Cross Removed From Whiteville Tower; Sort Of

[rug]

Whiteville, TN 10/26/2011) The Freedom From Religion Foundation which has been demanding any possible sign of religious activity or symbol be removed from any public property threatened to sue the town of Whiteville for having a cross atop its water tower.

The mayor of the town complied in his own way, having one arm of the cross removed as a form of protest.

Technically, the cross is gone but it serves as a reminder to what the town was forced to do.

In a letter to Nashville lawyer Alvin Harris, Mayor James Bellar wrote, "This brings to close a sad chapter in the history of Whiteville that can best be described as terroristic, cowardly and shameful! The fear and terror caused our older people here is shameful. So shame on your client and your firm!"

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-cross-whiteville-removed,0,4646449.story

[Angry Dragon]

1. I find it ironic that a mayor would come out and talk about

terror when he wants to promote a god that threatens to destroy people if they do not love him
and pledge total obedience

[JohnnyRingo]

2. But that would leave one arm free!

Jesus would be able to flip off his captors, scratch his ass, or cause general mayhem. It would take all the great martyrdom out of the whole belief. I'm sure this act will cause many local Christians to lose faith in their religion.

Why even build a water tower if you can't remind God that's how we killed his kid. It really puts it in His face up high like that.

[edhopper]

3. How does removing the cross

cause terror to the "older people"? WTF is he talking about?

[Kurmudgeon]

4. "Freedom from Religion" is only an excuse to be intolerant.

[laconicsax]

5. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. n/t

[darkstar3]

6. Absolutely.

[edhopper]

7. Sure they are "forcing" people

to have no public display supporting any particular religion. How intolerant!

[trotsky]

8. And being gay is just a choice, right?

You sure do quote right-winger memes well! But surely you aren't one, so why do you repeat their nonsense?

[rug]

11. Atheism is not?

[trotsky]

12. Could you have chosen to be a Republican? n/t

[darkstar3]

13. LOL.

I find that question hilariously apropos, and I think you know why. ;)

[rug]

47. You're easily amused.

Knock yourself out.

[rug]

44. Of course.Now, is your atheism a choice?

Or are you asserting it is the inexorable result of logic, observation and evidence and, God help you, you have no choice?

Or mayebe you saying it's simply a considered opinion.

[trotsky]

84. So, knowing everything you know...

and having experienced everything you've experienced, you could at this moment choose to be a Republican, eh? And truly believe in that party's ability to run our country?

Really?

[NMMNG]

14. No, it isn't

If you'd listen to the atheists here instead of constantly telling them what you think they believe you'd know that.

[rug]

45. Hmmm, when did you realize you had no choice but to be an atheist?

[darkstar3]

49. About 2002.

[rug]

52. I guess you were able to choose not to be an atheist before then.

[darkstar3]

74. Actually I wasn't. Nice try, though.

[cleanhippie]

51. Around 1988.

I could either believe some crazy sounding nonsense about supernatural beings, or I could not.


Looking back now, it really isn't a choice, is it? I simply continued in my default state of not believing.

[NMMNG]

80. When the childhood indoctrination wore off,

I realized there was no more evidence for the god I'd been taught to believe in than for any of the thousands of other gods people worshiped.

[immoderate]

30. Of course not silly!

Is believing in ghosts and goblins a choice? How about the tooth fairy?

This type of thing runs deep into the unconscious, and is not a simple choice.

--imm

[rug]

46. Are you saying you're driven to atheism bt unconscious impulses?

[immoderate]

48. By the same impulses that drive me to prefer chocolate ice cream.

I could say I prefer vanilla. I could even choose the vanilla and eat it. But I would still know what the true flavor is.

Similarly, there is no description of god that makes sense to me. Nothing in my consciousness requires a supernatural explanation, or the presence of some organizing intelligence. There's no role for such a being in the universe. In my life, I've tried several flavors. None passed the silliness test.

I think that religious leanings are centered in pre-conscious brain structures. Little, if ever, conscious control. Occasionally there's a conversion experience, perception varies significantly. It's unpredictable.

--imm

[rug]

53. If you prefer chocolate ice cream you can still choose not to eat it.

[immoderate]

54. But that does not change my thinking.

My world does not accommodate magic beings.

--imm

[rug]

55. Your choice.

[immoderate]

82. Can you believe in the tooth fairy? I want to, but I can't.

Some people believe in the Cornwall Statement, in part: that God will not allow environmental collapse, no matter what man does.

