Utah's attorney general strongly disagrees with appeals court
RE: Joggle | 1:08 a.mHere 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 rightsand 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...
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"?
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.
@Peaceful WarriorThe 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
Re: dbrown.The founding fathers were not atheists they were deists.
@the truthExcuse 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
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.
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.
@ChuckyboyI 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!
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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...
@ChuckyboyYou 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.
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.
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"
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.
Re:@Charles"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.
@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!
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.
Re:Joggle"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
"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."
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.
"...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...
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.
@ChuckyboyYou 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.
Joggle,Well said, Amen, and kudos for your 10:36 p.m. response to
@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.
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.
@ChuckeeI 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
@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!
@ChuckySo 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
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.
@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....
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
Re: Charlie91342In 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.
common_sense | 3:14 p.m. Aug. 19, 2010The 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?
@CharlesSince 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
"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.
@cindyacre"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.
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.
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
@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.
Many of the founding fathers were not members of organized religions of their
day, but to call their religions persuasion atheist is wrong - in their writings
they all talked of God, and approved of the Declaration of Independence that
states that our rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are from our
common Creator.I don't understand what religious tyranny you speak
of - does anyone come to your home and threaten to kill you if you don't belong
to their religion? Does anyone bullly, force or coerce you to think the way or
dress the way that they do? That, to me, is tyranny.There are laws
in our country - to help to keep us all safe and bring fairness (in principle
and practice) to life, but they are far from "confining" or "tyranny". It is
through obedience to law that we are free - from the tyranny of lawlessness. So
it is in most religions - to live according to commandments and covenants is a
personal choice. That freedom of choice should not be offensive to anyone, for
we ALL have that freedom. So, what is the problem?
@CharlesPerhaps you should consider NOT wearing YOUR faith on your
neighbor’s sleeve! It is a biased misconception by the religious that
doubters, skeptics, non-believers etc. are somehow less or not as good because
of their non-belief. Goodness doesn't come from religious belief since religious
people have no patent on goodness. It comes from being a good person. Whether
you believe or not is irrelevent.
My Dear Dear Stalwart Sentinel: I will tell you from the outset that I love you,
no matter your political persuasions.However, you have failed to
show where Congress passed a law that has established a religion. Are you able
to do that? If not, then it is you who is unable to actually read and understand
the 1st Amendment.Unlike you, I don't bow down to precedent by any
court, specifically when SCOTUS ignores what the Constitution actually says.
There are many examples of SCOTUS completely ignoring the very words of the
COTUS.You can do your own research to find out the state religions
of the 13 states. It's a free land! Get educated!
Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive
its powers from "We, the People" and the consent of the governed, rather than
claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious
persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies,
and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to
tyranny was to entangle church and state. That is why they adopted a secular
constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary. Atheists/agnostics etc. are stepping up to fight against religious tyranny,
for there are surely those fighting as hard as they can on theocracy’s
behalf to establish religious dominance. Conservative Christians are in battle
mode over their perceived right to force their religion on all Americans.
Attempts to portray themselves as the victims only makes sense in that they are
weakening. Fortunately, atheists/agnostics etc. are putting up resistance to
religious tyranny just like the religious did when they sought religious
freedom. Rather than fight for control, we stand up for freedom. For all the
Christians who wear their faith on their neighbor’s sleeve, there are also
those who truly embody the noble spirit of fairness.
'Would anyone who is against the "mosque" and for the "crosses" be willing to
explain to me why a mosque on private property is wrong but a cross on public
property is okay?' - Sorry Charlie! | 10:23 a.m. The Mosque is on
private property. The Cross is on public property. I
agree charlie, many do not seem to understand the difference. If you
want to build a Mosque on your property, you have a constitutionally protected
right to do so. As, the cross's are on very much PUBLIC property,
they must represent all, or at the very least NOT one group of Americans. As not all Americans believe in the religious symbol of a cross. Regardless of the flavor of religion (Muslim, Jewish, Catholic,
Buddist, etc) answering to the public you must make adherence to ALL
denominations... or, at the very least, something that does not
favor any. A shield would be acceptable. A cross is for
those who only believe Jesus died on a cross. And does not represent
the diveristy if America that makes us strong.
re - Sorry Charlie! | 10:11 a.m"Actually, the pentagram predates
Christ by about 3000 years. Like many symbols, holidays, and rituals it was
co-opted by early Christians as a way to ease the transition from heathen or
pagan religions into Christianity."everything in christianity
predates Jesus. Most of the stories in the bible (adam and eve, noah's ark,
water to wine, most of the miracles) were all created and written on stone
around 2500BC by the hunter/gatherers who worshipped multiple gods. The bible
merely consolidated them into one book and changed the names. December 25th has
been a religious holiday since 2000BC...
re - the truth | 6:12 p.m"MOst what you have uttered in nonsense and
drivel"thanks! now can you be more specific?"During the
time of the Founding fathers, when they were still alive and running things,
there was religion in school, the congressional press publish religious
materials, they hosted church and chruch meetings in government buildings, there
was prayer, they had official ecclesiastical positions, government
building had religons symbols and artwork through out them, and they often
invoked God and religion in speeches"that was 1776. Blacks were
slaves. women couldn't vote. and people were probably still being burned at
the stake for being witches. the word evolution may not have even been invented
yet. I'm not sure if they even knew the earth was round. so I don't get your
point. Back then, everyone except a few people believed in God.
There were very few other religions. Now there are thousands.why
are you still stuck in the 16th century?"if you say that was the
wish of the founding fathers, that is an absolute bald-faced lie"founding fathers would understand present day circumstances and get rid of the
crosses on the hiway
Okay - wait - I am really confused here.We have several stories this
week on a proposed building in NYC being built by Muslims which may or may not
be a mosque and the general consensus is that, even though it is private
property and the Muslims have a right to build there, it is insensitive for them
to do so and they should just voluntarily buy other property some where else to
build their building.Then, we have this story about crosses being
erected on public property and, even though the majority of Americans consider
the cross to be a religious symbol and Constitutionally these crosses should not
be put up by the state on public property, many of those who are arguing that
the Muslims are being insensitive also think that those who are offended by the
crosses should be less sensitive and get over it.Does anybody else
see a contradiction between these two positions? Would anyone who is against the
"mosque" and for the "crosses" be willing to explain to me why a mosque on
private property is wrong but a cross on public property is okay?
@ TKO78: Actually, the pentagram predates Christ by about 3000 years. Like
many symbols, holidays, and rituals it was co-opted by early Christians as a way
to ease the transition from heathen or pagan religions into Christianity.
re- Charlie91342 2:46 p.m."it is a christian memorial. on public
land. and it's not even a "marker" it's a monument.""answer me this.
If it were a huge pentagram instead of a cross would you still be ok with
it?"Actually, the origin of the pentagram is also Christian in
nature. The 5 points of the star represent the 5 wounds of Christ. Over time
the symbol has adopted other meanings but it once was a "Christian" symbol as
Let's get something straight up front. We are Atheists, not Athiests. We are all around you. We serve as firefighters, police officers, nurses,
surgeons, doctors and teachers. All we ask is that this great nation follow the
Constitution, a document where god and Jesus are mentioned zero times. A large
segment of our founding fathers were atheists and/or nonchristians, and wouldn't
be caught dead inside a Christian church. Jefferson. Washinton. Adams. Paine.
