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

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.


"...Because the full frontal assault in the world today is on Christianity..."

Some people cannot accept that their ideas have become irrelevant, that society moved on and is no longer interested in them, or find them as useful as they once were.

People, also, cannot handle others (especially a minority) fighting back, or defending themselves.

People sometimes interpret society's moving on, or fighting for their rights, as persecution because they lose the special position they once had, and they lose the power that came with that special position...

The Atheist

The history of philosophy (and science) is the story of how the foundations of "atheist ethics" have been worked out over thousands of years. That history extends back farther than religion, and will continue after reason brings "an end to all religions".

The religion-makers (e.g., Paul/Saul & Peter, Mohammet, and various authors of various cultures) are the ones who borrowed "morals" from the secular platitudes, stories, and principles created by the "non-theists".

The original "secular" thinkers invented "time" by looking to the stars and creating an ingenious pre-scientific understanding of the "cosmos" that could be transmitted orally through stories.

The measured regularity, patterns, and order of the cosmos and the stories in which they were captured gave meaning to human existence and inspired social order. These pre-myths included pre-religious notions of justice, mercy, resurrection, redemption, and morality.

The general principles of human "morality" and ethics from these proto-myths were captured much later in what are now ancient Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and other "mythologies".

These were the foundations of religions and "the gods" - who were simply invented characters used to describe astronomical (and astrological) events, endowed with anthropomorphic characteristics.


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


Ask yourself this, who is the more moral, someone who does the right thing simply because they know it to be right, or someone who does it because they believe their god wants it and will punish them if they don't?

Doing things out of fear of retribution or promise of payback isn't morality, it is cowardice and avarice.

"Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right."

Peaceful Warrior


"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."

This may come as a shock to you but the interests of a majority must ultimately prevail even when we don't agree with it. You seem to falsely think the Constitution is a separate thing from the will of the majority but it is not. It was a majority and its representatives that ratified the Constitution and its a majority which can abolish it. It only has authority over us because the majority chooses to have it be a governing document.

"The majority often gets to rule, but majority rule isn't always right....so the equal protection clause comes into play to protect minorities."

The majority always rules even if its ruling comes in the form of its Constitution. It can allow that ruling to stand or it can amend or even abolish the Constitution if it deems it necessary to protect its interests.

This is basic political philosophy. There is always a sovereign authority.

The Atheist

It was this "atheistic ethics" as it was being worked out by the "Enlightenment" thinkers that informed the Founders. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was an admirer of the thinking of John Locke. John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government" were explicit, deliberate, and line-by-line rebuttals of Sir Robert Filmer's "The Divine Right of Kings". You could say Locke was "anti-religion" in arguing for what principles of morality/ethics underpin the "right to rule".

Borrowing directly from Locke (some call it plagiarizing) in writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was effectively and deliberately incorporating not only SECULAR, and NON-theistic principles into his political philosophy, he was incorporating ANTI-religious arguments and a NON-theistic morality as the basis for the authority of government.

That is why the Founders were very clear that that "authority" to rule does NOT come from religion, faith, or god whatsoever. Instead, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

How obviously "secular" and "non-theistic" (shall we call it "atheistic"?) could they have been?

God was surgically removed from politics by the Founders. Don't let the cancer take hold again.


@jingle: You clearly don't understand what a strawman argument is....

What key points have you made? None that I can see.

Can you please show any piece of legislation that Congress has passed that established a national religion?

Can you show where it say "separation of church and state" in the COTUS?

Can you even show where a state has passed legislation to create a state religion?

The fact of the matter is this ruling is a joke, just like your posts.

Maybe you should read the entire 1st Amendment so you clearly can understand what is in it. Then you won't need to make your strawman arguments any further.

It's pathetic the ignorance that citizens have today about COTUS and how SCOTUS has trampled all over it.

Key points? Your post last night to me actually confirmed what I was saying all along and you don't even realize it.

Atta boy!

