Atheists Sue Over Road Crosses For Troopers Killed In Line Of Duty

[The Straight Story]

Atheists Sue Over Road Crosses For Troopers Killed In Line Of Duty

POSTED: 10:07 am EST December 2, 2005
UPDATED: 10:14 am EST December 2, 2005

A group of atheists in Salt Lake City is taking on the State of Utah and the Utah Highway Patrol over the law enforcement agency's use of crosses on roadways to memorialize troopers killed in the line of duty.

The lawsuit has triggered a debate about whether a cross is an appropriate way of honoring troopers killed in the line of duty.

The American atheists filing the lawsuit said they respect the sacrifices the troopers have made, but they are offended by the used of what they call a religious symbol to honor them.

"Government should not endorse religion in general, nor should a government endorse a particular religion," attorney Brain Barnard said. "For a Jew to look at it, for a Muslim to look at it, for a Buddhist to look at it, they are not going to say that's a neutral symbol."

http://www.local6.com/news/5450952/detail.html

[formerrepuke]

1. The atheists need to get the stick out of their collective asses....

This is not the 'good fight'..it just stokes the fire more.

[meganmonkey]

3. So every activist is supposed to work on the same issue

or the same 'good fight'?

I think people have different priorities and they should be encouraged to fight for what's right, whether or not it is the same thing you or I want to fight for. :shrug:

[Zenlitened]

4. Yeah, let;s just wait until the religionists volunteer to quit...

... plastering god-graffiti everywhere.

That'll happen.

:eyes:

[meganmonkey]

5. Especially state-sponsored god-graffiti

That's the best kind!

;)

[meg]

18. Perhaps you need to drop the fig leaves

from your eyes. Imagine if the troopers had stars of David instead. Or Satanic Pentagrams or a Howard Johnson's logo.

[Why Syzygy]

48. Ahem.

The pentagram is not "satanic".

[meg]

200. oops

my bad

[funflower]

263. Would you mind clueing me in as to what the pentagram stands for?

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

49. You heard

formerrepuke

All you godless atheists, get to the back of the bus!

[Hamlette]

66. that "stick" is YOUR cross! And we are tried of it being up our ass!

(I love Brian. . . he got my hubby out of the service on CO status. I will always be indebted.)

That fire needs stoking. We have been quiet all this time and what has happened? The majority of people in this country don't believe in evolution.

Bring it on.

[SammyBlue]

101. They have no standing. This is going to be laughed out of court.

What a waste of time!!!

[funflower]

262. So exactly who would have standing, Your Honor?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

2. All this does is give the right-wing more ammo.

"Look what the liberals are doing! Atheist, liberal, they're the same thing. Liberals are Godless..." etc.

[formerrepuke]

9. My feeling exactly... as most atheists are liberals.. but its just going

to provide fodder for Fox & friends. I feel there are more important issues... This topic is total flame bait, anyway.

[Why Syzygy]

21. If it is flame bait

the mods will lock it. Might get moved to "Religion", but it is not flame bait.

I hate those little white crosses with the very cheap and gawdy fake flowers on them people stick on the roads. We all have had losses. You don't see me putting a pentagram all over every place someone has used as a departure point from this existence (into the next).

What does the cross have to do with being slaughtered on the road (line of duty or not)?

Fodder? For Fox? Maybe you know them better than I. I don't care if they report this. Even if they screw it around to make the crosses look like the "victim" here. That's the whole meaning of the cross, is it not?

How about stepping above the clouds and allowing those of us who choose to celebrate life in a different way than the dooms-day x-tians have our space.

edit: proofread .. my post sounds harsh. I don't mean that the departed should not be respected and remembered. I'm of a mixed mind, as usual. IMO, the family members need to move on. Loss is a very real and large part of Life. OTOH, I can understand loved ones wanting to memorialize and honor the life.

I just thought of Cindy S. and the white crosses @ Crawford.
In that case, I would have to agree with the use of the cross.
They sacrificed. The families continue to.

If anything I would think x-tians would be outraged that a sacred symbol is used in such a manner.

Just in case anyone is wondering . . . Jesus did not invent the cross.

[Zenlitened]

23. But but but... if you choose to celebrate life in a different way...

... then you're per-see-cutin' christians!







:sarcasm:

[Why Syzygy]

27. Evidently.

The most powerful force on the planet. Persecuted.
How sad.


more sarcasm

[Bridget Burke]

32. Those cheap & gaudy fake flowers are not the WASP way to go.

In fact, they usually represent the branch of Christianity that has been accused (correctly) of not abjuring its pagan roots.

When one of yours dies on the highway, please fight for the right to memorialize them with any symbol you prefer.

[The Straight Story]

34. Not flame bait from my view, I posted it because

I read it and thought it interesting, which is why I post most things I do.

I find it interesting though not many (if any) had problems with the crosses Cindy Sheehan and her group put up (or other groups over time).

while some see the cross as a symbol of life it is also one of death.

[MostlyLurks]

116. The difference between the Sheehan crosses and these...

Is that the Sheehan crosses were not paid for out of taxpayer (i.e. public) funds. That's where the divergence is, and it's likely where this particular group of people has found a burr up their asses. My guess is that that's where the crux of their legal argument comes from. Not the symbol so much as the funding.

That said, it absolutely astounds me what people are willing to get lodged up their asses. And I mean that in the widest possible scope as it applies to this article, issue and thread.

Frankly, it's atheists like these that make me glad I'm an agnostic.

Mostly

[wixomblues]

136. Public funds?

It's a wooden cross. I doubt they're in the budget. It seems like something the State Police would just do themselves. Even if it is public funds, it's a two dollar commemorative sign. Also, how many State Police are getting killed in Utah each year? 1? 2? This hardly seems like the sort of thing people should get upset about. It's not an excessive entanglement between the state and a religion.

[MostlyLurks]

146. I agree.

I'm not even 100% sure it was public funds, but I'd bet that's where the complaint comes from: use of public funds for purchase of crosses.

As I said, it amazes me what people allow to get stuck up their asses. I WISH my biggest problem was the presence of roadside crosses. You wouldn't be able to wipe the grin off my face.

Mostly

[sandnsea]

159. The nonprofit Utah Highway Patrol Association

The state isn't paying for them. They are allowing them to be placed on 12'x12' plots of highway land, all NINE of them. :eyes:

[funflower]

260. It's still unconstitutional. Just as when Judge Roy Moore paid for the 10

commandments monument that was placed in front of his courthouse. Just as it would be if a group of Christian public school teachers paid to place crosses in classrooms.

The analysis isn't strictly about who pays. It's about the fact that some people are agents of the government while they are carrying out their job duties, and agents of the government are not permitted to advocate for particular religion "in the line of duty."

[funflower]

264. There are few folks who represent the state more directly than police

officers. If they're promotion of one religion over another on public land isn't "excessive entanglement," I don't know what is.

[Why Syzygy]

54. Liberals are godless?

This is so fundamental.

[noonwitch]

6. Totally ridiculous

If the trooper's family doesn't want a cross, I'm sure there are other options. I hope the court throws out the atheists' case. They are a bunch of cranks who obviously have nothing better to do than to file nuisance lawsuits.

In Detroit, on I-96, there is a memorial to a trooper killed in the line of duty. It's a plastic State Police shield, that I personally think is rather tacky. A wooden cross would be less tacky, but really, I'd rather see a better-made version of the police shield that is already there. It's the quality of the memorial I object to-he deserves a better tribute than that. They also planted a tree for him, which is always a good memorial thing to do.

[BurtWorm]

176. What does a cross mean?

[Jokerman]

7. The symbol should depend on the individual.

As long as they are willing to use a symbol appropriate to the individual being memorialized, even if they aren't christian, I don't see a problem.

Then this would not be a case of a religious symbol on public ground but rather a memorial on public ground that honors the religious belief of the individual.

[KamaAina]

150. As it does at Punchbowl national cemetery.

There are a hell of a lot of Buddhist dharma wheels up there among the crosses and Stars of David, many representing veterans of the famed "Go for Broke" 442nd.

[Strong Atheist]

219. Right on!

:yourock:



:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


Why can't everyone see this, instead of being so negative? THIS is the inclusive view!

[TahitiNut]

8. I guess it's impossible for a Jew or Muslim to be a trooper in Utah.

Or perhaps they can't be killed in the line of duty? :eyes:

[RagingInMiami]

52. I wouldn't doubt it's impossible

Considering the state is run by the LDS Church.

[jonnyblitz]

10. this is gonna be interesting reading all the posts that trash

the atheists when the atheists are RIGHT. "progessive discussion board" my ass. :eyes: I give up,let's just make xianity the fucking mandatory state religion and let's move on with things here...praise baby jesus..

[meg]

19. Good point.

I am soooo tired of having xianity push down my throat.

[meganmonkey]

I know - I guess I didn't realize that good 'liberals' are supposed to

define other people's priorities for them. Based on how Fox News will portray them, nonetheless.

At least I am no longer surprised by threads like this...

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

40. The atheists are WRONG

I am not at all religious, more agnostic than atheist. But most people, all over the world, ARE religious. To honor deaths with religious symbols is human. Atheists don't have any right to remove every religious symbol from the planet. And in some cases, like honoring fallen police officers, the line between church and state will be crossed. I suppose those buried in a pauper's field shouldn't have any religion connected either. There's just some places where common sense and decency need to prevail.

[Strong Atheist]

50. Breaking!

Atheist have no common sense or decency!

[sandnsea]

51. Riiiight

That's what I said. :eyes:

Grow up.

[MindPilot]

104. That's exactly what you said.

You just did it in an underhanded way.

[sandnsea]

123. That's your persecution mentality

Because it isn't what I said.

[Mr_Spock]

199. Stop putting words in his mouth. Who's rhetoric is worse now?

plleeeeese!

[jonnyblitz]

62. i have problems with the govt assuming everybody is christian

and they just plunk a cross on all the sites without asking. the point is the brazen implication that this is a "christian nation".

i understand what you are saying in your post and I personally have higher activist priorities than fighting over symbols at this moment but I am surely glad somebody else is out their doing it. at least you agree that the line between church and state is crossed.

[sandnsea]

67. Who said that's what's happening?

Do you honestly believe these people would plunk a cross on a site if someone were Jewish or Muslim? The overwhelming majority of people are just not that insensitive, not even in Utah. The fact that all the symbols in Utah happen to be crosses, if that's the case, would be due to the fact that almost everybody there is Christian.

[jonnyblitz]

74. the majority of people in every state are christian I am sure..

so, yeah, I would assume they just plunk crosses on all the memorials. I don't picture the gov't keeping crescent moon and star, and pentagrams in stock to place at the roadside memorials...

[sandnsea]

91. You know what they say about assuming

And excuse me, but creating a chunk of wood to stick in the ground isn't that complicated. I'm sure they can be ordered.

[MindPilot]

78. If there is not the assumption that everyone is Christian, then why

is the not a copy of "Age of Reason" in my hotel room? Why doesn't it say 'In Science We Trust" on my money? Why isn't there a Wiccan invocation before a NASCAR race? Why don't I say at the end of an oath, "...and I don't need any mythological deity to help me."?

[sandnsea]

90. Form a non-profit

And put the "Age of Reason" in hotel rooms. That's how the Bibles get there.

I didn't say there isn't an assumption that everyone is Christian. In fact, I said that most people are religious and atheists need to accept that they have to live with them. I also said that in Utah, most people are Christian which is probably the reason there are only crosses to honor the police.

[MindPilot]

102. I don't feel the need to shove my beliefs off on everyone else

like you christers do.

Atheists need to accept that they have to be second-class citizens who just sit down and shut up right? :eyes:

[sandnsea]

112. But you are

By insisting that nobody can claim their religion publicly, you're shoving your belief system down everybody's throat. Hotels are public property. And if you don't want the "Age of Reason" in every hotel room, then don't use it as an argument.

And I'm not a Christian. I'm pretty much agnostic, if there is a God, he did a pretty shitty job with this planet. But I do respect those who believe, it's their right.

[Goblinmonger]

113. Christians can claim their religion all they want

They can climb on their roofs and scream their love of Jesus all they want.

Just don't do it on public land with public money (read: first amendment).

[MostlyLurks]

119. Hotel rooms are not generally "public"

The Sheraton, Radisson, Motel 6, etc. has a right to put whatever the hell they want in their rooms: Bible, Satanic or otherwise.

Mostly

[sandnsea]

122. That's what I meant

I know it isn't what I said.

[Goblinmonger]

128. When the hell did I talk about motels?

I am talking about crosses on public highways. I know the distinction between governmental action and private business.

[sandnsea]

133. Way up above..

the other poster was complaining about the "Age of Reason" not being in hotels. Which obviously has nothing to do with anything except to prove the person's hatred of religion altogether. Not just in government.

[Goblinmonger]

134. But that person isn't me n/t

[sandnsea]

138. You came in at the middle act

The other person was trying to explain part of my response to the first person. I was just trying to explain to you where the motel reference came from.

[MostlyLurks]

144. Sorry, replied to the wrong post. n/t

[MindPilot]

198. You really have me pegged don't you? STFU and listen.

I wasn't complaining that "Age of Reason" is not in the hotel rooms, I was using that to illustrate that of all the possible book that could be there is the CHRISTAN BIBLE. There do you get that?

And don't hand me any crap about being "agnostic", you come off like a holier than thou Xian--I can smell 'em a mile away.

[funflower]

266. I hear the Marriott properties have the Book of Mormon in the rooms.

Delightful reading, I'm sure.

[sandnsea]

127. Again, start with Camp Casey

then head to Arlington. And it isn't public money and it's only NINE specks of land along some highway. NINE. Stupid stupid stupid.

[Goblinmonger]

132. "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out...

because I was not a Jew."

Surely you've heard that old chestnut. Apply it here.

And IT IS PUBILC LAND. That gets the government involved and it is against the 1st Amendment.

Arlington is a whole different story. And don't believe the fake pictures from Chaney, Arlington tombstones are not crosses, they are white slabs. They have the religious symbol of the person who died. Different story.

[sandnsea]

137. Nobody is coming for anybody

Nobody is rounding up atheists and I am quite sick of that analogy being tossed around every other week. Atheists have not lost any right that they have due to crosses being erected on 9 roadsides. Religious symbols are religious symbols, period. If they don't belong on public land in Utah, they don't belong in Arlington. And the crosses don't belong along side the road at Camp Casey either. You simply can't have it both ways.

[Goblinmonger]

139. OK

Get rid of all of them.

The Camp Casey ones are on private property, IIRC, though, so they get to stay.

And the ones in Arlington are on the ACTUAL FUCKING GRAVES of people, unlike the crosses in Utah, so I think they are different for most clear thinking individuals. Oh, and they AREN'T ALL FUCKING CROSSES so it ISN'T GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHING A RELIGION, it is identifying the religion of those veterans that lost their lives.

But, then again, I don't think you will get it this time around either.

And I have lost my right. This country is returning to the damn theocracy of the crazy ass Puritans.

[sandnsea]

148. You're just grasping at straws

Making it up as you go. The State of Utah isn't doing anything. It's no different than a Church name stuck on one of those Adopt-A-Highway signs that are stuck on state land. If every single one of them were a Christian Church, it still wouldn't be the government establishing religion. Just like having equal religious access for holiday displays isn't establishing a religion. Or students choosing to pray at school or form a bible study group at school, on their own. None of this is the government establishing religion. And neither is a private group erecting crosses in memory of highway patrolmen. It just isn't.

You are perfectly welcome to create whatever group you want and do the same sorts of things. You have not lost any rights.

[Goblinmonger]

153. So if I started an Anarchy group

and put a big yellow smiley face up on the freeway everywhere a cop died, you are telling me that the feds/state would let me do that? Bullshit.

The government is allowing it to happen. That violates the establishment clause. The Adopt-A-Highway deal is different, unless they only let Mormans do it; then there would be a problem.

And I ain't the one grasping at straws.

[sandnsea]

156. For the public good?

Prove to me your smileys are for the public good, that's what the constitution says. Along with the Adopt-A-Highway program, the memorials are for the public good. And I would bet there are A LOT of Mormon signs in Utah, A LOT. Does that mean Utah is establishing Mormonism in Utah?

And, I gotta go soon, so if I disappear, that's why. :)

[Goblinmonger]

157. The crosses are for the public good?

How? I didn't argue the Adopt points.

Have you been to Utah? I think there is a STRONG argument that there is a theocracy in Utah, but that is kind of a different argument.

I gotta run soon, too.

[sandnsea]

162. Honoring Those Who Sacrificed Their Lives

Serving the public. What greater public good can there be?

Would anybody complain if they were some sort of anti-war religious symbol honoring our troops lost in Iraq? Not in a million.

[Goblinmonger]

165. I still don't get it

How does putting a cross there to honor them help the public? It doesn't.

[sandnsea]

167. How does any memorial?

That's just what we do. I didn't make up the tradition.

[Goblinmonger]

143. "Crosses" in Arlington

Before you spout this dumb-ass argument any more, check out this site.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/emblems.htm

Then remember that these are "EMBLEMS" not the actual shape of the gravestone. Clearly you can see the difference between this and putting a cross, and only a cross, not in the place where the remains are actually located, but where they died.

[sandnsea]

149. They're religious

I want them off public land. I think I'll sue.

[Goblinmonger]

154. Did you really look at them.

There was an Atheist emblem for gawd's sake. That's not religious.

And you never addressed my position that it is the actually burial site and not just the place of death like in Utah.

[sandnsea]

158. It's a belief system

Not believing is as much a belief system as believing. The capital "A" Atheist symbol is religious in its very purpose, which is to say, "I'm not religious". My son wants to know if Atheists get together to talk about the religions they don't believe in. :)

I support any emblem being used to honor the officers. Where they died, where they are buried, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. Religious symbols on roadsides are tradition in that part of the country. Are you going to campaign across the country to have them all removed? It is the same thing as wanting to remove religious symbols from Arlington or Camp Casey.

[Goblinmonger]

163. I am not even getting into this argument

though I will admit that your son's comment is a little cute (unless he is older than 12, then it's not).

The whole atheist belief system bullshit is beyond where I want to go right now. You're just wrong on this. "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color" Zenlightened said that, maybe. Someone anyway.

And Camp Casey is a protest on private property.

[sandnsea]

169. It was on a public roadside

That's why the county passed the law prohibiting encampments on roadsides. That's why there were arrests over Thanksgiving. It moved to private land, but it started on public land, both times.

[Goblinmonger]

193. Yes

and they had to move to private land. Don't you see that this is a point in my favor. And I agree that they should have to move to private land.

[Why Syzygy]

170. I worked for

an ex-Muslim atheist. He didn't believe in Allah.

All stripes.

If it doesn't make a hill of beans to you, why not respect those who object?

Traditions are very dangerous.

Again. Camp Casey deserves crosses. They were lambs.
Killed by a willing and complicit thief in chief.

Honor.

What bugs me about this thread is that some think this is a waste of time for the atheist. I don't think so.

Think about: evidently GWB believes gawed told him to invade Ira*q.
gawed keeps the wheels of war and torture alive.

ANYTHING we can do to distance ourselves from that kind of mental delusion is a GOOD THING.

GET IT?

[sandnsea]

172. That's ridiculous

It isn't about the reason for the sacrifice, it's about government sponsoring religion. Allowing crosses on public land either is or isn't government sponsoring religion. Period.

There are plenty of legitimate cases where religion is crossing over the line into government and we should be fighting all of it. Creationism, ID, pharmacies, on and on and on.

This isn't one of them.

[Why Syzygy]

185. Some

of us think it is.

I agree with the remainder of your post.

[More Than A Feeling]

274. The atheist symbol they have is pretty cool.

Just thought I'd toss that in there. Carry on.:)

[funflower]

261. Have Jews lost anything? Moslems? Buddhists? Sikhs?

I'd find it pretty damned intimidating if I were new immigrant from a Moslem country and I saw the POLICE of all people erecting large crosses in public places.

[Why Syzygy]

152. If I'm not mistaken ..

Arlington does not use crosses. They use tombstones proper.

Camp Casey had every right to use crosses. Felled troopers or other motorists don't have that, imo. They moved on. Period.

Where do you get NINE? Those crosses are all over the place. Bridges, little streets, highways, corners.

Lessee. If EVERYONE who ever lost a loved one, and was not content with the burial grounds, which is an atrocity in and of itself, if you ask me. CREMATE. Reduce clutter. So, what if EVERYONE has the RIGHT to put up a cross or star of david or crescent moon, pentagram, WTFE and IMPOSE their grief and loss on the rest of humanity. Is that okay with you?

I am so glad we got the V.N. wall in D.C. It is beautiful and tragic.

But I resent being reminded every time I drive that people lose their lives on the roadways. And I further object to seeing a little cross to designate.

Now, listen to this. The ctians believe that the flesh will be immortalized upon the "return". That's probably why they put crosses there. It is an extremely religious statement and should be kept where religion is. Not the highway.

[sandnsea]

166. This isn't about those crosses

But I'm glad you make the point that it's tradition to stick those crosses all over the place and has been for years and years. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with flesh being immortalized either, where do people get these crazy ideas. It's just a tradition to remember people killed in tragic auto accidents. They eventually become a good indicator of particularly dangerous corners, etc.

The ones in question are ONLY about Highway Patrolmen who lost their lives in the line of duty. NINE of them have been placed in their memory. What a catastrophe.

So you don't believe in cemeteries. So what. Does that mean you get to sue everybody who does?

[Why Syzygy]

177. No one

has answered the question. WHY do they have crosses to memorialize?

Exactly what is the point?

Is it to point out dangerous roadways?
Is every death scene a potential death scene? Of course!

Exactly what do you get out of the cross situation?
Why are you so adamant that those who believe differently than you have no right to object?

[phylny]

218. Heh, and I'll bet you don't feel the need to overgeneralize, either,

right?

Please don't dump all of us "christers" in the same trash bin. Thanks.

[MindPilot]

75. "Atheists don't have any right to remove every religious symbol

from the planet"

That is correct, but we do have a right to have them removed from public land in the United States.

[sandnsea]

92. Start at Camp Casey

Thos crosses were placed on the highway. Or Arlington.

Honestly, there just isn't a bigger asshole than someone who can't make room for honoring the dead.

[MindPilot]

98. Did you just call me an asshole?

There are no crosses at Arlington, just small insignias engraved on the headstones. Comparing the the crosses at Camp Casey to permanent crosses erected by a government on a public highway is apples to ducks. Not even close, pal, try again.

[sandnsea]

107. I don't know

Do you have room for honoring the dead or not? I would guess that's up to you to decide.

The size of the insignia doesn't matter. The time on public property doesn't matter. If the ones in Utah need to be taken off of public property, they all do. The Utah crosses ARE NOT being erected by the government. The Utah Highway Patrol Assoc. is a non-profit auxilliary type group. And, btw, were talking about 9, count them, NINE, sticks in the ground. NINE. This is stupid.

[MindPilot]

115. They are freakin' dead!! What good does puttting a stick in gound do?

And it doesn't matter who pays for the cross, it is a religious symbol on public land.

[sandnsea]

120. Then why do you care what the stick is???

It's just a friggin' stick. The group wants non-religious sticks, but if the sticks don't mean anything to them anyway, then who gives a shit what the sticks are??? It's STUPID.

[MostlyLurks]

130. And I would ask: What harm does it do?

You can't argue this as a one way street in that "It does no good to use the crosses anyway as those people are dead." I'd ask "And what harm does it do to you to use those crosses?"

How exactly are you (or any atheist in Utah) having your civil rights infringed upon through the use of a religious symbol to remember somebody who was, in all great likelihood, a member of that religion?

Mostly

[Why Syzygy]

164. So..

Pieces of wood stuck in the ground "honor the dead"?
How? Exactly. Explain to me how sticking a cross in the ground "honors" anyone.

[sandnsea]

173. Hey, it's not my tradition

Explain how a statue or a granite wall honors the dead. :shrug:

It's in the eye of the beholder I guess.

[PassingFair]

204. Sandnsea....unless these state troopers were CRUCIFIED...

what are those crosses doing on public land? If they want a memorial, they should BUILD ONE. You're so into "honoring" those guys, I'm sure you'll kick in a couple bucks.

I have seen many memorials in my lifetime, only the religious ones were CRUCIFIXES. For goodness sake, the troopers aren't BURIED THERE, are they?

How about a tasteful obelisk? Or a rotunda?

[mattomjoe]

121. Crosses at Arlington--

well, there is this one....

[Goblinmonger]

145. See #143 above n/t

[Goblinmonger]

100. Well, let's see if you are right

Hitler genociding millions--bigger asshole
Ugandan government genociding Darfur--bigger asshole
Bush lieing to America for his personal gain--bigger asshole
Chaney giving contracts to his company--bigger asshole

Seems like there are bigger assholes.

And I don't think this is about honoring the dead, just not doing it with public funds, on public land, in a religious way.

[sandnsea]

110. It is about honoring the dead

With private funds where the people laid down their lives, with the traditional symbols that have been used to honor the dead for centuries. There really isn't a bigger asshole than that because the ability to slaughter starts with a lack of honor and respect for the life and death and sacrifice of others.

[Goblinmonger]

111. I think that is called a circular argument

So the atheists who are making this argument are on the same plane as the Sudan, Hitler, Stalin, and the rest?

And, yes, you did say that.

[sandnsea]

118. Yes

In the inability to honor the life and sacrifice and death of others, and respect others to do that in their own way, they are. You can't slaughter people until life and death means nothing to you and you demean the culture or religion of others to the point that it means nothing. Do you think we could be slaughtering Iraqis if we respected Islam?? No. That's where it starts, dishonoring the beliefs of others.

[Goblinmonger]

124. Holy shit

I have no response to that. If you honestly think that, you scare me. Can't you see that the placement of those crosses on public land "demean(s) the culture or religion of others" and that can't be tolerated by our government?

[sandnsea]

131. Nine crosses don't demean ANYTHING

Any more than those hundreds of markers in Arlington demean anything. Again, this is as stupid as Falwell's Christmas crusade.

[Goblinmonger]

135. See #132 above n/t

[MindPilot]

201. That response is a perfect example of why atheists must be so

zealous in guarding their rights, even it does seem like petty bullshit. The smallest infringement is just a few steps away from making us the niggers of the 21st century.

You earlier referred to my "persecution mentality". You just proved that ain't no "mentality", it's real persecution.

[immoderate]

254. Yes. Later on, when they want to put prayer in the schools...

or some other infringement, they'll point to the crosses on the highway (or the slogans on the money) and say, "See, we are a religious country."

--IMM

[BiggJawn]

94. I'd sure hate to have a cross stuck where I bought the farm.

How should the family of a dead JEWISH state trooper feel? Hmmm?

Or an Atheist's family?

Bullshit.

To apply your standard, we should all go drink the Kool-Aid and become Bush-bots watching FAUX, just because Il Douche got the most votes, all over the country.

[Silverhair]

228. Were any of those nine Jewish or Atheist?

If the answer is No, then you have no arguement. In Utah, the probability that all nine were at least nominally Christian or Mormon, (Both use the same symbol) is extremely high.

[BiggJawn]

233. I don't know. How about YOU?

But I suspect the possibility that they were anything BUT Mormon is extremely low.
So you win the argument on its face.

But the idea of "what's the BIG DEAL? Murka is MOSTLY Xian" is still crap. Like I implied, if indeed "Majority Rules" in this country, then why are we even here, and why do I send Carl Pope and Howard Dean money? I'm in the minority after all, and I should get on the Good Foot, drink the Kool-Aid, and get with The Program. War is Peace. Rumsfeld is a fucking military GENIUS! FAUX Nooz is Fair and Balanced. George Bush keeps me safe at night! Everyone in Murka is either a Xian or they're a Terra-ist...

[funflower]

265. Nobody is trying to remove "every religious symbol from the planet."

They have their place - a privately owned place.

[sandnsea]

This is just going too far

People have way too friggin' much time on their hands.

[Strong Atheist]

57. Yeah,

you're right!:sarcasm:

We should bring back all the male domination symbols too!:sarcasm:

Uppity women have too much time on their hands :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

93. Dumbest comment ever

Women have what to do with the issue? Besides, I imagine some of those crosses honor female police as well.

[Strong Atheist]

95. Just went to your

user profile, to find a subject that would put it into perspective. I did not want to have to list EVERY type of civil rights issue ...
Unfortunatly, till I am around longer and get to know people and their "hot buutons" better, the user profiles are not informative enough...:( ... but seriously, if it was YOUR rights being discussed, or YOUR topic, your reaction might be different... just sayin' ...

[sandnsea]

97. It wouldn't be different

Because MY life isn't contingent on stupid shit stuck in the ground. Particularly stupid shit that means SO MUCH to other people.

I care about stuff that means something, like keeping the teaching of religious ideologies out of schools, out of science, out of pharmacies, out of government. A cross on a highway is just a piece of wood stuck in the ground. Big friggin' deal. It doesn't hurt me and wouldn't hurt me if it were pentagons all over the place either. I wouldn't want wiccan bullshit taking the place of good governance and science either, but I could give two shits whether there's 10,000 pentagons all over the roadside.

This is as stupid as the right's campaign about Holidays and Christmas. Holiday comes form Holy Day, what could be more religious than that?

I'm sick of petty stupidity when we have troops dying, hurricane victims, homeless thrown out of hospitals into the streets, poisons polluting the planet, and on and on. I am just sick of people's petty bullshit.

[MindPilot]

109. Yeah well that was just a seat on a bus...petty shit n/t

[sandnsea]

126. What right do you GAIN?

What are you being deprived of by having those sticks in the ground? Absolutely friggin' NOTHING. This is trumped up bullshit.

[PassingFair]

205. Do you feel the same about the 10 commandments being

displayed in public classrooms? After all, their display wouldn't DEPRIVE anyone of anything..... :eyes:

[uppityperson]

257. Not me, I don't have enough time.

:evilgrin:

[Clark2008]

11. Um... if the troopers were Christians, then they should be

entitled to crosses. The cross isn't to make nice to the living, it's to honor the dead. For example, if one of the troopers was Christian and the other Jewish, they would put up a cross and the Star of David.

Big whoop.

This is much ado about nothing, imho.

[satireV]

16. What if the LEO was an atheist or Wiccan?

Dang there goes that nasty 1st Amendment snag.

[Clark2008]

24. Then they wouldn't need to put up anything OR put up

whatever symbol would represent his faith.

Dang, there goes that nasty First Amendment again.

You're missing the point. MY point was that if these troopers are Christian, then they should have crosses. If they're of some other religion, then they should have a memorial that reflects that or if they didn't have religion at all, then they should just get a shield or something.

The POINT is that the symbol is for the person being memorialized, not for people driving down the road.

[MindPilot]

29. Those troopers are not Christian...they are DEAD!

Perhaps they *were* Christian...

[satireV]

31. If it is NOT for the people driving down the road....

Then why are the placed by the road?

oops.....

[Clark2008]

208. To memorialize the dead person.

Good God, people.

If the troopers families are OK with this, it's none of our fucking business.

If my fiance was a state trooper and was killed in this fashion, I'd be happy with the Star of David.

Who the FUCK cares? It's a MEMORIAL!

And... some of you people are just as intolerent of religion as you allege the fundies to be of other religions. Take a look at yourselves!

[phylny]

220. "some of you people are just as intolerent of religion...."

Good luck thinking they'll see/realize/admit THAT!

[Why Syzygy]

46. Why should they have crosses?

Why?

Former fundie here. I know both sides.

Furthermore, why should the roadsides be the place to memorialize these people? Isn't that public property? I don't mean to disregard the departed, but why bring me (you) into it? Don't I have enough grief to deal with in my own life without inadvertently taking on the losses of others?

Have you ever driven from Phoenix/Las Vegas? There are clusters of crosses every 1/4 mile or so. Very disconcerting when one is trying to focus on driving a winding mountain road. It does present a caution sign. Which I would much prefer rather than the crosses.

Some family placed a cross and lame fake flowers in the median across from an apartment. It has been there for at least 15 years.
Who does that honor? Who does that respect?

I suggest the loved ones take their memorial into their own homes and leave the rest of us alone. I don't want to feel grief every time I drive out of my driveway. Some of us are ultra-sensitive and don't need to see this stuff every day. For eternity.

[Gemini Cat]

190. Uh, huh.

"I suggest the loved ones take their memorial into their own homes and leave the rest of us alone. I don't want to feel grief every time I drive out of my driveway. Some of us are ultra-sensitive and don't need to see this stuff every day. For eternity."

You sound 'ultra' sensitive. Pox on those people for upsetting your beautiful mind.

You get to deal with the offending site for a couple of seconds, while they deal with the death everyday of their lives. How unfair of those people!
Since it obviously bothers you, I suggest you taking it up with the grieving family. Go tell them it bothers you. I'm sure they'll take that offending memorial complete with tacky plastic flowers down real fast.
Let me know how this turns out.

[Why Syzygy]

223. Sometimes I am

No apologies.

There are HUNDREDS of crosses on the highway between Phoenix and Las Vegas. That isn't a couple of seconds. It lasts for hours.

Driving out of the driveway a few times a day and being assaulted by a "memorial" each and every time adds up. It isn't a "couple of seconds".

When my dad died (a minister), I made him a floral cross (with live flowers) for the funeral. Nothing personal against crosses, per se, when appropriate.

I'm asking now. Please honor your departed loved ones in some other way.
And, if I lose my life on a public roadway, DO NOT erect any mementos.

Can't help thinking part of this debate is rooted in the Western misunderstandings of death. It is a transition. That's all. When people talk about "us" (the "living") being the lucky ones, we survived, etc., I have to wonder. Who is to say that WE are the "lucky" ones? There is no proof whatsoever that living on planet earth in a flesh state is "better than" moving on in the spiritual world. Or just going away, as some atheists believe. I'm not an actual atheist. I do believe in spirit. I believe in honoring the departed by allowing them to fully experience their transition. Not by trying to hang onto them and keep them "alive" on this plane.

Even the pyramids and tombs of the ancient Egyptian rulers have in mind to aid the departed on their new path. Of course the pyramids were built way before the "cross" . . .

[Bridget Burke]

35. Then their families should have the right to request the symbol they prefe

When one of yours dies on the highway, speak up!

[satireV]

36. Who do you think would sue me if I wanted a Darwin Fish put up for a dead

LEO?

oops.

There goes the ox getting gored again.

[Bridget Burke]

42. First, lose a relative on the highway.

Then tell the State what symbol you desire. If you are refused, sue THEM!

[satireV]

69. My entire family was killed by a drunk truck driver on I-20.

A symbol on the road would not help me in any way.

Forgiveness helped/saved me.

The state should not have anything to do with "modifying" my feelings, because no two people can have the same feelings when it comes to this kind of issue.

Feelings are subjective and I alone are responsible for them. No one else. Letting others control my emotions gives them power. I will not surrender my power to anyone!

[Zenlitened]

89. I'm sorry for your loss, and grateful for your ability...

... to resist emotional bullying. Peace.

[papau]

12. Do Atheist care about other than atheism? - If it hurts getting rights for

others, because it elects the right wing GOP, would atheists stop?

I like to think - and do think - that the atheists on DU are also friends of the goals of the left as to getting and preserving rights.

I can't imagine "Road Crosses For Troopers Killed In Line Of Duty" would cause a DU atheist to chase after the media screaming this must stop. I know they would not like the symbol - but surely the folks on DU are more intelligent and understanding and empathetic and sympathetic to the left wing cause than these atheists filing the lawsuit.

[Zenlitened]

14. *snort*

Nice tack!

:rofl:

[Jokerman]

25. I will fight for my rights, regardless of the backlash.

This story doesn't have enough info for me to determine whether I support the case or not but I'm not about to pick my fights based on what might piss off the right wing.

That's like saying Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus just to keep the racists quiet.

[papau]

43. not quite the same as Rosa - but true of any right not currently given

Each must make the calculation as to who you are trying to influence to get something change so as to increase rights`, and how do you influence them.

Martin wanted to do the doable - change bus company policy policy - on the way to a restoration of the civil rights won during the Civil War.

Rosa's protest gave him the means.

What is the doable for both having faith types, multiple faith types, and non-faith types in the same society, and not having a violation of the Constitution via state sponsored or supported religion.

Does removing a cross from the spot where a Christian Trooper died because it was put there with State Funds advance the cause?

Short ternm it is obvious it does. But add in the right of 2/3rds of the population to change that Consitution if they get pissed, and what is the best path to getting most of the rights you want - assuming you can not get them all immediately?

Does this court victory - and I expect a court victory - come ahead of getting the GOP out of power in 06 and 08?

[Jokerman]

59. I don't see them as mutually exclusive

I personally believe that showing a little backbone against the encroachment of church upon state could win more votes than it looses.

I have nothing against using a cross to memorialize a christian trooper just as I would have nothing against religious imagery in a public memorial to Martin Luther King. If religion was a part of the individual's life then it should be part of their memorial.

My problem is when a cross is automatically assumed to be appropriate for everyone when it clearly is not. Again, I don't have enough facts on this particular case to form an opinion.

I do agree that claiming religious discrimination where none exists is counterproductive but I'm not sure if that is the case in this situation.

[papau]

65. We agree :-)

:-)

[Why Syzygy]

259. I wish you would answer your own question . . .

What is the doable for both having faith types, multiple faith types, and non-faith types in the same society, and not having a violation of the Constitution via state sponsored or supported religion.

I'm serious. No offense.
I am honestly curious about your views (and anyone else) on this.

[Why Syzygy]

83. So. Are you saying

that the atheists should sit down and shut up?
At what point do those who don't adhere to the bullshit ctian idea stand up? What does it take? How far do they get to go?


We now have a dubious criminal in the whitehouse, who appeals to the right wing via ctian dogma. Is that far enough? HOW FAR?

Please give details.

[papau]

99. Please See #59 Jokerman comment

:-)

[NJmaverick]

13. This is stupid and wrong

It is petty shit like this (that the general public frowns on), that has hurt the left. We need to stop these idiots from hurting our image and reputation with stupid and petty nonsense like this. There is too much important issues to be dealing with.

[MindPilot]

86. Yeah, we on the left have such a stellar reputation.

wouldn't want to tarnish it with an unpopular position. :sarcasm:

[stepnw1f]

117. lol.... no kidding

News Flash.. We are attacking Christmas. At the fascist version.

[NJmaverick]

247. Our reputation sucks

Because we don't fight smart and this is a perfect example. Liberalism is about compasion and tolerance. This on the other hand paints us as petty intolerant weirdos.

[Goblinmonger]

105. I hesitate to post this

but screw you and the horse you rode in on.

Where you do you get off calling atheists "idiots" and what they do "stupid and petty nonsense." If an atheist were to say this about Christians as a whole, they would, and have, be tombstoned.

[phylny]

221. Athiests (and others) do this every single day on DU and elsewhere

Where have you been?

Seems to me like using things in post such as "xian, xtian, Gawd" etc. is a continually backhanded way of mocking others, and I don't see a whole lot of tombstoning going on when it does happen.

Having said that, I don't think athiests are idiots, nor do I think religious symbols belong on public land. It'd just be great if this topic, or any topic where religion is commented upon, could be discussed without demeaning others.

[Goblinmonger]

225. I find the fact that people get pissed about the X

to be hilarious. It was a short hand used BY CHRISTIANS. It is in reference to Chi, the first letter in Christs name when using the greek alphabet. I use it so that people will get pissed off at me and I can inform them on the history of their religion. I like irony.

As for Gawd, yeah, I was pissed off at several points in the discussion. But it is also another form of the word that is used so as not to take the name of the lord in vain. Again ironic that the atheist knows this and the theists don't.

I agree about not demeaning others. Your two examples of me doing it have been explained. Now go back and look at this thread and see who is demeaning whom. Again, kind of ironic that the Christians are the ones throwing out the ad hominem attacks.

[phylny]

236. I'm not pissed off, and I haven't used ad hominem attacks.

Merely pointing out that many people here on DU continue to be disrespectful of other people and their beliefs.

I stand by that thought.

[Goblinmonger]

238. I'm didn't say you were

You told me that my use of X and Gawd were disrespectful. I explained to you why they are not (and why I find people that DO get pissed off at the X as ironic). Then I told you to look over this thread AS A WHOLE and see if it was I or others that were being disrespectful. I believe you will find that it is others who have been disrespectful to me. And when attacked, I will attack back. I don't think that is disrespect.

[phylny]

244. I see your point, but regarding the use of "X," "Gawd,"

or the new, but ever popular "christers," I think that in general, people use those terms to be disrespectful. If you say you do not, I believe you. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the vast majority of people use the word to bother others. Then when it DOES bother others, everyone is shocked. Can't be shocked when the words or phrases are designed to shock.

WRT disrespect, I'll agree that there's a total lack of respect here on DU, especially when it comes to religious topics, but I'll disagree that "I hit her because she hit me first" is a good way to operate. But if it works for you, then bully for you.

[Goblinmonger]

285. Nice turn of a phrase at the end of the post.

As an English teacher, I like that. "'bully' for you." That's funny. :applause: I'm not being sarcastic; I laughed.

Do I use the X to piss people off; Yes. Do I use the X as a form of disrespect; No. I know that it is a form of respect that most people of that sect do not understand. I use others, too (G-d from the orthodox jews that don't want god's name taken in vain). Some ignorant Christian spouts off and I get the chance to inform them of their ignorance. Though this does kind of beg the question. If I think that G-d is a fairy tale, how much respect do I have to have for him. I don't have respect for Zeus, Tinker Bell, Cinderella. Why do I all of a sudden have to have respect for the Christian bearded guy in the sky? Do I disrespect real christians that actually try to live up to the ideals as Jesus lived them? Sure. They are far and few between, often. I think they miss the boat in what they are believing in, but as long as you leave me alone, go nuts. The "christers" comes from a lot of years of atheists being shat upon. It still happens. Even in the progressive world. Look at some of the posts here (not yours, you have been more than cool). Can you see how we'd be a little pissed off. Add onto that the fairy tale discussion above, and you might at least understand a little bit of frustration.

Best to you.

[NJmaverick]

246. I get off calling these people idiots because they are

Petty idiots that are hurting their our cause. They are giving the right wing nuts the ammo to win the hearts and minds of John and Jane Q public. It's a shame you can't see this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

249. Agree with ya there. But Not all Atheists are Idiots of Course, But the

ones bringing this lawsuit forward I'm not gonna disagree with ya on LOL

[NJmaverick]

251. Exactly most Atheists are not idiots

But thanks to the handful of idiots bringing the suit, the general public develops a very bad impession/opinion of them.

[Goblinmonger]

268. So what are the fights to pick then?

Inform me. Why should I take it up the ass on this one? When can I actually start complaining that the "wall" that is supposed to separate church and state is no longer there?

Any erosion of our liberties is a problem. You should not be willing to give up an tearing down of that wall. Just because the crosses don't offend you doesn't mean jack shit in the big picture. They are going to the establishment of a religion by the government and that is a bad thing.

Listen to your argument. We shouldn't do this because the right wing is going to have ammo against us. Well, fuck them. If we just continue to do nothing, Bush is going to get re-elected again. Oh, wait, THAT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENED. Doing nothing hasn't changed shit. This country is becoming more fascist and more or a theocracy as every day goes by and it is time to call BULLSHIT. I couldn't give a rat's ass if this lawsuit give O'Rielly 3 days of ammo. He's a fucknuts and always will be. He will always find something to bitch about.

[NJmaverick]

271. Not every fight is worth fighting

We need to look at the big picture. Conservative are ruling and destroying this country. They try to paint liberals, not as compassionate and tolerant people. Rather they paint us as Godless and immoral people looking to force our ways and life styles on every American. You know what? Fights like these are exactly what the right wingnuts need to paint that picture to the American public. So one must pick and choose your fights careful. Sometimes even when you win, it costs you so much you lose. This is one of those fights. Let them have their crosses. Frankly I was an atheist for decades. Religious displays never offended me because I had no religious beliefs to offend. So why take away these people's crosses? Just to satisfy some petty desire never to see an ideal compromised? This is the real world, ideals don't always work. So times you need to be pragmatic.

[Goblinmonger]

272. But the erosion of liberty is a slow process

It happens with crosses on the highway. It happens with "under God" jammed into the pledge. It happens with "In God We Trust" slapped on all of our currency. If Bush stood up and declared us a theocracy and replaced the Constitution with the Bible, nobody would stand for that. But when it happens slowly, nobody gets it. It is the duty of those that get it to stop it. It is the old boiling frog analogy. Drop a frog in a pot of boiling water and he will hop out. Put a frog in a pot of cold water and bring it to boiling, and he will stay in it until he dies. Every one of these things that are "not worth fighting" just add more and more ammunition to the rifles of the fundies. When we say there is a wall between church and state, they just point to the pledge, the currency, the crosses on the road and say "Shut up you goddless heathen, this is a christian nation." And then they lie about our founding fathers basing our country on christianity. When you tell me that our FF were diests, they say it can't be because look at all the god stuff all over the place. It has to stop. You'll be pragmatic until the pot of water is boiling.

[NJmaverick]

273. You will not be able to do anything to stop that loss

if you don't win the hearts and minds of the general public. Look at it like a chess game. Sometimes you sacrifice a lesser piece in order to capture a bigger piece or win the game. If you play chess concentrating on not losing pawns, you will surely win the game. Give them their crosses, it isn't going to hurt anything. Save the ammo and fight for more imporantant issues.

[Goblinmonger]

286. You and I are just very different on our views of social change.

I can live with that. I tend to be very neo-Marxist. I can understand those that are not. I don't think I am going to stop fighting these fights; I don't think you are going to stop thinking they are bad choices. It isn't you that frustrates me. Your reasons for not liking the fight is on a pretty high level of social movement theory. A lot of the people on this thread have their views because of a pretty low level religious reasoning. That bugs the crap out of me.

I'm glad you are on my side. You are willing to have an intelligent discussion and hold to progressive ends. Hopefully our competing means to that end don't cancel each other out.

Peace.

[MadHound]

15. Well, unless the trooper in question wasn't a Christian

I have no problem with this. Saying that it is inapppropriate for crosses to be on government land, well, in this case I think that they're going overboard. What next, no crosses at Arlington?

I'm sorry, I back almost all church/state seperation cases, but in this case I think that it is ridiculous.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. This is even dumber than that fucking self promoting idiot Michael Newdow

Crosses on the side of the road have nothing to do with promoting religion. Geezus.... :eyes:

[Zenlitened]

22. Yeah, Michael Newdow, Enemy of the People.

How terrible of him, to seek to honor the notion of separation of church and state.

He shoulod should just shut up until the religionists and the right wing give him permission to stand up for his values.

[AntiCoup2K4]

71. All that stupid shithead wants to do is make money....

...Just like Anton LaVey more or less. or Pat Robertson for that matter.

Robertson exploits God for fame and money.
La Vey exploited the "opposite" of God for fame and money.
Newdow exploits the lack of belief in God for fame and money.

All three are equally worthless.

At least your silly spaghetti monster thing is just for laughs. I hope.

But to get back on topic here, there's a big difference between crosses on the side of the road where people have died and say, the 10 commandments on a marble slab on the steps of a state capitol.

[MindPilot]

84. Oh for fucks sake!!

Newdow--whom I happen to know personally--is a MD AND an attorney. You think he's in this for the money? And fame? Trust me, nobody goes out looking for that kind of fame.

Save your ad hominum attacks for those who deserve it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

151. Please... the guy is an arrogant lying piece of crap.

Anyone who would use a child (whom he didn't even have custody of) to make a stupid political point deserves "attacks".