Madison. Franklin. Allen.
geez! I don't see where a CROSS is hurting anyone. Good grief folks--get a life
and LEAVE IT ALONE! life goes on.....
@LDS Liberal"I will defend Islam with the same fervor as I defend
Mormons, or Catholics, or Jews, or Wiccans."Would you defend Islam
if it insisted in installing Shariah Law in, say, your home town... and insisted
that your wife and your daughters wore the burka or else.Don't
laugh, I predict England will have Shariah is just a few decades. I have
English friends who see it coming. There are some enclaves of dominant Muslims
in this country who are contemplating the same thing. "If you feel
the Constitution is divinely inspired, put you money where your mouth is -- and
defend it."It is divinely inspired. But the founding fathers had no
idea that America would have to deal with other religions besides benign
Christianity. That part they got wrong.
"what if the officers were gay, and the huge monuments were two men kissing! how
would that go over?"__________________It
would be ok, because two Gay men kissing does not represent
Homosexuality!!!(Like Crosses don't represent Christianity);-)
In California, sections of roadways are dedicated to fallen officers with
appropriate signage. More information, less controversy.
RE: charlie91342MOst what you have uttered in nonsense and
drivel and full faced hate toward religous speech and public
expession, The founding father had MUCH involvement of
religion on the public square, During the time of the Founding
fathers, when they were still alive and running things, there
was religion in school, the congressional press publish
religious materials, they hosted church and chruch meetings
in government buildings,there was prayer, they
had official ecclesiastical positions, government building had
religons symbols and artwork through out them, and they often
invoked God and religion in speeches and talk,The
intentions of the founding fathers was quite clear.There is
no separation church and state, NO hostilty towards religion in the public
square,To say no money is to be spent for any religous
purposes, and the government and the public square must be devoid
of any thing religous, is just plain wrong and if you
say that was the wish of the founding fathers, that is an
absolute bald-faced lie.which REAL and ACTUAL history
re - Breeze | 4:57 p.m"If it was just a badge looking little sign
that would not say anything to anyone about the reason it's there."and yet when you drive by these crosses, they look like just big crosses - the
"memorial" part that indicated what they are for is very small. so they don't
indicate to the passer-by that they are for a fallen officer - they simply say
"hi - I represent christianity".if you really wanted to put up
something so people would know it was a memorial to a fallen officer, you would
have put up a sign saying "dedicated to fallen officer "xyz" for his dedication
and service. We love you".now that I can appreciate.
I just have to ask, if for no other reason than to get the point across -if the fallen officers were gay, and their families wanted their
memorials to be two men kissing, would you be ok with big statues of men kissing
on your freeway?think about it.
re - Breeze | 4:57 p.m"They cannot be something different than a
cross. If it was just a badge looking little sign that would not say anything to
anyone about the reason it's there. People passing by wouldn't know that it was
an officer who gave his/her life for us! Seeing the cross communicates that fact
to us and a sense of reverence and appreciation, for that person it is
representing, comes over us."I have asked this numerous times
and not seem a post answer it yet, so I'll ask again.if the
officers' religion was devil worship, and the memorials were upside-down
pentagrams or some other devil symbol, would all you Utah christians be ok with
that? Big huge devil symbols along your freeway!if your answer is
that it would bother you, then you have answered your own question of why these
crosses are a problem. because all you are saying is that it's ok if they
represent your religion but not if they represent a religion you don't like.what if the officers were gay, and the huge monuments were two men
kissing! how would that go over?
Does anyone appreciate the irony of all the Christians railing against this
court decision, about the exclusion of Christian symbols on PUBLIC property,
while simultaneously ranting about government’s failure to exclude an
Islamic mosque on PRIVATE property?The majority of Americans are
Christians, but that does not mean that America is a Christian county. It is
fundamental that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
They cannot be something different than a cross. If it was just a badge looking
little sign that would not say anything to anyone about the reason it's there.
People passing by wouldn't know that it was an officer who gave his/her life for
us! Seeing the cross communicates that fact to us and a sense of reverence and
appreciation, for that person it is representing, comes over us.I
wish I knew what I could do to be the voice on the opposition. To be as loud as
the athiests. Big deal. Give me a break. Just because I don't believe in the
Jewish Religion, I can still respect them and their symbols and not have a
problem. It's consideration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
re - Last Stand | 4:05 p.m"Do these monuments really reflect a
religious endorsement by our government?"yes. if I was driving
through Utah and I saw a bunch of huge crosses I would think I was in a
christian state.why did you make them so big?
Here's how majority rule and minority rights works for those who don't quite get
it!Without majority rule the framers believed that our country would
be subjected to a tyrannical government but they also recognized that they
needed to protect the minority. First, majority rule is the concept that
policies will be determined by what the majority of the people decides. While
this majority of the people decide for everyone there have been laws set forth
in the Constitution that protect the basic rights of minorities regardless of
race, gender, religious affiliation or sexual preference. Secondly, minority
rights are the basic rights attributed to certain minority groups to ensure that
they attain equality and have a voice in political decisions even when the
majority wins over them. These two are related to each other in that the framers
designed our government to restrict or impede the majority from hindering or
taking away the rights of the minority. These two have a distinct relationship
in our government even though they seem opposite of each other, because even
though the majority has a higher voice in our society the minority cannot have
their rights taken away from them.
re - common_sense | 3:14 p.mthank you for providing some common
sense. your name fits you.I'm not atheist, christian, wiccan, nor a
re - stillwater | 3:07 p.m"Consider keeping the crosses in the
ground. Place a really nice large "Seal of the State of Utah" right across where
the members of the cross come together. You get the best of both worlds. You
cover the supposed objectional cross, but the cross now becomes the supporting
timbers to hold up the seal."why not put new posts on the sides of
the cross-member and a plaque with the officer's name so we can read it and feel
for his family's loss? plus it would stand up to the wind better. or is it
just your way of camoflauging your religious symbol?
The problem is, in this country, we are concerned too mucy about offending the
slightest minority that it's got to the point of ridiculous. Do these monuments
really reflect a religious endorsement by our government? Or are a vocal
minority being placated by these activist judges because for some reason they
find religion threatening?
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 cannot believe what is happening in this country! Minorities seem to rule.
Consider keeping the crosses in the ground. Place a really nice
large "Seal of the State of Utah" right across where the members of the cross
come together. You get the best of both worlds. You cover the supposed
objectional cross, but the cross now becomes the supporting timbers to hold up
re - Willie | 2:13 p.m"Did they all swear on the Bible before their
opening statements????"no they didn't. only christians do that.
just like crosses.
re -- MADRYBEG | 1:29 p.m"I guess there should not be churches
either because athiests are offended?"churches are on private
property. the atheists didn't have to pay for part of it. but they did have to
pay for part of the hiway."The cross is a memorial of a fallen
trooper, not a church!"then why did you use crosses? why not a
re - wrz | 1:00 p.m"Jesus is in us and we in him."spoken
like a true christian. no wonder you like the crosses.
re - wrz | 1:00 p.m""If Jesus died, HOW did he die? He was crucified."No, no. He gave up his life freely. It was not taken... He said: "No man
taketh it from me, but I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. John 10:18"dude... come on... how do you even say
that with a straight face? a bunch of people nailed him to a cross and left
him for days up there, or so the story goes.are you saying the story
isn't true? or that he could have escaped from his captors?sure he
didn't put up a fight but that's a far cry from giving it up freely.
re - TKO78 | 12:56 p.m"I am surprised at the close-mindedness of all
those who have turned this into a religious battle (once again) rather than
recognize it for what it truly is which is a tribute to those who have sacrifed
their lives for our safety."how can you possibly not know that a
cross is a religious symbol? seriously? you think it is benign? has no
meaning?if a cross has no meaning then why was it used? there are
millions of different shapes to choose from - why pick a cross? I can tell you
- it's because most people in America are christians and crosses mean something
special to them. so a cross as a memorial makes sense. all I can
say is that if the police dept had been made up of mostly devil worshippers, and
pentagrams or devil symbols were used for these monuments, all of you would be
freaking out right now. and you know why? because putting a huge religious
symbol along the hiway implies the state "approves" of that religion. so a huge
pentagram would imply Utah is a devil and witchcraft state. y'all would go
@ willie:No, but dont let that stop you from looking foolish.
re - JustJerry | 12:46 p.m"Isn't it really all about a certain
people trying to kick God out of America? May God have mercy on America and
hedge her from harm"hate to sound like a broken record, but...
who's God are you talking about? yours or mine? because they are NOT the same.
