advocating — you deciding that religious expression is inappropriate based on nothing but geography.

          • Quality

            “The removal of the banner is not only a religious rights (and its free
            exercise thereof) violation, but is also a freedom of speech violation.”

            That’s absurd. You have no right to put banners wherever you choose. You think you can just walk up to a school, or police station, or courthouse and put up big signs all over them? And to stop you would be an infringement on your rights? The First Amendment has never operated that way.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            I’m not saying they shouldn’t ask permission first — which they did. But to claim that it’s a violation of the 1st Amendment to keep it up after the fact is what’s absurd.

          • Quality

            Not absurd at all. The USPS building was never established as a public forum. Giving preference to one religious banner is a 1A violation.

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            It’s only a “preference” if they denied others the same consideration.

          • Quality

            The post office was not set up as a public forum.

          • Patrick Chester

            There are atheists (and I guess some agnostics) who are… insecure in their unfaith that any sign of religious expression is seen as a threat to them.

            Those who are secure in their unfaith can simply walk by a sign saying “God Bless America” without having the screaming fits the insecure ones have. Hey, they might even be able to smile and say thank you when a Christian says “God Bless you” to them.

          • JPT

            So, then shouldn’t the phrase, added to the Pledge through political urging of the Catholic Knights of Columbus in the 1950s, more accurately read ” one nation…under ANY God…” ?

          • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

            Irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about a three-word banner on pubic property.

          • Donald-Irredeemable deplorable

            Doesn’t Islam proclaim Allah is the same God of Abraham and Moses, and that most people when asked about God say HE has many names, but is the same God to all people, the difference is in HOW HE/She/It is worshipped and how the teachings are interpreted, that’s the important thing (my book/interpretations are HOLIER/TRUER than yours) rather than if He’s called God, Allah, Yahweh, the Big Guy in the Sky, or Fred? So why shouldn’t it be just God, why all the qualifiers?

          • JPT

            Well, then, if it truly is intended to be a generic mention of a God, then surely no one here would object if the religious mottos and slogans and politicians’ prayers were altered to specifically indicate that any God will do,

            Yeah, let’s work on it

            Everyone ok with that?

          • Finrod Felagund

            Idiot. No establishment of religion means that there will never be a Church of the United States, as opposed to the Church of England. Any other interpretation is just mendacious tomfoolery.

          • Quality

            No, that’s not what it means. If the founders merely wanted to prevent the creation of an official federal religion, then they would have said that. Instead, they chose far more broad language, and the writings of men like Madison and Jefferson confirm what was intended.

            But Madison and Jefferson and all those uneducated Supreme Court Justices are wrong. You’re right.

          • Finrod Felagund

            What part of “Jefferson wasn’t there and Madison didn’t say that” do you not understand, idiot leftist troll?

          • Quality

            The part where one is an child-like semantic argument and the other ignores Jefferson’s influence and knowledge.

          • Finrod Felagund

            Oh, so we should go by what someone who wasn’t there and didn’t write about it until years later said instead of the plain words of the amendment itself.

            Bloody idiot.

          • Quality

            I’m the one using the plain words. Supported by other writings by…the guy who wrote it. And the guy who influenced him.

          • Finrod Felagund

            Go away and come back when you’ve figured out what it means to “establish a religion”. Also, when you’ve grown a brain.

          • Quality

            I’ll do that. Meanwhile, you should learn about commas, and what they indicate in sentences.

    • The Marathon Man

      That clause is there because the Founders wanted to prevent the government from FORMING a religion, in the same vein as King Henry VIII formed the Church of England. It was never the intention to prevent government from interacting, and at times contributing, to already-established religious orders. I mean, if Emperor Barry can attend a mosque in Baltimore without question……

  • lesterwink23

    I get along fine with atheists as long as they leave me alone, but there’s no question many of them are flat-out bullies who go out of their way to launch this kind of campaign. I honestly wonder if this group would’ve done the same thing if the banner read “Allah Bless America”

    • Quality

      Of course they would.

      The better question to ask is whether or not these Christians would support the Islamic banner. I think we know the answer to that.

    • JPT

      Yes, yes they would.

      In addition, I’ll assert the community would not be so much in favor of an “Allah Bless America” being displayed at a para-governmental setting.

      • Rogue Cheddar

        You know this how? Point to me the incidents of the atheists and the ACLU bullies clamoring against Islamic expression, ‘Kill the infidel!’ being the exception of course.

        • JPT

          The ACLU doesn’t attempt to suppress freedom of expression — quite the opposite.

          When religious opinion or slogans are displayed in para-governmental settings, it must be challenged as contrary to the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of thought for all, not just dominant religions.

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            The Anti-Christian Libertines Union? Not suppress freedom of expression? You’ve got to be outside your John Brown mind.

          • spaceycakes

            sooo…you got nuthin

          • journogal

            Never does have anything.

          • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

            The only one that ever up-votes him is his left hand. (His right hand is busy, and he’s slowly going blind.)

          • Rogue Cheddar

            Bwahahahahahahahaha! You funny guy.

      • tops116 ✓Quipper
      • Girl who talks with her eyes

        No, the evangelical anti-theists are scared crapless of anything Islamic. Offend Christians-get another cheek turned toward you. Offend Islam-get bombed, beheaded or pushed off a building.
        That is why the chickenshit Left hounds Christians and won’t even address how it’s not racist, sexist, homophobic when Islam kills based on skin color, oppresses women and kills people for being gay.

      • journogal

        Didn’t you “call out” a commenter above from broad brushing atheists, hypocrite? I guess it doesn’t count when you do it.

        • JPT

          Actually, I intended to indicate the organizations such as the ACLU and Freedom From religion Foundation would have. Please excuse the lack of specificity.

          Individual atheists, like theists, are quite varied; some are unreasonable.

  • Donald-Irredeemable deplorable

    THIS to the folks in Pittsburgh, Kansas!!

  • Jerry Shelton

    Put them in a fox hole, some how they seem to find god

    • JPT

      That’s been a hackneyed slogan for decades. Ask Pat Tillman and other secular servicemen.

      One could also quip that there are no atheists in insane asylums.

  • tops116 ✓Quipper

    How soon before the atheists start complaining about people putting signs up on private property? “How dare you offend me with your beliefs while I walk by your house?”

    • JPT

      An individual atheist might but organizations luke the ACLU, FFrF, and Americans United state otherwise.

  • bifski

    how come FFR never goes after islam….are they ok with mooselems “praying” in the oklahoma gvmnt rotunda?

    • JPT

      Never? Are sure?

      • bifski

        while agree regarding using absolutes…i have yet to see any evidence..i’ve emailed them asking-no reply

  • JosephBloughs ✓Viagrafied

    Don’t these people have a koran, mosque, or star and crescent somewhere to protest? Why is it always in order to “protect” their “freedom” they have to infringe on the freedom of others?

  • Russ

    The USPS is technically not a government entity. Why do these idiots think it’s usps-dot-com, instead of usps-dot-gov? That right there tells you all you need to know about why this isn’t a separation of church and state issue.

    • JPT

      …and “technically not a lie” is still a lie, according to pastors far and wide.

  • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

    The anti-theistic dirtbags need to move to NorK. Every last stinking one of them.

    • JPT

      Bravo! Cogent and profound. The Holy Spirit is SO proud of you now.

      • http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com John Hitchcock

        “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If
        you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear
        you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)

        That means I need to determine who the dogs and swine are. In this case, that would be you — obviously — and “quality”.