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BiggJawn]

96. Really?

How about those crosses on top of those really pointy roofs that you see in almost every town? They don't promote religion?

And that dumb fucking self-promoting idiot is actually fighting for YOUR rights, unless you're just hunkee-doree with Murka becoming something out of "The Handmaiden's Tale".

But what do I know? I'm just sitting here rubbing various body parts in GLEE over the number of Morans I'm chasing into the arms of the ReTHUGlicans, because I'm one of those unhappy Atheists who must have been scared by a Nativity Scene as a baby or something....

[Goblinmonger]

106. Take a class on the constitution

It is a cross. It is put there by the government. How is that not establishment of a religion?

[AntiCoup2K4]

155. They're recognizing dead cops. Not dead Christians.

You drive along any highway, or even most country roads in any state and this union and you'll probably see crosses at points where people have died. The purpose is to honor the dead.

What's next? You want to rip up every fucking cross in Arlington Cemetery too? The government owns that place.

[Goblinmonger]

160. Seriously, I am fucking sick of this Arlington straw man

Look at post #143. There are no crosses at Arlington. There are emblems on the gravestones that represent the belief of the dead person. There is even an atheist one. There is no establishment of religion if they are all there. There is even an emblem that is a teepee for the Native American church.

Though, it is kind of funny that you all think that there are just crosses at Arlington.

And if there are all of these crosses, and they are on public land, then you are making the argument better for me because it isn't just an isolated instance.

[AntiCoup2K4]

184. You rabid antitheists are as bad as any "fundies" on the planet.

Like I said, roadside crosses are common in every state in this country. Their purpose is to honor the dead, not to promote religion.

Get over it.

[Goblinmonger]

195. Nice ad hom

Oh, well, if they are common then by all means lets continue to do it. Excellent argument there.

If it is not to promote religion, then why are they crosses. Why can't we put something that is an enlargement of the arm patch they wear? Or something that looks like the badge of their particular agency? Nope, they aren't. They are using crosses, which, if my 3 years in the seminary haven't let me down, are a symbol of JESUS and the CHRISTIAN RELIGION. And the government is allowing them, and only crosses, on public land. That is against the establishment clause of the first amendment. Excuse me for pointing that out.

On Edit: And why no more spewing about the "crosses" at Arlington. Nice to see that your response to my argument was a logical fallacy. Shows how strong you initial argument was.

[Silverhair]

230. There are MANY other national cemeteries that DO use crosses.

So, although Arlington may not, the posters argument still stands, just in different NATIONAL cemeteries.

[Goblinmonger]

232. The point may still stand

my my point that the poster is ignorant of the facts still stands. And even after being pointed out several times, people still keep making that false claim. Kind of reflects on their other arguments, then, too.

As to the point of the "crosses" in national cemetaries. The distinction has been made. This is the place where the actual body is buried. They offer all kinds of alternatives. The national cemetaries that have actual crosses have alternatives for non-xians. This is not against the establishment clause because one religion is not being preferred over the other (a concept that seems pretty frickin hard for some people here to grasp though it seems to be pretty basic 1st amendment concepts). With the roadside stuff, there are two differences. 1) It is not the actual burial site, it is just where the person bit it. 2) There are only crosses, so there is a preference being given and a violation of the establishement clause. There is also a third factor. There is an alternative. Use something that is a symbol of the police agency instead of a cross. Then the death is still "honored" but the establishement clause isn't violated.

The part that really pisses me off is that I have typed this about 10 times in this argument and nobody seems to get it. If the disagree nobody makes any reponses to it. Everybody just goes back to the same old stupid arguments that were made at the beginning without following the flow of the argument. You would all be honor students at the Bush Academy of Debate.

[Silverhair]

237. Personally, I think a police shield erected by the state would be better.

It would make plain the cause for which the patrolman sacrificed his life, and so (to me) would honor him more.

However, I have no quibble with a symbol of the person's faith being used. The fact that only crosses are used is almost certainly a result of only Christians and Mormons having been killed so far.

[Goblinmonger]

239. And you know that how?

I don't know that it isn't the case (everyone please go to the beginning of this sentence and reread so that my admission of NOT knowing is made clear from the beginning), but people on this thread have informed me that there are "many thousands" of these all over the country. Every single one is a xian? If that is the case, it seems that not believeing in G-d is a good thing, because they never get killed in the line of duty.

On edit: I forgot to tell you that I agree a police shield would be much better in advancing the cause. I'm glad we agree on this point.

[Silverhair]

242. If you will read EXACTLY what I said, it was a probability statement.

I play poker for a living and have a very healthy respect for probabilities. The likelihood of all nine (State of Utah) having been Christians or Mormons is extremely high.

I don't feel like doing the research and the math to refine it down to a precise probability.

[Goblinmonger]

243. I don't feel like doing the research either

but it comes down to the fact that neither one of us knows for sure.

And the point still remains that there is an alternative available which would not violate the establishment clause.

[Nickdfresh]

267. No, actually..

you're wrong. Check Lee MARVIN's grave's headstone:



Maybe we should deface the crosses with cordless sanders just to insure separation of church and state (**irony alert**).:)

[Goblinmonger]

269. *Huge fucking head slap*

Have you read anything that I have said? People were saying that Arlington is the cemetary that has crosses for gravestones. It isn't. As your picture indicates, they have emblems. And if you had followed the link in post #143, as I said to do, then you would see that there are a lot of emblems available. Even an atheist one, and a teepee for the Native American Church. Do you see why this is different? There are only crosses in Utah. Preference (i.e. ESTABLISHMENT) for a religion in Utah and no preference in Arlington. Big. Fuck. Difference.

Additionally, for the 11th time, this is the actual grave site. The remains are actually there. Nobody has a problem with that. It is different than the spot on the highway where the patrol officer bit it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

281. So are you saying Cindy Sheehan was wrong?

...By creating a temporary memorial (made of crosses) to the troops killed in Iraq down the road from Chimpy's pig farm?

[Goblinmonger]

283. It seriously took you 4 days to come up with that argument?

Anyway. I think there are several things which distinguish this in a legal standpoint.

1) And this is complicated, so follow closely; CINDY SHEEHAN IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT, SHE CAN'T VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. That's a tricky one, I know.

2) Secondly, this is a demonstration/protest (which would be distinctly different than a memorial, in case you are thinking of going there) and is therefore symbolic speech by a non-governmental actor. She can do whatever the fuck she wants; even burn flags if that is her bent.

3) She was made to move off of the public property onto a private citizen's property. I think that is more than legitimate since it was a safety concern; they didn't have a problem when it first started until the number of people there grew.

[AntiCoup2K4]

278. Welcome to DU, Nick!

:evilgrin:

[Mutley]

20. As an atheist I think this is ridiculous.

If their families are fine with it, why does it matter? I see memorial crosses on the side of the road all the time and it has never once crossed my mind to be offended by it. No, it's not a neutral symbol, but if the troopers were Christians, than it is an appropriate symbol for their memorial. If they were Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists (or ANYTHING else), I would expect to see an equally appropriate symbol for them.

[jonnyblitz]

70. if they were Jews. Muslins. or Buddhists I am sure they would

get the cross also.I can't imagine gov't officials having a supply of crescent moon and star symbols to plunk on muslim memorials. Can you imagine if they started putting pentagrams for wiccan memorials on the side of the road. right. :eyes: roadside memorials are tacky as fuck anyway...

I am all for every little chipping away of this religious symbol from the govt bullshit. I don't care how many religious assholes it pisses off or annoys..

[Why Syzygy]

140. They .. the extreme religious right ..

would tear down pents. One of them even drove over crosses at Crawford fer cris sakes. They have no boundaries or respect for others.

Don't ask me to respect them (to the ether).

[Mutley]

217. Now THAT would piss me off.

If I respect their stupid crosses they better damn well respect my pentagram or whatever the hell I had on my memorial. Of course I know full well some, or many, wouldn't respect it.

[Mutley]

216. I don't care about the assholes it pisses off either.

I just believe in 'choose your battles' and all. I don't need to stretch myself thin fighting every single little thing that might bother me in the slightest.

IF they refused to put the appropriate symbol up for the individual person, then I would have a serious problem. But it wasn't made clear in the article whether that was going on or not, so I'm not going to make any baseless assumptions about it.

I understand the importance of separation of church and state, but who gets hurt by crosses on the road? Seriously? And there is a difference between being annoyed and getting hurt. No one is going to see a bunch of crosses on the road and suddenly become a zombie for Christ.

:eyes: yourself.

[MindPilot]

26. The cross is offensive and shouldn't be on public land

but the bigger issue why are these memorials being placed at the spot where the officer died? If an ordinary citizen is killed on the highway, does the state provide a roadside memorial?

This just another case of Christians trying to force their death cult on everybody. Their freedom OF religion ends where my freedom FROM religion begins.

[The Straight Story]

30. Offensive is a pretty relevant term

you can't please everyone.

[sandnsea]

45. In some states, yes

Crosses are placed on roadsides all over Montana. It's very common, it also let's you know particularly dangerous spots on roads. Nobody would have a problem with stars of davids, crescents, or whatever other symbol somebody wanted to place. You live in a world with religious people. If you don't have the humanity to deal with that, then that's a problem with YOU, not anybody else.

[immoderate]

255. How about a sign that says "DANGER"?

Does a cross mean danger? (It does if you're a Jew.) But it has something to do with Jesus. That's religion, and a particular one at that. The main purpose of the crosses is to promote that religion.

As I said above, they'll point to those crosses later on, when they want to promote some other establishment of religion, as evidence that this is a religious country.

