Comments about ‘American Atheists oppose U.S. Supreme Court review of Utah highway crosses case’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 26 2011 12:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bountiful, Utah

ST | 2:59 p.m. July 26, 2011
Layton, UT
People only get offended if they choose to be. Atheists choose to be offended a lot ... which says a lot about them

It looks to me as though several people on this thread are choosing to be offended at the Atheists behavior, right?

Bronx, NY

@people claining their is no such thing as freedom from religion

As has been explained to you many times before you have every right as a private citizen or a private organization to express your religious freedoms in the public square and that is not what this is about and you know it. This constant disingenuous line of reasoning does nothing to bolster the positive image of the religions you claim to be so important to you. As has been explained over and over again you do not have the right to have the government elevate your religion above all other beliefs by their endorsing it.

Sandy, UT

Whenever we hear of a news report concerning the AAI it always involves negative messages of some sort, whether it be the cross issue, public prayer or a NYC street sign recognizing the 911 victims.

I question if this "anti" rhetoric serves their cause of if they they would be better served by promoting projects with a positive spin. They might try raising funds to assist schools purchase science text books and a similar evidenced based curriculum.


For those that say atheists get offended a lot, I suggest you look in the mirror and the constant offense that those of religion have to many things.

But let me ask this. The pentagram is actually a pagan symbol, not the devil worshiping symbol that Hollywood has made it out to be. Would you allow this symbol to be displayed if pagan were the religion of a fallen trooper?

Sandy, UT

Re mcgilm

"Would you allow this symbol to be displayed if pagan were the religion of a fallen trooper?"


Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

So, George and Lane Myer, would it be appropriate to quit the upkeep on Arlington? Should we turn it over to a private firm? We have all those nasty crosses and stars of david making such a nasty mess of the of the view in public Virginia. The mental gymnastics required for this viewpoint is astounding.

Bountiful, Utah

jpjazz | 3:28 p.m. July 26, 2011
Sandy, UT
Whenever we hear of a news report concerning the AAI it always involves negative messages of some sort, whether it be the cross issue, public prayer or a NYC street sign recognizing the 911 victims.

jpjazz, is it possible that you (and others) are casting the negative light on this because you disagree with the position of this group? Some could argue that they are trying to protect the Constitution. I don't see constitutional arguments as negative or positive. I simply see them as opinions.

Orem, UT

I don't get it. You don't have to be religious (I'm not) to understand that a cross has cultural significance as a respectful memorial. The only thing that should be opposed is if the family was Jewish and asked that a cross not be used (for instance, stars of David are often used as Jewish memorials). If I die, put up a cross.....it's a sign of love and respect.

Salt Lake City, Utah

People are always talking about how religion is under attack.

It is. But not from the atheists. The atheists say, "These are religious symbols and should be private and not out in the world to be mocked."

The religionists say, "These aren't religious symbols. There is nothing special about a cross, or the Bible, or prayer, or the 10 Commandments, or God. They mean nothing and should be displayed whereever and whenever and treated however."

Religion is under attack from the religionists who declare sacred symbols mean nothing.

Logan, UT

Why use a symbol of historically barbaric torture and punishment as a memorial? Seems absurd.

West Jordan, UT

Funny how the athiests hide behind the Constitution. As I recall, the Constitution emerged from a group of men who regularly relied on Deity to guide them. They prayed during the Contsitutional Convention. I guess that invalidates the entire deal, doesn't it?

Why don't we just start over and rely on the atheistic religious belief. Their belief is that there is no God. They would have us believe that we all climbed out of a primordial soup and it was just a gigantic accident.

Do you have any idea how statistically impossible their supposition is? Science requires a 95% confidence level to even consider a finding as valid. Yet, as a society, we buy into a series of cosmic accidents that are statistically nonsense. But, we teach it in the schools and lap it up like lemmings. We are told we must ignore the religious level of probablity, which is 50/50. There either is a God, or there isn't. If I'm a betting man, I'll take my chances with a 1 in 2 chance, instead of 1 in a quadrillion.

county mom
Monroe, UT

I can see the points of view in this court case are very different. I really don't see why they don't want the Highest Court to decide? I can not believe that a cross on the side of the road is offensive. Every state in our nation has crosses on public buildings and on the side of the roads. Not just for fallen officers but for those who died in accidents. If the Atheiests win will every cross on any public place have to come down? Will the mother of the child killed in a car accident be arrested for the memorial she puts on the roadside?

Ogden, UT

They love the courts when they think they can win...

Bronx, NY

@Coach Biff
"crosses and stars of david" along with many other religious and non religious symbols based on the solders beliefs.... again not showing favor of one religion or no religion over all others.... maybe it would help to read my post before lumping me in with other commentators and making the same tired comments. it may even save you some of those "mental gymnastics" required to keep your viewpoint in tact.

Tyler Ray
Taylorsville, UT

Here's an idea...Leave it up to the family of the fallen officer to decide. Isn't that fair?

Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

George, you're turning in circles. Displaying a cross on federal land (and Arlington is certainly federal) is the same as displaying a cross on a Utah highway. If it's a good enough marker to honor our war heroes, why can't it be a suitable marker for our public servants who have fallen in the line of duty?

Spanish Fork, UT

Why do people get so offended when individuals are simply trying to memorialize those that have sacrificed their lives for others? I am so sick and tired of the fact that the most powerful phrase in our country has become, "I'm offended!". When individuals are told time and again when something bothers you, such as a drunken fan at a game, a cursing teenager, immodest dress, or a filthy billboard, we are told to deal with it! Yet we cannot even recognize those that have lost their lives in the line of duty, because, "Someone's offended!"? This is the United States of America, where we supposedly have the right of freedom of expression and the freedom of religion, but obviously there are only a selected few who are given those rights.

Farr West, Utah

If someone believes in nature rather than God will we have to tear down trees?
Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from seing anything that might be construed as religious, just freedom from being forced to embrace a particular religion (or any religion).

The Atheist
Provo, UT

Public lands have been set aside ("ordained") for displaying religious symbols associated with a person's death.

They are called graveyards.

The side of a roadway is not the place for such symbols. They are not graveyards. We, atheists are perfectly content to pay our taxes for the upkeep and maintenance of such places where you can display your religious symbols and gather to worship your gods. By all means, display your own religious symbols on the public lands specifically dedicated for such purposes. All religions (or non-religions) will be treated equally in those places.

But don't expect anyone else to support your attempts to promote your religions by placing religious symbols along the side of roadways. That is not the place for them, and your desires to do so is marketing and evangelism, not worship or respect for the deceased.

Bronx, NY

@couch biff
turn in circles? At a certain point in these conversations it becomes obvious that some people either really do not have the ability to comprehend the written word or are purposely trying to miss understand the written word. So which is it Biff, do you not understand or are you purposely trying to miss understand? I am not sure how I can be any more clear about the fact that Arlington does not choose to only display crosses but allow many other symbols while the Utah Highway Patrol Organization has chosen to elevate the Christian symbol above all others.

to comment

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