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/ncaafchattertalkaboutcollegefootball/ David ✓’ed out

    I can entirely sympathize with the struggles of the Atheist. As such, I am willing to make a huge sacrifice on their behalf. Because Atheists are so heavily burdened with all of the US currency that says “In God We Trust” on it, I am willing, through my own gracious generosity, caring and concern for their cause, to voluntarily remove that heavy, heavy burden from them.

    If any Atheist wants to be free from the Judeo-Christian fascism seen on US money, they can send it all to me, and I will gladly take that burden on myself, so they are free to lighten their consciences of the weight for having to carry pieces of paper invoking God’s name against their will. I will make this sacrifice and accept all of that vile, anti-1st Amendment, anti-Separation of Church and State, conscience burdening currency, so they may be free. I do this of my own free will and accord.

    So, c’mon Atheists…gimme your cash.

    • Patrick Chester

      This agnostic can tolerate a few religious phrases.

      So I’ll keep my cash, thank you. 😀

  • Girl who talks with her eyes

    The country does not have a “state religion”. It does, however have a Christian based history and founders. When the anti-Christian terrorists dredge up quotes where they claim the founding fathers hated Christianity, please do your own research and debunk them, then spread the debunking far and wide.
    That’s what I did when an anti-Christian posted this as fact:

    • Girl who talks with her eyes

      I found REAL quotes from the same people that completely contradict the revisionist bs in their meme.
      Don’t be sucked in by their jackassery.

      • JPT

        David Barton is not doing Christianity any favor with false quotes.

        • Girl who talks with her eyes

          He’s not a representative of Christianity as far as I know.
          Close personal friend of yours?

  • EndangeredNJRepub

    Atheism is a faith, so technically, pushing atheism on the public is technically them doing exactly what they’re bitching about.

    But then again, when have we known these types to be consistent?

    • JPT

      Neutrality in government settings is the only prudent tack to protect religious freedom for all.

      Those who demand an audience for public displays of piety in an otherwise secular setting, are treating their faith more as superstition. Plus, it’s rude and unneighborly.

      • EndangeredNJRepub

        By that logic, the zealous nature of actively forcing the scrubbing of even the most minor religious references (in a country founded under some form of religion) is itself a demand for public displays of godlessness. Goddessness is a faith. Therefore these people are guilty of what they hate. I’m agnostic, and I can admit when crap like this is uncalled for.

        • JPT

          Neutrality in para-governmental settings is neither endorsement nor condemation. It is the only prudent tack to maintain freedom for all in a pluralistic society.

          I can’t say with absolute certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that if I release a pen from my fingers, it will fall to the floor. Is that faith?

          It certainly isn’t religion. Not accepting belief in a God is not a religion, either. The terms get bandied about in apologetics circles in attempt to gain a better position on the concepts of proof burden and legal standing.

          Also bandied about in those circles are teachings that there are no such people as agnostics and atheists, that each one of us actually knows “deep down” that Jesus is the Savior. They continually strive to have such things be taught in public schools.

          They must be continually halted and that requires efforts such as reminding Americans of the legal limits — the limits that provide protection of their rights, as well.

          • EndangeredNJRepub

            The certainty you have that the pen will fall to the floor is trust, not faith. We have scientific laws that act as evidence that your pen will fall. If you believed that the pen would fall with no empirical evidence, it would be *trust without evidence*. There’s a word that.

            Not accepting belief in god is faith. You’re affirming a truth you have zero evidence to empirically support. Again, trust in that you cannot concretely prove is called faith. Bear in mind, I never said atheism is a religion, I said *faith.* The words are used interchangeably, but they’re not.

            I don’t pretend to know anything about these bandying circles, but then again as an agnostic, I really only care about this topic abstractly. I don’t mind the faithful, be they the religious or the atheistic kind.

          • JPT

            You’re doing the same thing with the differing definitions of faith.

            Is not accepting claims for the existence of orifice-probing aliens, or Bigfoot, or pixies, the same as faith?

            The evidence for all of those is supposedly more compelling than the evidence provided for a scriptural deity — we can talk to living people who will sincerely attest to all three.

          • EndangeredNJRepub

            I’m not using differing definitions of faith. Faith is faith, trust is trust. If you met me for the first time, knowing nothing about me, and you told me to hold your wallet while you went back into your home, you’d be placing faith in me not to steal it. If you’d known me for 30 years, and we were good friends, it would be trust, since you’d have empirical evidence to support that belief.

            Yes. As a matter of fact, accepting the existence of extraterrestrial sodomy enthusiasts, sasquatch, pixies, fairies, gnomes, elves, unicorns, etc are all examples of faith. Why? Because, again, by declaring affirmatively that those things exist without incontrovertible, *universal* evidence, you would be affirming that which you cannot prove.

            It helps in this discussion to forget the concept of a scriptural Judeo-Christio-Islamic deity. Think about the concept of a deity in its basic form: a being that by its very definition is beyond the scope of human perception and comprehension. How then can any form of evidence capable of being perceived and comprehended disprove the existence of such a being? Similarly, how can any evidence that we can comprehend and perceive *prove* its existence? The same goes for your bigfoots and pixies.

            Aliens, not so much, seeing as how their existence is more a function of numerical odds than creed.

            We may have started disagreeing about a post-office, but don’t mistake me for disagreeing with your premise that faith is logically speaking, illogical. That’s the point of faith, in a religious sense.

          • Petrucio14

            Your paranoia runs deep.

      • constitutionminded

        Personally I would rather have government officials be praying to God for guidance than thinking that they have all the answers themselves.

  • drPC

    Why did they take it down? Court cases have already declared such signs are perfectly legal.

    • Girl who talks with her eyes

      Because they are intolerant, hateful, miserable bastards.

      • JPT

        You are a nasty horrible witness.

        • journogal

          Classy personal attack there. Why did you take her comment personally? Hit too close to home? Typical liberal, hater of women that don’t think like them.

        • Girl who talks with her eyes

          You are also an intolerant, hateful, miserable bastard.
          Not exactly news…

  • Girl who talks with her eyes

    Separation of church and state? More like separation of Christianity and state.
    Any other religion is welcome with open arms on government property, apparently.

    “President Obama Hosts a Ramadan Iftar Dinner at the White House

    June 23, 2015 at 4:20 PM ”
    “President Obama Hosts Iftar Dinner at the White House

    July 15, 2014 ”
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/23/president-obama-hosts-ramadan-iftar-dinner-white-house
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/15/president-obama-hosts-iftar-dinner-white-house

  • globalcrap

    This is America, if you don’t like it, get the hell out, and move your socialist O Bogus self to Mexico.

  • nukethedems

    An agnostic prayer: “Freedom for me – Tyranny for thee.”

    • JPT

      Nope,

  • http://wandererswaysite.wordpress.com Wanderer

    And they try to make us believe we’re the minority.

    Fat chance. I’d wish them a nice day but they’re not happy unless they have something to be offended and aggrieved about so I’ll save it.

  • Gym

    This is an absolutely wonderful response to the looney left. I’m having serious trouble getting a “Hillary For Prison, 2016” sign

  • JCS

    Moonbats hardest hit.

  • Oysteria (I won)

    Another variation of the Streisand Effect.

    And Michael Newdow is at it again – going to court to have “In God We Trust” removed from our currency. He says it poses a “substantial burden” on an atheist to have to carry money with the phrase on it.

    Me thinks he got sand in his mangina again.

    • JPT

      Well, unfortunately the rules of engagement require a picayune concept called standing.

      You should read some of Nedow’s stuff — and what Jay Sekulow has to say about him.

