Sheriff Attacked by Atheists for Putting Religious Ad in Newspaper

For atheists, the First Amendment is a one-way street. They don’t believe in “freedom of religion” but “freedom from religion.” The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a letter to the Onslow County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 16, asking the board to stop Sheriff Ed Brown from creating any more ads about religion.

Sheriff Brown published an advertisement in The Daily News in Jacksonville, N.C., written in letter format and addressed it to “All Decent and Respectable Citizens of a Decent and Respectable Society.” The FFRF wants the Board of Commissioners to stop him from publishing similar advertisements in the future. The FFRF also wants Brown to issue an apology, and says the board should take disciplinary action against him.

The First Amendment, if it even applies to the states, states the following:

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.

As you can see, the prohibition is addressed to Congress not to the state of North Carolina or its counties. In fact, the first Amendment was demanded by the states to keep the national government and its courts out of the religious business of the states. Even if the First Amendment does apply to the states, there is this line: “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. So what the FFRF is attempting to do is have the county commissioners violate the Constitution.

Then there are the provisions that prohibit the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” So it seems to me that Sherrif Brown is on solid constitutional ground.

North Carolina’s constitution has an interesting history when it comes to religion. Article XXXII of North Carolina’s 1776 Constitution is specifically Christian by stating the following qualifications for public officers in the state:

“No person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

This provision remained in force until 1835 when it was amended by changing the word “Protestant” to “Christian,” and as so amended remained in force until the Constitution of 1868 which describes North Carolina as a “Christian State” (Art. XI, sec. 7). The present Preamble reads:

“We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.

The following was included in Sheriff Brown’s ad: “When America turns back to God’s Law and man's standards established from God’s Law, good and decent things will turn around for All Americans.” How is this statement a violation of the North Carolina Constitution when it describes God as “the Sovereign Ruler of nations”? A sovereign ruler has rules. Rules are laws.

Is their historical precedent for government officials publishing religious statements in newspapers?

George Washington’s 1789 “Thanksgiving Proclamation” was published in the October 14th issue of the Massachusetts Centinel and includes the president's signature. The Preamble states that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” Like North Carolina’s present constitution, Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation describes God as “Lord and Ruler of Nations.”

If Sheriff Brown’s advertisement violates either the Federal or state of North Carolina constitution, then President Washington, who was present at the drafting of the national Constitution and the First Amendment, was a significant violator of the law. I guess that puts Sheriff Brown in good company.

Just so you know, Sheriff Brown paid for the ads with this own money.

The people at the Freedom From Religion Foundation are either ignorant of this history or hope that the majority of people who read The Daily News in Jacksonville, N.C. are. They are also playing the “fear factor” card. They’re hoping that a threat of a lawsuit will persuade the commissioners to issue a reprimand to the sheriff. I'll keep you posted.



  • samekindunblind

    Where is this "attack" you described in the headline? You make it sound like rabid atheists ran out of the forest and ravaged him with their teeth and claws. I guess in saying "attacked by atheists" you meant they wrote a letter that included a request. That's some real objective journalism.

    • Thomas Martin

      You're quite stupid too.

      • Hawker

        Thats the best you got, the headline could easily read "atheists send letter objecting to..." that would have far more accurate. But, knowing the sheep will follow the author plays your emotions like a child wanting candy. Good day.

    • Seedyore

      @ "samekindunblind" : Attempting to violate a person's constitutional rights IS an attack! Their "request" is asking the state to violate not only the Sheriff's constitutional rights, but those of every Christian in the state. Its bullying, pure and simple.

      • daves

        The United States Constitution declares itself to be the supreme law of the land.

        Doesn't this, by itself, put man's laws above God's laws?

        • daves

          In the Nov. 24 article, Brown states that he paid for the ads with his own money and has been doing so for 21 years. As a citizen, Ed Brown certainly has that right and no one, not even the FFRF, disputes this point. However, when he uses his office as sheriff, Brown uses the imprimatur of the badge and his title of sheriff to express blatant religious views, he has crossed the line separating church and state.

          Being a long-time proponent for term limits for all elected offices, I feel that once a person is elected to office and holds that office for a long time, a feeling of omnipotence — I can do no wrong and a my-way-or-the-highway attitude — becomes apparent. Brown is Exhibit 1 that term limits might be in order.

          Jerry Bunting

        • Vance

          Really, daves? How did that letter establish a state religion? Are you really this ignorant, or are you deliberately trying to muddy the waters? The intent was to limit the authority of congress and government, not to end an individuals freedom of expression when they are elected to public office.

        • MichaelH

          Nice slant, Bunting, but it misses the mark. Everyone employed has an "office" of some sort. You'd deny him his constitutional rights because his office is that of the sheriff? I'm a high school teacher. Does that, similarly, restrict ME from exercising my rights? Note that I concede, readily, it prevents me from indoctrination of my students while on the job, but it would seem you would want me restricted in my daily life outside of the classroom, as well.

          You're a bigot, old son.

        • samekindunblind

          Please read the actual advertisement run by the Sheriff - it very much uses his job to indoctrinate his citizens.

        • viancome34

          Daves, PLEASE show us where in the Constitution where it says there must be a seperation of church and state. PLEASE!!!!

        • samekindunblind

          It doesn't, that line is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson explaining the meaning behind the first amendment to a church in Danbury, VA. It is the US Supreme Court through repeated rulings based on interpreting the constitution, that has made it clear that church and state entanglements undermine the intent of the first amendment.

        • Tim BAH

          "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,..."

          This is a direct quote from the supreme law of the land. Which recognizes God's supremacy.

        • samekindunblind

          Um, no. That is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. It has no relation to U.S. law.

        • daves

          Article. VI. Clause 2:
          This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

        • stephenfroweblog

          "The United States Constitution declares itself to be the supreme law of the land. Doesn't this, by itself, put man's laws above God's laws?"

          The answer is not when taken in context with preceding and subsequent documents and a good reading of the thoughts of the people who wrote it. The constitution is, by definition, the framework by which our civil government is supposed to operate. It is preceded by the Declaration of Independence written by the same group, which leaves no doubt about who's law they held as the highest. If you really need me to Daves, I will pull out the specific passages as well as writings by our founding fathers to back this up, but I know you just enjoy being a provocateur.

        • Samuel M. Smith

          Daves, several others have posted direct quotes of the First Amendment, so I won't bother to do so. But I will offer you a thousand US Dollars if you can find one reference to 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the U. s. Constitution or amendments thereto.
          The supposed reference used to create the view that it is was based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson when he was the Third President to a Baptist Association in Connecticut and if read in its own context and the context of other letters and statements known and documented to have been made by Jefferson basically said that "Government needs to stay out of any form of controlling religion." If I am not mistaken, it was actually he who put the words "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." in the First Amendment.
          The Supreme Court decided that since they are not Congress, they could do what Congress was prohibited from doing, but they violated the very Constitution they were sworn to uphold. Several legal organizations have, on the behalf of churches and Christians, won battles against the "separationists" numerous times since they organized to fight for our rights.

        • Moses

          Sorry daves, but the Constitution also includes wording which clearly states that the "Christian" religion preceeds Constitutional law.

        • daves

          The Constitution never mentions Christ or God.

    • dntmkmecomoverther

      That IS an attack...dipstick. And if the atheists of today existed during the first year of the birth of this nation, I suppose they would have wanted George Washington squelched for proclaiming the National Day of Thanksgiving. Atheists need to get his message loud and clear: the founders of this country understood the source of their incredible providence and blessings and they gave thanks for that source. You may desire to rewrite history, but you can not.

      If you don't want to believe in God that is your business and your responsibility. But you have NO right to deny anyone their expression of religion as it is applied by the application of the 1st Amendment.

      • Hawker

        Except when it is violated by the government as it clearly is in this case. The separation of church and state has been clearly ruled on and established by the courts for hundreds if not thousands of cases. it is hard for me to understand why this is such a difficult issue to grasp. The endorsement came from a sheriff, clearly employed by and a representative of the government. Fact or not? Oh wait, most of the people on this site don't care about bad.

        You could also do us a favor by realizing what an Atheist is. An atheist does not choose to or want not to believe in god. They don't believe deities exist for the lack of evidence. Do you believe in Zeus or do you just deny Zeus exists although he really does?

        • dntmkmecomoverther

          You evaded by premise which is typical of stupid arguments like yours.  My premise is the founders of this nation believed in God; you want to believe that they insulated that fact from their form of government which by clear evidence of great magnitudes deny your view…to use your words,’ that is hard for me to understand why this is such a difficult issue to grasp’.I could do you (you said ‘us’) a favor? …by realizing what an atheist is?  I fully know what an atheist is. It’s a person who denies an eternal consequence for not believing the evidences of creation and the creator.  I am heartily sorry for you; and here is your favor: repent and believe before it’s too late.

        • Hawker

          No one is arguing the founding fathers didn't have faith. You are creating a straw man in this case. The whole point of the discussing is the FFRF request to halt a public official from promoting and clearly proselytizing Christianity. It has noting to do with the beliefs of the founding fathers. How is my argument stupid? Are you stating their is no violation of church and state in this scenario. No one is denying this guys right to spread his word just the forum for which he is doing it. He can keep it in church where it belongs.

          No you clearly do not understand what an atheist is if you insist on using the word deny in the definition. It implies that someone selects to no believe in something that actually exists. Since you ignored it the first time I will re-ask the question with your line of thinking. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe Zeus doesn't' exist for lack of evidence OR do you just DENY the existence of Zeus because you don't want to acknowledge his real existence. Since my arguments are "stupid" this should be simple for you to reply to with a coherent and clear answer. Finally, thanks but you can keep your "heartily" sorrow as I am blessed with a path of freedom and happiness void of living my life in fear of an eternal hell fire...such a great gift Jesus delivers with that mind screw isn't it. Good luck and peace as I suspect I won't hear back from you.

        • dntmkmecomoverther

          Ok hawker, here’s your response which you didn’t figure you would receive:Hawker said: .  “No one is denying this guys right to spread his word just the forum for which he is doing it. He can keep it in church where it belongs.”Interesting thought, but it doesn’t stand up to historical truths.  George Washington used the Congress of the United States in applying his faith to his governance of the new Republic.  You would present a case for George Washington ‘not knowing what he was doing’ when he did that.   Washington KNEW and LIVED among the founders; please, tell us just how the authors were wrong in their interpretation of what THEY wrote AND how they ‘illegally’ applied that faith to their work in public service.  You would simply have to be tanked on dope to make that case; for it would never stand in the light of the historical evidences of the Congressional Records.You simply miss the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment.  I hold, that George Washington,  and literally all US Presidents up till FDR,  had a perfectly sound ‘handle’ on the use & interpretation of the 1st Amendment.  It is just  this current generation (since 1947)  which has lost its grasp on sound interpretation of the US Constitution; that somehow, this generation in particular,  has become ‘so much smarter’ than those who wrote it.  What BS!  It would be absurd to believe that the founders failed to understand and interpret their own writings AND their implementation of that understanding in their governance of the Republic.Now for your second request that I further explain ‘belief’.  Even atheists believe.  You as an atheist ‘believe’ God does not exist. That is a belief.  The fact is that you deny the evidence of His existance (and any other spiritual entity, but I will focus on YHWH for this debate). In order present evidence for the existance of YHWH, what evidence would you listen to?  What evidence would you ‘admit’?  We have written accounts given in Holy Scripture.  Most atheists tell me they ‘won’t or don’t accept that’.  Why not? If you ever studied law, textual defense has stood for many forensic debates.  Eyewitness accounts still vouche for truth today; why not the eyewitness accounts of scripture?How about explaining the existence of life itself? No one (not even your beloved Dawkins) can explain the foundational beginnings of life.  NASA wants to invest another huge chunk of our tax dollars in quest of this answer.  I submit that the answer is given to us already; but this culture disregards it.  That answer is clearly attested to in the Bible.  But is also ‘evidenced’ by nature itself.  Who ‘set up’ what atheists call ‘nature’?  So hawker, the evidences are there.  It’s a simple matter that you and I look at the evidences with a different set of presuppositions.  Yours presupposes no supernatural.  Mine does not.  The evidences are now clearly becoming prominently lopsided in favor of a creator and creation rather than evolution.  And eveolution still can not account for beginnings, just mutations.Trust me I clearly DO understand atheism; I also recognize a huge difference in the attitudes & demeanor of atheists.  I have discussion with atheists quite often; some of whom I actually get along with quite well. However, it’s the belligerant and obnoxious ones whom I really enjoy the engagement.  And you have to admit, when atheists start putting up billboards and taking out ads in broadcast medium, they are just as much proselytes as any Christian.(BTW, whenever atheists use the term ‘straw man’ that indicates to me a borrowing  from blogs.  Strawman is such a cliché.  You will come off more creative and effective by coming up with your own metaphors.)Peace!

        • Hawker

          To clarify, Straw Man is not a metaphor it is a logical fallacy, You are arguing a point that only you are bringing up to sound relevant to this case. The practical application of your historical point is not relevant to the issue being discussed in the article. Sure I could easily agree with you from a historical point and your point is taken. Unfortunately, the issue is not the intent of the founding fathers, it is the practical application of the 1st Amendment as it has been ruled upon and applied to similar scenarios today. You either have to state that this is a state/church separation issue or it is not. The whole reason for actions of FFRF is to apply the consistency of church state separation as the courts have upheld in the recent past on similar cases. This is not an argument about historical intent as much as you would like it to be. So, I only use the Straw Man fallacy reference because you are using one. It is just as relevant as saying someone is using argument from authority or appeal to emotion or any of the others, take your pick.

          Regarding definition of atheists you have now changed your position. If you stated your last definition first I wouldn't have brought it up. You originally refereed to denial of God not denial of the evidence of God and that is a big difference and the correct interpretation. And sure I believe there is no God or other supernatural entities that many claim. That is a belief and I don't deny that. With that, the degree of beliefs and claims are very wide in spectrum and for the sake of truth I find it important to delineate between the wacky and the real wacky through critical examination. You do the same thing you just stop your critique where I continue (maybe not, you could believe in many other spirit type of entities, I don't know). But I do my best to not presuppose. I would however prefer the evidence of any claim is strong enough to lead me to a clear conclusion objectively.

          Regarding written testimony. It would be preferable and much more credible to find strong third party documentation. You must admit that if the miracles of Jesus were as prominent as they claim they are, non Christians and historians of the times would have been writing about them as they occurred. The first written testimony from a follower 40 years after his death is a little hard to swallow. (and the josephus account has odd language factors to it that appear to be added after the original writting and it is still lacking in detail) As far as eye witnesses, yes it is used today but eye witness accounts are typically a last resort of proof as eye witness accounts a majority of time are wrong. To say eye witness accounts are reliable is not understanding the flaws in our perceptions as humans. Take for example, an eyewitness account of Mohamed launching his horse off the rock (as in the Dome of the Rock), ascending into heaven. There is even physical evidence in the rock where the horse left a hoof print! Do you believe that account is true or untrue? It has eye witness accounts and physical evidence via a impression in the rock.

          The existence of life? No, I don't think there is a good explanation for the existence of life yet and of course Dawkins and any reputable scientist would make the same claim. But not religion! We have the answer, it was dirt and a rib and some magic. That is supposed to be our comprehensive understanding of the origin of life right. Dawkins doesn't lay claim nor study origins but there is a group scientists led by Physicists Lawrence Krauss that have started to gather yearly to tackle the issue. It will be amazing to see if they can even come close to a strong hypothesis (sorry I digress). To your point, evolution does not make origin claims, just diversity of life. Your questions though "who set up nature". It depends on what you are calling nature or what state of nature you are asking but here is a fact, if stars didn't explode (supernova) in the early universe, you and I wouldn't be having this dialogue...or existing. the bi-product of supernova is the heavier physical elements needed to create carbon based life. So that is a fractional yet real answer.

          Finally if you think you are annoyed by the miniscule advertising of atheists sending a message, lets discuss the overwhelming industry that is religion, TV programs 24/7, radio stations dedicated to the topic, door to door salesmen, billboards, magazines etc. Advertising and broadcasting Christianity is overwhelming more prominent than any atheist ad. So if those periodic bill boards bug you, think of how non believers feel.

          I have asked for your belief position on two Gods now, Zeus and Muhammad (ok profit)...lets go with Allah. Zeus and Allah... Believe or not?

    • T-Texas

      believe what you want, but I hope you change your mind before you die and are prepared to meet the supreme being.

    • Samuel M. Smith

      I am 74 years young. I went through a stage of "show-me" agnosticism in my teen years. Today, my life story, "Through It All IN THE HOLLOW OF HIS HAND" is in the printing department of WestBow Press and should be available for online order within the week. I have found that if you follow your own (I happen to be low genius IQ) plans and purposes, but if you obey God's plan, everything works out for your good and you are protected from murder attacks (I have been 6 times), are involved by God in many unique adventures and are generally healthier. Now about the attacks by athiests. I agree with samekindunblind that the headline overplays it, but compared to the vilification the liberals, Democratic National Party and various others do to Conservatives and Christians, that was a very slight exaggeration to say he was "attacked." After all, they did write a letter that attacked his job and his First Amendment rights. Verbal attacks, whether by mouth or by letter can be every bit as devastating as an attack by a ferocious wild animal. Your statement "I guess in saying "attacked by atheists" you meant they wrote a letter that included a request." was a major understatement. Request? Athiests, homosexuals and liberals/socialists dont make requests. They DEMAND firing and reprimand, as was reported as this case.

    • KAJ

      Hmmmm does not the brightest light on the Christmas tree mean anything to you?

  • Peggy

    Read the first paragraph - its right there.

    • samekindunblind

      It certainly is. It says they sent a letter. Apparently that constitutes being attacked?

      • URKiddinMee

        And what would a pseudo-intellectual liberal like yourself call it?

        • samekindunblind

          Um, letter-writing? A formal complaint? It's not really all that intellectually challenging, even for someone who is only a "pseudo-intellectual liberal" like myself.

        • Mark

          And I guess these thousands of news stories about how the GOP, Democrats and even Bill Clinton "attacking" Obama are all to mean that people were chasing him with baseball bats and broomsticks. I guess the NY Times just 'mis-spoke', huh?

        • samekindunblind

          In cases where people are aggressively criticizing an idea, or the person behind the idea, perhaps attack is an appropriate analogy. If the letter-writers criticized the idea of Christian beliefs or personally criticized the sheriff, this article certainly does not make that clear. It only states that the foundation wrote a letter requesting that action be taken. Perhaps the letter was offensive and personally attacked the sheriff, but the article doesn't actually provide any citation or link to the letter so we don't know. That's one reason why it's crappy journalism.

        • Mark

          When a person or group complains about what another has a legal right to do and tries to nefariously have that person "punished" or stopped from doing what is their legal right, that is an unnecessary attack. They are just using political tactics to try and silence the person because the don't like what they are saying. The Sheriff has every right as a free citizen of these United States of America to say whatever he wants. He can place an ad that says he loves Miley Cyrus. Or an ad that says he dislikes peanut butter. Or an ad that says Hitler is cool. Or an ad that says Obama is cool (although no one would believe that). They just don't like what he is legally saying and are trying to stop it, although they have no legal right or recourse to do so, and that burns them, and apparently you.

        • Dusty1

          Who are you to dictate what can be published in an ad? If you're not interested, move on. Don't censor the ad placer.

        • URKiddinMee

          It may well be "crappy journalism," and you can wrangle over semantics till we all turn blue, but in MY book calling for "disciplinary action" against the Sheriff is an ATTACK. And the fact that the letter writers asked for that action was made clear in the article. Just sayin'

        • samekindunblind

          And just to help clarify things: Responding to my post by calling me names does constitute a personal attack. If you had instead described why my idea might be mistaken or poorly reasoned it would not. I imagine if we were provided access to the letter, we would find that it emphasized reasoned arguments over petty name-calling.

        • daves


      • Guest

        that's right, as a Christian, the atheists do offend me!!!! you go sheriff Brown!!! Judge Roy Bean said that all atheists,muslims,trouble maker's should be take behind the barn and shot!!!!!

        • samekindunblind

          So, as a Christian you support the idea that non-Christians should be unceremoniously murdered. Just like Jesus would have done, right? Sheesh. And you wonder why the world is more and more resistant to fundamentalist religion!

          There is no room in America for death threats based on one's religion or lack thereof. Your opinion is well respected among the Taliban, however.

        • Old GI

          your smug reply to more than post puts you in the category of "anti christian"..That's fine, but the sherrif has a right and exercises that right to espouse his belief in the christian principles. Not that its all personal but well protected by the constitution of the both the US and NC. Those who want to have "freedom from religion" not legal place to stand. You can just be against it for personal reasons. A good place for you to not practice a religious belief would Russia, in my opinion and I believe they issuing visas with people with a work skill or degress in other smuggness!

        • samekindunblind

          Pointing out that it's not okay to kill people for not being Christian is smug and anti-Christian? And if one doesn't practice your religion they should have to move to Russia? Is this really the America you stand for? Really?

        • Mindy

          Are you really that dense or just being deliberately obtuse?
          "guest" (whoever he or she is) did not mean that literally, but rhetorically. (guess you missed that day at school?). Most people can recognize sarcasim, rhetoric, and satire (among others), why can't you?

        • daves

          Jesus' "Sermon On The Mount" is the classic statement of Christian ethics, expressed by Jesus Himself, as written in the Bible.

          MATTHEW 5-7 (King James Bible Clarified New Testament)

          5:38 You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a
          tooth for a tooth:

          5:39 But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall
          smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

          5:40 And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat,
          let him have your cloak also.

          5:41 And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.

          5:42 Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you
          turn you not away.

          5:43 You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your
          neighbor, and hate your enemy.

          5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
          do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use
          you, and persecute you;

        • Thomas Martin

          Yes and shot twice with a 45 in there arse on their shoulders.

  • Friend, not foe

    Where is the ad that the sheriff placed? I would like to read it to see for myself what it said.

    • daves

      Me too!

    • FlaJim
      • daves

        Thanks FlaJim.

        So it sounds like the Sheriff believes that God judges us as a nation rather than as individuals.

        Does anyone know where that belief comes from?

        • FlaJim

          The Bible says that God will bless a nation that will follow His laws and worship Him. There has always been a special blessing for individuals who are true to God but if a nation in general turns its back to Him, He won't grant any special privileges to it.

          Our nation was founded on Christian principles and for many years, we adhered to them and the nation prospered. Today, those principles are being eroded on an almost daily basis. The sherrif is trying to rally people to uphold the founding principles so that God will once again bless this nation as a whole.

        • John Smith

          The Bible

  • Patriot1776

    Every time the atheist have protested the display of Christian symbols on public property and won, it has been a violation of the Constitution. The rights of Christians have been taken away. The only limitation on religion in the Constitution is placed on congress and the establishment of a national religion. It is time that Christians stand up for their rights while we still have them.

    • Steve


    • ciroc2323

      Facts are stumbling blocks to leftist atheists.
      They are simple minded people with a simple minded view of the world and humanity in general.

      • samekindunblind

        Right, that's why the vast majority of members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists - because the most successful scientists in our country are clearly simple-minded and unable to comprehend facts.

        • Marconi

          Evidently not since they defend fairy tales like evolution and global warming. Real scientists like Isaac Newton were Christians

        • Hawker

          Oh yes! And Creationism or as we like to call it now "intelligent Design" because creationism has been hammered so bad over the last 30 years is evidence based. You know...take deity, shoot magic through his fingers and BAM! Now you have humans! That sounds like a great scientific process. I can't believe you actually got thumbed up for that, go back to watching FOX already.

        • Newton

          And a pond full of slim getting struck by lightning makes more sense? At least come up with something plausible like space aliens or something!

        • Hawker

          You are actually closer to some of the newer theories of Origins (which evolution does not address, it is a totally separate discipline of science) than you think. It is not out of line to think, and even possible to theorize some type of molecular organism that has traveled on an asteroid which impacted earth and was cosmically planted here.
          But the beauty with science especially in the case of our origins is that those who study it can clearly say No, We Don't Know but we are working on it. It is a much more intellectually honest position to take instead of the creation position that says; "Oh Yes, We Know For Sure" where we came from.

    • daves

      What you seem to not understand is that keeping Christian symbols from Government land is what protects our ability to worship freely.

      • Patrick Henry

        Yeah turning in our guns protects our right to bear arms

    • bhs3kgt

      Yes it's a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment but the Supreme Court began to ignore the Constitution in the 1940's in favor of the phrase "..separation of church and state..." from a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church. By then the Court had enough Progressives to change the course of America. Great
      Many court decisions later we find ourselves living in a severly divided, very violent America. Good job Dems.

      • Hawker

        Jefferson is the very reason so many denominations can practice freely. If he didn't write that letter and build that establishments then the US might be Christian but most likely not your denomination. The government would have been in position to select ONE denomination and endorse it as its National Religion like the country they fled already had done. Just think instead of just atheists being prosecuted on a religious site like this it could have been Presbyterians, mormons, Baptists ...I think you get my point.

        • Novak

          Notice you said "denomination" and that's exactly what was meant not Christianity as a whole

        • Hawker

          No it is exactly why he was so pursuant on keeping government and church separate. I don't know what branch you practice but what he was avoiding was the force of everyone who elected to practice Christianity wasn't forced to be a protestant or a southern baptist. So question is, if you are not a Southern Baptist, and you don't cater to that particular brand, would you like the freedom to select what flavor you practice? There wasn't "Christianity as a Whole", there was on or two competing denominations rallying for top position and endorsement.