--IMM

[MostlyLurks]

141. Is there a Constituational right to be free from religion? n/t

[immoderate]

256. Yep. First Amendment.

--IMM

[mzmolly]

28. Are they really an Atheist group or a Christian wacko group trying

to politicize the so called "war on christ." :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

37. My thoughts exactly.

Creationism being forced into the schools, Supreme Court nominees are being withdrawn because the Religious Right doesn't like them & fake "Christians" are planning to remake the whole country over per their wishes.

Is this really the most important issue? Do the Atheists in Utah face no more religious issues?

[mzmolly]

41. It smells like Rove to me. It's another staw man to keep the Christian

lap dogs salivating.

[Yollam]

33. If appropriate symbols are used for troopers of other religions...

...it shouldn't be a problem, IMO. I see crosses on churches and necks everywhere I go. I'm an atheist and it doesn't bother me.

I understand where these atheists are coming from, but honestly, they have some wacked-out priorities.

[DougieZero]

39. agreed

it's not a big deal if the families don't mind or care... it's a worthless battle that makes you look small and petty...

[papau]

44. I agree :-)

:-)

[PassingFair]

206. If I drop dead on your tree-belt...

They're sinking a "NO GODS: NO MASTERS" sign outside your front door...

[Jokerman]

63. What does the ACLU have to do with this case?

"I understand where the ACLU is coming from, but honestly, they have some wacked-out priorities."

I don't see them mentioned anywhere in the story.

And since when is defending the bill of rights "wacked-out"?

[Yollam]

73. My apologies. I skimmed the story too fast.

No I understand their motivation even less.

I'm an atheist and this doesn't bother me in the least.

Defending the Bill of Rights is great, but it applies to all areas of our lives from the trivial to the profound, and the ACLU is far too easily drawn to the trivial.


But don't get me wrong, I don't consider myself to be anti-ACLU. You have to take the good with the silly, I suppose.

[Jokerman]

77. No problem. BTW I agree completely with your post (#33)

I am also an atheist who sees nothing wrong with religious symbols in a public memorial as long as it is appropriate for the person being memorialized.

Just remember that what seems trivial to one, may seem profound to another.

[Cleita]

38. I am for the separation of church and state, especially in Utah,

which is basically a theocracy ruled by the Church of Latter Day Saints. But, I think worrying about crosses lining a road as a memorial is really silly. People have a right to memorialize their dead any way that is important to them. We want religion out of our government, but that doesn't mean it has to be out of our lives as well.

[Zynx]

47. This is the kind of stuff that makes people hate the left.

This really is not productive. Continue fighting these kinds of fights and we will lose much more than a petty little battle such as this one.

[Yollam]

53. Delete - this post was factually inaccurate.

nt

[Zynx]

56. It matters that they are associated with "the left".

When they do stuff like this, people attack liberals in general.

[Yollam]

60. But it is a big distinction.

It's like saying that Liberatarians are the same as the right.

They have some of the same despicable goals, but they are not the same.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. So? We should pander to the right to make them happy?

[Zynx]

68. If we fight over petty, yet emotional stuff such as this, we may lose

moderate support and thus lose everything. I'm sorry if you think that politics is a business where being idealistic pays off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Well, the guys who wrote the first amendment seemed to think so.

Politics without ideals is like a car without an engine. It may look nice decorating the driveway but it's useless.

[jonnyblitz]

76. yeah, fuck the constitution and principle, can't have any of that

it's all about how we are percieved by "moderates" (cough) and winning!! YEAH!!!! :thumbsup:

[nemo137]

55. I'd have much more sympathy if, say, a Jewish or Hindu LEO was

inappropriately memorialized with a cross. But Utah being what is is, I'm willing to bet that most LEO's are LDS, and their families do not object to their being memorialized with a cross.

[sniffa]

58. are these the "kommunists for kerry"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. "Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of religion.."

Even the cops in Utah have to obey the law.

[The Straight Story]

81. Is this a law and did congress make it? (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Doesn't matter. The Constitution supercedes local laws.

[The Straight Story]

85. Again though, is it a law?

If it is a law I could see problems with it on that level. If it is a procedure I see that as different.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. The constitution is the law.

Just like Xmas displays at schools. There's no "law" made by the locals permitting them, but they're against the law.

The Utah cops are a public agency just like the military on a federal level. They aren't allowed, by law, to display religious symbols.

[tammywammy]

179. But a non-profit organization is putting them up

not the state.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

183. The cops are a branch of government.

[slackmaster]

181. The state of California has infringed my right to keep and bear arms

Will Tierra_y_Libertad make a donation to my federal case before the Supreme Court to have my right to buy military weapons restored?

:hide:

I didn't think so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

182. Are you in a "well regulated militia"?

If so you have no worries.

[slackmaster]

186. Yes, the Unorganized Militia of the state of California

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State....

I am subject to conscription by the Governator during a time of declared emergency. Surely the state owes me a little RESPECT for my sacrifice.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

189. Who is it that regulates said militia?

If there is any government agency doing so, surely they can arrange to arm you at the time of need.

Perhaps you should enlist in the famous California Naval Militia. Lemme know when Ahnuld calls it into service.

[slackmaster]

192. Go read the link I provided

The state militia, including the unorganized portion, is under rule of the Governor.

If there is any government agency doing so, surely they can arrange to arm you at the time of need.

The Second Amendment says I have a right to keep and bear arms, and that it cannot be infringed. If federal law trumps state law then the state has no right to impose stricter gun control than the federal government establishes.

Perhaps you should enlist in the famous California Naval Militia. Lemme know when Ahnuld calls it into service.

I'm too old for that now.

The California militia has not been called into armed service since a railroad strike in about 1895, but unarmed civilians were called on to act as border goons to discourage immigrants during the Dust Bowl days.

[immoderate]

258. You are misunderstanding what "regulated" means.

It does not mean supervised in this instance. It means qualified. And that's how it is used in the Second amendment.

Plainly, then, "a well-regulated Militia" refers not to a special or select subset or
group taken out of the militia as a whole but rather to the
condition of the militia as a whole, namely being well
disciplined and trained.(35) And, "Militia," just like "well-regulated Militia,"
likewise was understood to be composed of
the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to
use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate
and distinct from the people at large.

--US vs. Emerson
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0

--IMM

[slackmaster]

178. Issue is whether or not a specific situation establishes state religion

Each situation has to be evaluated on its own merits. A Christain cross, paid for with public money, on public land would pretty obviously violate the Establishment clause. But it's possible to push this issue too far, e.g. saying that place names like "Los Angeles" or "San Francisco" serve to establish Christianity or Catholicism as a state religion.

One could make such an argument, but think of the mess it would create if the courts ruled that those cities had to change their names.

OTOH I love a good mess.

:rofl:

I'm happy to let people who are bothered by religious symbols (as I am generally not because of my thick skin), file cases and let courts decide them one at a time. But there is also a danger of taking the law too literally. The Establishment clause proscribes actions by Congress. It could be argued that the door is open for states to make up their own rules or even establish their own state religions.

Ra-men!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

187. The case has been argued..many times..about states rights.

Actually, I have a thick skin too. And, if the bible-thumpers want to pay their way into happyland by sticking crosses in the ground, big deal.

But, the establishment clause exists for good reason. To maintain this country as a non-secular state.

[slackmaster]

188. The argument will never end

I basically agree with San Diego politician Richard Rider, a Libertarian, on the issue of crosses on public land.

His position, specificially WRT the cross on Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, is that we should never again place religious symbols on public land. We have learned our lesson and should get on with life. He feels that removing any symbols that exist now would be a waste of money.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

191. Suits me.

[Goblinmonger]

210. News Flash

They passed the 14th Amendment! They passed the 14th Amendment!

See, this here new amendment says that everything in the bill of rights actually applies to the states. Ain't that dog-gone special. So I reckin' a state can't actually establish their own religion or make rules that violate the constitution.

[montana500]

79. This is pointless crap.

this sounds more like intolerance to me than being fair.

[kevinbgoode]

80. well, my question is. . .

were all of the fallen troopers christians? If they weren't, it is disrespectful to assume a cross is the correct means of tribute.

[DanCa]

87. Imagine if that anger was directed at the church

If we as a whole force would unite against the bishops council or the dobson front. Just think of the look on pope benedicts face if 700000 strong and angry du members show up in vatican city demanding ssr, gay rights and reproductive and religious freedom. Now that would be a grand day.

[phylny]

222. What's even better to imagine is not lumping a group of people together,

naming them "the church" and painting them the same color assuming they work, live, operate in the same exact way.

But you managed to corral a bunch in your post.

[DanCa]

229. Funny thing is I go to church and I didn't take offense to what I wrote

wonder why I didn't feel i was "painted with a broad brush" or corraled in thier with a bunch of hooligans. I said it before and I said it again we gotta start playing hardball with the jackasses that run things. Fight fire with fire and eye for an eye.

[Silverhair]

231. Two things.

ONE. You are off by a factor of ten. We don't have that many member, but only a tenth of what you posted. You hit the zero key one time too many. We have 70K (Actually 80K) members.

TWO. He would not care. There are almost ONE BILLION Catholics in the world. That is NINE zeros vs FOUR zeros.

[liberalnurse]

103. I don't think memorials should be

along any road. I can see it going on for a month or so but then.....it's over. The Troopers typically memorialize their Officers at the Administration Building. Thats where it belongs, not on the road.

What if we put up antlers for all the deer hit by semi trucks?

[sandnsea]

142. Actually we put up warning signs

"Deer Crossing" So that people will be on the lookout and not hit them.

The nonprofit highway patrol association is the one doing this, not the state of Utah. There are 14 total, 9 of which are on state highway roadside. Like I said way above, it's tradition in Montana to place crosses whenever anybody dies in a car crash and the crosses stay forever. This is just the kind of assinine thing that really causes Democrats to lose elections, it really is. It doesn't do a damned bit of good to go to red states if you have no intention of respecting even the most benign aspects of their culture.