Peaceful Warrior


"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.... "

Morality is properly defined as a concern with the distinction between what is right and wrong and how to behave.

A person has an ability to form an entire moral code without a belief in any God or Gods. While some atheists may have one moral code others may have a different moral code.

The most basic moral code is to not harm others so they won't harm you and to let others live as they see fit so they will let you live your life as you see fit. Additional philosophical constructs exists that allow a person to have an entire moral code and not believe in a God or Gods.

Morality ultimately comes down to what we believe to be right or wrong which helps us differentiate between actions.


I guess they shouldn't put up Thanksgiving and Christmas decorations in public schools, and they shouldn't put up Christmas lights in government buildings or on city streets. Those are all clearly Christian symbols.

The Atheist

Peaceful Warrior,

Your response to Charles was well-stated.

Your response to Re:Joggle was a bit off, however, as it is obvious that the majority OF THE PEOPLE did NOT ratify the Constitution at all. Only the very small minority of citizens of the original colonies/states who were elected as representatives actually ratified the Constitution.

Indeed, it was a subject of much debate at the time how to justify the fact that the authority of government rested in "the people" (the majority?) and yet only a room-full of citizens were entering into a contract/compact that not only was binding on all those citizens of the "United States of America" at the time, but would continue to be binding on their posterity into the future! ("...to ourselves and our posterity...").

So I think Joggle is correct, and hopefully you will go back and study more about the history of our country and be "shocked" yourself.


Jazzman72 | 11:39 a.m I don't get it. I'm not the biggest believer in god. I do believe in taking time out to consider what I have to be thankful about, like our loving lord not blessing me with cancer to test my faith. I've even escaped being a Biblical Job entertaining god.

I like Christmas. You don't have to believe in living snowman to like the story of Frosty. You don't need to believe virgins have babies to find the lack of compassion shown toward Marry and Joesph to be believable. I don't believe in the resurrection. I do believe if a god did return to earth people would mock him and then murder him.

I digress. I like Christmas carols and fudge filled with California grown walnuts.

I have done some great picture of churches and crosses. I especially love the old white wooden churches with bell towers and cathedrals.

I grew up in Utah where temples have porthole like windows. I love the play of light within cathedrals as light pours through stained glass.

How quick Christians are to negatively judge others.



You are totally misinterpreting what I've said and twisting it. At no point have I said that there is any piece of legislation that Congress has passed that established a national religion...they haven't. I would be against that. Should religious rights supercede secular rights though? At no point have I said that "separation of church and state" is specifically mentioned in the COTUS, however you have ignored what I did say about it. Read it again and maybe you'll see I've already addressed that issue. I have never claimed any state has passed legislation to create a state religion either? Obviously, you choose to just base your argument on my personal conduct, character, etc., instead of legitimate and relevant arguments concerning the issue. You just keep repeating the same things which are no defense at all for what is suppose to be an opposing opinion.

Keep up the good work with your lack of defense in your opinion.


@Sutton: what ideas have become irrelevant and how has society moved on from Christianity? You do realize that over 85% of American's identify themselves as Christians, right?

As long as the person does the moral thing it makes no difference, does it?

You need to dig deeper Sutton...


@atheist: I had to laugh a little when you claimed that the history of philosophy and science is older than religion. Religion, in other words God, has always existed. It was never created nor can it be as it is eternal.

In all your posturing you still are unable to show the foundation for which atheists get their morals. Morals are based on the concept of right verses wrong. In order for their to be right and wrong there must be absolutes. In order for their to be absolutes there must be a higher order of life that makes this determination of absolutes. That is God.

There are no morals without God. There is no right and wrong without God and opposition which is Satan.

For your enlightenment, God gave Adam and Eve the entire gospel of Jesus Christ from the beginning of human life on earth. They knew the entire plan and taught it to their children. That plan has been documented in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Feel free to read them and get educated.

Atheists have no morals without God. Plain and simple.


