Feds Attempt to Force Oklahoma Bank to Remove Crosses, Bible Verses; Bank Fights Back and Wins

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

Feds Attempt to Force Oklahoma Bank to Remove Crosses, Bible Verses; Bank Fights Back and Wins

The theory behind this whole shebang is that banks are so pervasively regulated, the federal government can basically tell them what to do even though they're privately-owned businesses. Keep this story in mind when you hear that Obama's DHHS is issuing tighter regulations for hospitals...

Federal Reserve examiners come every four years to make sure banks are complying with a long list of regulations. The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say "Merry Christmas, God With Us." were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank's Internet site also had to be taken down.


My take is this... How can the Federal Reserve attack a bank in this manner when ALL it's money had "In god we trust" on it?


Sorry forgot lonk: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/309503.php

[ladjf]

1. While the super rich is busy stealing people's wealth, the super

religious are passionately attempting to force their superstitious practices upon us. nt

[diveguy]

3. How are they forcing anything on you.

It is a private business. If you dont like it, go somewhere else.

[ladjf]

5. or, I can stay where I am and continue to voice my opinion that

I don't think religious cults should be allowed to proselytize in public places. If they want to look at visual symbols of their practices, they have every right to do so in their churches.

The bank may be privately owned but the business is public. Why would the bank owner chose to display religious items at his place of business? Because he calculated that since a majority of his customers were church goers, he would be improving his/her chances for more profit.

I grew up in the South where I used to see car tags saying "Dixie, love it or get your ass out" which really meant that if you didn't like the racist aspects of Southern living you should leave.
Your argument is exactly the same as that.

The banker wasn't too worried because only a minority objected to his actions. Had his business been located in an area where Christianity was the minority would he have still put up his symbols?

[The Straight Story]

6. Only difference between a religious cult and the cult of a political party is

the symbols they use.

[ladjf]

9. Your post prompted me to look up the definition of "cult". I could

find nothing to contradict your thesis. There seems to be a definite similarity between "cult" as in "religious cult" and "cult" as a sociological group.

In any event, I used the word "cult" to imply a blind devotion to some certain underlying beliefs of the group.

[Kalyke]

8. And then you'd be told that the First Amendment absolutely

gives people the right to proselytize in public places and asked to leave the PRIVATELY-OWNED business or be arrested.

I also grew up (and still live) in the South and the tag you saw has nothing to do with racism. It's about "damn Yankees" coming down to the South to take advantage of our lower tax rates and then bossing the residents around when they don't want to do what the newcomer thinks they should. Sometimes the newcomer is correct, of course, but they get the title "damn Yankee" because of the brash way they try to force compliance.

Methinks you have real problems when your worldview is challenged (like many religious fundamentalists, ironically). If you didn't, you wouldn't give a shit what people speak about on public property or private property open to the public.

[ladjf]

11. Re: "car tag": I gave my interpretation of what I thought the tag

was saying. You have given yours. You say that my version was wrong. The only way you could have known what the author of the tag had in mind was for you to either have been the author or personally talked with him/her.

Re my "real problems with worldview: If I only cared about myself, I would not ,as you so eloquently stated, "given a shit what people speak on public property". However, as a civic minded person who loves the human race and cares what happens to it, I feel that I am obligated from a social standpoint, to voice my opinion about public issues that seem to be harmful to the population in general.

Since you are objecting to my opinion, perhaps it is you that has "real problems when your worldview is challenged" otherwise why do you care that I didn't approve of the images in the bank?

[Kalyke]

17. I don't care if you didn't approve of the images.

I'm just telling you that you would be arrested for making a scene on private property.

It's just the law.

And, as a former reporter who covered many a city council meeting or county commission meeting where "damn Yankees" wanted this, that and the other thing without regard for what the locals wanted, I think I know a thing or two about what the author of that tag and the bearer of that tag had in mind.

Caveat: I'm married to a Yankee, although, he's a BoSox fan, so he'd complain that I called him a Yankee, just that same as I complain when my British friends refer to me as a Yank.

[shraby]

2. Gotta linkie?

[CurtEastPoint]

4. Voici le link...

http://www.koco.com/news/26174152/detail.html

[azureblue]

7. the bank is a "convenient Christian"

perhaps they will pick up their Bibles and read the verses about loaning money:

Exodus:22: 25:
"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.

Leviticus:25,35-37:
35And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
36Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
37Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase

Deuteronomy:23,19 & 20:
19Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Timothy: 6, 17-18
"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate."

1st John 3:17:
But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"


I wish I could send this to the bank - I'd love to read their reply.

[HereSince1628]

10. I'd be concerned with "God With Us" on these grounds:

WW2 Military belt buckle.

I understand that the Nazi's don't have a lock on word phrases. But,
considering the bundled relationship of finance business and government
that sends sparks through my tinfoil.

[Rob H.]

14. That belt buckle was the first thing I thought of, too

I thought the "Gott mit uns" Nazi buckle was pretty common knowledge. It's weird that they didn't write "God is with us," since that's grammatically correct.

[madrchsod]

12. it`s a private bank and they can do what they want.

[azureblue]

13. It is their God given right

to be as hypocritical as they choose to be. and they are. All they are doing is cherry picking Bible verses, and refusing to apply them to their own lives first- Matthew 7:1-5

[left is right]

15. I personally would not do business with someone

that insisted on displaying their religion in such a flaunting manner. I always figure that such displays are always a cover for all manner of criminal activity. My dad owned a small family business for over thirty years before he retired and always said that it was the leaders of the numerous churches in his town that failed to pay him for the work that he provided.

[Statistical]

16. Good. I personally won't do business with this private entity but..

there is no legislation which prohibits them from displaying religious material in private property.

The one amazing thing about private property is that nobody needs to go there. If you don't like how the business is conducting business then vote with your wallet.