      • Oysteria (I won)

        The vast majority of people don’t care about utterances of religion in the public place, even on government owned property. As long as there is no compulsion for them to endorse it, they just ignore it.

        I understand the concept of standing. In his case the harm caused to him that he must show is sand in his private parts.

        But what do I know, as a member of the RW-echo chamber replete with dogmatic hate?

        • JPT

          Well, there certainly is a lot of that in these here parts.

  • The_Kat ✓vilified

    I’m agnostic and I think this is hilarious. I despise angry atheists who obsess about something they don’t believe in and who don’t understand the 1st Amendment.

    • JPT

      Who doesn’t understand the First Amendment? Could it be…Satan?

      • constitutionminded

        I think they are talking about you, the guy who upvotes himself.

      • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

        Well aren’t you special.

      • The_Kat ✓vilified

        Leave Hillary out of this!

        On a more serious note…the atheists who are so bent out of shape over a spirit guy in the sky they don’t believe in don’t understand that this banner does not equate to the US government establishing one particular religion.

      • Petrucio14

        Try not to be any more of a moron than usual.

        • Patrick Chester

          He doesn’t have to try, he just… does.

    • Patrick Chester

      I’m also agnostic and while these anti-theists seem silly, I find myself angered at their control-freak tendencies.

      Makes me wonder what other disagreement they seek to get rid of.

  • Mike Achertz

    I’m an atheist, but the Freedom From Religious Foundation are a bunch of douchebags. In the 90’s, my hometown in Illinois had religious paintings put in the city park around Christmas. The FFRF tried to get the paintings removed and even went so far to get a banner put up on the other side of the park. I don’t remember what the banner said exactly. Now, there were religious douchebags in my town who were vandalizing and kept tearing down the banner, but all in all, it was a ridiculous effort (and I even got lumped in with FFRF because I was a weird “atheist” kid).

    Listen, I can’t speak for everyone, but I have far more better things to be doing than worrying about banners in posts offices or pledges of allegiance or “In God We Trust” on money – I sure have no issues spending said money. Nearly all my family and friends have faith of varying degrees and I’ll always stand side by side with them to protect it, even if I don’t have it myself. Just… mind your own business.

    • Xer0

      Plus you never know if your views will change. I was raised catholic, became an atheist in my 20’s and now consider myself agnostic.

    • The_Kat ✓vilified

      The FFRF freaks forced the City of Wauwatosa in Wisconsin to remove all the crosses off their street signs, which were part of symbols representing the cities and it was because the city has so many churches. So the City had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace all their signs to make a butt hurt tiny minority happy. It wasn’t like people were kneeling in front of the signs praying or something.

      Me? I would have told them the cross was a “T” that stands for terrific. Then I would have let them guess what FU stands for.

      • JPT

        It stands for you can be as vulgar as you like and still call yourself a Christian.

        • journogal

          Why are you so concerned about what Christians do? We get it, you dislike Christians, but you are too immature to ignore and move on.

          • JPT

            That’s kind of a meaningless question. Why are Christians concerned about what other people do?

            I don’t dislike Christians…I mean, not because they’re Christians. It’s the people who claim to be Christian yet display a nasty aura which is so antithetical to any wisdom which can be derived from their faith, whom I find so off-putting.

          • journogal

            …nasty aura… Funny comment coming from you, considering your comment history on this site. Seems like you only pop up to deride Christians, because God (Oh no, I said God to you) someone doesn’t think exactly like you. What a sad existence you must have. And how sad can one person be up voting themselves.

          • constitutionminded

            Goodness sakes, I just looked and he does upvote himself. LOL

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            God is fantasy, but “Aura” is real.
            So says the rational and logical person.

          • Patrick Chester

            That’s kind of a meaningless question. Why are Christians concerned about what other people do?

            You mean why do they obsess over signs in a Post Office expressing a faith different than their own?

            Oh wait, that’s your little clique…

        • The_Kat ✓vilified

          Funny JPT but I am NOT a Christian. So I can say fuck you all I want, I guess. Not everyone who is concerned about 1st Amendment rights is a Christian.

          • Patrick Chester

            It’s like Wile E. Coyote (Supergenius!) walking off a cliff when the anti-theists presume anyone who calls them on their crap must be a devout Christian.

    • Giuseppe Franco

      Ditto.

      I’m also an atheist, but I’m not an activist or militant about it because I’m comfortable enough in my own skin that I’m not terrified that symbols of spirituality are going to melt my face off.

      I mean, how insecure do you have to be to be offended by religious symbols?

      Who fucking cares. People like that are the reason why atheists in general are generally liked in this country about as much as neo-nazis.

      • JPT

        Religious messages flourish in this country.

        Maintaining freedom of thought requires diligence. That diligence is what permits you to traipse through life with insoucience as an infidel surrounded by theists.

        • Patrick Chester

          So you aren’t secure in your unfaith. You need to eradicate as many of the “flourishing” religious messages as you can to “free” your thoughts?

          Poor weak-minded little fool.

          • JPT

            I think you’re overlooking the coercive nature of theological claims and the history of psychosocial manipulations attendant to the process.

            The government has no opinion on God. That’s what allows all sorts of opinions regarding imaginary beings. We get to decide for ourselves, independent of majority opinion.

            Neutrality is the only prudent tack to protect religious freedom for all.

          • Patrick Chester

            No, I’m sure I described your weak-minded status pretty accurately.

            Dance away, little one.

          • JPT

            First Peter 3:9

    • JPT

      “We the People”…it is very much our business, Sir.

      • Giuseppe Franco

        Lighten up, chief.

        Whining and being offended about such trivial matters is unbecoming.

        • JPT

          …and yet, there you are…whining and being offended.

          See how freedom works?

          • Giuseppe Franco

            Let the other readers decide for themselves who is the one whining about his butthurt in this exchange.

          • JPT

            You bet.

        • journogal

          And it continues to up-vote itself.

  • Xer0

    these jackasses use “separation of church and state”. Do they know what that means?

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

    Now how the fuck does this sign apply?

    • JPT

      Do you want to have that discussion, or is vulgarity your where you prefer to rest?

      Let’s see…vulgarity vis-a-vis Christianity? Hmm…I don’t know.

  • Dr. Strabismus

    Where is the tolerance that the left is always lecturing us about? It must be frustrating trying to eradicate the Judeo-Christian tradition that is inextricably woven into the fabric of this nation, not to mention human history. Western civilization really annoys atheists.

    • JPT

      You know all the atheists, do you? You must have one huge Rolodex.

      • spaceycakes

        perhaps bigger than yours with Christians

      • Dr. Strabismus

        No, fair criticism. I painted with an overly broad brush. I’m speaking of a small subset of atheists and should have been more clear.

        • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          This subset may call them selves “atheists” but they are really ‘antitheists”. At least when it comes to religions that aren’t likely to behead them.

      • journogal

        Sort of like you and Christians, Republicans and Southerners. I wouldn’t be throwing any rocks if I were you, given your comment history.

  • Banana Republic

    So, the “Arm-Pit” of Kansas made it onto Twitchy?! Seriously, I am really shocked and a little dismayed that the atheist groups prevailed. The retired mob in that county must be loosing its grip. I’m sure that those signs disappeared in a hurry. That is one of the most conservative areas in Kansas, despite have a university there.

  • Dr. Strabismus

    Come to think of it, how are bullying atheists any different from the Muslim fundamentalists who feel compelled to destroy evidence of any belief system other than their own?

    • JPT

      Well, they don’t, so they aren’t. I mean are. You know what I mean.

      …and the Saints all say…

  • Girl who talks with her eyes

    These anti-Christians sit around and lament how the Christian terrorists kill more people every year than ISIS, are far more intolerant than any Muslims they’ve ever met and oppress women more than Shariah law ever could. The throw out idiotic statements like that with NO basis in reality and nod their little heads in agreement, while pleasuring each other (philosophically, at least).
    Islam: kills people every day, mutilates women’s bodies, kills people for being gay, female, unfaithful, etc., marries old men to young girls, and bombs its enemies.
    Christianity: turns the other cheek, does not kill, holds voluntary services, feeds houses & clothes the poor, operates nonprofit hospitals, adopts unwanted babies, cares for mothers of unwanted babies until they can be adopted, fights for human rights, allows for personal choice to join or not join, invites you to its potluck dinners regardless of faith, raises money for good causes.

    Only a completely evil or lying sack of manure could say with a straight face that Christianity is in any way, worse than Islam, or even oppressive in its current form.

    • JPT

      Christianity and the Bible have always changed with the evolution of human thinking in the Western world.

      Islam is 800 years behind. It will take a while for American Muslims to bring the others along.

      • constitutionminded

        God’s word does not nor has ever changed. Man’s interpretation can change. But then man is not God.

      • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

        You’re assuming that the others don’t drag American Muslims back those 800 years.

  • Botzilla

    More proof atheists are A-holes.

    • JPT

      Uhmmm…you’re gonna spend some dead time in Purgatory for that one!

      • constitutionminded

        No he won’t, no such place.

      • Girl who talks with her eyes

        Please point to the scripture that says anything about purgatory, oh esteemed theologian.

        • JPT

          Another fine example of the need for the wall of separation.

          • Girl who talks with her eyes

            Another dodge from the village idiot.
            Try to answer the question.

  • TTTCOTTH

    Atheists, butthurt cream is on aisle 6

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS8RjCRolSM Sanchez

    God Bless America.

  • bigal64

    I’m sure they are working on getting this removed. Still looking for the law that Congress passed that says you have to pray, bow down to God?

  • HENCHMAN 0804

    How pathetic do you have to be to have this removed? I am not religious and have
    no problem with it.

  • Matt Kolb

    People, learn your constitution and quit getting bullied by those intent on removing any and all trace to God in our society. In this country, there is no such thing as separation of church and state.

    The First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause,” a mere 10 words, is the primary tool secular separatists misuse and abuse to “fundamentally transform” America to reflect their own anti-Christian self-image.

    Yet these words remain abundantly clear in both scope and meaning. The Establishment Clause states merely: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. …”

    That’s it.

    • JPT

      Well, no, that’s not it.

      Atheists cannot remove any trace — let alone all trace — of God from society. With the advent of ubiquitous social media, that task is being performed quite adequately by Christian clergy and apologists themselves.

      You can’t even shed your own charlatans.

      • Matt Kolb

        Who is “you”? Do you know me? What point are you trying to make other than a inconsequential redirect from the facts?

      • Petrucio14

        We definitely cannot shed you, and you are obviously an obnoxious charlatan.

    • Petrucio14

      Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The part than anti-theists conveniently obscure.

  • Frustrated Teacher

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – it’s odd that an ignorant moron like me just CANNOT for the life of me figure out how a post office with a banner violates ANY part of this statement…..Congress was not involved in the least…

    • JPT

      If you insist on parsing sentences in that fashion, you’re gonna spend the rest of your days justifying all sorts of crazy interpretations of the Bible.

      Wait…that’s what apologists have been up to for thousands of years and they still can’t manage to get things straight amongst themselves.

      That’s why we need a secular government.

      • spaceycakes

        do you live in Iran?

      • gekkobear

        Ok, so a couple questions.

        In this town, which God was blessing America?
        Why is it offensive for this God to bless America?
        What is the next step to control how private citizens use their private property to silence this message you don’t approve of in the name of free speech?

        I’m an agnostic. I don’t have a dog in this fight ( or a god in this fight, if you’re dyslexic).
        But If someone says “God bless” or “I’ll pray for you” when I’m sick or whatever?

        Yeah, I let that go without deciding they need a lecture on my beliefs.

        But good luck with your secularizing all of Government.
        As the Declaration of Independence openly references God; I guess we ditch that next.
        So are we a protectorate of the UK once we throw that out?

        Or is that somehow silly, but this was entirely necessary and crucial for a reason I just can’t see?

      • Frustrated Teacher

        I am a Christian, but believe in separation of church and state…I just think it has gone WAY too far to the other side and many people’s right to practice is being stepped on. Of course, many Christians don’t help when they make idiots of themselves with unconstitutional rants and ravings. They often fail to realize that although the Bible may be the highest authority in their lives, the United States works because the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

        • JPT

          I too, favor a society where Christianity is allowed to flourish — within a prudent framework which inhibits supremacy.

          I find many clergy and other Christian leaders are not satisfied to live in a land where they can flourish and teach us how we SHOULD live. They crave the authority and power to tell us how we’re darned well GONNA live.

          Americans don’t like that.

          • tbmbuzz

            “They crave the authority and power to tell us how we’re darned well GONNA live.”
            So are you saying you’re not a Democrat?

          • Frustrated Teacher

            Well, said!

      • markh58

        How can you say “secular government” when you worship government as your god?

        • JPT

          You’ve been lied to, laddie.

  • Evie1949

    The Freedom From Religion group has their right to protest but no right to direct what happens from that decision.

  • http://yourdaddy.net/ NotaLemming

    Just ask the victims!

  • William2010

    If non-Atheists who also believe in a Supreme Being, God, actually outnumber Atheists, the fact that Atheists are not all destroyed demonstrates that those who do not think like them are peaceful, non-violent people, otherwise all the atheists would be dead and, if any were around, they would be in deep undercover hiding and hunted. Thankfully those who believe in God are not that nasty, although those who believe in Allah, the Islamofascist militant Jihadis, ARE that nasty, and worse. Have atheists gone after Muslims in attempting to censor their speech, expression, and religious practice?

  • lCOYAR

    Atheism is the “religion” that has enslaved, tortured, and more innocent people than even Islam ever did, and all in the past century too.

    All for a nihilistic lie that “people are inherently good”, or whatever nonsense.

  • Dan Abbett

    The words “God Bless America” in no way advocates a particular religion nor does is make a specific reference to a particular diety. The words do not make reference to any specific church or denomination and they are not directed at any person or ethnicity. Challenges on the basis of separation of church and state must not be tolerated.

  • T-White

    Just because an atheist doesn’t believe in God does not mean they have the right to infringe on my religious beliefs, nor does it mean God doesn’t exist. Just as I don’t believe we willingly elect morons to public office but every day I’m proven wrong.

  • T-White

    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone has the right to infringe on anyone’s rights or freedoms just because you don’t agree with them. if you don’t agree, walk away quietly and don’t come back and leave me to me and mine just as you want to be left to you and yours. I won’t try to force God on you if you don’t try to rip him from my life.

  • leftiesneedhelp

    There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION ANYWHERE!!!

    • JPT

      There is no such thing as the Holy Trinity. It is not in the Bible anywhere.

      • Kelly

        Might need to update your material. That old meme is no longer in vogue. I’d say about 1,300 years stale. Because the name “Trinity” was not affixed to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, does not mean that there is no such thing as the Holy Trinity as outlined in full using exact terminology of Augustine’s On the Trinity (published 415 AD). Have some intellectual honesty – or at least some intelligence when you throw out two lined tired material.

        • JPT

          Now, now. That was my point, regarding extrapolating concepts not clearly dilineated in earlier documents.

          Though, I can assure you that Augustine’s (and others who completed the work) doctrine was and is considered controversial among some theologians.

          Curious that such a sine qua non for the deity of Christ would escape clear mention in NT writings, don’t you think?

          • Finrod Felagund

            “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

          • Kelly

            I see that if a rose smells like a rose, looks like a rose, but is not named a “rose”, it isn’t a rose to you. Quite simply, the Trinity though not named “Trinity” is rampant both in the Old Testament and the New. Augustine is one of the least controversial theologians in history – as well as one of the most brilliant known minds. I’d love for you to list “some theologians” you cite as it would be interesting to see who your sources are. Again, you are late to leave the party – so many other rehashed controversies to latch on to.

          • JPT

            This is not the venue for exegesis. That doctrine is of no consequence to the point I was making; i.e., the inference of principles and concepts not clearly delineated in texts.

          • Kelly

            If this is not the venue for exegesis then your original argument has no place in this comment section, does it? Your comment that the concept of the Trinity is not clearly delineated in texts is your own personal exegesis of the Godhead as referenced in Scripture. Rationally speaking, your opinion is simply an opinion that many great minds and great thinkers would strenuously oppose.

          • JPT

            Well, that would be eisegesis at that point.

            Great minds and great thinkers have been strenuously opposing stuff for a long time; you have been at this for 4,000 years and still can’t manage to get things straight amongst yourselves.

            All theological claims are nothing more than opinions. Hence, the need for a wall of separation between church and state.

            How does neutrality in a governmental setting inhibit one’s ability to believe in any God they choose? Displaying theistic slogans in such settings, does indeed display promotion of supernatural beings.

            And that’s just not kosher.

          • Kelly

            I may be getting long in the tooth, my dear, but I am not 4,000 years old. Of course, you are using the euphemistic “you” – the slayer of rational conversation.

  • 2tor

    If everyone would start fighting these folks in court, eventually they wouldn’t have the funds to go around picking on people.

    • Petrucio14

      Which is why they try to establish judicial precedent by picking on the small towns, the small schools, the small organizations who cannot afford to fight their asshattery in court.

  • firesale

    Most Atheist have an identity problem and like the Devil just want to be noticed !

  • firesale

    I really feel God put Donald Trump in this race to striated out the mess the Anti Christ left this country in. I’m not a religious person but since our present President of communist history toke office and has tried to control this country our God is paying attention. Thank you Donald Trump for running , hope you stay and fight for us.

  • Linda

    It’s only a matter of time before there will be a movement to take “In God We Trust” off of all of our currency.

    • Jerome Goolsby

      I think they’ve already tried with one case reaching the Supreme Court and failing.

    • oldfiredog

      That’s why we must remove all lib/progs from Washington,D.C.

    • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      They recently tried to get it taken off a Sheriff Departments vehicles. They lost.

  • lainer51

    Finally, a story to be proud of in this crazy, upside world. We should ALL get banners and flags and let the atheists’ heads explode from the glare of red, white and blue.

    • JPT

      Yes. You can display all the religious paraphenalia you like in non-government settings, with most atheists’ blessings.

      Go for it. See how long that lasts.

      I recall the Sunday after September 11, 2001 our streets were full of cars parked for a church three blocks away. How long did that go on?

      You don’t have to be a church-attending tithe-offering Christian when you can just post a few indignacious comments about church-state separation or prayer in schools.

      We’re watching. We’re always watching and listening. So are your children.

      • constitutionminded

        You folks are just beating your head against the wall. You will never overcome the church. You will never win against God. So much hate you people have. Shame.

        • JPT

          Don’t look now, but American evangelical churches are bleeding away pew-sitters as they continue their drift into irrelevance.

          • constitutionminded

            Yep, true. Churches that don’t preach His word will fall away. But His church will never be overcome.

          • constitutionminded

            True, any church that don’t preach God’s word will fall aside, but His church will never be overcome.

      • lainer51

        atheists’ blessings is a full-blown oxymoron.

        • JPT

          Amen to that.

  • ninetyninepct

    How about To Hell with Atheism?

    • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      Atheists have a problem. If they’re right, they will never know. If they’re wrong….

      • JPT

        …and there we have it: THEE cornerstone of religion.

        Buy it or else. SO convincing.

        • genes ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵈᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          To misquote sir Walter(I think).
          If you live like there is a god and are wrong, you have at least earned the goodwill of your fellow man. If you live like there is no god and there is, You in a heap of trouble.

  • constitutionminded

    Some group in Wisconsin wants to dictate to the rest of us about how they don’t like God. If they don’t believe in Him, why all the butthurt?

  • flagmantexasmarine

    if the believe there is no God
    Why does God offend them

    • IslandAtheist

      Why don’t you ask your god that?

  • flagmantexasmarine

    I never met an atheist in battle

  • El Derecho

    The First Amendment was not created to protect government from religion. It was created to protect religion from government.

    • JPT

      Wrong.

      • constitutionminded

        Oh, were you there when they wrote it?

    • flagmantexasmarine

      The amendments are God given rights
      that cannot be taken away by man

    • Petrucio14

      The entire constitution was not written to protect or exalt the government.The constitution was written to protect individual rights FROM the government, which in the normal course of time always trends toward tyranny.

  • El Derecho

    Reagan’s speech to the Nation Association of Evangelicals in 1983. The perfect rebuttal to the anti-God Left…

    http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html

  • El Derecho

    The erroneous idea of a “wall of separation between church and state” is based on a willful misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s words by the anti-Catholic bigot and former Klansman, Justice Hugo Black. It’s certainly nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

  • bo1921

    All well and good, BUT, the original banner needs to go back up where it belongs!

  • An American Veteran

    I believe in is about time that someone step up and sue the Freedom From Religion Foundation for working with government officials to deny religious expression

  • Deceptitech

    I am not religious. I do however have a belief in a God, and respect any religion to practice as long as they don’t force their will upon me.(Islam is more like “join or we keel you!”) That being said these FFR nuts, who make religion seem good compared to their thuggery, need to back the hell off. All they are doing is pissing off the slowly(I mean VERY SLOWLY) awakening giant that is here.

  • Yitzhak Finnegan

    I’m an atheist, and these buttinskis do not speak for me. Stop assuming that every act by an atheist in the name of atheism means that person speaks for all atheists. That isn’t true of Christians and it isn’t true of us!

    • Petrucio14

      You’re right. People of goodwill exist everywhere. So do jackasses. The Freedom From Religion organization seems to have more than their share of the latter.

  • TheCountess De Plorable

    Why would anyone dislike anything that would wish the well-being of a nation? And what would anyone care if it’s the god of someone doing it, as long as it’s intent is for good? We know Islam isn’t wishing us well. Are atheists wishing the nation ill?
    Now, when the word changes from blessing to cursing, then I can see a reason to get upset.

  • DMayEADS

    I don’t get it. If you don’t believe in God, why is it so offensive for others to say they do? It’s not like you HAVE to believe! I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn’t mean the mayor can’t dress up. If absolutely for no other reason, historically this country was founded with religious beliefs. Maybe it’s time to tell these folks, It’s quaint” and it’s leftover from history. Wow!

    • JPT

      Which religious beliefs?

      • Petrucio14

        Another jackass brays. Thanks for your comments, JPT. Your continuous blather reminds everyone what a fool you are. Thankfully, not all atheists are jackasses and you don’t represent them.