Re: Pagan and charlie91342Why not just try being a litte less
sensitive? I mean, does a symbol, no matter what it might represent, really
bother you that much? I doubt it. We see right through your hollow statements to
find your real agenda to eliminate all religion. What other points are on your
immediate agenda? Let me guess: eliminate tax credit for all churches; force
churches to recognize any type of marriage; sieze private property of churches;
etc, etc, etc. until all traces of religion are wiped clean. I still can't help
but wonder why you're so threatened by religion, especially in a country that
does not force you in ANY way to believe one way or another...
"Did they all swear on the Bible before their opening statements????"There's no requirement to swear on a Bible. You can affirm.
re - TKO78 | 12:56 p.m"It is a memorial, not a religious marker for
Christians....are you annoyed at every memorial you see regardless of its
shape?"it is a christian memorial. on public land. and it's not
even a "marker" it's a monument.answer me this. If it were a huge
pentagram instead of a cross would you still be ok with it?and if it
was just a small cross that would be one thing. but they are huge. why can't
you be more like Montana? I know you like huge temples, but does everything
have to be huge?and reply to the pentagram question pls.
Did they all swear on the Bible before their opening statements????
'The cross is a memorial of a fallen trooper, not a church!' - MADRYBEG | 1:29
p.m. Then they should use a symbol of the trooper. Not
I guess there should not be churches either because athiests are offended? The
cross is a memorial of a fallen trooper, not a church! I am sick at my stomach
at this ruling. IT is unconstitional.
@Pagan"Cherry pick much?"Only when they ripen."If Jesus died, HOW did he die? He was crucified."No, no. He
gave up his life freely. It was not taken... He said: "No man taketh it from
me, but I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John
10:18"While I have the deepest sympathy for them, they are not
Jesus."Jesus is in us and we in him."And while
sacrifices were made, they were not crucified."The crosses are not
there to indicate any kind of crucifixion or religion. They are there to remind
that officers died on those spots in the line of duty... And that all who drive
Utah roads should be reminded to give extra thought to safe driving."We are not supposed to put one religion over another, and yet we have
example, after example of people trying to do just that."How could a
devise used to prop up my grape vines have any relation to religion?"As for the tomb, still a far cry from the Easter bunny."Are you
saying there was a bunny in the tomb? You're sick.
re: charlie91342It is a memorial, not a religious marker for
Christians....are you annoyed at every memorial you see regardless of its shape?
I am surprised at the close-mindedness of all those who have turned
this into a religious battle (once again) rather than recognize it for what it
truly is which is a tribute to those who have sacrifed their lives for our
Isn't it really all about a certain people trying to kick God out of America?
May God have mercy on America and hedge her from harm.
As has been noted a least once in earlier posts, there are no crosses on the
graves at Arlington National Cemetery, just plain headstones with a small space
for display of a symbol of the veteran's choice, which can be a cross, a Star of
David, a crescent, or an atom, among other things. Crosses and the occasional
Star of David are used to mark the graves at US cemeteries in Europe.
re -- Bucky | 10:51 a.m"How can one be Athiest? The definition
means "without God(s)", but in order to believe that there is no God, one would
have had to met a God to believe that he or one does not exist."on
the other hand, common sense says that to believe in a God one must have met
one.when did you meet God? (and I'm not an atheist but your post
Isn't there an amazing irony in calling yourself a Christian and only praying
for god to bless America? This is as ironic as printing god's name on the medium
of exchange used to traffic drugs and to fund the sex trade.
re -- 1Observer | 10:29 a.m"The courts have zeroed in on the
establishment of religion phrase but are overlooking the free exercise
allowance."you are fee to exercise your religion any way you want,
just not on land I helped pay for.
re - ToBeConsidered | 11:48 a.m"Just out of curiosity, do Atheists
use U.S. currency, which is loaded with religious references, or do they just
use their debit cards all the time?"atheists aren't the only ones
that think the markers should be non-religious in nature. they are simply the
ones that bring it to light and do something about it. do you need examples of
other religions that take the lead on things, like prop 8?
Pres. Obama declared the importance of the first amendment screaming for
religious freedom. If he feels a muslim mosque can be built on ground zero for
that reason, surely christian crosses can be place along the highway. What gives
re -- TKO78 | 11:29 a.m."maybe all of us who are upset by this
decision should go get thousands of crosses and start lining the "public"
highways for the sole purpose of annoying all those athiests who are destroying
this wonderful country!"do you really think only athiests were
annoyed seeing the crosses? I would think anyone that has a religion other than
christianty would be annoyed.everyone else would think "what makes
those christians think they are so special they can put up big crosses on a
hiway I helped pay for?"
re -- Morgan Duel | 11:17 a.m"I totally disagree with the 10th
Circuit Court. This Nation is one Nation under God and we are a Christian
Nation."yes, and it's 1830, not 2010. so there is no need to debate
a mosque being built near the site of 9/11 because there are no muslims. and
wiccans didn't really need to petition the gov't to allow their fallen soldiers
to have the wiccan symbol on their headstones because there are no wiccans.and tom cruise isn't really a scientologist, he's a closet christian...
(although I don't think scientology is a "religion" as much as a "club" since
they don't actually worship any deity)
re - jacobmightywon | 10:47 a.m""Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof""putting big crosses along the hiway on gov't owned land
establishes christianity as the state religion. so it is "the gov't
establishing a state religion".
Put the crosses on private land and it becomes a non-issue. why is that so hard
to understand?most hiways just have a certain width of public land
and then it is land owned by someone. Just move the crosses back to the private
land.of course the private land owner might not be a christian and
may not want a big cross on his/her land, but since it looks like everyone in
Utah is a christian, it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Move the cross bar down and make it a 'plus' sign.Surely no one can sue
over a 'plus' sign
The cross was accepted a a religious symbol YEARS after Jesus's crucifixion.The cross was used as a form of capital punishment and it did not end
with him.Also note, that the LDS church has said nothing on the
matter. The church does reconginze Jusus as a devine, but recognizes the
resurrected person, not the mode of death.The cross in various forms
were used in religions in years BC.Yes, I an not totally in favor of
crosses.The markers perhaps should vary based upon the preference of the
families of the fallen and a variety be available for choice.Please
note that Arlington National Cemetary does have headstones bearing crosses.
re - @Charles | 5:56 p.m"I'm sorry, but can Brian Barnard or any
atheist please show me the piece of legislation from Congress that has
established a national religion?"by putting crosses along the hiway
it says that the state is a christian state."Crosses stay. Atheists
and Barnard can go jump in a lake."would you say the same thing it
they were Wiccan symbols?"God Bless America!"who's God?
yours or mine?
