This blog is now sugar FREE, fat FREE, gluten FREE, all ORGANIC and all NATURAL!!

Saturday, November 9, 2013


 A cranky opinion for


The following is the opinion of a cranky old man.  Opposing opinions are welcome, they are wrong, but welcome, and please no name calling…that means you, you big stupid head!



Every week I read about Atheists suing, or threatening to sue, local governments, and schools because of religious symbols and or any utterances of the words God, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, or Mohammed.  These Atheist groups find these symbols and utterances of any “divine” being or apostle to be offensive and they evoke the constitutional interpretation of separation of church and state to force the removal of anything in government that could be seen as religious.

Ninety-nine percent of the citizens in our country (a figure that includes religious, not so religious, and yes even Atheists), have no issue with these symbols or references to a deity.  The one percent of our population that does have an issue, or possibly just a demented agenda and too much time, is able to regulate against the desires of the other 99 percent.  This seems to run against the grain of what we think of as Democracy.

As usual, I have a solution.

Atheists need to create their own definitions of what we currently consider religious terms and symbols.  Words and symbols can have multiple definitions.  The swastika was the Nazi symbol of hate, it was also a Native American symbol of good luck…Choose your poison. 

For instance God should be defined as: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being, or

To Atheists: A word standing for nothing.

With this multiple definition, our legal tender would say:

“In the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being we trust,” or

“In nothing we trust.”

Choose your definition.  There is no conflict of church and state, merely two different definitions of a word.

Is that so hard?

The cross is a Christian symbol of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.  Let it also be an Atheist symbol for “ashes to ashes, dust to dust, when we die, we die, why all the fuss.” 

End of problem.  Just put crosses all over the place and choose your interpretation.

If you don’t like what the Christmas tree represents, call it an Anti-arbor, the Atheist symbol for much ado about nothing, an Atheist symbol of not celebrating anything.  They could decorate it with…nothing!

“Deck the halls with lots of nothing.”

“Zippity-do-dah, zippity-ay, December 25th is just another old day.”

I don’t believe in forced prayers in school.  I don’t believe we should celebrate Easter in school.  School should not proselytize any religion to others. 


When we get our panties in a bunch because a picture of the town on city stationary shows a cross, when we get upset because a grave stone in a public owned cemetery has the word God, when teachers or judges or city officials cannot say “God bless you” after a sneeze, when students can’t wear a cross or a mezuzah on a chain we are living in a world gone upside down. 

When the one percent dictates that the ninety-nine percent cannot use a word or a symbol on public land it is time to just get a grip.  Don’t like a word?  Give it your own meaning.  Don’t like a symbol.  Assign new meaning to it to fit your world and leave the rest of us alone.

Oh yeah, and STFU!!

The preceding was the opinion of a cranky old man, and not necessarily that of management...Mrs. Cranky.    


  1. Ha! Why not.

    Seriously, there is plenty of evidence that our Founding Fathers set us up as a Christian nation, BUT GUARANTEED EVERYONE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANTED WITHOUT PERSECUTION, which might mean nothing at all. And that's OK.

  2. I think in many ways your solution is already in effect. Those of us who are amused by the watching the tide of opinion move back and forth also hope the tide will take back some of the current foolishness--on all sides.

  3. when atheists swear, do they still take god's name in vain? you know, like it is commonly picked up phraseology?

  4. The majority have gone WAY too far to pacify the few!!

  5. I remember Ricky Gervais once said "Thank God I am an atheist".

  6. Hiya Joeh
    I've given you an award - pop on over to:

  7. Absolutely agree with you Joe, it has reached the point of ridiculous! As long as we refrain from promoting one religion over another. Faith is a good thing! We don't force people to believe and we don't force them to be unbelievers. There is enough room for all, THAT is what America is supposed to be about!

  8. I often hear people say that the Founding fathers who created America were devout Christians. They don't know these men very well. Thomas Jefferson once wrote: I've yet to see anything good come from Christianity. I think the problem is that the Federal Government represents everyone and that includes non believers.

  9. I can't remain impartial. I like your song lyrics best.

  10. Ya know, some day when I'm good and rich I'm gonna sure the government for favoring the religion of Atheism by not having enough references to 'other' Gods. Just to be ornery, ya know?

    Besides, lawyers love legal stupidity.

  11. It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views--in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives--small government conservatives--should appreciate from a political standpoint as well.

    While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.