        • JPT

          Glad I could help.

  • Eva_Galley

    And people think Ted Cruz can’t win because he is an unashamed Christian?
    I call ‘bull’! This country is hungry for a return to decency and freedom.

  • Brian Westley

    If the local post office has the authority to put up a “god bless America” sign, that means it has exactly the same authority to put up an “allah akbar” sign (which only means “god is great” in Arabic).

    So if you don’t want government post offices to put up one, you need to fight against both.

    • Petrucio14

      Um, no. There is no context whatsoever in which ‘God bless America’ could be construed in a negative context by a reasonable person. ‘Allah akbar’ regardless of its translation is continually used as a battle cry for terrorists. False equivalence does nothing to strengthen your argument.

      • Brian Westley

        There is no context whatsoever in which ‘God bless America’ could be construed in a negative context by a reasonable person.

        Sure there is. Atheists don’t believe in gods, and some theists don’t believe gods give “blessings”. There might even be some Christians or other theists who don’t think their god ought to bless America, or that their god shouldn’t be “ordered” to bless America.

        ‘Allah akbar’ regardless of its translation is continually used as a battle cry for terrorists.

        So what? Like I said, the post office has exactly the same authority to put up either sign — it really doesn’t matter if you associate it with terrorism. If they have the authority, they can do it even if you don’t like it.

        • Flax Seed

          How can one be harmed by something they don’t believe in?

          I don’t believe in Santa Claus but the fact that children do causes me no harm.

          • Brian Westley

            How can one be harmed by something they don’t believe in?

            How can someone be harmed by “allah akbar”?

          • jamson64

            You’re a complete blowhard who doesn’t understand English . Later loser.

          • Brian Westley

            Yeah, that argument will win in court.

        • jamson64

          So what…you’re being obtuse. Oh and lay off the bong.

        • Petrucio14

          Read more carefully. I addressed my comment to a reasonable person, not you.

          • Brian Westley

            Sorry, you don’t know the law at all. If the government has the authority to do something, the fact that you don’t like it doesn’t take that away. You’re paving the way for “allah akbar”.

    • jamson64

      Follow the constitution. The banner establno religion…but hey enjoy the banners put up by those Great Americans.

      • Brian Westley

        Follow the “no establishment” clause, unless you’re OK with “allah akbar” on the local post office too.

        • jamson64

          Follow the constitution…you don’t read well. Quit drugs…pothead.

          • Brian Westley

            Says the guy who wrote “The banner establno religion”.

            I see you have no arguments and can only throw out baseless accusations.

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    Seems to me that the FFRF could be, given a creative and resourceful attorney, prosecuted using RICO statutes. 🙂

    • Brian Westley

      Seems to me you got your legal training from the back of a box of cereal.

  • jamson64

    The banner on the post office established no religion.

  • Sua Sponte

    You can always count on these clowns always trying to make everyone as miserable, jaded, bitter, and epic stompy footed children as they are….

    • Brian Westley

      There appears to be lots of whining on the part of god-believers for having a sign taken down.

      • Sua Sponte

        Yeah, that darn Constitution……Also quite funny that they don’t apply the same to the religion that shall not be named…

        • jamson64

          No religion was established.

          • Sua Sponte

            Should have included the in there…

        • Brian Westley

          Also quite funny that they don’t apply the same to the religion that shall not be named.

          They do — just find a US government post office that puts up a sign advocating Islam and the FFRF will get that taken down too.

          Got any examples?

      • jamson64

        Hey loser…the good people still won…you lost. Soak in those signs…and jeez…get a friggin life.

        • Brian Westley

          They didn’t win — I often see Christians, after losing some first amendment fight, do something similar, but legal, to pretend they’ve “won”.

          That’s exactly what happened here. It’s off government property. People can put up signs on their own property, including “allah akbar” or “gods are myths, stupid”.

          • Dan13

            Where are those signs going up, Sparky?

          • Brian Westley

            On private property, not on government property. Exactly as I said — Christians do something similar, but legal, to pretend they’ve “won”.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

            They are going up on private land, not on public land. This is a win for the Constitution of the United States – the flag was removed, as required by the US Constitution, and the private exhibitions are going up, as permitted by the Constitution. This is not a “win” for Christianity. It’s a win for America. Christianity lost, in that the United States government can’t favor any religion, so religious symbols can’t be placed in public spaces. That is still the case.

  • Heather Atkinson

    THIS is how you deal with the angry, asinine, loud minority of the atheist minority.

    They sue to take down one banner, put up 1,200!

  • HSD2015

    I LOVE IT!!!

  • ROBERT

    Atheist’s already Have Their Own Holiday! It’s April First! Now keep Your Nose Out Of Christian folks Business! way to go Jake!

  • wharfrat

    The Atheist are outsiders all over America, they come where they are not wanted and demand we turn our backs on our only hope-GOD!!,we as Americans must fight back against this evil and stand up to it,the Muslims are the same type of evil, they are demanding we change and do as they say,STAND UP AND STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING!!,it all began with Obama,

    • Brian Westley

      The Atheist are outsiders all over America, they come where they are not wanted and demand we turn our backs on our only hope-GOD!!,

      No, most of us were born here, and we only want to keep the government neutral.

      • Patrick Chester

        Oh puh-leaze.

        You are not interested in keeping government “neutral” you are interested in using the government to pander to your beliefs and eradicate other beliefs.

        Oh, and you might want to be careful with flinging the “we” part around. Not every atheist is a weak-minded little fool who goes into a screaming fit when they see a “God Bless America” sign on a wall.

        • Brian Westley

          You are not interested in keeping government “neutral” you are interested in using the government to pander to your beliefs and eradicate other beliefs.

          When MY government pushes YOUR beliefs, the only way to make it neutral is to stop the government from pushing your beliefs.

          Oh, and you might want to be careful with flinging the “we” part around. Not every atheist is a weak-minded little fool who goes into a screaming fit when they see a “God Bless America” sign on a wall.

          You can be a doormat if you like.

          • Patrick Chester

            I’m trying to think of how the government is pushing agnosticism… oh wait, you presumed I was Christian? Silly little fanatic.

            Hmm… “Respecting the rights of others who disagree with me” is “being a doormat” in your tiny overheated little head?

            Oh dear, I’m violating Atheist Dogma. Call the Atheist Inquisition! Make me recant!

            *eyeroll*

          • Brian Westley

            I’m trying to think of how the government is pushing agnosticism

            Like I said, you can be a doormat.

            Hmm… “Respecting the rights of others who disagree with me” is “being a doormat” in your tiny overheated little head?

            Nope, allowing the majority religion to use your government to push their religious views is being a doormat.

          • Patrick Chester

            A sign isn’t “pushing” anything, except to weak-minded fools who are so insecure they need to eradicate any expression of a “majority” religion to feel safe from impure thoughts.

            Which makes your sneering “doormat” comment mildly amusing. You think respecting other people’s rights is a weakness to despise and pretend you’re somehow enlightened for holding that belief.

    • JPT

      How does underscoring government neutrality equate to forcing you to turn your back on your God?

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

    So, let me get this straight: a post office (public property) was forced to take down a religious symbol, due to “political correctness” (AKA the US Constitution), so Christians in the town decided to put up lots of religious symbols on private property, which they have every right to do.

    Why is this even a story?

  • usaeagle1776

    Lowlife atheists are vermin.

    • JPT

      Is that an historical quote?

      • usaeagle1776

        Yeah. Havent seen any atheist do any good for anyone or anything in society.

