Comments about ‘Judges rule against Utah highway crosses for fallen troopers’

Return to article »

Utah's attorney general strongly disagrees with appeals court

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 18 2010 12:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

@Jingle: Goodness comes from God and no one else. Outside of that, your straw man argument is baseless.

Why do people like you enjoy putting words in other's mouths?

As for atheists being good, since they don't have a basis for their values and morals (except for stealing them from God while in the same breath denying Him), I'd say they can't be good.

The Atheist

To all the "anti-Atheists",

Let me speak your language:

"But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Matt. 8:22

"Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:60

the truth

RE: charlie91342 | 10:48 a.m.

We are NOT talking going back to the past we are talking what does words in 1st admendment mean,

perhaps you join us in taht coversation,

more history

during the time of the founding father's:

9 of the 13 colonies had an official state religion,

States gave monies to help churches to be built.

Theoir intentions and th application of 1st admendment during thoer lifetie was quite clear.

those arguing agianst religion use words and phrases not found in the constitution,

AND they ignore how it was applied and originally interpreted and understood.

And by the way, your believing that everything in the past was evil and terrible, is just not so, that is VERY SIMPLISTIC thinking, and very superficial in understanding.



"Endowed by their Creator" in the Declcaration of Independence does NOT name any specific creator and certainly no specific god or religion. My definition of "creator" can be different than yours. The Constitution is what our government is based anyway.

Lack of any religious words in the Constitution does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, but does indicate they wanted to separate church from state.

Decisions made by a religious majority would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's or minority interest that the individual would be actively oppressed is tyranny of the majority. Examples's are: Same-Sex Civil Marriage, homosexual discrimination, mandated school prayer, faith-based initiatives, Faith-Based Sex-Education, religion-based social services and more.

Of course, most laws in our country are far from "confining" or "tyranny". Religious commandments and covenents similiar to secular law does not mean law is based on religion, but rather it makes sense as universal law. It doesn't take religion to point out that murder is wrong....for example! Those laws are not even what I'm talking about when I mention tyranny per my explanation above.


"Endowed by their Creator" should be put in context with the time. Darwin hadn't published Origin of a species yet and genes were unknown. They had only words in the existing language they could use.



Since you more than likely have never studied atheism even to just learn about it I will regard your statements as based on ignorance.

Religion and gods are NOT needed in order to have values. Religious believers who see morality exclusively in terms of their god and religion are as unable to recognize this. The simplest explanation for morality or values in human society is the fact that human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function...even atheists do. As social animals, we can no more exist without morality than we can without a heart. To say an atheist/non-believer etc. has no basis for morality is a fallacy.

I can't imagine that you have any basis on which to base your judgement. Afterall, many god-fearing people have been or are immoral or lack values.

But the real question is this: are Christian beliefs more likely than atheist beliefs to produce people who perform heinous actions or immoral acts? Certainly atheists have never shown this to be the case, but some religious people ignorantly continue to believe it is the case.

Ignorance is alive and well in Utah.


common_sense | 3:14 p.m. Aug. 19, 2010
The fact of the matter is, the cross is a well known religious symbol. To argue otherwise is silly and surely everyone knows that. I do not want to see any individual religious symbols on public land; whether they be Islamic, Satanist, Scientologist, Buddhist or Christian. I mean, would you guys be comfortable seeing a cross, right next to the upside down pentagram (the symbol of satanism). Well, im sure some of you probably would be comfortable seeing that. What I am trying to do, is to get people to use a different perspective; how would you feel if you saw symbols of religions that were completely opposite to what you believed sitting on land that your taxes pay for?


I guess you have never been to Normandy France then, There are thousands of crosses, (not markers) which mark the graves of fallen soldiers. It is the largest American Cemetery from WW2. Maybe the courts should rule those unconstitutional also. Your taxes pay for its upkeep by the Federal Government. What is the difference between that and crosses honoring fallen policeman?


Re: Charlie91342

In the early days of this country, people were jailed for taking the Lord's name in vain. Yes, this was post-Constitution. Admittiedly quite drastic by today's standards. The Constitution is about tolerance and respect for other belief's, obviously something you have not mastered. It was never intended to sanitize society from any religion. All you would have to do is go back to the organic writings of the drafters to learn this for yourself. As for the crosses, I really don't care one way or the other. I simply believe the court got it wrong. There are crosses and other religious symbols throughout this country on public land. Who cares? It doesn't make me believe one way or the other. If you are so threatened by the image of a religious symbol on public property then you should re-examine the strength of your own allegiance to your convictions.


