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

Return to article »

Utah's attorney general strongly disagrees with appeals court

Published: Thursday, Aug. 19 2010 12:41 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anti Bush-Obama

Re: dbrown.

The founding fathers were not atheists they were deists. Big difference.

Joggle

@Peaceful Warrior

The concepts of majority rule and minority rights are the keystone of our free governmental system. We vote for our representatives and the one with the most votes goes onto act for the majority; the majority being the collective people who voted for the representative. That representative speaks on behalf of the majority who voted him in and votes in such a way as to embody the will of that majority...true? Yes!

What about those who are not in the majority? While the minority is not being indirectly represented by the politician like the majority, the minority still retains their basic rights and expects the majority to show consideration for those rights as well. The minority also knows that while they may not be in the majority at this time they will not always be in the minority on every issue. The minority accepts that in order for our government to work competently the will of the people, in the case the majority, must be fulfilled. It makes certain that while the majority may have the obvious power the will of the minority will also be considered especially as it pertains in the Bill of Rights.

Kameron

My father is one of the names on the cross outside of Duchesne. He died in a UHP copter while searching for a lost little girl. I wish he were still around. I appreciate that the state of Utah put up a marker by which he could be remembered for his sacrifice. It was erected for friends, neighbors, family, well-wishers and even for those that fight against my fathers' own beliefs and those that fight against God. There is enough out there to worry about rather than fight within our country and state.

the truth

RE: Joggle | 1:08 a.m.

continued...


it should be thrown back to the states and the feds should remain nuetral.

and the decision based on whatever the state constitution says regarding relegion.


and I believe there is no law that prohibits religious speeech by citizens or private groups on public property,

ALL PEOPLE and GROUPS have equal access to public property.

see 14th admendment.

otherwise you must not allow any person or group access.



Historically there MCUH religion in governemnt and the public aquare,

from the congressional press publishig religious materials,

to public monies being used to help build churches,

to bible study in schools,

9 of the 13 states even had official state relgions.


The constitution limits congress from giving prefrerential treatment to or discrminating against, a church, or specific church, religious groups etc, "an establisment of religion",


the nothing in there about "endorsing" religion in general,

and "christianlity" is general it is NOT a specific establshment.

gain, states, people, communities, schools are limited,

It's just that congess shall NOT make a law,

WHAT is the law that congress made?


if congress made law against crosses isn't that a violation of the 1st admendment, "respecting"?


the truth

RE: Joggle | 1:08 a.m

Here it is again so you can understand it:

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

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


THe words of the Constitution have very definite meaning,

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

Which far left and the progressives, have been by passing and for over a centrury now, by judicial fiat,

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

based on what? a calender?

or some elitist attitude that they know better?

that is a very insidious doctrine.

that ONLY leads deprivation of freedom, liberty and rights

and to tyranny.


And YOU advocate tyranny over any religion, religions group, or any public or outward expression of relgion.

While congress can NOT make law "RESPECTING..."

and NO LAW was made here,


no limitations are in the federal constitution for states,

by making any ruling here they ARE "repecting..." and infringing on free speech as well.


to be continued...

to comment

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