        • JPT

          You probably have but they saw no reason to announce and equate the actions with their philosophy.

          • usaeagle1776

            No, the answer is….NO. I don’t see an atheist like St. JUDES hospital, created by Christians, that children with cancer can go to for treatment for FREE!! yeah, theres that.

          • JPT

            I support St Judes I’ve worked for St. Judes. Charity isn’t evidence for deity.

            Even more impressive, would be if Christians were to support that kind of care for all Americans.

          • usaeagle1776

            Christians do and give more than any group on Planet Earth. Typical atheist Christian hater. Dime a dozen on the net.

          • JPT

            I don’t hate Christians. I married a Christian. Christians seem to enjoy working with me.

            Again, charity doesn’t indicate deity. As an organizational grouping, one would expect to see displays of Christian charity.

            Now, wealthy celebrity preachers are another matter, and a big red flag for those who claim divine participation.

          • Patrick Chester

            “Some of my BEST FRIENDS are…”

            *eyeroll*

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      That’s the attitude we’ve come to expect from the folks who brought us witch hunts and burnings at the stake. Shame on you!

  • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

    I’m certain the devout will be equally supportive when (not “if”) any American municipality garners a Muslim-majority and begins affixing “Allahu Akhbar!” placards to all the taxpaying public’s property…

    • usaeagle1776

      Muslims are 1% of the population, so you Muslim loving apologists will have to wait a bit.

      • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

        Hamtramck, MI has been majority Muslim for a couple years, and the makeup of their city council is as well now. So we’ll see. You’ll support them when they do, I trust.

        And do you yourself not love your Muslim neighbors? I thought your Good Book obliged you to do so…

        • usaeagle1776

          As long as they submit to our culture, our laws, treat women as equals and don’t throw gays off rooftops…then we are good.

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            So you’re cool with this, then…?

          • usaeagle1776

            I guess you didn’t read my comment. If they SUBMIT to OUR CULTURE:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/529d3ea99c9d373756918847f8410c1d8478a8ffd6448a45807c047e7da4d59b.jpg

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            I don’t want to misrepresent your position. Would you be equally accepting of government tax dollars promoting the Muslim “Allah” as you would the Christian “God”…?

          • usaeagle1776

            Since this is a WESTERN Christian Judeo nation, that is a rather stupid comment, since they are only 1% of the Population, and such a thing wont happen in any reality any time soon.

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            Again, Hamtramck, MI has already been taken over by both a Muslim majority population AND representative town council.

            They’ve torn down the American Axle plant and built a Muslim prayer center. Non-Muslim residents complain that the government allows Muslim “call-to-prayer ” alarms that are much louder than the Christian church bells.

            You’ve side-stepped the question twice now. When the Hamtramck government begins using tax-dollars to god-fitti up the town square with THEIR preferred interpretation of the Abrahamic deity, will you be equally supportive of their right to do so…?

          • usaeagle1776

            Evidently you cannot READ. I have no problem with MUSLIMS, as long as they abide and assimilate to OUR culture and laws. And that means in the USA, there is no ALLAH on public cars or city govt buildings, only GOD. They have to submit to this nation, not the other way around. Is that clear enough for you…again???

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            Which means you want the government to play favorites where religion is concerned, establishing the promotion of Christianity in the public square and impeding the Muslim faith, does it not…?

          • Brian Westley

            Evidently you cannot READ. I have no problem with MUSLIMS, as long as they abide and assimilate to OUR culture and laws.

            When they’re the local religious majority, you’ve just handed them the same authority to use the government to push THEIR culture and laws.

    • Yup

      Jihadists shout that phrase you bring up to kill innocent Americans and other innocents. You sure you want to go THERE?

      • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

        And Americans shout “God bless America” while committing their own crimes*. How is that relevant to whether any religious graffiti should be taxpayer-subsidized…?

        = = =

        ᴰᵃᵛᶦᵈ ᴹᵃᵗʰᵉʷˢ ˢᶜʳᵉᵃᵐᵉᵈ “ᴳᵒᵈ ᵇᶫᵉˢˢ ᴬᵐᵉʳᶦᶜᵃ﹗” ᵇᵉᶠᵒʳᵉ ʰᵘʳᶫᶦᶰᵍ ᵃ ᵇʳᶦᶜᵏ ᵗʰʳᵒᵘᵍʰ ᵗʰᵉ ʷᶦᶰᵈᵒʷ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ᴬᶫᵃᵇᵃᵐᵃ ᴹᵘˢᶦᶜ ᴮᵒˣ⋅

        ᶜʰʳᶦˢᵗᵒᵖʰᵉʳ ᴿᵒᶫᶫᶦᶰᵍˢ ˢʰᵒᵘᵗᵉᵈ “ᴳᵒᵈ ᵇᶫᵉˢˢ ᴬᵐᵉʳᶦᶜᵃ﹗” ʷʰᶦᶫᵉ ᵈᵃᶰᶜᶦᶰᵍ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵗʳᵉᵉᵗ ᶦᶰ ʰᶦˢ ᵘᶰᵈᵉʳʷᵉᵃʳ, ʲᵘˢᵗ ᵖʳᶦᵒʳ ᵗᵒ ʰᶦˢ ᵃʳʳᵉˢᵗ⋅

        ᴬᶜᵗᶦᵛᶦˢᵗ ᴿᵒᵇ ˢʰᵉʳᵐᵃᶰ’ˢ ʰᵒᵘˢᵉ ʷᵃˢ ᵛᵃᶰᵈᵃᶫᶦᶻᵉᵈ, ʷᶦᵗʰ “ᴳᵒᵈ ᵇᶫᵉˢˢ ᵁˢᴬ﹗” ˢᵖʳᵃʸ⁻ᵖᵃᶦᶰᵗᵉᵈ ᵒᶰᵗᵒ ʰᶦˢ ᵖʳᵒᵖᵉʳᵗʸ, ᵃᶰᵈ ʰᶦˢ ¹⁴ ʸᵉᵃʳ⁻ᵒᶫᵈ ᵈᵃᵘᵍʰᵗᵉʳ ʰᵃʳᵃˢˢᵉᵈ ᶦᶰ ˢᶜʰᵒᵒᶫ ᵇʸ ᵃ “ᴳᵒᵈ ᴮᶫᵉˢˢ ᴬᵐᵉʳᶦᶜᵃ﹗” ˢᶰᵉᵉʳᶦᶰᵍ ˢᵉᶰᶦᵒʳ ᶜᶫᵃˢˢᵐᵃᵗᵉ⋅

        ᵀʰᵉʳᵉ, ʷᵉ’ᵛᵉ ˢʰᵃʳᵉᵈ ᶦʳʳᵉᶫᵉᵛᵃᶰᵗ ᵃᶰᵉᶜᵈᵒᵗᵉˢ⋅⋅⋅

        • Yup

          Wow, you sure have that at the ready. I suspect you have an agenda.

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            You’re free to embrace whatever paranoiac notions about me you’d like.

            And to, understandably, continue ducking the question about how your original reply is in any way relevant to the matter at hand:

            Would you, or would you not be equally supportive of an American municipal government god-fitti-ing up the public square in reverence to Allah…?

          • ahab the arab

            Would you, as an atheist, like MUSLIMS, who would KILL you for being one, in control of a city or country?

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            No I would not.

            See how easy that question answering thing is…?

          • Yup

            I saw the post you deleted. You provided a link to an atheist website. Yet you attempt to poo-poo my accurate assessment that you are an atheist.

            Yet, you STILL attempt to make a case for Muslims as you attack Christians.