I agree with previous posts, I've never thought of the memorial markers as being
religious symbols. I always felt sad that someone died at that spot.Just out of curiosity, do Atheists use U.S. currency, which is loaded with
religious references, or do they just use their debit cards all the time?
'No. He was put in a tomb.' - wrz | 10:52 a.m. Cherry pick
much? If jesus died, HOW did he die? He was
crucified. On a cross. Not the highway patrol. While I have the deepest sympathy for them, they are not jesus.
And while sacrafices were made, they were not crucified. We are not
supposed to put one religion over another, and yet we have example, after
example of people trying to do just that. Watch 'The Passion of
Christ' if you don't believe me Wrz. As for the tomb, still a far
cry from the easter bunny.
re - sg | 1:09 p.m"amazing that a group from tx had enough sway of the
courts for something in another state"kind of brings the whole utah
mormons vs california prop 8 thing to mind, huh.re -
John Charity Spring | 1:16 p.m"The courts have been railing so hard
against that principle that they now attack even non-religious symbols such as
these markers."they ARE NOT non-religious symbols. A cross is a
symbol of christianity. everyone in the world (except you) knows that."It is time to return to the intent of the Founding Fathers by realizing that
the Constitution forbids the government, including the courts, from attacking
religion."I thought you said they aren't religious symbols? if they
aren't religious symbols, how is this "attacking religion"?re - Durfee | 1:22 p.m"What a ridiculous ruling. Should we go rip all of
the crosses out of the Arlington National Cemetery?"only cristians
have crosses in arlington. other religions get their own symbol. even wiccans
get their own symbol on their headstone.re - KM | 3:04
p.m"they disparrage our Christian roots""our" roots aren't
Re: wrz @ 10:59Actually the Supreme Court has already determined
that the due process clause of the 14th amendment applies the first amendment to
States, as well as local governments. That being said, I strongly disagree with
this court's interpretation that placing these monuments is somehow an
endorsement of any religion by the state.
All the military graveyards across the world constitute precedence, don't they?
The cross as mentioned has been a symbol of death for centuries. The cross, in
the instances of these memorials, does not, on its face, embody a religious
symbol. I think they are straining at gnats with this one.
This ruling is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Since the officers cannot be
honored for their selfless sacrifice in this manner anymore, then maybe all of
us who are upset by this decision should go get thousands of crosses and start
lining the "public" highways for the sole purpose of annoying all those athiests
who are destroying this wonderful country!
What does a cross near a highway have to do with your rights to religion? It
effects you beliefs or your church? That's unbelievable. What if these were
Islamic symbols. We would have conservative Christians protesting them and
I totally disagree with the 10th Circuit Court. This Nation is one Nation under
God and we are a Christian Nation. We were founded by Christians. The men who
fought to earn our freedom so long ago were Christian. Had they been Islamic,
or Hindu or Buddhist I doubt this would be a Nation of Freedom, otherwise Iraq,
Iran, and China would all be free now.The 10th Circuit has committed
blasphemy in their ruling.
wrz | 10:59 a.m. Aug. 19, 2010--"The US Constitution states that 'CONGRESS shall
make no law respecting establishment of religion...'It does not say
that states cannot do it.I hesitate posting this observation in case
Muslims happen to be reading this thread."Laughing, laughing,
laughing . . . I gotta go do something productive, the paranoia and
foolishness has officially reached the top, and threatens to overflow!! I don't
want to get any on ME, it could be Contageous!!!
The US Constitution states that 'CONGRESS shall make no law respecting
establishment of religion...'It does not say that states cannot do
it.I hesitate posting this observation in case Muslims happen to be
reading this thread.
@Pagan"Oh! Is THAT what they did to Jesus?"No. He was
put in a tomb. Maybe we should ban all tombs. Would make just as much sense as
banning a piece of material with a dead officer's name scribed across it.
I have one question. How can one be Athiest? The definition means "without
God(s)", but in order to believe that there is no God, one would have had to met
a God to believe that he or one does not exist.
The founding fathers never intended to restrict religious worship or religious
expression to private venues. Their object was to prevent the government from
interfering with religious worship and from making mandates restricting it. The
First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Atheists' claims that
America was founded to exclude religion are completely groundless. Free exercise
is free exercise. Denying the free exercise of Christian worship is exactly the
kind of oppression America is against. America exists because the God of Israel
responded to our pleas for deliverance from such oppression.
Mike Richards | 8:24 a.m. Aug. 19, 2010--"When the judiciary serves itself and
tries to be popular, we get this kind of ruling."Indeed, Mike. This
is a popular ruling. You've read all these posts, right? Lol. If
each poster on this board (or the state of Texas, or Utah, or?) had an "In" or
"Out" vote on these judges right now, they'd be "Out". Wouldn't you agree? Makes your post seem kind of silly and irrational.The reason
for lifetime appointments? To remain above politics and popularity contests in
order to conduct the business of protecting the rights of (all)our citizenry.
Even if, it seems at times, it is from themselves and their short-sightedness
The courts have zeroed in on the establishment of religion phrase but are
overlooking the free exercise allowance. Poor ruling but to be expected in our
increasingly godless society. Is it any wonder that we see increasing trouble
in our society and on the horizon as we continue to push any reference to a
morality-based creed from our public discourse. Rarely does a people remain
good and moral without some tie to Diety to encourage them to self regulate.
The more we push God from our lives the more selfish and ego-centric we will
become. The end result will be little different from a pack a ravenous animals.
May God have mercy on us!
Sticks and Stones. Why do some people have such thin skin?
interesting comments residents of salt lake
'wrz | 9:35 a.m. Aug. 19, 2010 These are not religious crosses. The cross
piece part of the cross is needed so that the name can be read across not up and
down.' Oh! Is THAT what they did to Jesus?
"Utah Trooper Crosses are Religious Symbols and violate the US Constitution, and
they must come down" says the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals from their federal
court house which displays the "non-religious" ten commandments!?
Pagan,I'm a conservative and I'm not asking that the constitution be
changed. I'm demanding that the constitution be interpreted CORRECTLY, which in
this case it cleary is not.
@shamrock"...I agree with the federal court that a cross is a deeply
religious symbol."It might be a symbol that some Christians use but
I use a cross to tie up my grape vines.The Highway Patrol uses it to
inscribe the names of fallen officers. Nothing more and nothing less. Most if
not all officers who died on Utah highways are Mormons who do not recognize or
use the cross at all.As some have already pointed out, Arlington
Cemetery is filled with crosses. I wonder if the defense cited this situation
in its arguments?
When i die, I want a big hand with the middle finger up for everyone to see.
Oh, and bury me on the steps of the capitol.
Wow!! We have some Constitutional scholars on this board! the truth
| 5:52 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010; @Charles | 5:56 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010;dumprake | 6:01 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010You should be commended for your
in-depth analysis of the Constitution, your superlative critical thinking
skills, and, in dumprakes case, obvious qualifications as a Supreme Coart
nominee. Hello, Obama? Are you listening? Well, you
would surely have MY vote! Uh-oh!! Gotta go . . . Here
come the underwear police!!
It is too bad that people who don't believe in anything won't let others honor
those who serve our state and keep us safe.
These are not religious crosses. The cross piece part of the cross is needed so
that the name can be read across not up and down.
We really need to thank these people for sparing us the angst of these odious
markers. Unfortunately they mingle among us and we don't know whom to thank.
Perhaps if they wore a big A in the middle of their foreheads it would be easier
to identify them. After all they should be really proud of their victory over
I drive by this memorial twice every day, to and from work. I've probably passed
it some 3000 times in the last 8 years. Never once has it crossed my mind that
it was some sort of religious endorsement by the state. The idea that certain
people would be unduly influenced or would supposedly feel discriminated against
because of these memorials is utterly ridiculous.
patriotandmore,No way the atheists would ever submit to this issue
being decided by the people, because they know they would lose HUGE!! We're no
longer a country were majority decides. The activist judges are taking over,
fueled by the liberal extremists.
I guess Atheists have nothing better to do than go around opening up old wounds
of the families of officers who were killed?That's a very civil and kind
thing to do isn't it. Maybe they could adopt this slogan: "why spend your
life beening nice when you can go around being mean!"
To all atheists: Lighten up!You believe you are the most supreme
beings in existence and are deeply offended when viewing a government created
cross memorial that represents the existence of a more supreme being than
yourself. Legally, you win, but come on. Are you really that offended? Freedom of religion guarantees that you won't be compelled to frequent
any religious worship, nor be molested by government in your free exercise of
religious worship. I support this right because it protects my worship of my
Conservatives last week: Defend the constitution! Defend the
constitution! Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional Immigration,
unconstitutional Crosses on goverment property, unconstitutional Conservatives now: Change the constitution! Chante the
Honoring the officers should be the only priority, not the shape. As others have
mentioned, use a badge or beehive. Or maybe the court would allow the family to
choose the shape, according to his religious belief.
This is the result of a fascist mentality. It's time to reapply the
Judiciary Act of 1802.
What about rights for officers? That ruling is insane and the people who called
for it to happen need a reality check. Guess the stones with any sort of
religious reference need to be replaced at Arlington since it's on federal
property. Who's going to pay that cost???
Is there a simpler, clearer way to say UHP officers died than with the standard
grave emblems? As long as the families of officers have a choice (i.e crescent,
star of David, or a big A for Atheist) so their loved one is not misrepresented,
how is this a problem?
When the judiciary serves itself and tries to be popular, we get this kind of
ruling.Had any of the justices taken the time to even read the 1st
Amendment, they would have realized that CONGRESS is prohibited from passing
legislation pertaining to AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. There is no
"establishment clause". Congress could endorse any religion it wished all day
long as long as it made "no law pertaining to AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion".A 7th grader, taking his first steps into grammar, learns the difference
between "AN" and "THE". Apparently the justices don't even understand
middle-school grammar, to say nothing about their ability to read and understand
I fail to understand why this ruling is at all necessary. I've seen Japanese
Anime that use Crosses to symbolize death, though the fantasy world they've
created are entirely devoid of any religious point of view whatsoever. Were they
covertly attempting to endorse christianity? I've a friend who develops
videogames and is staunchly areligious who uses the cross for graves because it
is a universally understood symbol. Is he covertly attempting to endorse
christianity? Hardly. Not all Christians even use the cross as a religious
symbol--so even the Christains disregard this idea. Were they posting a crucifix
with a Jesus attached to the cross, I might agree with the ruling, but this is
absurd. WHy is it even a lawsuit? Are we really a nation so critical of each
other that we can't engage in our own free ability to interpret our environments
without taking offense. IMO, there should be as many religious symbols in the
public eye as possible, and we should stop keeping score as to what religion
appears more here or there.
Hey we have to remember the atheists formed the nation so we should be
respectful to them. Oh wait...I might be wrong. It is interesting how they
have forced their ideas on everyone including our children but they stand on the
constitution...that is right "on the constitution" when someone differs with
them. Honesty, decency and integrity have been trampled.
Hello 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and all other judges who cater to the
minorities of this country...you better get busy and start taking down every
cross in our national cemeteries based on your bias decision on these memorials
to our fallen heros. Get real...and people wonder why this country is so messed
up?? Thanks judges!
To The Atheist:The significance of placing a marker on public lands
reminds us of the Police Officer(s) who have died in the protection of us as
citizens. There aren't very many crosses on the roads and one has to really
push it to have to "put up" with those crosses rather than all the advertising
we have to put up with.The cross is a religious symbol when used in
context of a religion, but this is not done in that context. Therefore, it is
not a lie as you claim.The ruling is not sound. The ruling actually
does create a law about religion where there was no law on any religion done by
the placement of crosses on the side of the road.
When there were knights and people fought with swords and one of them died, they
would often drive the sword into the ground as a marker that someone died in
combat. So instead of saying that they are crosses, we could say that they are
symbolic swords for a warrior who died in combat. I know that I like to think of
police officers as knights in shining armor.
Put it on the ballot in November. I think you'll see the vast majority of
citizens want the memorials to stay where they are.
Since when does the government decide what symbols are religious and which ones
aren't? Don't I have free speech? Can't I say that a cross represents a juncture
or crossroads in one's life? I didn't see the words "Christianity is symbolized
by these crosses" anywhere on these memorials. What a ridiculous and
non-sensical decision. Only shows how weakened the American mind has become. One
person interprets this to be Christian so no more crosses. Eliminate the letter
x and t from the American-English Alphabet too. No more keyboards with these
letters can be owned by the government. The premise is ridiculous. To be consistent the courts have to also respect my interpretation of what is
and isn't a religious symbol. If I have a small group of people with the opinion
that octogons are a religious symbol, I can eliminate all stop signs from being
posted on government owned right-of-ways.We need justice, not the
variable 'policital correctness'.
Are those athiests nuts? Are they trying to make people outraged? Don't they
have better things to do with their time?
If the police who died decided before they died that they wanted a cross, then
they have every right. There are many government run cemeteries,
those who want crosses have crosses. At Arlington National Cemetery there are
many crosses, and all graves get a Christmas wreath each year. I’m sure I shouldn’t say that with pagan around, he doesn’t
want people to have religious rights, right pagan? He's opposed to rights for
religious people to vote on moral issues, and all that. ; )And
the Atheists, ACLU or someone will certainly join his cause to root religion
out of our breasts……; ) just messin pagan, but we know it’s
1) Most of crosses are not on public land. For example my Dad's memorial near
Strawberry Reservoir is on donated private land. 2) The Atheists
group has decided where they stand by attacking anything that resembles
religion.3) This case could open up a box to remove crosses all
across cemeteries. Let's see who all the vets feel about this one.
Don't all of you understand that atheism is the new state religion of America?
Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" makes no bones about
the fact he would like to see religion completely wiped out in both the U.S. and
throughout the world. And there are many who agree with him, including a good
number of federal and state judges.
It’s nice when things are simple. I’m glad to photograph crosses.
I’m happy that there is no mil spec for how people view death. One
man’s cross is another man’s Star of David. People want a government
defined uniform death symbol?I’ve photographed more graves
than any person I know. Yes, I have some cool crosses. I also have angels and
other symbols. I’m expert in the aesthetics of burial grounds. You see
very strong symbols used in death. Strong symbolism makes for strong images.I love the bright red used for the blood of Christ. In Germany death is
orderly. Americans have a beverage can view of death. You see this as you study
the graves of ghost towns and old settlements, If you seek to be
alone, go to a veteran’s cemetery, on Memorial Day. Headstones
are broken, the weeds and the tall grass hides the graves of paupers. Most
graves have no markers. You can see the depressions of graves without
gravestones. We cast of any responsibility to the dead like a beverage container
thrown into a dumpster.
To: THe Atheist.Likewise, We want you to do the same and keep to
yourself as well and stop forcing your beliefs on others. These crosses are a
symbol of death. When I see them I drive a little better through the area and
then I feel some respect for the fallen officer who served for my safety. I
can't just put them in a grave and forget about them.
I am pleased that Utah legislature had no problems with the crosses. After all
LDS typically shun such symbols. I love how a Texas group can tell
the state of Utah what to do and no one bat an eye? Utah group (not exactly
accurate) and California there is a different perspective. Hmm?
Bizarre ruling, yes. But ultimately the issue at hand isn't religion. It is
the foolish notion of "public land". If there is "public property" then
everyone wants their share of the say-so. How can everyone who owns the "public
land" get their say-so? Of course, they can't. Under this false notion of
"public land" the atheists are just getting their fair share. After all, the
religionists get Arlington, why shouldn't the atheists get the freeway?The only solution to issues like this is to recognize that all property should
be private. Yes, even roads. Yes, even national parks. Yes, even capitol
buildings leased to the government by private individuals.I know
that's extraordinarily radical for anyone who made it through enough comments to
get this far, but test it against every single public property issue and see if
doesn't work: protests at General Conference, mineral exploration in barren
Utah deserts, retrieval of treasure from the ocean floor, hookah bars, renting
to gays, disposal of slag, Legacy highways, advertising along I-15, and on and
on...Let's give liberty a try.
Arlington Cemetery does not have crosses.They have rows of
headstones, not crosses.Some of the headstones have crosses carved
into them, some a Star of David, some have nothing.But the shape of the
Arlington monuments is not a cross. Go to arlingtoncemetery website and check
out the photo section.You're probably thinking of a rows of crosses
in European cemeteries.
Our present court system stinks.. I think it's time to get new judges!
The demise of America has been slow in coming but gaining speed on the
downhill. 'Tolerance', 'freedoms', and 'rights' have been nitpicked onto their
deathbeds. Frivolous litigation is becoming the norm. You want your rights but
quash mine to get them. Just add this to the list of things that are
degenerating our country. I am a Christian, don't display crosses,
and never once think of religion when I see a cross on the side of the road. I
think of a sad and tragic death and grieving loved ones. I see
things all the time that are offensive, and then remind myself that those who do
it have that right. I look away, avoid it if I can, and never once think of
suing. I would love to know: Does Atheism foster negativity and
complaining, or is it the other way around?
If Athiests truly do not believe in God then why fight it. After all if ther is
no God there is no right or wrong and we are just a bunch of chemical reactions
in the brain. So get off your high horse and leave religion alone.
Atheism is so inspiring, isn't it?
Seems times are a-changing. Simply change the crosses to something else that
memorializes a dead person and it will catch on to others. It doesn't have to
continue being a cross like the churches use as part of their religion. I
personally have never thought of crosses being church related when it was posted
to show a dead person died. But reading this article, it makes sense to me and
the judge ruled correctly. It's time to change things so that the country
adheres to the Constitution regarding religion. And if wondering if I am LDS?
Yep I am.
When will the President of the United States no longer be able to say "God Bless
America". That certainly is an endorsement from the President of religion.We are done as a powerful nation. Done....
It is not inappropriate to honor a fallen officer by acknowledging his sacrifice
to the community at some other location besides his grave. Symbols can have
more than one meaning. (Unless you truly believe you can pierce my heart with
your mouse pointer). While a cross is indeed a symbol of Christianity, it is
also more universally recognized as a symbol of death. (What other symbol comes
to mind?) If the predominate religion of this state wanted to impose its
religious views on the community it would not be in the form of a cross, there
are no crosses on or inside LDS churches or temples. The 10th circuit simply
got this one wrong.
GOOD! Those crosses are creepy.
I think it's a great idea to have memorials to honor the fallen UHP troopers,
but I agree with the federal court that a cross is a deeply religious symbol.
It's almost Orwellian to think otherwise.If the cross isn't
religious, then I guess the Star of David isn't either, and it's just a
coincidence that the UHP chose a cross. So everyone's cool if we construct all
future UHP memorials in the shape of a six-point star, right?
life after death a belief most people believe this..paying respects to
thier family of those kiiled
Beautiful photograph. Probably could be displayed in a museum without any ruling
Almost every simple symbol in the world is a religious symbol to someone
somewhere. People need to place things into context. When I went to Arlington
Cemetery I wasn’t so naive or ignorant to think that that was a super
religious place, because as an American I recognize that in graveyards crosses
symbolize someone’s death, that they are grave markers. The same is true
when I see a cross on the side of the road with someone’s name or picture
on it.Anyone who sees a cross with someone’s name on it other
than Jesus Christ and thinks it’s religious is flat out ignorant of
Look out Arlington Cemetery! We're going to get you next!
Congratulations Texas-based American Atheists, Inc. On your victory on becoming
officially the biggest bigots in the world. Their insensitivity is
remarkable.I’m not a religious man but getting rid of crosses
that represent someone’s death on the pretense of religion is beyond
ridiculous. Crosses are symbols that represent many different things, in this
case they represent dead bodies not Jesus Christ. Are there any old
cemeteries on public land? If so should we get rid of all the crosses on those?
There is a difference between the separation of church and state and eliminating
religion from public view. This court really missed this one.
Wait, let me be more clear. I am a Christian and a family member of a fallen
officer. The ruling was absolutely appropriate. Using any other form of
memorial would be every bit as honorable, and would expend approxiamtely 2 to 3
more calories of effort. In life, these officers showed acceptance and respect
to all of their fellow citizens that they endeavored to serve. Do not now
dishonor their sacrifice by using them in a debate that is best argued in
another manner and in another forum.
atheist beliefs do not make sense and are depressing. Try not to let your
negativity ruin everyone elses day.
The Athiest,Despite your calling me a "loose canon" the other day, I
loved this quote:"We just want you to keep your superstitious
hangups to yourselves and stop using public property, public money, and public
office for your advertising and recruitment efforts!"
To@Charles - You state "what I am saying is that anyone who interprets the 1st
Amendment different from anything that it actually states, has misinterpreted it
and their misinterpretation is invalid." In actuality, what you are
saying is that you refute the Constitution. Just admit it, there is
Constitutional precedence and you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with
it. The fact that you do not know to include the 14th Amendment in this
discussion (see Everson v Board of Education) is an indictment of willful
blindness. It is truly sad when Americans such as yourself turn a blind eye to
the Constitution and the SCOTUS rulings respecting it. You live in a free land,
inform yourself for heaven's sake!Also, re: 13 original states and
religion - I believe MA (maybe others) just required that people have a faith,
I'm not sure it had a state sanctioned religion. Let me know what you find. On
that note, you may want to look into the life of William Penn and what he was
subjected to for insight into the terrible idea that is state sanctioned
i always thought it was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion
One Nation, Under GOD .... Not "One Nation Under some or other invisible,
nondescript force ..." Come on people ... this is silly.
Freedom of religion is unconstitutional? Our politicians and judges are
destroying the constitution by making freedom and the constitution
unconstitutional. God bless America from this evil empire!
If you want to memorialize these fallen officers,feel free to place a cross on
the location where they are buried. Burial plots are "private property" and you
are free to express your religious faith on your private property as you
wish.But the side of the highways and roads are public lands.
Nobody is buried there. What is the significance of placing a marker at the
location of a person's demise? It clutters the roadways and "forces" everyone
who travels along those public roads to have to put up with those crosses. If
we want to remember and pay tribute to fallen officers, we will drive to the
graveyard and do it there.Anyone who claims the cross is not a
religious symbol is violating one of the primary teachings of most religions, as
well as an important principle of (atheist) ethics: Thou shalt not lie.This was a sound ruling. Contrary to the lies believers spread about
atheists, we are NOT "anti-christian". We just want you to keep your
superstitious hangups to yourselves and stop using public property, public
money, and public office for your advertising and recruitment efforts!
That Makes Sense beat me to it. the LDS church does not use crosses or
have any specific symbol at all. this is a really crappy ruling.
@whitegold: what I am saying is that anyone who interprets the 1st Amendment
different from anything that it actually states, has misinterpreted it and their
misinterpretation is invalid.I don't care about precedent when said
precedent is incorrect according to what the Constitution actually says.Are you aware that all 13 original states actually had state religions?
Seems like it's us "intellectually superior" folks of the 20th and 21st
centuries that can't understand plain English.
The ruling and the lawsuit are example of how athiest extremists are tearing
apart our constitution in favor of their own selfish world view. No just law
whatsoever can stand up against nitpicking of such extreme proportions. No doubt, the state's decision to use religious symbols was not entirely
respectful of those who do not believe in such things. But supporting a lawsuit
against it is equally wrong. It is just as wrong for government to remove the
crosses as it is for government to install them. Its just another
example of how seperation of church and state is impossible. It will not happen
until we figure out how to disect minds so we can seperate a person's religious
philosophies from his non-religious ones.
Let's bring it before The Supreme Court!! It is NOT an endorsement of religion,
rather a memorial for those who have passed before us.
Crosses really disturb a true atheist. A true ATHEIST cannot handle a cross
mentally or physically any way shape or form. They are taboo to ALL Atheist.
not scaredThere you go again confusing repubs with conservatives. Its
true that a progressive repub can nominate a leftist judge. sabe?
So as a graphic/environmental display designer I cannot ever use a vertical line
crossed by a horizontal line to display text on government property? If I move
the horizontal crossing bar to the top of the horizontal line then is it OK? A
single vertical bar also has religious significance to some people so that is
out! And most law-officer badges include a 6-pointed star which of course
endorses Judaism. So crosses, circles, squares, Ts, stars, and triangles are
banned. The majority of people who see a white cross on the side of
the road think, "Someone would like to remember with reverence and gratitude
someone who died here." In other parts of the world instead of crosses they use
little adobe shrines, or latices strung with flowers. They all mean the same
thing, someone we loved died here. They don't mean the state endorses a religion
here.Progessives are ruining community and culture around the world.
Fight on rational-thinking majority. Shun the fringes of the left and right.(BTW--Any bet the judges didn't understand that the predominant religion
in Utah doesn't use the cross as a religious symbol?)
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit the
preference of one religion over another. Putting the state symbol on a 12 foot
tall cross does seem like a very clear preference.
I am a Christian and I applaud this ruling. There are millions of ways of
memorializing fallen heroes without using religious symbols. Chalk one up for
the good guys!
Atheists do not believe in live and let live. You are the ones who are
determined to ram your religion down everybody's throats. The Prop 8 ruling and
this ruling both are in earnest dsires to continue to support one state religion
- atheism. Look at the Prop 8 Judge's ruling: it is nothing but religious
ranting, including calling heterosexualism a "sin". Crosses have long been a
sign of reverence and honor to the dead. They haven't been a sign of "I'm
forcing my religion down your throats" since the spanish conquistadors. At least
one good thing comes out of the two stupid rulings: the atheists are finally
beginning to admit that they have religion.
Good grief, this is absurd. This is an allout, no holes barred assault on
religion--especially christianity. The justices are wrong, completely wrong,
they've been anti-American and anti-religion for decades. Clearly, these judges
have no clue about the intent of the constitution, they should all be impeached.
They are unAmerican, and illiterate about the constitution.
The 1st ammendment to the constitution is, in a circutous way, protecting the
federal Government from theocratic control rather than the other way around. To
do this our inspired fore-fathers inserted the 1st ammendment as a way of making
certain that government was separted from religion. Rememberances of theocratic
despotism within England were etched firmly in their minds. We've come to
accept the notion that this grand ammendment is more about freedom of religion
rather than freedom from religion. It does, however, serve both camps equally
Patriot it won't be as bad as Bush and conservatives left it. I've looked. Where
did you get the names of the Judges. I suspect many were appointed by
republicans like Judge Walker was.Why when you don't get your way,
you automatically blame liberals and call them communist? explain how Obama was
a socialist has he made millions on the free market selling books to willing
buyers. Why don't you stop with the childish name calling and pony of one
fact?You're darn right, I'm proud to be an American veteran. It's a
shame the word "patriot" has been so devalued.BTW Russia is no
longer a communist nation.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for redress of grievances."I'm sorry, but can Brian
Barnard or any atheist please show me the piece of legislation from Congress
that has established a national religion?Also, please show me where
the phrase "separation of church and state" are located in the Constitution.It's pathetic that people can't read what the 1st Amendment actually
says and live by it.Crosses stay. Atheists and Barnard can go jump
in a lake.Time for Christians to stand up to the anti-Christian
crowd that permeates our judicial, executive and legislative branches of
government. It's also time to turn the tables on the Lame Stream Media and their
anti-Christian on slot. I refuse to call them the Mainstream Media
because they actually don't represent the mainstream of America. They represent
the nutjobs on the Left and Right who want to destroy this nation.God Bless America!
IT is shocking how twisted intrepttations of tthe constitution is
becoming main stream.The ACTUAL constiturion says:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...What LAW was made here by allowing crosses?NONE!"an establishment of religion"is a church, organizided
sect, a religious club or organization again what LAW did
CONGRESS make respecting any of the above? NONE!What in the Constitution says that government must never recognize
religion?NOTHING!In fact history shows during time of
founding fathers, religion was welll interleaved and intertwined in government
and schools and the public square.there was never any intention by
th founding fathers to separate religiosity and government,IN fact
they said for this new republic so succeed it required a religious people.POlITICAL CORRECTNESS, and twisted misrepresentations of what the
constitution ACTUALLY says,IS DESTROYING our rights and
A "cheap" solution might be just a small white board across the top (or the
bottom) and then it wouldn't be a cross anymore. Maybe it could even say "in
Memory Of" , "A Life of Service", or "died in Service."I do however
disagree with the court that they should be prohibited.
Is Arlington National Cemetery next. Is that not thousands of crosses on
If you want a symbol of death use a skull and cross bones, or a skeleton, or
maybe a sythe. The cross is a religious symbol, the UHP is a state symbol.
Putting them both together violates the First Amendment.
@ Clarissa: Like you and this ruling?
@ New Mexico: The "mosque" in New York is on private property. Believe it or not, there is a difference between public property and private
Ahhh - makes you proud to be an American. Yes sir, a communist in the White
House and atheist activists in the courts. Maybe in 20 years we will be a mirror
image of Russia!!!
I actually don't see a problem with the crosses, but if it is to memorialize, it
should reflect the religion of the slain officer. To argue that the cross isn't
a religious symbol does a disservice to the cross, which is extremely religious
in nature. Maybe they should just use the cross as a support
structure for something, like the UHP logo with the officer's name emblazoned on
it. Then you could have a win/win!
Conservatives claim to love the Constitution, and then promptly ignore it. I'm
sorry that the Constitution of the United States of America does not always go
your way. But it is the supreme law of the land.
@ Question: So, you agree with the Utah Legislature that there is nothing
special about a cross, it is just another shape?So then why does it
matter if we change it?
If these monuments were made in the shape of a Crescent Moon y'all would be at
the capital building with torches and pitchforks.
This whole thing is ridiculous. We use crosses at Halloween to decorate and no
one thinks anything about it. What a waste of money. If the family of the slain
officer objects then let it be changed. I do not wear crosses, but I know it
represents a place of death. Any other marker would just not be as noticible to
me. Why don't they donate their time and energy to help teaching a child to read
or volunteer at a hospital. Do something worthwhile. The dumb things people get
all worked up over.
Atheists do not believe in crosses... They believe in live and let live. The
cross is a Christian thing. Christians look at the cross as a place where Christ
died for all mans sin. The cross is a reminder to all Christians of what Christ
went through for each one of us, and in remembrance of humility as a symbol of
Christ sacrifices. This all depends on how you want to look and interpret the
cross. People do not wear the cross to remember torture(LAME THINKING) but wear
it in remembrance for what was done for our salvation.
But the Muslims can build a mosque near ground zero, all in the name of
religious tolerance....Yep, makes perfect sense. The backlash is growing
to a boiling point. Where and how will this all end?
I may be wrong, but last time this subject came up, the UHP said they do give
the family of the officer the option to use a different memorial style, just all
have choosen the white cross so far.It's not a big deal. Don't get
all worked up over it. They'll find another way to remember the fallen
officers.IMO... political-correctness is getting a little
petty now days if you ask me (I know, you didn't). But we have to learn to deal
with it. It's the world we live in.
"This Country was founded on the principle that the public religion of the
nation must be protected from government interference."Please cite
were you or anyone has been stopped by the government from practicing your
region, sending out missionaries or from purchasing or distributing religious
If UHP made the memorials in the shape of a triangle would it be a problem as
well? They could be construed as depicting a pyramid (a religious symbol). Or a square? Square is often a symbol for earth (some people worship
earth/nature). It also has symbolic meaning to Freemasons. And to some it
represents the four caridnal directions, four seasons, four cosmic elements
(sun, moon, planets, stars), the four prime elements (fire, earth, air, water).
The square has spiritual symbology.Almost all geometric shapes can
have some spiritual/religious meaning.Why is the cross the only
shape that would inspire this type of law suit???Because these
people are not actually A-theist. They are anti-Christian. There's a
difference. They only target christian religious expression, not all religious
expressions.If something like a minora or a star-of-david
shaped object showed up on rural puplic land like this, do you think they would
sue??? I don't.
@ KM: Uh, yeah - you better re-read the story. The Utah Legislature is the one
that attacked religion by declaring crosses no longer a religious symbol.The atheist is trying to protect your religion by maintaining the
sacredness of the cross.
'They overrule the will of the people in CA.' - KM | 3:04 p.m. The constitutional 14th amendment is against the will of the people? 'They ignore the will of the people in lower manhattan...' - KM | 3:04
p.m. The first amendment, which protections freedom of religion is
against the will of the people? I don't think of this as a 'Us vs.
Them' idea. I think of it as crazy people against the constitution
and the country our founding fathers built.
a Cross isn't religious...Do they honestly think we all that
"Cross is a symbol of death? Its a symbol of Christ's sacrifice."_____________________and not every American Police
officer believes in Christ...
Our country has been take over by progressives. They invite terrorists here for
protections of our legal systems. They overrule the will of the people in CA.
They ignore the will of the people in lower manhattan. and they disparrage our
Christian roots whenever possible, "this is no longer a christian nation," you
Cross is a symbol of death? Its a symbol of Christ's sacrifice.
Some may be upset about this ruling. To them I would say: 'Federal
judge dismisses Summum suit against Pleasant Grove' - By Dennis Romboy - DSNews
- 06/04/10 Line:'A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit
against the city that claimed it violated the establishment clause of the U.S.
Constitution by allowing a Ten Commandments monument but rejecting one showing
the Salt Lake-based religious sect's beliefs. The clause in the First Amendment
prohibits government from adopting a national religion.' With
that out of the way, I fully agree with SLars. 'SLars | 12:57 p.m.
Aug. 18, 2010 Make them in the shape of a police (UHP) badge.'
Those thoughtful crosses are no Bother In memory to a fallen
officer on duty~
Crosses are not bothersome thiers only a few.Only paying a tribute to a
fallen officer who has been killed on duty
National cemeteries solved this by letting the family of the deceased decide
between crosses, stars of David and other symbols. California names highways
after deceased officers. It's as clear as a mountain stream that using cross is
using a symbol used by most Christian churches. Why do Christians
from the time of forcing Jews to convert, through various inquisitions feel they
have the right to shove their religion on to others?
@ sg: I am confused by your comment. You state that the cross has no religious
meaning and then state that things would be different if the cops who had died
were Muslim.If the crosses are non-religious, then what does the
religion of those buried under them have to do with anything?
@ SLars: I like the idea of making them in the shape of a badge - a great way
to honor the service and sacrifice.@ Bearone: In most military
grave yards, the symbols/shape of the headstone reflects the belief system of
the individual buried in that particular grave. If the purpose of
the marker is merely to indicate that a member of the Highway Patrol died there
while on duty, there are many other symbols that can be used - such as the
suggestion by SLars.No one is saying these spots cannot be marked,
they are just saying they have to be marked by a non-religious symbol.
What a ridiculous ruling. Should we go rip all of the crosses out of the
Arlington National Cemetery? Clearly these crosses are meant to be memorials and
not a push for any particular religion. So because some atheists are offended,
those who would pay tribute to fallen officers don't have the right to do so in
the way they see fit.
This is yet another case of judicial tyrants imposing their will on the
citizens. The federal judges in this case have turned the Constitution on its
head and legislated from the bench in order to reach the decision that they
personally intended.This Country was founded on the principle that
the public religion of the nation must be protected from government
interference. The courts have been railing so hard against that principle that
they now attack even non-religious symbols such as these markers.It
is time to return to the intent of the Founding Fathers by realizing that the
Constitution forbids the government, including the courts, from attacking
amazing that a group from tx had enough sway of the courts for something in
another state. You know, if it really bothered them that much, then don't
travel on Utah highway. The cross is a symbol of a death; it has nothing to do
with religious beliefs; the 3-judge panel should be fired. They are out of
touch with the will of the people and do NOT have an understanding of the
separation of church and state. I bet if these cops were muslim it would be a
whole different story.
I can not believe or accept this ruling!!! This is one of the most asinine
rulings to come out of this court in years!If those crosses had any
indication that they were promoting religion, it might be different, but these
'monuments' indicate that a perosn gave his life in the service of others.Does this mean that those thousands of servicemen buried around the world will
now have the 'crosses' taken from their resting places because some atheist
group wants to make a name for themselves?I'm sorry, but I am very angry
about this and hope that the funds can be raised for this to go to the Supreme
"A joint resolution by the Utah Legislature in 2006 declared the crosses were
nonreligious symbols"Hmm, where did anyone get the idea that a cross
was a religious symbol in the first place?
Make them in the shape of a police (UHP) badge.