Do you believe that? If you can, it's an indication that religious types are wired differently, I think. :shrug:


--imm

[beam me up scottie]

73. My atheism was not a choice, I was born this way.

Becoming a vegetarian was a choice.

Being heterosexual wasn't a choice, I was born this way.

Supporting human rights for glbt people was a choice.



Why do you struggle so with that concept?

[NMMNG]

9. So you'd be OK if Satanism were being imposed on you?

Since "freedom from religion" is so intolerant and all...:shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

10. So you have a problem with the first amendment?

SCOTUS is pretty clear on this. Even the right wing one we have now.

[rrneck]

24. So is state sponsored religion. nt

[cleanhippie]

25. Yeah, sure it is.

[Deep13]

26. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...."

With the 14th Amendment that effectively reads "Government shall make no law...." No law means NO LAW. If the water tower was built at the direction of the town govt., it is a step toward religious establishment. Since the Constitution says NO law, a small law violates it.

Really, are you seriously arguing for an official religion while posting on a liberal message board?

[Deep13]

28. I still can't get over what an arrogant, preumptuous, ignorant statement that is.

Here's a post I wrote a long time ago in response to the idea that atheists have a special duty to STFU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=196408

[struggle4progress]

15. Population, about 3000. Per capita income, about $11K; median household income, about $22K.

FRRF has scared a small, impoverished, mostly minority town in Tennessee to spend money removing a silly cross from its water tank

Dollars to donuts the lawyer was a white out-of-towner with an annual income ten or fifteen times the annual income of the average town resident

How heroic

Take on some of the big guys next time, folks

[darkstar3]

16. Typical.

You KNOW that the cross was illegal, and that it was right for it to be removed, so you go for the emotional plea.

The funny thing is, the canard about "spend money removing" is so much bullshit. If they can't find someone to do it for the paltry sum of 50 bucks or less, then they're not even trying,

[NMMNG]

18. Funny how they can always find money to erect them

But it's a terrible imposition to find the money to take them down.

[struggle4progress]

20. my reading of the story is that the object was originally donated, so initial costs

may have been nil

[struggle4progress]

21. i do not know if you will understand this: but i sometimes agree with people in principle

and yet consider the same people bullying a-holes in practice -- which is the stance i am taking here with regard to the FRRF and this town

i, of course, agree one ought to keep crosses and creches and ten-commandment-monuments off public property, one ought to avoid prayers at school board meetings and public school football games and public school graduations, one one not have religious references on the coinb-of-the-realm, and so on. if i lived in the town i would have opposed putting a cross on the water tower

but FRRF acted in an essentially bullying fashion imo: FRRF explicitly threatened a small impoverished town, with fewer inhabitants than FRRF has members and probably an annual budget smaller than that of FRRF, with a lawsuit that FRRF suggested would cost the town more than its annual budget. and naturally folk in town got huffy about it:

Whiteville Responds to Freedom from Religion with Hundreds of Crosses
... Town’s residents have placed hundreds of crosses in their yards around the city ...
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-whiteville-responds-to-freedom-from-religion-with-hundreds-of-crosses-20111026,0,4515197.story

that's not exactly a big pr win for separation of church and state, which i prefer to regard as a great tolerance principle

[Goblinmonger]

22. I bet you could have found a atheist in the area

that would have taken it down for free. If it were in a small town near me, I'd volunteer.

So if the town is "poor" then the Constitution doesn't apply? I missed that article in the document. How about stop being douchebags so you don't have to spend money to correct the douchebaggy things you do? And again, I bet they could have found someone to do it for free just for the experience of climbing the water tower.

[rrneck]

23. If they're so poor

they shouldn't have wasted money decorating public property with religious symbols. They started a pissing contest and lost.

I'm sure it was quite a shock for them to discover there was an organization with enough muscle to bitch slap them into compliance.

I was raised not far from there and that cross is just the tip of the iceberg. The Christian Taliban in the hinterlands could use a reminder that those who support the First Amendment have ground penetrating radar.

[trotsky]

29. Don't blame the people who broke the law,

blame the people who had to take them to court.

I understand.

I just wonder how you'd feel if the situation were reversed.

[cleanhippie]

34. Wow, s4p, are you blaming the victims?

The victims being all non-christians, of course.

[humblebum]

41. The victims? LOL nt.

[hootinholler]

38. Wow

You are aware of the insidious nature of religious infiltration into government, right?

It is bullying to point out a violation of law and ask for redress? Since when? I seriously doubt the FRRF(sic) walked in with riot batons, or mafiosos saying things like "Gee, it'd be a shame if that water tower sprung a leak."

It's not about money.