            Duly noted.

          • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

            I deleted nothing. If the moderator killed a post for having an external link, I apologize for the breach of protocol. And I make no bones about not being an atheist.

            You can Google “Please Ask Your God Not To Make You Kill Me” you’ll see the piece I offered to counter your baseless assertion that I’m not critical of Muslims.

            I’ll keep asking if only because I love watching you run and hide from the question:

            “Would you, or would you not be equally supportive of an American
            municipal government god-fitti-ing up the public square in reverence to
            Allah…?”

    • Yup

      After reviewing your history of posts, it appears you’re an atheist, yet you defend Muslims and attack Christians.

      Duly noted.

      • http://www.stupidatheist.com J. Gravelle

        Untrue. I’d be just as hacked off about “In Allah We Trust” as “In God We Trust”. Because I’m not a hypocrite.

        And I routinely lament BOTH the apostates who are beheaded by Muslims as well as women’s healthcare workers who are slaughtered by Christians. Because I hold no double-standard where religious atrocities are involved, evidenced by my “Please Ask Your God Not To Make You Kill Me” article here:

        http://www.stupidatheist.com/2015/11/17/please-ask-your-god-not-to-make-you-kill-me/

        AND I don’t run from people’s questions, either. Pity you don’t possess the courage of your convictions to likewise engage in the discussion and respond to the hypothetical scenario I’d posed, my anonymous friend…

      • Patrick Chester

        It’s safer to attack Christians.

        Now let the fool continue virtue signaling.

      • Brian Westley

        You don’t understand sarcasm, do you?

  • ahab the arab

    Atheists wants everyone to be as miserable as they are. Pathetic.

  • David Bowman

    Good to see that town rebuke those ahole atheist jerks.

  • Amy

    This article should be re-named “Atheists force small town to up hold the constitution.”

  • Patrick Chester

    A sign is not establishing a state religion even if it’s on a government building. It’s free expression of religion.

    • Amy

      The state doesn’t get “free expression of religion.” If you want a God Bless America sign than put it on your lawn.

      • Patrick Chester

        The people do get it, and that includes expressing it by putting signs in a building, be it a post office or whatever.

        HTH, HAND.

        • Amy

          Great, so let the people place it on their own private property. If you want religious icons in government go to a different country.

          • Patrick Chester

            No.

          • Amy

            Then act like an American.

          • Patrick Chester

            I am.

          • Amy

            Good, enjoy your privately owned house and computer. Give yourself a big ole cross background and screensaver. Notice how the sign got removed? Public private doesn’t get to have “God Bless America” or “No Gods Bless America.”  You and me get to wait the same damn day and a half at the DMV as equals.

          • Patrick Chester

            Oh so now it’s “public” private? So a sign on someone’s lawn is going to be in danger if an insecure atheist wanders over and is Triggered by the Awful Words?

            With the likes of you, I suspect it will only be a matter of time before even private items are deemed Offensive and must be repressed. For “neutrality” or whatever other excuse you can come up with.

    • https://disqus.com/home/channel/atheismftw/ Ian Cooper

      No, it’s not. That’s why it had to be removed.

    • EIR

      Great! So you’d fully support this if the sign said: There is no God but Allah!

      Right? That’s OK because it’s not “establishing” a religion but a free expression protected in our Constitution, correct?

      • Patrick Chester

        Wow, you guys seem to be sharing the same cheat sheet for fallacies. Trying to pick something you think the people you hate will screech at and change their minds on.

        How cute.

  • mommynator

    Good. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  • jeffunde

    “The FFRF request was made on behalf of an unnamed Pittsburg resident.” So you need to change atheists to atheist. One person butt hurt.

  • OpenTheDoor

    Atheists have their own religion and his name is Lord Dark Matter.
    Zealots in the worst way.
    http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-county/2016/02/03

    • Patrick Chester

      Meh. Dark matter may be something real, or it might be this era’s phlogiston or aether.

  • Nullifidian

    So, basically, an unconstitutional endorsement of religion was removed from public grounds, and replaced with perfectly constitutional expressions of individual belief.

    Speaking as an atheist, that’s fine by me.

    The problem with these sorts of theocratic Christians is that they utterly fail to get the point. The point is to make the government live up to its responsibilities under the Establishment Clause, not to police all expressions of religious belief. As far as your private beliefs go, none of us care. So they wasted their money making up signs for an utterly futile gesture of defiance.

    But you’re right: it did lift my spirits; it gave me my best laugh of the day so far.

  • Pithecanthropus

    Go ahead, put up all the pro-God signs you want to in your own yard, absolutely no one is trying to stop you. Just leave them off of public property.

  • ElRay

    Y’ALL don’t get it. Nobody cares if private citizens profess their mythology on private or church property. The problem arose because a government agency endorsed/promoted one mythology over all others.

    How would y’all feel if there was an “Allah Bless America” banner? What about a Jewish banner? Or a Hindu banner? Or Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Scientologist, FSM, Heathen (original Norse gods), Hellenic (original Greek gods), B’Nai B’Rith, etc. banner? Would you be happy with all of those on the Post Office?

  • Copyleft

    Christians called out for violating the law, respond by flagrantly obeying the law. This is somehow called a ‘win.’ I wonder how many of them are also Trump supporters, with this level of intellect…?

  • http://myeckblog.blogspot.com/ myeck waters

    The Post Office HAD to remove the banner, as it violated the separation of church & state. That’s all the atheist group wanted.

    NO ONE CARES if private citizens, businesses and churches want to put up banners expressing their faith. More power to them. They certainly aren’t teaching those atheists anything.

  • SamuelInez

    Sorry everyone but this isn’t about winning or revenge. The post office is a government building. The Constitution clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” meaning the government cannot endorse one religion to represent itself. You can put a million flags on your yard or hang Jesus high on a cross, no one cares, that is your 1st amendment rights. but you can’t have one religion either it be Christianity or any other religion representing our country. If it said God bless Allah you would be acting much differently. And if Christians want to use this as revenge its rather pointless because they have always had the right to post flags, crosses, etc on their property, also the government can’t endorse itself or enforce itself in a church or tell a church who they can worship or how they can worship.

  • EdmondWherever

    It’s not the banner or its contents that was a problem. It was the fact that it was a religious message being promoted by a government office. But private yards is exactly where signs like this belong. This was a much better solution, and it should have been that way from the start.

  • pauleky

    This is hilarious. You didn’t “get back” at the atheists. You only did what you should have done in the first place. Stupid people are bad enough. Tack on religion and it’s outright scary.

  • Keith Babberney

    Excellent! Next, they should really stick it to the cops by driving through speed traps at the speed limit.

  • Robert Bishop

    Soooo…..the response was to put up signs on private property? Great! That’s what we wanted in the first place. Thank you. You do what you want with your own property. I think all of your yards should have at least two signs. That’ll sure show us!

    You seem to be under the delusion that we are against you believing in god. We aren’t. We don’t give 2 flying shits. We just don’t want it shoved into tax funded property, or in our government. Paint your personal
    houses to look like the face of Jesus, and see how few shits we give. I firmly support your right to put up all the religious iconography your yard can hold.

  • Hawk

    As an atheist, let me respond by saying this: Great! That’s all we wanted! Displaying religious messages on private property is all part of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. What can’t be done, however, is have the government (such as the Post Office) endorse religion. So, enjoy the signs! They don’t offend atheists one bit. It’s the government endorsement of religion that was the problem. Enjoy your day!

  • wineskin

    Have they taken In God We Trust off the currency yet? I must’ve missed that.