@PW: There can be no morality without an absolute of what is right and what is wrong. Man can't come up with these absolutes. We can see through history of man how the philosophies of man change to whatever they deem fit for that day and age.

Noah's time was so morally bankrupt that they were wiped off the face of the earth. Sodom and Gomorrah as well. Rome. Jerusalem. etc etc.

The atheist believes that man is the center of the universe and holds all wisdom and knowledge -- hence the constantly changing "morals" and "values". That's the arrogance of the atheist and the downfall of the atheist.

An atheist can have no moral absolutes without the recognition of a higher authority on which all absolutes are based. That higher authority is God.


@jingle: I haven't misrepresented your position at all.

Sadly I have to keep repeating myself because as you clearly point out, you can't argue with what the 1st Amendment states.

Congress hasn't enacted legislation establishing a national religion. States haven't done that either.

Your arguments for the removal of the crosses or whatever they are is not founded on COTUS. hence you are making strawman arguments.

You haven't explained how have the crosses establishes a religion. You haven't explained how it forces anyone to believe in a particular religion.

You have failed on all counts to demonstrate how having the crosses erected where they are is contrary to COTUS.

What's sad is that you think you've made some point when clearly you haven't proven anything. I don't have to defend strawman arguments since they aren't founded in COTUS.

As soon as you make a point that the crosses are in violation of COTUS and how they are, then we might start having a discussion.

Maybe you should go read COTUS first. It might help you get educated.



I have explained it, but apparently you choose to ignore what I've said. I really don't care either way whether there are crosses there or not, but I do understand why the atheists are against it.

The exact meaning of the Constitution is constantly evolving. The Constitution may be a concrete social contract, but the application of that contract is dependent on the specific issues at hand, the context of the questions being asked, the ideological trends in both society and among justices of the Supreme Court, and how the constitutional question relates to prior Court decisions. What this often means that common, everyday practices are, periodically challenged by someone else, claming that the behavior violates the Constitution. Symbols given preferential treatment violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which has generally been interpreted to prohibit (1)the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or (2) the preference of one religion over another. The second interpretation is what the atheists are using for their objection. Their argument has merit whether the state purposely meant to show preference or not. It could be perceived as such. They have a right to object whether right or wrong!

the truth

RE: Joggle | 2:36 p.m.

Do you want a constion that is foundaton and rock our country is built on,

or sand that is andcan be molded by who ever is in charge?

THe word s of Contion have rvery defineite meqaning,

and only PROPER Way to change the constitution is by admendment process.

Whic far left and th4e progressives, have been by passing and for over a centrury now,

by claiming they some right to change the meaning and interpretation all they want.

based on what? a calender?

or some elltistis attirude that they know better?

that is a very insidious doctrine.

that ONLY leads deprivation of freedom, liberty and rights

and to tyranny.


I belong to a Church that does not use the cross as a symbol, but when I see them along a road indicating that, sadly, someone has died there, I feel sadness in my heart, "wow, what a tragedy." Those crosses also remind me to drive a little safer.

When I see a cross, on a road or as a pendant, I think of it as a reflection of that persons devotion to a Being whose life they want to emulate - to be a better person, to be a better neighbor, to be a better citizen. What could possibly be wrong with that kind of motivation in life? I still don't see the problem with crosses, their motivation and symbolism, and why they should offend anyone, knowing what kind of Person they symbolize.

No one is telling those to don't believe religiously that they are less than the dust of the earth, or anything like that. The freedom of having those crosses along the road reflects freedom of reflection, remembrance, and personal loss. That one feels offense at such a symbol I think is personal, at best. Sorry, I don't think that offense is ever intended.


@the truth

Excuse me....but your post is so structurely butchered that I can't understand fully what your talking about.

I can only say that I'm against deprivation of freedom, liberty and rights and against tyranny of the majority over the minority....but I've already address that. Maybe you missed it!

to comment

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