    To me, the sheriff here needs to think through his ad a little better! Granted, if our nation began embracing & enforcing laws in-line with Biblical teachings we would enjoy the peace and prosperity that naturally accompanies such a society. But everyone would still be headed to Hell! Shouldn't all messages calling for reform (political, moral or religious) have the Gospel message as well? "Repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus' name" is the message Christians are told to preach. It should have been included in this well-meaning sheriff's advertisement.

    • Notallatonce

      Can't change the world all at once dodo bird. We did not slid into Sodom all at once we will not claw our way back out all at once either. You bludgeon people with the big SINNERS-club all at once and you will do nothing but chase them away before they will begin hear the truth.


        Yeah, you are probably right. I will call Jesus and ask Him to rescind the Great Commission at once. Come to think of it, I will also inform Paul that he was way off-base when he preached Christ (and Him crucified) everywhere he went. We modern folk are much more cultured and sophisticated, so we should immediately abandon all Biblical directives and instead rely on our own wisdon and political structures so that people will "hear the truth". Thank you for the correction (and the insult).
        Side note: If people "hearing the truth" hear nothing but God's laws, they will never be saved. Read Romans 3:20.

    • Steve

      Actually, George Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation implies turning to Jesus for forgiveness in the section that says "do His will". If God's will is that "none should perish but all may have everlasting life", then doing his will as George Washington states implies a faith in Jesus Christ. The entire proclamation, taken as a whole, clearly shows a faith in God and knowledge of the scriptures. II Chron 7:14 says "if my people, who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins, and heal their land." Perhaps the Sheriff could have gone a little farther in his ad and included a specific call to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, but I applaud his actions and for having the courage he did.

    • Black9

      You only see things through your eyes, The Sheriff see all kinds of things you could not imagine. He is making a statement for all to be Law abiding. What he published was published years ago. so every one should place their feet in his shoes.

    • john

      There is even forgiveness for, and acceptance for our God hating, dening dumblind friend above if he turns from his ways and accept's Jesus Christ as his savior.

  • samekindunblind

    Somehow, I suspect all of your opinions would suddenly be the exact opposite if a county sheriff was posting ads encouraging people to embrace Islam. You would scream and quote scripture and froth at the mouth (and write in all capital letters with lots of exclamation points) that he has no right and this is what's wrong with America. I would imagine you would be praising the heroic, oppressed Christians who wrote a letter requesting that he stop publicly advocating for Muslims (and that letter wouldn't be referred to as an "attack"). Am I wrong?

    • PreacherCruz

      Some of them MIGHT....Don't make the mistake of thinking that all Christians would though! I am a Christian Minister but I am also a Constitutional constructionist and Conservative. I FULLY realizer that my religious rights are only free in so much as ALL religious rights are free. I certainly wouldn't like it if my local Sheriff was urging people to adopt or convert to Islam...He would however, be well within his rights to do so. My recourse would be to try to see him replaced at the next election. NO foaming at the mouth or letters of complaint.. God bless this nation because we REALLY need his help now!

      • samekindunblind

        Good point. Not all Christians are the same, just as not all Muslims are the same, not all non-believers are the same, etc. I absolutely agree that each of our freedoms are protected only to the degree that all freedoms are protected. Cheers.

    • Seedyore

      Yes, you are wrong.

      • Hawker

        Really? Have you read any of these posts and witnessed the name calling and hatred of atheists, tell me how it would be different for a Muslim. He is spot on, the dialogue in this forum proves it. This article although slanted is very clear, the sheriff is a government representative who is clearly endorsing and promoting a religious position. That is a violation of church and state. May Allah be with you because you are clearly practicing the wrong religion.

    • Ray

      When you consider the goals of the muslim religion, every citizen should be repulsed by any advancement of the muslim religion in America. Whether you like it or not the fact is that this country was birthed on Christian principles and it is those principles that have held America in good stead. What needs to happen is atheiests need to spend more time in their own back yard and less time on everyone elses. Other than offend your sensitivies, there is no emninent danger to you. Frankly just about everything you stand for offends me as a Christian, but we are not as vindictive as you appear to be.

    • Mattwm

      well, this is a Christian nation build on Christian morals and teachings. I would bet that if this sheriff put up an ad in a muslism country, he could be executed, so yea, you are wrong.

      • samekindunblind

        "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

        I repeat, not in any sense whatsoever.

        This is the first line of the Treaty of Tripoli initiated by George Washington and submitted by President Adams (our second president) in 1796. It was ratified by every single member of the Senate, with no dissension or argument whatsoever. Our founding fathers had absolutely no intention of the United States being a Christian nation.

        • Carol McGhee

          Oh geez, that old canard about the Treaty of Tripoli. Either you are ignorant of the truth or willfully misleading. George Washington did not write it. See this article:
          Here is a quote from it:
          "The Treaty of Tripoli ...was drafted in 1797 by Jeol Barlow near the end of Washington’s administration. It was ratified during Adams’ administration. The phrase “the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is found in the treaty. It was designed, .. to appease leaders of Muslim nations who were commandeering ships, kidnapping sailors, and selling them into slavery. Barbary was described as “Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.” The treaty was renegotiated in 1805 under Jefferson’s administration and the above phrase was removed. A 1783 treaty with Great Britain includes the following phrases: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity . . . Divine Providence . . . Grace of God.”

        • ciroc2323

          Thanks, Carol!_You know when the atheists start parroting the "Treaty of Tripoli" nonsense their argument is already lost._9 times out of 10 they just copy and paste that garbage from some anti-Christian blogtrash site anyway.

        • samekindunblind

          Oh, I forgot. Evidence means nothing to the faithful.

        • chewinmule

          Your evidence has been and can be refuted every time by the referenced text. So your "evidence" is not evidence and means nothing. Boom!

        • Hawker

          Maybe we can focus on the reality of today instead of pulling out text that no one references. Although samekindunblind is correct. You have the opportunity to prove America is a Christian Nation, much like England has a national religion and has religious clerics as an influence in the political process. Where is your proof that America is a Christian Nation? Christians love to state it, but never seem to be able to provide evidence relevant to today. You would think that if the US were a christian nation you could easily supply something recently published by the government stating that fact. But you can't because the statement "america is a christian nation" is fueled by the want of a belief not a fact. It is also supported only by people who want to believe the same thing which still doesn't make it true. You can clearly make your own beliefs but you can make your own facts.

        • Alexander Hamilton

          Public Law 97-280

        • Hawker

          This clearly states a declaration only applicable to the year 1983. It is irrelevant to the case of declaring the US a Christian Nation. Technically in 1984 the declaration doesn't even apply any longer. The only way to make this case is to show first that there is no such thing as church state separation AND we have specific Christian ideals publicly integrated into government processes. Kind of like teaching Islamic creationism as fact and science like they do in Muslim countries. That is a fact isn't it?

        • Alexander Hamilton

          You can spin it anyway you want but the fact that this country was founded on Biblical principles has been acknowledged by the US Congress, the US Supreme Court and every President except the current occupier of the White House. You have a sentence inserted into a treaty by a junior diplomat that wasn't even in the final draft and a sentence taken out of context wrote by Thomas Jefferson. I can produce a library of evidence from The Mayflower Compact on.

        • Hawker

          How in the world did I spin that? The reference you provided clearly states, "The 97th Congress of the United States publicly declared 1983 the national "Year of the Bible" ". I would say the fact that it references 1983, and then state "year" of the bible, is pretty clear that this acknowledges a single year. There again is no reference to the bible being the official provider of law, or official book of the US or anything that would make one believe this is officially a Christian nation.

          I would think that if the US was truly under the influence of Biblical guidance and law, wearing mixed fiber and working on the sabbath would hold much greater consequences than it currently does, which is none.

          You can make up your own beliefs, that is fine, but you can't make up your own facts.

        • Alexander Hamilton

          I did not say that it was currently so, I said it was founded upon Biblical principles. The US Constitution recgonizes Sunday as a day of rest and in many jurisdictions opening of business was illegal on Sundays. As far as Public Law 97-280 goes the only part of it that is time limited is the year designated as "The Year of The Bible" the following is NOT limited to a specific year:
          "WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

          WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

          WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States; "

        • Alexander Hamilton

          If you would like something more recent:"...we remain strong and united, "ONE NATION UNDER GOD." ...Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 14, 2001, as a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001. I ask that the people of the United States and places of worship mark this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance with noontime memorial services, the ringing of bells at that hour, and evening candlelight remembrance vigils. I encourage employers to permit their workers time off during the lunch hour to attend the noontime services to pray for our land. I invite the people of the world who share our grief to join us in these solemn observances.

          In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of September, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
          The whole argument here is if the US Congress can pass a law to admonish citizens to read the Holy Bible and the President of the US can admonish citizens to pray then certainly the Sheriff of Onslow County can take an ad out in a local paper admonishing citizens to repent.