It's not about PR.

It's about the Bill of Rights.

They knew it was wrong when they put it up. They knew they would lose a suit and the method of compliance is arrogant and vindictive in a spectacular display of passive aggressiveness. I believe they would lose a suit even now.

Erecting crosses on private property is fine.

Erecting them on public property and then yelling about being oppressed when someone points out the law, not so much.

[struggle4progress]

43. Read the FRRF letters. They basically said "Do this or you'll pay an arm and a leg in fees"

Being right in principle doesn't preclude being a bully in practice

You don't need to persuade me of the worth of the separation doctrine: I spent my years in the public schools very obviously refusing to participate in the daily prayers over the PA system in a district that ignored the Supreme Court decision; I was publicly criticized regularly in class for it, too, by teachers who didn't acknowledge the separation doctrine -- and I always argued back

But I'll say again: FRRF didn't win any friends n that town for the separation doctrine: they acted like bullies and they were perceived as bullies. And, this being a political board, I'll wonder some about the political consequences of that: Reagan's winning coalition in the 80s, after all, included a number of folk misled by dishonest rightwing organizing rhetoric about the separation doctrine

[darkstar3]

50. So your point is a tone argument.

That's even less interesting than a plea to emotion.

[beam me up scottie]

59. FFRF does not exist to "win any friends'. It exists to protect and defend the First Amendment.

But I'll say again: FRRF didn't win any friends n that town for the separation doctrine: they acted like bullies and they were perceived as bullies. And, this being a political board, I'll wonder some about the political consequences of that: Reagan's winning coalition in the 80s, after all, included a number of folk misled by dishonest rightwing organizing rhetoric about the separation doctrine

Right, it's FFRF's fault that morons like this make up the majority in that town (and state, fyi):

DianneStaffordBond at 2:30 PM October 26, 2011

If someone with property next to the water tower would allow an even taller cross to be installed on their property....I'd make a donation toward that effort. I agree it is a sad day we the minority opinion rules in a democratic society. Kudos to the Mayor, everyone still knows it's the cross. It's just been crucified like our savor was.

Poor christian majority, so bullied...:cry:...

[struggle4progress]

70. well imo here's the rub, bmus:

the reading of the first amendment, as enforcing the separation doctrine that you and i both want, depends on a judiciary willing to read the amendment that way, and ensuring that we have such a judiciary requires a certain political climate

if we po enough folk about that reading of the first amendment, the predictable result will be a political backlash that changes the make-up of the judiciary and the way it reads the law: that is historically, in fact, partly how persons as scalia landed on the scotus bench

we ought to stand up for principles we believe in, and absolute separation of church from state is an excellent principle from my pov

but if jerks become the public face of the separation doctrine, the separation doctrine loses ground politically and that loss threatens its political viability

[laconicsax]

71. You're right...better to allow creeping theocracy than oppose it and step on some toes. n/t

[struggle4progress]

77. not what i said

[laconicsax]

78. No, you're far to politic to say it explicitly. n/t

[struggle4progress]

79. neh. if i had the talent to be politic, you would walk off feeling happy and well-understood,

and about two weeks later you would slowly realize you couldn't actually make any definite sense one way or the other of what i had said

[laconicsax]

87. I didn't say you were good at it. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

72. Are you really that naive?

Christian extremists who dominate in this state (and others like it) don't understand separation doctrine because they don't want to.

And because they don't HAVE to.

They have been allowed to bully and oppress minorities at will.

Just ask any Tea Partier, it's their god given right.


The FFRF folks are to be commended for putting them in their place.

[hootinholler]

60. Actually they were likely being rather polite about it.

They do not have a duty to point out to the Mayor that the city would spend a lot of money on a suit that they would lose.

No good deed goes unpunished I guess.

Oh, and BTW, got a link to the letters? They are not quoted in the article, just the Mayor calling them terrorists is quoted, So I'd love to read them.

[struggle4progress]

76. you can find at least some of them at the FFRF website

[hootinholler]

83. Well I did just that

Since you couldn't or wouldn't give me a pointer to where they are, I had to go search ffrf.org. It left me wondering if you have actually read them. Here's the first letter 'those mean bullies' sent in December 2010. It was ignored, as were subsequent letters until the last one they sent stated that they would be left with no other choice than to file suit. This clearly is an outrageous instance of a minority bullying the majority, right?

How do I know? From their news section:

If you fail to comply with this demand within thirty days from the date of this letter, the FFRF and its Whiteville member will have little choice but to sue you and the Town in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee," wrote attorney Alvin Harris, Nashville, on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

FFRF had sent three previous letters of complaint on behalf of a local resident to Mayor James Bellar of Whiteville, Tenn. regarding the display of a cross on top of the town water tower.

