NoGodBlog.com

A Free Service for Atheists from American Atheists

Post details: Press release: Cross Victory

03/21/07

06:08:52 pm, Categories: Announcements [A], 361 words

Press release: Cross Victory

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 21, 2007

FEDERAL COURT: STARKE, FLA. VIOLATED FEDERAL, STATE CONSTITUTIONS BY DISPLAYING CHRISTIAN CROSS

A federal court ruled Tuesday that the city of Starke, Fla. violated the
federal and state constitutions by placing and maintaining a metal
Christian cross on top of a municipal water tower.

A resident of the town, aided by American Atheists and represented by
attorney Frank Shooster, challenged the display which had been erected
over 30 years ago at the behest of local officials, and was illuminated
at night. The cross was also periodically maintained at public expense.

U.S. District Court Judge John H. Moore, II found for the plaintiffs,
and dismissed several arguments devised by the City. Citing earlier
legal precedents, the judge noted that the cross was "indistinguishable
from the ubiquitous crosses found on any number of churches within the
State of Florida and across the country symbolizing Christianity." He
added in his written opinion:

"The display of the Cross on the water tower has the unconstitutional
effect of advancing, affirming, or otherwise validating Christianity ...
To the objective observer, the combination of the words 'STARKE' and the
Cross on the water tower clearly communicates the City's endorsement of
Christianity..."

Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists, hailed the
ruling as a "great victory for the First Amendment separation of church
and state."

"No government, whether federal, local or state, should be promoting
sectarian religion and using public money to build and maintain
religious displays," Kagin added.

The City of Starke, Fla. removed the cross prior to today's finding.
Judge Moore said that his ruling of Summary Judgment was necessary to
prevent the town government "at some point in the future" from
re-erecting the unconstitutional Christian cross on public property.

"Let's hope that city officials comply with the District Court and not
try an 'end run' around the First Amendment," said Mr. Kagin. "If they
do, we'll be ready to fight this case again."

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for
Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and
addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

American Atheists, Inc.
P. O. Box 5733
Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733
Tel.: (908) 276-7300
Fax: (908) 276-7402

32 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Charlie [Member]

Those mean old Atheist are at it again....the next thing ya know they'll want to continue to try to block Gods of all The Ridiculous Superstitious Variety from being amended into the US Constitution....Geesh

03/21/07 @ 18:28

Comment from: DD Dropout [Member]

We're just trying to help them save money on maintenance and energy costs.

03/21/07 @ 19:02

Comment from: reason [Member]

it seems to me the focus should be on changing state constitutions that
discriminate against atheists.the cross is a historical symbol no need to get worked up besides most towns in united states where founded by people who belonged to a church.we don't have to wipeout the nations christian heritage to ensure civil rights for atheists.

03/21/07 @ 20:24

Comment from: reason [Member]

so i'm not misunderstood i think american atheists are good guys i just don't see a cross on top a water tank as a danger.

03/21/07 @ 20:34

Comment from: Forrest Prince [Member]

"We're s'posed to have church and state separation

"But TV preachers say 'this is a Christian nation

'You Muslims, you Hindus, you atheists, you Jews

'You're all un-American in our estimation'"

-- from a song I (Forrest Prince)wrote.

So, reason, you can't see any difference between putting a cross, the unmistakable insignia of the Christian religion and the Christian religion ALONE, on the top of a city-owned ["municipal"] water tower and the top of the state Capitol building?

I hope not, because there isn't one.

But, apparently, it'd be just hunky-dory with you if you looked out your window one day to see just that: a massive cross (say, 100 feet tall, or so) on the top of your state Capitol building? Or, maybe, on the top of the White House?

Get a grip, friend.

03/21/07 @ 21:02

Comment from: reason [Member]

prince we cannot pretend that religion did not play a role in the nations history/culture.
what is more important to you a cross on top of a water tower or a state constituition that says you aren't good enough to hold office or testify as a witness.we have to focus on what is the biggest danger to us.

03/21/07 @ 21:22

Comment from: Apple_Christmas [Member]

reason:

what is more important to you a cross on top of a water tower or a state constituition that says you aren't good enough to hold office or testify as a witness.we have to focus on what is the biggest danger to us.

I know there are a lot of states that have weird laws against sodomy, and dancing on Sunday, and wearing skirts above the knee, etc., etc.. Everyone knows they are anachonisms and they are never actually enforced. My question is: does anyone know how often the god-clauses in these state constitutions actually come into play? I know they have in the past, but are they still enforced? I don't know the answer; I'm honestly just curious.

I do want to make clear though that even if they are never enforced anymore I do think it would be a good idea to get rid of them, for obvious reasons.

As for crosses on water tanks... I do think it's worthwhile to make a cause of these public displays. Imagine children growing up in a culture that takes it for granted that the government does not get involved in religion. Wouldn't that be a great thing? By eliminating these everyday reminders, we're helping to do just that.

03/21/07 @ 22:04

Comment from: FlyingWeasel [Member]

I know, sometimes these things seem awfully petty... but it's neccesary to conserve every inch we can of the wall of church/state separation.

because if we give them an inch, they take a mile.

there should be some action taken to get the anti-atheist language and anachronistic laws taken out of state constitutions.

03/22/07 @ 01:22

Comment from: leestein [Member] · http://www.MySpace.com/leestein

If the symbol on the water tower had been an Islamic star and crescent symbol, there would have been no controversy about removing it, I'm sure

03/22/07 @ 01:28

Comment from: hominid [Member]

I wouldn't mind seeing emotionally charged symbols fall like Husseins statue of their own dead weight.

03/22/07 @ 02:40

Comment from: hominid [Member]

re: I also don't mind a little push to send pushy symbols (and people) on their way.

03/22/07 @ 02:41

Comment from: What [Member]

Excellent!

The cross - The xian symbol for the barbaric practice of human sacrifice. Human sacrifice rituals and mythologies are obviously common in the religions of the world. What is this connection about?

03/22/07 @ 03:19

Comment from: What [Member]

"there should be some action taken to get the anti-atheist language and anachronistic laws taken out of state constitutions."

I agree wholeheartedly. Oppression, when practiced in its most high form, is a subtle tool. Deny them the tools.

03/22/07 @ 03:30

Comment from: septos [Member]

" You can't eat peanuts in church and other little-known laws" a book by Barbara Seuling. Somebody had too much time on their hands.

03/22/07 @ 06:51

Comment from: TXatheist [Member] · http://txatheist.blogspot.com

reason,
Slavery also was huge in our foundation. Do we paint the water tower with a black dude pickin cotton and white guy sitting on his butt yelling at him to work harder?
Religion didn't play a role in our history anymore than any other cultural aspect.
I understand your point about state violations. I wrote letters of support to many elected officials when Thomas VanOrden tried to remove the 10C monument at the Austin Capitol. General Attorney Greg Abbott said it belonged there and I can't imagine what chance I'd have of asking for the TX Constitution when TX is huge in "states rights".
When Mary Beth Harrell ran against John Carter for Congress I went to our local debate. Carter didn't show as usual but I asked if she got elected if she would support a bill that asked for the TX Constitution to changed to remove those words. She has been a lawyer in TX for 20 years and she was unaware of that she said. I never got an answer as she either didn't believe me, didn't want to answer or wouldn't support it. The libertarian that was there said he wouldn't support it because of "states rights". He later said that he personally agreed with me but was a supporter of states rights.

03/22/07 @ 10:03

Comment from: Forrest Prince [Member]

reason: what's most important to me is to preserve the 1st Amendment principle of Separation between RELIGION and GOVERNMENT. It doesn't matter how miniscule (or great) the intrusion be, it matters that whenever the wall is breached that a defense be mounted against the breach and the wall repaired and reinforced.

You can never enjoy freedom "of" your religion (or none) without being simultaneously free "from" mine. Whenever government displays as much as an "appearance of impropriety" in this regard it is cause for alarm. To say there is a difference in degree of danger between a cross being displayed and maintained on government property at taxpayer expense and "a state constituition that says you aren't good enough to hold office or testify as a witness [if you're atheist]" is to make a distinction without a difference. In principle, it's all one and the same.

Yes, we must pick and choose our battles as each individual's resources are limited. But to say a Christian cross displayed and maintained at taxpayer expense is a trivial matter (I paraphrase you, admittedly) just because the government property in question happens to be a mere water tower is to miss the forest for the tree.

Not that anachronistic anti-atheist laws aren't also important. I was summoned to jury duty once. It took the dense court clerk TWO tries to read me the "affirm" version of the oath (as opposed to the 'swear to God' version) before she could get it right. Sure would have been simpler if the "God" version were the secondary option, and not the other way around.

"God" is already so ingrained into this government it is sad. But go read James Madison's notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and you'll find out just how much our so-called "Judeo-Christian" heritage DID NOT figure into the forming of the government of the United States of America.

03/22/07 @ 12:14

Comment from: Spirula [Member]

because if we give them an inch, they take a mile

Exactly. In my Xtian days, I knew many Theonomy/Dominionist types. They exploit every opportunity to advance their power grabs to, ultimately, gain a theocracy.

(By the way, if you are unfortunate enough to have to travel through them, NEVER EVER exceed the speed limit in Starke, Lawtry or Waldo. Those towns pay for their police via speeding tickets.)

03/22/07 @ 13:23

Comment from: interesting [Member]

"Imagine children growing up in a culture that takes it for granted that the government does not get involved in religion. Wouldn't that be a great thing?"

Yeah, because communist Russia was clearly such a cheery place to grow up. Oh, and how could I forget China.

Hmmmm ...

03/22/07 @ 17:28

Comment from: sentinel [Member]

Interesting,

Wouldn't it be fairer to attribute the problems with communist Russi and China to their totalitarian form of government rather than their disdain of religion?

Totalitarian governments, whether secular or theocratic, all want to retain authority in all aspects of their citizens' lives exclusively to themselves.

Hence, they don't encourage the establishment of (competing) sources of authority within their society, whether it be located in the individual members of that society (personal freedom) or competing religions.

03/22/07 @ 18:24

Comment from: Apple_Christmas [Member]

interesting:

Yeah, because communist Russia was clearly such a cheery place to grow up. Oh, and how could I forget China.

There are about a gazillion reasons why the US is different from the Soviet Union and China. I think anyone would agree that the main cause of the miseries visited upon Russian Chinese people in the 20th century were due primarily to idiotic economic policies and nightmarishly draconian laws against political dissent. Their atheism per se wasn't the cause of the misery.

(Btw, China is starting to wise up a little regarding their economic policies.)

I should also point out that the Soviet Union and China weren't merely not invloved in religion, they took active steps to wipe it out, and did so through force and mind control. I would never advocate that the US do the same, I just don't want to see the US give preference to any religous creed (or to discourage no creed at all).

Is it your position that lack of government involvement in religion will lead to (or at least contribute to) the types of conditions seen in 20th century Russia and China?

03/22/07 @ 18:32

Comment from: jshanewhit [Member]

interesting,

Ohh, yeah, having religion in the hands of government is such a great thing. Why don't you go to Iran, Syria or one of those God Fearing Nations. Let me know how that is working for them. When Rome ruled Europe it was just so damn nice and fun. Modern Christians would certainly be seen as heretics. Why don't you let them lop off some body parts and tell me how good God is for government and politics.

read a book!!!!!

03/22/07 @ 19:27

Comment from: reason [Member]

celebrant prince i guess the reason why i see a cross on a water tower as trivial is because like many atheists i am used to keeping my atheistism to myself, in rural/small town areas it is to atheists advantage to join a church and pretend.i know this is not a answer many will like but it is truthful and i know i am not the only one.falwell,robertson,bush are atheists just like you except i think you have better morals.

03/22/07 @ 21:08

Comment from: TXatheist [Member] · http://txatheist.blogspot.com

reason,
I grew up with people where we had populations of 3000 and as low as 850 and a high of 8000. Pretty small town and we didn't go to church. Religion was irrelevant and many of my high school friends went to Catholic jr high. Most of them got in more trouble than I ever did.

03/23/07 @ 11:34

Comment from: pfccm [Member]

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution of the United States. It is apparent that this case and many like it are attempting to remove religion from this country, not protect peoples first amendment rights as it claims. This country was founded on religion whether you choose to believe it of not. By trying to erase religion from this country you are in essence erasing part of our history.

03/30/07 @ 01:59

Comment from: Krystalline Apostate [Member] · http://biblioblography.blogspot.com

pfccm:

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution of the United States.

No it's not. So what? There's no mention of religion in it either. It's in the Bill of Rights - establishment clause.

It is apparent that this case and many like it are attempting to remove religion from this country, not protect peoples first amendment rights as it claims.

That's bullshit.

This country was founded on religion whether you choose to believe it of not. By trying to erase religion from this country you are in essence erasing part of our history.

Crap, another Barton sock puppet. I suggest you go out & start studying this, instead of parroting what you've been told.

03/30/07 @ 02:29

Comment from: pfccm [Member]

Krystalline Apostate:

I am studying the topic. In fact im doing a research paper on it, so I have found many view points on the issue. Its funny that you say I'm wrong, but you give no evidence to prove your point. Do you even know where the phrase "seperation of church and state" came from?

04/03/07 @ 18:58

Comment from: remy [Member]

pfccm,

You must be new here.

04/03/07 @ 21:01

Comment from: pfccm [Member]

How could you tell?

04/03/07 @ 22:05

Comment from: Krystalline Apostate [Member] · http://biblioblography.blogspot.com

pfccm:

Do you even know where the phrase "seperation of church and state" came from?

Man, you just rang the wrong bell.
It was originally in the 1801 letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. Also note that James Madison also advocated it, although he called it a 'line between church & state.' He also stated, that "The purer church & state will remain, the farther they are apart." (paraphrase).
There are no efforts being made to 'remove religion from this country'. The actual effort is to take away any special privileges that the religious believe they're entitled to.
This country was founded on Enlightenment (secular) values, not on religion (certainly not in the sense it's meant today).
For what school are you doing this research paper for?
I can certainly provide evidence, if you so desire. Then again, you COULD just look it up on answers.com, or foundingfathers.org - just don't waste your time at wallbuilders: Barton's a liar & 1/2.

04/03/07 @ 23:17

Comment from: remy [Member]

pfccm,

You must be new here.
How could you tell?

Well, apart from your anagram there is the obvious lack of knowledge of previous posts, and then the challenge to KA's erudition.

I think you can be forgiven on both counts.

04/04/07 @ 09:44

Comment from: pfccm [Member]

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5176

04/07/07 @ 14:23

Comment from: Krystalline Apostate [Member] · http://biblioblography.blogspot.com

pfccm:
I'd say thanks for the link, but I've read this nonsense before.
1st:
David Barton's a liar. I can prove that.
2nd:
The 'original intent' argument's for strict constructionists, which is a non-sequitor, otherwise we'd not be able to amend the amendments.
3rd:
The constitution explicitly states 'no religious oaths required'.
4th:
Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 says otherwise. Go look that up.
5th:
I've written extensively on this subject, & stand by my research -
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-norris-nonsense-applicants-need.html
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2007/01/chuck-norris-has-become-right-wing.html
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/08/stepping-through-gates-of-atheism-my_28.html
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/08/got-martyrdom-newsflash-its-all-in.html
6th:
If there WAS an effort to 'strip religion from our culture', please tell me how many churches have been shut down, bible books stores closed, religious channels shut down by anyone, religious films censored?
Answer: ZERO.
7th:
I'm all for anyone worshiping as they please: most of us are. It's a right everyone's entitled to. I have a problem w/my tax $ being used to support something I'm against.
I can probably come up w/more, but that'll do for now.
This is a democracy, not a theocracy, & EVERYONE is entitled to a say in the govt., not just 1 group.

04/07/07 @ 15:45

You must log in to add comments.

NoGodBlog.com

American Atheists is a nonprofit 501c3 Educational organization that does not endorse political candidates or parties. Dave's opinions are not always the opinions of American Atheists, Inc.

Dissenting posts are welcomed, but preachy, vulgar, or hateful posts are deleted without apology.

Spread the word: Link to the NoGodBlog from other blog sites.

American Atheists: Serving all Atheists of all races, backgrounds, nationalities and orientations by promoting tolerance and understanding of secular people.