        • carolandv

          ...except that they put God everywhere including on our buildings, on our money, and in our founding documents, "In the year of our Lord...", and so forth.

          Please find another cause that you might have an opportunity to win with faulty rhetoric and flagrant emotion. God Bless you anyway!

        • samekindunblind

          Actually "In God We Trust" was added to money in the 1950's - the same time that "One nation" was changed to "One nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. They were both added during the era of McArthyism when political and religious paranoia ruined many many peoples lives. Our motto chosen by the founding fathers is "E Pluribus Unum" - out of may, one.

          There is not one single reference to God in our constitution and Bill of Rights, and religion is not mentioned except once in order to limit it's relationship with government.

          So, that leaves buildings, I guess. Perhaps you should brush up on your history. Best wishes to you, too. Sincerely.

        • Alexander Hamilton

          Wrong, In God We Trust was put on coinage in 1864(the 2cent piece) and most other coins by 1866. President Theodore Roosevelt tried to remove it in 1907 because he thought money was too vulgar to have God's name on it but Congress passed a law in 1907 to restore it to all coins that had it previously. By 1938 it was on all coins(the nickel being the only one remaining).

        • samekindunblind

          I stand corrected. However, that is still nearly a century after the founding of our country.

        • Alexander Hamilton

          E Pluribus Unum wasn't ubiquitous on coinage until 1916, and still doesn't appear on any paper money except the $1 bill. "In God We Trust" is the ONLY motto that is on ALL US currency

        • Alexander Hamilton

          It's now over 2 1/4 centuries after the country but we know more about the founding fathers' intent than they did in 1864?

        • Alexander Hamilton

          .. founding of the country...

        • F. S. Key

          "And this be our motto---'In God is our trust" is part of The Star Spangled Banner as published in 1814 and later adopted as our National Anthem

        • Thomson

          So go back to your atheist websites and tell them to quit spreading that lie.

        • St. John-Smythe

          "when political and religious paranoia ruined many many peoples" No it was when atheists started attacking the way things had been done for 100+ years so things were codified into law to protect them.

        • Bleckstone

          What you people don't realize that all you do when you push this leftist stuff is wake a sleeping giant. You need to wait on the public schools to brainwash more kids otherwise you just end up with more laws you'll have to get repealed.

        • Alexander Hamilton

          John Adams also said that "our constitution is for a religious and moral people and wholly inadequate for the governance of any other"

        • Alexander Hamilton

          and "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were ... the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence."

    • MichaelH

      There might be some that would do exactly that...just as you're doing. Most Americans wouldn't, be they Christians or not.

    • KAJ

      Yes you are

    • Jones

      No we would just vote him out

  • robert

    robert says to Patrioti776 belive me i will still have my rights no mater what satians Followers do for none of us can truley be free until our saveyor calls us out of this life to live forever you must first duy and then and only then will we be free to Be with the Lord Forever. satanic people can only kill this Earthley body BUT they can never kill your Sperate once you are born again absalutly nobody oranything can take you out of the Lords posstion. Nobody Nor Anything.

    • Allie

      Robert, have you been drinking? Although I enjoyed your thoughts, it was a bit difficult to read. Next time try using a spell checker before you post.. LoL

      • Diana

        I understood exactly what robert was saying. I also agree with him on everything he said . God Bless you robert!!

  • Janice Palesch

    I found a lot of misconceptions in this article. First, the word "religion" has already been defined by US law: "The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment." A clear reading of this shows that "religion" as defined by the US legal system does NOT have to include a belief in a Supreme Being. It can be any system of beliefs sincerely held, by which a person orders and lives his life. It presupposes that this belief system provides guidelines for honesty, ethics, morals, conscience, and for the means by which society can be made to run smoothly and well for all of its members. It dictates how people are to deal with one another. Accordingly, every Secular Humanist, who does not even consider the existence of a God, but who conscientiously follows ethics and morals as a means to live his life DOES have a religion, albeit one without a supreme being. The same holds true for atheists and agnostics. One does not have to believe in a supreme being in order to live a moral and ethical life, to help his neighbors, and to do good in his community.

    To address something to "All the decent and respectable citizens", by definition, includes declared Christians, no matter how deplorably and immorally they live their lives, and it excludes the most honorable, ethical, and moral atheists. Conversely, many people, who claim to believe in God, have lived some of the most depraved lives and have committed some of the most reprehensible deeds. Al Capone and many child molesters and murders come to mind. We cannot pit people against one another, based upon their beliefs. Society will NEVER run smoothly like that. Moreover, Jesus, a GREAT man, did not do that. He accepted everyone and told us to love one another.Again, that draws a line that Jesus did not draw, and it seeks to pit people of different beliefs against one another. That is bad for our country and bad for our society. It is also very wrong.

    As to the constitutional issue, the First Amendment IS applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. That is the law of our land. We need to respect it and one another, instead of trying to find ways to exclude some good and decent members of our society. Not only is that unChristian, it is also unAmerican.

    Atheists, Agnostics, and Secular Humanists do believe in freedom FROM religion (for themselves, freedom from a religion with a supreme being), but they also believe in freedom OF religion, in which everyone is permitted to worship and practice his faith in private, so as not to push that religion onto those who do not believe the same way. All in all, it is a very inclusive position, just as written into the Constitution, designed to accommodate ALL of our citizens. That is what equality and democracy are all about - giving every citizen an EQUAL standing in this nation, including based on his personal belief system.

    In addition, Satanists are NOT atheists. Satanists BELIEVE in God; however, they hate Him and Jesus' teachings. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between Satanists and atheists, agnostics, and Secular Humanists. They are NOT equivalent, and, generally, they have NOTHING in common.

    I see no reason to demonize people who do not believe in a supreme being. It would be MUCH more productive to look at how people are ACTUALLY living their life, not by focusing on labels that only seek to divide us.

    • Patriot1776


      As an honest question; what part of the 14th ammendment affects this discussion. As I read it, it says nothing of religion, and perhaps I missed it.

      I agree that not all proclaimed christians live their lives 100% within the 10 commandments, or even the greatest commanment. As "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". However, the question here to me is "Can an elected official openly proclaim their faith?" My stand is, according to the current Constitution, yes, they can. Congress cannot establish a national religion, but religious people are not exempted from holding public office.

    • Steve

      And we should have confidence in a legal system that completely ignores "or prohibit the free exercise of". It always seems hypocritical to me for atheists to spend so much time fighting against people who believe in a God they don't believe exists. If atheists truly believe there is no God, and as you assert hold an "all inclusive position", then what should it matter to an atheist/agnostic/secular humanist if someone runs an ad in a newspaper talking about God. Just don't read it. Turn the page. Laugh at how backwards the sponsor of the ad must be. In short, why fight it? By choosing to take action against that person by jeopardizing his job and calling for an apology, they have gone well beyond "all inclusive" and have adhered to the un-Constitutional position of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

    • Gladstone

      Thanks for the great argument Janice, you have admitted that every time the government sides with the God deniers they are promoting one religion to the exclusion of others. That teaching of evolution, etc. in public schools is the establishment of religion.

      • Alexander Hamilton

        Once you say that all viewpoints concerning God are religions then the Government can not be neutral, it is officially, atheist, agnostic or theist and by your definition a State Religion has been established.

  • GDC

    "For atheists, the First Amendment is a one-way street. " Well that is a LIE. It is and always has been the religionist mostly Christians that believe they ONLY they have the right to speech and anyone else does NOT.

    • Michelle

      you are wrong. it is the atheists and liberals who think they are the only ones.

    • Mattwm

      what you said here is LIE! most, if not all, christians beleive that people should have the right to express their religious beleifs and have the right to free speech. GDC, you are full of sh1t.

    • Steve

      Wrong. I know there are those who do not believe in God. I disagree with them, believe they are wrong, yet under the 1st amendment right to free speech, believe they have a right to say what they believe. The problem is with atheists who try to prevent others from practicing their beliefs. If 1000 people attend a football game, and 1 person objects to having a prayer at the beginning of the game, why do the other 999 have to forfeit their right to "exercise their religion" so the 1 dissenter doesn't have to listen to a prayer asking for something as innocuous as protection for the players and a safe trip home to those in attendance. During the prayer, the dissenter can go get a hot dog and a coke, bring an ipod and listen to it for the 1-2 minutes the prayer takes, or wait in the parking lot until after the prayer is over. Atheists seem to think that ONLY their views matter. IF you don't like 10 commandments in a public building, don't look at them; walk past. If you don't like prayer at a football game, see above. If you don't like a cross on a hillside, don't look at it. If you don't believe in God, why should any of these symbols or expressions of faith in a God you don't believe in even matter to you at all?

    • Patriot Diva

      You are so wrong. As a Christian, I believe the first amendment is for everyone. I also have the right to disagree with people who I believe are wrong. That's usually what bothers the atheists.