FFRF first wrote a letter complaint in December 2010. Three letters to Bellar have gone without response to date.

The Mayor finally responded like a petulant child and disfigured the cross, leaving it up, and I'll assume leaving its lighting turned on. At this point it could be a circle and everyone in the town would know what it represents: if you are not christian, you are not welcome here.

[struggle4progress]

88. Could be. Then, again, mayor of small TN town with 3000 people gets letter, from somebody he

never heard of, in big city Madison WI (pop 233K) 650 miles away, lecturing him on what he can and cannot do and alleging some anonymous person in his town doesn't like something, what reaction would ya really expect, other than "These folk are putz-heads" (which they are) and circular-file the letter

[hootinholler]

89. So proselytizing with public property and funds is ok in your book?

This isn't about my expectations, which by the way, are for the religious of any stripe to not do this in the first place.

So who responding to a similar situation would not be "putz-heads"? (if you know yiddish is a rather offensive term, BTW)

Was I a putz-head when I objected to proselytizing in local schools? Should they have round filed my complaint? Or should they have corrected it, which is what was done without my having to threaten a suit.

[struggle4progress]

90. You could go back upthread and reread, carefully, in its entirety, what I said in

#21, #43, and #70

I've explained my general policy views on separation; I've mentioned a bit about my personal history on separation issues; I've briefly discussed my understanding of the recent political history of separation; and I've tried to imagine what it looks like to a small town taking a policy stance opposite mine

And if you got your local complaint resolved without threatening a lawsuit, then more power to you

[hootinholler]

97. First I like to think I read them carefully and completely when I replied to them.

As to 70 I read carefully and completely without a response.

You know, I find your tone pretty much condescending throughout, but especially above. It's ambiguous enough that I'm not sure which of several things you imply about me, you actually meant to imply.

I'm astounded that you believe that we should only enforce the first amendment when it doesn't piss people off. Posts 15, 21, 43, 70 and 88 support this conclusion.

I'm also having trouble understanding how someone can so completely misidentify who the bully is in this situation.

Why do you think the FFRF has shielded the identity of the complainant? I'm sure there wouldn't be any retribution from the people who erected the cross in the first place, right? Especially in a small town, that would never happen, right?

[laconicsax]

99. +1

I'm glad to find out that I'm not the only one seeing it that was.

[struggle4progress]

100. i think we'll just have to leave it with me thinking you saying i'm saying or thinking something

that i say i never say because i don't think i think that way

:shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

93. Well, that's just ignorant.

So because he hasn't heard of something, he has no obligation to even check into it? It was a letter from an attorney telling him they were going to sue if they didn't hear from him. Does he ignore all letters from lawyers he doesn't know? Or is it just if they are from the "big city" (which Madison, in the big picture, really isn't). What if the letter were from a constitutional lawyer from Harvard that he never heard of?

I would expect he would give the letter to the city attorney and then the city attorney would find out who they are and get in contact with them which is the basic job description of a city attorney.

[rrneck]

65. That town is full of bulies.

The civilized thing to do is take them to court. Do you have an alternative?

[Deep13]

27. OTOH, there does seem to be a correlation between religiousity and poverty.

Anyway, where was this concern for nickles and dimes when they were paying to install the thing. You're reifying the town too. And who is going to speak for the residents of that town who really are offended by the presumptuousness of Christianity? Do their rights not matter because they are poor?

[dmallind]

35. They spent money putting it there, and knew damn well it was unconstitutional at the time.

They just arrogantly assumed Christian privilege would protect them as it almost always does unless litigated. Cry for their purse strings when they spend illegally on Establishment, not when they get their hands slapped for doing so.

[struggle4progress]

39. Mayor's sayin the town didn't pay to put it there:

... Whiteville Mayor James Bellar made the decision to remove one of the arms of the cross. Bellar said a women's Sunday school group raised the money to put the cross on the water tower seven years ago ...
West Tennessee towns face lawsuits over cross
Posted: Oct 27, 2011 9:51 PM EDT Updated: Oct 27, 2011 11:44 PM EDT
By Janice Broach
http://www.wmctv.com/story/15895980/west-tennessee-towns-face-lawsuits-over-cross

Story also says ... The Freedom From Religion Foundation also sent the mayor of nearby Somerville, Tennessee a letter saying someone has complained about a cross -- not sure I understand Somerville's connection here

[rrneck]

40. Then

bill the women's sunday school for the cost of removal.

And fire the city attorney.

[cleanhippie]

42. Winner!

[beam me up scottie]

58. The "Big Guys" are the christians in power, in case you forgot.

These local troglodytes don't hesitate to use in-your-face christian propaganda because they know they'll be admired and protected by those same "Big Guys".

How fair and balanced of you to champion the rights of the protected majority.

Wish I could say I was surprised.

[humblebum]

17. All telephone poles need to come down. nt

[humblebum]

19. I think the Freedom from Atheism Foundation needs to be alerted. nt

[immoderate]

32. Yeah! Have them send over some superstition!

There's a vacuum to fill!


--imm

[Glassunion]

31. I don't understand.

Maybe it's just me. But my town, throughout the year puts up one type of decoration or another. Some of these are related to religious observances. I don't celebrate these observances, however not one of the decorations bothers me at all. Should it?

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the outrage at these symbols.

[cleanhippie]

33. It's not "outrage at these symbols."

Its outrage that the government is supporting or advancing a particular religion, which is something the government is not allowed to do.

[Glassunion]

37. Fair enough.

I can see the difference from that town, to my own. Makes more sense now.

[hootinholler]

36. They should sue anyway.

Everyone knows what it is: A disfigured religious symbol. Unless Whiteville is known for riot batons, it is essentially identical to having a cross there.

I'm surprised they don't put a weather vane up there, or antennas, etc. Maybe even a Grail-shaped lantern.

[rug]

56. They should sue to remove a disfigured religious symbol?

Should they also seek equitable relief to remove all memory of it?

[hootinholler]

85. Yes, because it is still a *religious* symbol.

At this point, it could be a circle on that tower and everyone in town would know it is a symbol of christian superiority.

As to the MIB reference, you are just being silly.

[rug]

92. When are you going to Missouri to change the name of St. Louis?

[hootinholler]

95. ROFLMAO

Right after you get California to change the name of San Francisco and Los Angeles, since they were also named before the Constitution existed.

[rug]

96. How about Corpus Christi?

Name changed in 1847.

[hootinholler]

98. That would be an interesting test

Since the Supremes didn't recognize that the 1st amendment applied to States until 1925, I suspect it would be considered grandfathered.

Still, it would be interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

57. This happened in a state where christians recently fire-bombed an islamic center under construction.

Non-christians who live here see these symbols for what they are.

HELL FUCKING YEAH, you go FFRF!!!

:applause:

[rug]

61. Oh yes, this sad little piece of wood on a water tower is a perfect parallel.

When I burned my finger lighting the stove I had an awful flashback to the Inquisition.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Just ask the poor persecuted majority: "it's the cross. It's just been crucified like our savor was"

DianneStaffordBond at 2:30 PM October 26, 2011

If someone with property next to the water tower would allow an even taller cross to be installed on their property....I'd make a donation toward that effort. I agree it is a sad day we the minority opinion rules in a democratic society. Kudos to the Mayor, everyone still knows it's the cross. It's just been crucified like our savor was.

:rofl:

[rug]

64. Is that grey box intended to mean something?

If that's a DU post you're violating the rules.

Meanwhile, if I need to ask the poor persecuted anything I'll be sure to look for you.

[beam me up scottie]

66. It's called a "blockquote" "useful for posting excerpts from articles" according to DU's HTML table.

If you had bothered to read the comments below the article you would've recognized the itty bitty pity party that was going on over there.

Really slipping.

[rug]

68. I know what a blockquote is, it's the content I'm questioning.

"Over there"? Over where? If you have a point, put the link. If it's a link to a DU thread, you're calling out.

And as an aside, this entire subthread is ridiculous. A fine example of nonsense but ridiculous still.

[beam me up scottie]

69. That's a quote from someone who was horribly victimized by those evil 1st Amendment worshipers

And AGAIN, it came from your own article.

Don't recognize the whining of one of those poor poor victims townspeople?

Check the comments next time.

Really really slipping.

[rug]

81. I generally ignore comments on newspaper websites.

They're generally, inane, ignorant, histrionic and bigoted. However, I will continue to read your posts.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Yet you have no problem posting "inane, ignorant, histrionic and bigoted" articles from them.

The comments don't support your conclusions so you ignore them.

[rug]

91. The article is news.

The opinions, including yours, are extraneous.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

94. "Savor"?? Jesus is tasty???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NMMNG]

63. 'Non-christians who live here see these symbols for what they are."

Gang signs.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[darkstar3]

75. Good point.