Quantcast

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

Return to article »

Utah's attorney general strongly disagrees with appeals court

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
dumblond

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, 2010

You 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!!



voluntaryist

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.

wrz

@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?

Last Stand

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.

Fred Vader

"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

'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?

LuVePacifica

interesting comments
residents of salt lake

mosbyjim

Sticks and Stones. Why do some people have such thin skin?

1Observer

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!

What the . . . ?

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 and ignorance.



jacobmightywon

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.

Bucky

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.

wrz

@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.

wrz

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.

dumblond

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!!!

Morgan Duel

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.

Not_Scared

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 bombing them.

TKO78

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!

Not Asleep

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.

Last Stand

Re: wrz @ 10:59

Actually 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.

to comment

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