  • R. Cook

    Marx, yep the author of Communism declared that two of the things that would be needed to install Communism in the US would be the destruction of the family and religion. Then the state would take their place.

    Consider this statement by Vladimir Lenin.
    “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” That seed is being planted in our public schools by the left that has taken control of education.

    But now instead of 4 years thet have 7 hours a day, 5 days a week for 13 years.

  • WellBeing54

    God doesn't believe in atheists either!

    • Mattwm

      being atheist is a religion. an illogical one, but a religion none-the-less.

      • Jim

        You are both wrong. Atheism is rejecting belief in mystical creatures known as gods. We also don't belive in unicorns but there just isn't a word for that. Not beleieving in unicorns is not more a religion than atheism is. Since your god doesn't exist, he (or she) does not have the ability to believe or not beleive in anything.

        As far as logic is concenred, it takes a great deal of logic suppression to believ that the bible is anything more than fairy tales.

        • ciroc2323

          God may just be out of your reach and you have no desire to use any of your personal effort or energy to make sure you are right. You already know it because it is accepted by all of your peers that he is just imaginary being. After all, they have never been wrong about anything you can remember, have they? And certainly not about something that important. They are like so-called scientists and self-professed scholars and understand how the universe works. So they say.

      • WellBeing54

        Yes Illogical and for sure no religion! Keep saying that to yourself to make yourself feel better!

      • Hawker

        Yes and Bald is a hair color right!? I don't think you are in a position to start stating the proper use of logic if this is how you apply it.

  • Doodlebug

    Why is it that the Christians always have to take a back seat to those in the minority? Can't have a Christmas tree or say Merry Christmas. To hell with the holiday tree and happy holidays. This country was founded on Christian principles. Every freedom we've had is slowly but surely being taken away from us. WAKE UP AMERICA! This is only part of the whole picture.

    • Jim

      Since Christmas doesn't rwally have anything to do with Christ I happily say Merry Christmas and put up a Christmas tree. It is simply a mid-winter celebration that the Christians stole.

    • Hawker

      Its not that Christians are being asked to take a back seat. They are just being reminded that they aren't the center of the freaking universe and that other people believe in things they don't. Sorry if you have to consider the rights of others and their sacred beliefs (or lack there of). Is that really bending you the wrong way, having to be considerate of others. Happy Solstice Doodlebug, the original christmas.

  • Michelle

    I would ask the ffrf to show me where this sheriff is forcing people to join a religion? Where is he forming a religion and stating that it will be run by the government and you must join it? Cause if not they have no leg to stand on. The constitution states no where that a sheriff cannot run an ad as he did. Sick and tired of these people. if they don't like leave.

    • Mike Wader

      The ffrf needs to understand that the Sheriff does not answer to the county. He is an elected official and since his authority predates government he can pretty well do what he wants as long as he acts within the parameters of legal authority.

    • Hawker

      They aren't making the claim he is "forcing people to join a religion". If you can't endorse equality and a well established practice of separation of church and state then maybe you should leave. That would be cool.

      • Novak

        Gang members follow a well established practice of killing people, so since some of them get by with it does that make it acceptable and the law of the land? Why not then? From where do you derive your morality? What makes your opinion of murder more correct than someone else's?

        • Hawker

          The premise of your question is confusing as the gang member reference comes out of left field.I think you are driving at the question or morality and its origins? To address your first sentence though, of course gang members killing doesn't make it acceptable or moral or right on any level, we have established that as a society. Are you saying that because some kill and get away with it that makes it fine?

          I derive my morality from many of the same places we all do. Much of our morality is taught to us from prior generations. Mainly though, our morality is formed by the necessity to get along with others of our own species for the sake of survival. I generally treat people the way I would like to be treated. If you are about to claim that the bible is the source of ultimate morality I do have a couple questions for you. If you weren't a christian following whatever interpretation you follow, would you become a cold blooded killer if you stopped following your religion? Are their any immoral laws in the bible according to you?

        • Novak

          If I weren't a Christian with the Holy Spirit indwelling me I very well could be a cold blooded killer. As long as morality is derived from man's standard it is flawed and subject to change. In some societies children are sold into slavery "for the sake of survival" of the parents, is this moral? And no there are no immoral laws in The Bible, there may be things I don't understand but God decides what is moral and immoral.

  • CaptTurbo

    Go Sheriff Brown! You're 100% correct about the people needing to turn back to God. You should be commended and I'm behind you all the way! We need to pray to the Lord to heal our land.

    • KAJ

      I agree

  • Mattwm

    the idea that life is some kind of accident is completely illogical. it's like saying the pyramids were an accident, just blown that way by the wind. well, life is much more complex than the pyramids, but athiests would have us believe that it just popped into existence. sorry, there is too much complexity in life for it to be an accident.

    • Jim

      Juat because you are too stupid to understand how life evolves doesn't mean that everyone is. Some of us don't have to believe in magic.when we don't understand something.

      • Alexander Hamilton

        So Jim you would agree that the sculpture on Mt Rushmore couldn't have came about by random processes but the living breathing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt did? It is you that believes in magic.

        • samekindunblind

          If you believe evolution is a random process, then you clearly have no understanding of evolution. You have disqualified yourself from any informed discussion from the start.

        • Novak

          What guides it?

  • Fox

    Unfortunately, too few people, including most sheriffs, know that the sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement officer in every county in America. The federal government has no authority over the local sheriff. He answers only to the people that elected him. The only person who can arrest a sheriff is the county coroner, and then only on due process matters.

    If all sheriffs knew this, the FBI, BATFE, IRS or any other government agency would know never to mess with them.

  • Bill Kerschner

    Proverbs states that " A fool says that there is no God".

    • Jim

      And there are many books that say that Sanbta Claus is real. Just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it true.

      • Hawker

        What! Santa isn't...real! But I read it in books, my parents taught me he was real, I have proof he visited annually, watched and judged my actions during the year. He was the only reason I didn't become a raging social maniac! I wrote to him, spoke to him and even sat on his lap, praying...I mean asking for stuff that he almost always delivered and when he didn't I know he worked in his own mysterious way and had his reasons not to fulfill my requests. I think I am going to ignore you stated a Ok, I feel better.

      • Stewert

        Yeah and you don't see me protesting every mention of Santa Claus either. If you really didn't believe in God you would treat him with as much indifference as I do Santa Claus

  • DMT

    I can't believe the anti religous folks endorse islam. If they get what they're asking for, well maybe they should look at the laws of that religeon's laws to see what they have to give for their causes of non-compliance or not converting. I don't think athiest are acceptable to them either.......

  • Jerry F.

    I am getting so tired of this.I think we christian need to start getting a back bone.We are letting these people walk right over us.If I had enough money,I'd put a christian ad in every newspaper and if they didn't like it,then I'd put 2 ads,they still kept complaining I'd put 3 ads.Or find out where they live and hold a prayer meeting right in front of their house,we got to start use plays out of their playbook.

    • Jim

      I'm sure that is what Jesus would do.

      • Jerry F.

        Jim I don't think JESUS would mind if we held a prayer meeting in the front of a persons house,you know read a couple of scriptures,sing a couple of hymns and pray for the idiot in the house.

    • carolandv

      No, Jesus would just perform a miracle or He used to. Remember, He said to His followers, "You will do far greater things than I have ever done!"

      Watch out come the Christians!

      • samekindunblind

        Awesome. Let's see one then....

        • carolandv

          I personally have witnessed at least two dozen miracles from healings (personal and otherwise) to unexplainable acts! Presently, Jesus is appearing to Muslims all over the middle east and performing miracles and because of this 100s of Muslims are converting to Christianity every day!

          Ye of little faith...just open your eyes...if you believe you will see! God bless you!

        • samekindunblind

          A miracle is the occurrence of something that is physically impossible according to natural laws, and not explainable as anything other than supernatural. A sick person getting better is not a miracle - it happens every day with or without faith healers. People claiming to see things is not miraculous. There are hundreds of possible explanations. My eyes are wide open, and I would sincerely love to witness an actual miracle or even simply be presented with strong documentary evidence for one. Best wishes to you, as well.

        • carolandv

          It is very apparent that you are seeking...and yes, I know the definition of a miracle. I would not be talking about a sick person but about many injuries/conditions verified on x-ray, and by various other menas and miraculously disappearing without any surgical correction. This--you should agree--would be unexplainable by medical doctors or any natural laws.

          Bonafide miracles with no possible explanation...except God! He lives...just sincerely ask and you shall receive. Maybe not today, or not tomorrow, but He is working all around us. Just knock at His door and He will answer...He always does.