Just to clarify....I, PERSONALLY could care less about those crosses being on PRIVATE property. The intention is good. Both sides have ligitimate points. However, I do see the bigger picture and why atheists fight this kind of battle. The bias and ignorance thrown at atheists is wrong. I see religious domination and influence that permeates society in this country...yet we have religious people screaming persecution and predicting doom based on religious dogma that society will fall apart without religious belief when history tells us religious society is responsible for some very atrocious events. Nobody will ever take your religion away from you, but the thing atheists, agnostics, humanists and others object to is: although Christians may profess to be doing a good deed by sharing their religion with others, in reality it's very often the case that they are simply not treating non-believers with the respect and consideration they deserve as a different belief. Misconceptions abound! Non-believers don't proselytize or promote their beliefs for the most part, however they do speak up on religion's wish to be a dominant force in law so much as to oppress a minority.


@Jingle: I'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue regarding the foundation of morals and values.

But please, do explain on what foundation do atheists base their morals and values -- namely the ones that don't come from God.

And again, you make silly arguments about believers. You do know what a straw man argument is, don't you? You do know what a non-sequitur is too, right?

Your post to me is full of them.

Your whining about not being respected is funny. Why? Because the full frontal assault in the world today is on Christianity.

Do yourself a favor and get educated on the issues instead of whining about poor you.

You could take a lesson from SE Cupp and her critical thinking in her book Losing our Religion.

The only ignorance shown is by you in claiming that atheists have a moral foundation that doesn't come from God. So please, detail it for us all....


@1Observer: agreed!


And while I note the comments about Arlington Cemetary being comparable to crosses along a public highway, you must remember that Arlington Cemetary is a place where our fallen soldiers go to rest and they should be given the right, just like every one of us, to be buried in any way they choose. A cross is perfectly appropriate for fallen police on their graves as well. Cross or no cross, even if it is federal land, Arlington Cemetary and other cemetaries are something more private and special than crosses on a public highway.

Fact is, if the religious symbols displayed alone, is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. The fact that the crosses were created by a private organization does not eliminate the apparent endorsement by the government of the display by permitting it on public lands. By permitting the display of the crosses in this particular physical setting, the government sends a message that it supports and promotes the Christian God whether intentional or not. For secularists, it sounds like a poor rationalization to say that the presence of secular symbols with public religious symbols permits the government to pay for the public display.



So you think godless people are dysfunctional, immoral, and valueless people! Support that statement with evidence that they are such and I will be happy to give you my rebuttal!

By the way...I'm NOT an atheist!


@jingle: then you better go scrub the 10 commandments posted in the SCOTUS building and many other court rooms.

Do you scrub In God we Trust off all your money too?

better stop the prayers offered in the belly of Congress before each session begins.

btw, where are the words separation of church and state found in the COTUS?

You really need to take a remedial US History class to learn about how religion was a part of every day life and in government until a few nutjobs on SCOTUS started the war on God.

It's a free land! Get educated!



I understand that religion was a part of everyday life and in government at one time. I know the history. It doesn't mean that government has a right to support a certain religion according to the Constitution though.

That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion.


Welcome to the United States of America, where the minority rules. You can't do anything in this age of PC for the fear of offending somebody.


Decisions made by a religious majority would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's or minority interest that the individual or minority would be actively oppressed is tyranny by the majority....and that is wrong. The majority often gets to rule, but majority rule isn't always right....so the equal protection clause comes into play to protect minorities.


@Jingle: your first paragraph in your response to me is the admission and recognition that SCOTUS has gone astray from what COTUS actually says.

Thanks for finally admitting that you are wrong and that SCOTUS has trampled on COTUS and we, the people.

Your last paragraph is a straw man argument. You really need to take a critical thinking and logic class sometime soon.

I'd also suggest that you really study up on US History, SCOTUS and COTUS before you come in here spouting off weak arguments.



Well said, Amen, and kudos for your 10:36 p.m. response to Chuckee.



You provide no logical argument worth responding to and what little argument you do present is a classic definition of the "strawman argument" since you disregard most key points made by me and instead presents virtually no defense for your argument other weak an baseless statements.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments