Comments about ‘Supreme Court rejects atheist's appeal over cross’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 23 2013 5:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Heber City, UT

Apparently this guy has never entered the Supreme Court building and seen the 10 commandments. If Atheists have there way you and I could not sit on a UTA bus, as an example, and talk about Christ. Why, because we would be on a bus supported by the government and we would be violating his rights. Or they would even push that you and I could not stand on a city side walk and talk about Christ because it is a sidewalk built with public funds and we would be violating his rights if he walked by. Do not let the Aetheists fool you in thinking they will not push for this. That is their ultimate goal to take Christ out of any public venue or place entirely. Mark my word.

Salt Lake City, UT

You cannot use hypotheticals to vilify Atheist...

while defending an example of your own faith.

That, would make you a hypocrite.

If you have to make up a scenario to vilify those people you disagree with, lets be honest about what you are doing.

You are lying about them.

And the cross, still an example that church and our state are NOT separate, is still there. Proving the Atheists' right.

Santaquin, UT

The religious issue is very interesting but perhaps a larger question ought to be why governments disburse public funds for private purposes. If the trustee of the cross had simply paid for the project with funds raised privately rather than public funds there would not be any need for a legal challenge.

county mom
Monroe, UT

Pagan, those that believe in Christ allow you to not believe.
Please allow them to believe.

The problem with Athiests is they allow no measure or mention of God and refuse to live and let live.

As for Athiests being any kind of a better people, I turn to Madeline Murry O'hare and what she taught her children and how her life ended.

Hayden, ID

Poor atheists, all dressed up for their own inevitable funerals with no place to go. How about taxpayer money used to fund abortions? Is that a violation of religious rights?

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

Pagan: Whether you want to admit it or not this is still a Christian Nation regardless what your Savior Obama states. He is even more a hypocrite than anyone else in the country. Just because he went to a prayer service makes him no more a Christian than you going to a Catholic Church a Christian.

It is time that those who are Christian in this country to take a stand against the bigotry that exists in the society in which we live in against anyone of faith. The example given is a truthful example that if we fail will happen in this country. Our religious rights are becoming extinct because of the left.

Far East USA, SC

"Our religious rights are becoming extinct because of the left."

A bit ironic, given that this article is about taxpayer funds used on a cross.

No, the religious right does not get everything they want. Extinct? Hardly. There is little to complain about.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

I'm not an atheist, but have to point out that some of these posts seem very far from Christian. Does Bill (wherever he is) really know Obama's religious convictions? Doubtful. And is he really suffering from atheist bigotry? Does Cougar really know what atheists are planning, assuming they are, in fact, organized in some way? Is atheism really enforceable? Can one know everything about believers or nonbelievers by the example of a single person now gone for decades? Come on, folks. We're talking about who pays for removing a giant cross here, nothing more.

Somewhere in Time, UT

I'm so glad this guy wasted all his time and money on this petty stupidity.

As for Madeleine Murray O'Hare--She was brutally murdered in a tragic end to her life. Satan does not uphold his followers in the end. What goes around comes around. I hope she has had a chance to repent in her new life on the other side of the veil. I would hate to see any child of God have to spend eternity with the consequences of her actions on earth. Fortunately, God loves all his children and gives us lots of second chances.

Far East USA, SC

There was a Catholic and Mormon family in Santa Fe, Texas who sued to stop prayer before school football games. Google Santa Fe school prayer.

Do they also need to repent?

Colorado Springs, CO

@Bill: Kind of like when this "Christian" nation took away the Native American's freedom to practice their religion, right? Not to mention all their land. Bet you're not so upset about that, though!

Kearns, UT

What I find so humorous in some of these comments is people thinking that Christians "won" this case or "atheists" lost it. What no one seems to have noticed is that 1) the Supreme Court declined to take the case, which 2) upheld the lower courts rulings, that 3) the individual suing had a "lack of standing." Which means, ladies and gentlemen, according to the courts, that he was not in a legal to position to even file the lawsuit.

CougarBlue, hyperbole and hypotheticals do not an argument win. Show me an actual case where your scenarios have played out.

Mountainman, as I'm sure you're already aware, but so conveniently choose to ignore, federal law prohibits federal monies from being used to fund abortions.

And before you start whining about my beliefs- I'm a Christian, neither Republican nor Democrat, and find myself a political moderate.

layton, UT

RE: xscribe,... the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1cor 1:18)

Salt Lake City, UT

You 'allow' me to be an atheist?

1) Is that an atheist cross?

2) The fact that you ignore that a person is so arrogant that they 'allow' another person to do anything, supports why Americans are turning away from religion.

It does not 'allow' others to do anything.

Your beliefs should not IMPACT anyone, but yourself.

And at the very least, my tax dollars don't have to support it.

Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . federal law prohibits federal monies from being used to fund abortions."

If only.

You apparently missed the article last week about extending abortion "benefits" to female servicemembers. Or maybe the articles detailing all the federal grants to the primary provider of American abortions, including the liberal sophistry that those federal funds don't "directly" fund abortions, just the organization's operating budget, so all its other revenues can be channeled entirely to fund butchery of the innocent unborn.

That's a truth liberals love to "conveniently choose to ignore."


I never noticed in this article where the desired point of this lawsuit was the removal of the cross.

Brigham City, UT

Shimlau, good point. It had only to do with public funds being used on the restoration.

Layton, UT

Good for the Supreme court. Religious Tolerance is not accomplished by the abolishment of religion from the public eye. I hope there will be many and diverse expressions of religion protected by our inspired Constitution for endless generations to come.

Lafayette, IN

If using the people's money to fix a cross is OK, then it must also be OK to use our money to fix a Menorah, or to fix a crescent and moon object, or a statue of Buddah. The public support of religion must include any religion (even Scientology).

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

To everyone who thinks this is all OK and sees no problem using public funds for religious purposes, I'll simply say "be careful what you wish for." All the same arguments can (and likely will) be used to enact Sharia law in a large Muslim community (e.g., Detroit).

Not to sound too hyperbolic, but I think we ignore the genius of Jefferson (i.e., the wall of separation between church and state) at our peril.

to comment

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