        • Bunyun

          A couple was told by two different specialists that their baby would be born without a brain, all the tests and ultrasounds proved it. Our Church and others prayed for them, and guess what? The baby was born perfectly normal. A pastor was told that he had cancer and only had a few days to live so he preached his own funeral, that was 13 years ago and he is still alive. There have been times that I needed a certain amount of money for a bill or something, I prayed about it and the next time I went to the mailbox there was a check for almost the exact amount. I could go on and on but you still wouldn't believe.

  • Homer

    GOOD going Sheriff, a man w/some backbone!! Atheist dont like it because they want to have freedom to do whatever they desire w/out guilt! As if they will be able to do so!! To hell w/liberalism! Think on this thing though: see Ecclesiates 3 There is a time to hate, and that time is any time man tries to keep you from God and keep you from serving God, and any time that man hates God, IT IS OK to hate him!!! Should you love anyone who hates God?Jesus Christ: our creator? NO!!! Consider this: all they that hate God/Jesus Christ shall die, they love death! Proverbs 8:36 KJV

  • E.T.

    Atheists can not handle historical truths...

    • bluescat48

      Oh we can handle historical truths, what we can't handle is historical myths, promoted as truths.

      • Webster

        Why do you promote them then? Your whole take on the history of the US is myth

  • Steve

    The churches in Jacksonville, NC should rally around this sheriff and send large contingents of informed Bible believing Christians to the next Commissioners' meeting to show their support and clearly articulate why the sheriff is right and why the FRFF is wrong. And at the same time, point out how many like-minded registered voters attend churches in the area. Don't let the voice of the majority be silent when it needs to speak up and take action. For too long, Christians have let their voices be silent with the mistaken belief that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. That is EXACTLY why this nation is in the mess it's in now.

  • Edies fadder

    You go sheriff

  • TheGizmo51

    Unfortunately I am both relieved and saddened that the human race has, so far, avoided contact with aliens from another world. I would be so ashamed at how we act towards and treat our own species that no other species could possibly accept our beliefs and way of thinking. Since we can’t accept the differences among ourselves, how would we ever accept existence of aliens from another world? Perhaps the next step is to Occupy Ourselves?

    • Steph

      It is my own personal belief that since we are humans we are all taking separate paths (religion) to the same end. God gave us free will. To me its a test to see if we choose right or wrong. Only my opinion. I'm not always right, but I sure do keep trying. I believe that is all this Sheriff is trying to do. He's not hitting anyone over the head with a hammer. Agree or disagree. That is your choice...just as it is the Sheriff's choice to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to express his belief.
      By the way, Gizmo...are you the Gizmo that knew Big Bruce and Joe K. from Vail??

      • TheGizmo51

        Nope, I don't know who Big Bruce and Joe K. from Vail are. You make an interesting observation. I, too, have struggled over the years trying to understand if a God wants to have mankind suffer as some sort of free will test. But I came to the conclusion that this type of test is wrong. Would a parent punish his or her children so they would learn to appreciate happiness better? I don't need to beat my dog so he will love me more when I don't beat him. That's just cruel. All I'm saying is why can't people accept people for who they are and as long as no one interferes with another life and they don't hurt anyone why not let them be? People as well as animals are dominated by the wish to have a pecking order as if one or some are better or more desirable than others. If an alien from another world visited earth I'm afraid we wouldn't accept that another race may be equal or ahead of ours.

        • Smythe

          God gave us a choice to follow his plan or not. If we choose not to we end up in a mess. A parent would punish his children to keep them out of trouble. But the time comes when the parent lets the child make his own decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions so that hopefully they will learn from them. When your dog runs out in the street and gets hit by a car it's not because you wanted it too, that's just the result of its action. You could keep your dog chained up all the time or let it have some freedom and possibly get hurt. Which is more cruel?

  • jersey


    • TheGizmo51

      And just what is it they're taking from you? I would guess common sense!

    • bluescat48

      Oh how Christian of you. Why is it you right-wing Christians are so 180 degrees away from the teachings of your patriarch, Christ? Most religious people aren't scumbags, but you sure are.

    • Hawker

      Hey tool do you "BURIED YOUR SELVES". Do you start head first or feet first because I see complications with both in order to be successful. BY THE WAY, Atheists don't care what your religion is nimrod. Your statement is not even relevant to the article. I might as well say I LOVE DONUTS BUT NOT CHRISTIAN DONUTS. You see how that really doesn't work in relation to the article? Peace, hater.

  • carol

    Just wondering if the atheists are willing to die for their non belief because the day will come when the muslims will force them to make that choice:}

  • The

    Communists, Muslims, and Atheists would like nothing more that to see the complete abolishment of our religion. That just goes along with their fierce desire to abolish everything else we hold dear, and that we live by - freedom of religion, free speech, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They truly believe that they are the only ones that know what is best for all the other people on earth, and that they should rule over those of us who know not what is best for us. What the really want is to be able to have the best of what life has to offer, and keep the rest of the population as no more slaves available to do their bidding.

  • screaming eagle

    To FFRF, screw U! If you don't like the religious principles OUR country was founded on, then LEAVE! U will not be missed or asked to stay. U are in the minority in America and the sooner U realize this, the better off U will be. And U WILL be judges by God on the day of reckoning and guess where U will end up>

  • ciroc2323

    The problem is not with the different beliefs this nation shares, it is with those extreme, anti-Christian zealots that feel the need to put down people that don't (non) believe as they do. There is no "tolerance" or "understanding" for difference in our society anymore. Rather just hatred and ignorance as shown exclusively by the hate-mongers at the ffrf.

  • ciroc2323

    what do you know?
    ALL 50 State Constitutions have a mention to GOD!!
    that should make the lil pinheads at ffrf go all out exorcist on us.

  • samekindunblind

    Thanks, Jersey. All the deranged death threats that accompany the Christian messages presented here, all the rage about how people with differing beliefs are ruining America, speak louder than any argument I could ever make. I will rest my case and let you folks carry on with your Klan meeting.

  • Charles Martel

    Almighty God to atheists upon their judgment: YOU LOSE!!! (Not an exact quote, i'm sure, but you get the message)

  • rocco r. rossano

    In America, there are entirely too many functioning illiterates !! Most live in Loopy-Land...

  • rocco r. rossano

    The end is near.
    Too late to fear.
    You didn't listen.
    Probably, you were pissing.
    You do not care.
    Pick out a chair.
    You can't stop it now.
    So, don't cry foul.
    It's all over my friend.
    The obituary I'll send..

  • aurora35

    To all of you atheists: no one is trying to take your atheistic rights away so back off of our beliefs. We know that you are trying to destroy America and are most probably com munists or mus lims. We have your number and it adds up to trouble. The best of your arguments will be met with deaf ears as we know just what your true agenda is!

  • ConservaDave

    Amen, Sheriff Brown! Way to go! Keep up the good work! Decent and God-fearing people support , applaud and pray for you. Fianally, don't let the God haters get you down!

  • The Truth

    To all the Atheists out there, if you can put up billboards then we can put up ads ourselves and there is really nothing you can do about it.

  • Daniel US Special Forces Vet

    FFRF's and the ACLU are both a group of morons

  • Blair Franconia, NH

    This is the ONLY vote that Obama WILL in on 11/6/12.

  • chris

    I heard a preacher say the other day we need to take all atheists,muslims and other religions here in America and put them on an island by themselves. Since this is a nation built on Christians ethics.

  • Alan

    ANYONE that claims Atheists or any other nonbeliever can live moral lives are dreaming! Man cannot decide what is a moral lifestyle, morals started with God & his word. If man decides whats moral then he can say anything is moral or immoral. Homosexuality was considered immoral by the Government before all the anti-Christian nuts came into office, now they are trying to do the same with pedophiles! The morals of this society originally started with Christian Principals from the Bible, not from Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindu's, or any other religious beliefs. As the anti-Christians have taken over Government offices, these morals have been left behind & our society has been falling the way of Rome & Greece which are considered to have been Democratic Societies. Even history shows that when the Israelites fell from the rules set by God their society went the same way. The only way to get back to a decent society is to get back to our original moral beliefs. These morals have been destroyed by the school systems, atheists, bad government officials, bad judges & groups like ACLU! They ignore the original meanings of the Constitution or totally decide they can make better laws. Since then we have abortions done for any reason, high divorce rates, high unwed pregnancy rates, high murder & rape rates not to mention other crimes, more adultry then ever before, homosexuality is rampant, children being forced to believe these things are alright & as I said pedophiles are working the same program that the Gays did to be accepted, it started with the Courts & Government allowing them to post how to make love to boys on the internet under the "protection" of Freedom of Speech. This is the way of a society that has left behind God's morals & accepted Man's morals! Christ did say to love your fellow man & he said I will accept you as you are, but he did not say to accept your fellow man's religous beliefs or morals if they went against the word of God. He also did not say that you can stay as you are after I accept you, you must change to follow him & stay accepted. In other words, accept him as the Son of God, the one & only way to Heaven, be baptized as he did with full immersion in water & to repent of your sins, I.E. leave them behind & sin no more! Many people do CLAIM to be Christian but the Bible tells how to know the difference, as Christ said "The path to Heaven is a narrow one, many will try but few will enter". These anti-Christians misquote the Bible all the time, such as "Judge not lest ye be judged", it is in the Bible but the Bible judges and thus you don't need to. If they are not following what is in the Bible then they have been judged by it already. Pelosi calls herself a devout Catholic, how can she be when she doesn't follow the Catholic rules on abortion & homosexuality? Obama calls himself a Christian, yet he misquotes the Bible all the time & does not follow it's writings in any circumstance! I do not claim to be Christian even though I believe in God & what he said, the reason is I do not follow the life of a Christian & therefore I have one fate to expect, as do millions of others even though they lie to themselves. Remember, even Satan believes in God & Christ, but he is not saved! The Government has it's own Religion, it's called "Evolution", & in their minds they are God!

  • Jerry

    Thanks for letting me know that there are people around more than where I stay who are ignorant of the laws of the land! Maybe had they studied the Constitution they would know what this nation stands for!

  • samekindunblind

    So, all arguing aside, here is the advertisement placed by the sheriff: Sheriff Lett...

    As I suspected, the problem is not that Mr. Ed Brown, local citizen, is publicly expressing his beliefs - no one would dispute that basic right. The problem is that it was Sheriff Brown issuing this message as a statement from the Sheriff's Office, complete with multiple references to himself as Sheriff and the badge and seal of the Oslow County Sheriff's Department on the page. Regardless of whether he paid for it with his own money, it is absolutely out of bounds for an officer of the law to use his office to pressure citizens to behave according to his particular religious beliefs. No wonder complaints were filed.

    • Hawker

      Unreal, anymore clear cut and fingers would be lost. You get thumbed down for such an obvious fact...I don't know if it more frustrating or frightening to see the conscious denial of reason get booed.

  • american


  • Pegi

    What part of freedom of speech don't athiest get? Am so tired of minorities dictating what the majority should say and do!

    • samekindunblind

      The underlying principle of democracy is not "majority rules." It is a system in which even minority groups share the same rights, considerations, and political power as the majority. That is a big part of what freedom is.

      • Diana

        The united States of America is a Republic. What does your version of "democracy" and "majority rules" have to do with anything , including this subject?

  • Don

    Tell me why this minority by far get their way with the courts! This small group of people need to leave America where they can be content. I suggest Russia, Venezuela, Cuba or somewhere where you could live with out being disturbed by the vast majority of God-loving Americans. GET OUT OF AMERICA or mind your own business not ours!

    • samekindunblind

      Perhaps because the courts agree that they are in the right. They get "their way" because according to US Law they are correct, and you are not. Sorry, but the people who are professionally trained experts in interpreting the constitution do not see your attitude as "American" at all. I suggest Russia, Venezuela, Cuba....

  • Blair Franconia, NH

    We have freedom of religion. Not FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

  • samekindunblind

    It's so exasperating to listen to people rage about how they hate having to respect other peoples rights, hate the President, hate the government, hate the courts, hate half their fellow citizens, hate having to tolerate minorities, hate having to accommodate differing opinions, believe that everyone who is not like them should have to leave .... and then expect to be taken seriously when they say they love America. Many of you folks seem to hate everything that America stands for and then you try to act as if you are patriots.

  • Ilbert

    As a Jew, I love the Christmas season and wish all retail store personnel would say "Merry Christmas" to me when I shop. I love Christmas carols. Why, because they are an expression of the religion of the people who established this incredible country. Atheists have their religion which is a religion that does not believe in God. There ritual is to object to other people expressng a belief in God, and they have their Holy Books which supports their theory of no God. Their belief God does not exist is a belief, which they hold strongly. Just a strongly as I believe there is a God. The absence of religous symbols in the public sector is an expression of their belief, where I believe in the existence of religious symbols in the public sector as an expression of belief. It will take the secularist time to discover that beliefs (including Marxism) are all a form of religion.

  • samtman

    Its very simple, you cant promote and show faforitism to any religion by using your Government position to promote religion. Supose this Sheriff was a Muslim making similar statements, how would you feel about this situation then.

  • melik

    All atheists are, are people in denial. Is that healthy?

    • samekindunblind

      That's called begging the question - it assumes it's premise is true. It's like asking, Do you still cheat on your spouse? If you say no, you are agreeing that you used to cheat on your spouse. If you say yes, you are saying that you do actually cheat on your spouse. There is no answer that allows you to address that the accusation itself is false. It's a logically dishonest question.

      • melik

        There's nothing dishonest about it and no assumptions involved. Think about it, since atheists by definition deny the existence of God and, whether one knows it or not, nothing can exist without God. It's a quite unhealthy state of mind to enter eternity in.

        • samekindunblind

          How can you simultaneously say there no assumptions involved and then state"whether one knows it or not, nothing can exist without God?" That is assumed in the argument, not known (aside from people asserting that they know it's true because,dang it, they know it's true! That's not evidence). I don't think you understand what is meant by an assumption in a logical argument.

        • Bill Weston

          "Intellectual snobbery" is not an answer, nor does it contribute to legitimate discussions. If you have a point without altering word definitions or splitting hairs then speak your piece. I suggest that you read my post later on this site.

        • Hawker

          I actually think applying some "intellectual snobbery" would help clarify your world vision a little. I think instead of creating some false position of intellectual snobbery, why not call it what it is, Critical Thought. It is clearly not welcome in this particular forum. Christians seem to like using the denial term in the definition of atheism because it presupposes existence. The God Apollo, do you believe he doesn't exist for lack of evidence or do you deny his existence because you choose not to acknowledge his message and path?

        • Bill Weston

          P.S. I intend to save this blog hoping that you will respond. If you do, I'll post my e-mail for further discussion. Bring some legitimate thoughts though.

        • samekindunblind

          I'm not sure how to have a meaningful discussion with someone who dismisses the rules of logical argument as "intellectual snobbery" and irrelevant. Coming to any sort of rational conclusion requires adhering to logic, and those words and rules aren't just made up. I'm not interested in a faith-based argument, one can simply insist upon any truth they would like, which was my point about assumptions in the first place. Have a nice weekend.

        • Melik

          I can say that because I know for a fact that I did not create myself and that God did. The fact that God exists is obvious to me through the things He has created and through my own spiritual discipline, I have come to know the living God as many before me have testified to their relationship to God. Therefore, I say there are no assumptions involved and only facts from my point of view. Anyone who denies the existence of spiritual beings has not made the effort to find them just as people who are ignorant of scientific facts have made no effort to find them.

        • samekindunblind

          My friend, you are confused as to the definition of the word "fact." There are not "points of view" on a fact.

  • Tiger716

    LOL You go Jersey! Love it.

  • David

    all atheists WILL GO TO HELL !

    • Hawker

      don't' forget the Muslims, Jews (unless they are Jews for Jesus of course), Buddhists, Hindu's, non baptized babies and adults, the guest list is actually very long. Where do you stand on Mormons...heaven or hell?

      Of course, that is assuming YOU bet on the right religion...I think you should go dual Jesus and Allah just so you increase your odds of picking the right one. Peace.

    • Davey Crockett

      No David you are wrong there will be no atheists in Hell

  • Bill Weston

    Sheriff Brown has the legal right to express his views when and wherever he chooses. Claiming that he abused his authority by displaying the seal of his office is totally bogus. How could he, or anyone, campaign for office without stating the principles by which he lives. Abe Lincoln said it well. "You can fool some people all of the time, all people some of the time, but one cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Another saying that may apply here is "Keep your mouth shut and people might think you a fool, open it and remove all doubt". You ahiests are entitled to your opinion even if it stinks. And you might be sincere about your opinion, but you could be sincerely wrong. Freedon is an exercise of "liberty". Liberty requires accountibility for our actions including our speech. And then there is "equality under the law". As I see it, sheriff Brown is standing on firm ground if not on a solid rock!

  • Hawker

    Talk about a wolf in sheep clothing. I thought I was coming to a political discussion page but it actually turned out to be a prejudice hate group support forum . A place where intellectual ideas, critical thought, facts and reason

    • Davey Crockett

      No you thought you were you were coming to a page where you could stir up trouble

  • Ernest Lane

    No matter what -- even if it goes to court and the atheists win -- the sheriff should continue doing what he is doing. The feds, especially the courts, are taking our rights away. The only way to get our rights back is to take them.