[liberalnurse]

168. I don't like seeing them

on the road side because it changes my mood....I feel sullen when I have no reason to be in that mood. Plus, it creeps me out. I'm driving on that road and I could easily be next....thinking, "Is this road a vortex or what?"

I think we can do without them. You make a good point.....It is NOT worth fighting as a campaign issue.

[The Whiskey Priest]

108. That is just more stupidity

we have more pressing things to do than cause everyone to get a major HO against our side over some dead trooper.

Have these people nothing else to do. What about helping keep a few good paying jobs from leaving the country, how about working to keep Wal-mart from destroying the wage earners. Lordy, folks don't go jumping on dead people who the public looks on as heroes.

[dogday]

114. What is the definition of offensive

offensive —adj. 1 causing offence; insulting. 2 disgusting. 3 a aggressive, attacking. b (of a weapon) for attacking. —n. aggressive action, attitude, or campaign.  offensively adv. offensiveness n


Well I am offended at their offense. Let's all get offended shall we? Will this shit ever stop?

[FreedomAngel82]

125. And also another thing

do they think every single solider killed in Iraq is a Christian? What if they were a pagan or a Jew? :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

129. I had a discussion with someone on alt.atheist once about this

Only they were talking about the road crosses that people will put up where someone has died.

It's a form of mourning, I said. You wouldn't object to crosses in a cemetery would you?

Oddly, a couple of them started discussing how the practice should be banned because it wasn't safe for people to be standing on the side of the road putting these up.

Because, you know, when you think of atheism, you think of road safety.

But they were in the minority even on alt.atheism. Stuff like this made most of them cringe, because they felt it was just this sort of thing that gave their chosen point of view a bad name.

I was their token theist :D

[Hyernel]

147. I smell something fishy...

A real atheist would never bother with anything like this.

It's more likely that some trouble making Christard, posing as an atheist, is doing this as an attempt to smear atheists.

Kinda like how most complaints about "Christmas" are actually made by christians trying to create a "War on Chrsitmas" issue.

I'm just saying.

[NNadir]

161. I am an atheist, but I have no problem with religious commemorations of

the dead who have died in the line of duty.

When people give their lives in the line of duty, they have a right to be commemorated according to their religious tradition, even in public cemetaries.

I belive that many military cemetaries have crosses in them.

Now, if they were putting crosses up to honor dead atheist troopers I might have a problem with that, but this circumstance is not exactly the same as say, prayer in schools. These are memorials to individuals, not a collective group.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

171. This Is A 100% Totally Retarded Completely Wrong Lawsuit

This is just stupid. If the officers were christian and the PD put crosses on their graves that is 100% without a doubt appropriate. There are only two circumstances in reality upon which this would be inappropriate and they are as follows:

1. An immediate family member of the deceased is opposed to the placement of the cross but the PD refuses to honor their wishes that it be taken down.

and

2. If a Jewish, Muslim etc Officer is slain the PD isn't willing to put up their respective symbol. This is Utah, however, so I doubt the ratio of those other religions within the PD is that high and the situation probably hasn't ever come up yet.

[Goblinmonger]

211. Retarded?

Are you in Middle School? You forgot to call it "gay."

I would agree with you about the graves.

This is not their graves. This is the stretch of the road where they died. I believe it is a violation of the establishment clause for the state to put up, or allow to be put up on public land, crosses to memorialize them. There aren't any non-cross memorials. This is the state establishing xianity, and it is not constitutional. Why is that so fucking hard for people to see?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. Are there any non christian slain officers?

If not, then your entire argument is meritless.

[Goblinmonger]

226. Why

My entire argument, for this entire thread, has been that this is a violation of the establishment clause (NOT the free exercise clause) because the government is using public land to put up crosses. There are alternatives (one of the constitutional tests in this area) which could be used instead of the crosses.

I have no numbers for you, but I can't believe that the "thousands" of crosses that are out there (this is a number from other posters, not I) are not all representative of xians.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

252. It isn't a violation of that clause, and I bet the courts will agree. Also

please educate yourself the facts prior to arguing. No, it isn't thousands, as that would be an insane figure on its face since I doubt there have been thousands of troopers killed in the line of duty in Utah. Course, the obviousness of the wrongness of that statement can be shown even from the article itself, if you read it.

"There are about a dozen of the crosses all around Utah"

[Goblinmonger]

253. Pay attention to what I am saying before arguing

When I said "thousands," I was talking about across the country. Somebody said something specifically about a lot of them in Montana.

But please, do educate. Why would there only being a dozen of them not make this a violation of the establishment clause? What is the magic number of religious symbols that would make this a violation?

[Goblinmonger]

234. And by the way

Thanks for apologizing for using a completely offensive term like "retarded." Your argument is meritless because you are prejudiced. I would expect to see that term used in freeper land, but not here. Your language use reflects on your arguments in my mind.

[Hippo_Tron]

174. The headline sounds like Rush made it up on an Oxycontin trip

[Ladyhawk]

175. This entire thread reminds me of why I sometimes hate GD. n/t

[Cats Against Frist]

180. I think these kinds of lawsuits are important

This is one of those sticky situations, like after-school, non-school-organized prayer groups, or Christmas decorations, where culture, and religion and the state are all intermingled.

I agree that the crosses should not be displayed on public property. Those who are arguing otherwise forget that the crosses being there in the first place like "in God We Trust," are already victories -- not for those of "common sense," but of religious zealotry.

There is no "middle ground." You're either a secular state, or you're not. In the case of the after-school prayer groups, they can fully be organized without the school's permission. A church can park a bus across the street, and shuttle the kids to a church, for their program. There is a way around it, without having it have to be endorsed by the state -- and the children who wish to participate still have the option of attending a prayer group. The problem is, this ISN'T what the fundies and evangelicals want. They want prayer in school, they want a non-secular state.

I was reading, in the "when freepers send their kids to public school" thread, the signs of "revisionist" history, which was basically more lies and propaganda, by the freep side. While it is true that "more" of the founders were Anglican, Orthodox Christian, etc. (rather than the clearly deistic Jefferson, Paine and Franklin), the ideology behind our nation WAS fully born out of the tradition of deism, and the idea of a "natural god," from Rousseau, and the Enlightenment theories and writings. The Declaration of Independence speaks only of a "Creator," and the Constitution only mentions that those serving should not have to pass a religious test.

This nation was meant to be a secular nation, wherein people could turn to whichever religion that they liked, for guidance. Tradition has long dictated that Christianity is given a favorable position, but that doesn't mean that that was necessarily the founders' intentions. Like slavery, the decisions made, at the time, were products of the time.

It is never wrong to push back against religious zealotry, no matter how much "ammo" it gives the "other side." Each victory that they have, further cements the superiority of Christianity -- THEIR Christianity, of the time -- which is an odd, fascist amalgam of some biblical mysticism, consumerism, racial supremacism and nationalism. This must always be pushed back against, no matter how small or "insignificant" the battle might seem.

Remember, Christianity should die the death it deserves, and will -- the patriarchal oppression of the religion, as well as the philosophies of "order," are merely pushing back, against the Enlightenment, which has won -- which IS winning. We are being tested by our founders, as we sit here and breathe. Questioning these things are necessary to keep people from forgetting, and letting these constructs of order and mythos from crushing the possibilities of the human mind.

[Lannes]

194. Playing devil's advocate here

If an atheist cop died and a symbol for his or her atheistic belief were planted on state owned land where he died would that be appropriate since it isnt considered a religious display?

[Lannes]

213. Not one answer from the atheist contingent at DU?

Thought you had this all worked out.

[GOPFighter]

245. Chuckle

Your little slapdown, or intended slapdown, actually makes the atheist's point quit well. How would Utah memorialize a slain atheist officer? With a cross? I think you would agree this would be inappropriate, right? And since there is no universally recognized symbol for an atheist, what would they do? If they use a secular symbol instead, like an officer's shield, that would be an admission that the crosses for the other officers are, indeed, religious symbols. If they go ahead and use a cross, the atheist's family would have every right to be angry and sue, and they would probably win.

You might wonder why atheists file lawsuits like this. One reason is that it is wrong to use a religious symbol on public property even though the majority support it. The second is to make lawmakers think twice in the future before using a religious symbol on public property. Maybe the next state that wants to erect memorials to fallen officers will use a likeness of an officer's shield instead of a cross, and then everyone will be happy.

[Goblinmonger]

270. Atheism isn't a religion.

That kind of makes your argument a big pile of shit. Most atheists are smart enough not to step in it. As an atheist, I am walking around it and telling you that you may want to avoid it, too.

[Taxloss]

275. Most atheists don't endorse symbols.

That's sort of, you know, the point.

[jmowreader]

196. We're so inured to the "slippery slope"...

sometimes we think that every little mention of Jesus is the end of the world.

Let's see here...the Utah State Troopers Association (which is full of Mormons) is memorializing nine fallen members of the Utah Highway Patrol (also full of Mormons) on a roadway in the state of Utah (which, as you probably guessed, is full of Mormons). And they're doing it in a way one would expect Mormons to--by erecting crosses.

There's no tractor beam on those crosses. If an atheist drives past the display, no strange force is going to leap out and drag him to church.

Let's focus on the REAL church-state problems, of which there are many. Our little dictator is attempting to turn America into a theocracy. He's attempting to hand control of the social safety net over to the most extreme fundamentalists in the US. Remember the fucking chaplain in Iraq who had the only bathing water in the country, and he'd let you use it if you agreed to be baptized? Well, there's fundies even more extreme than that guy, and Bush wants them in charge of our welfare system. He wants them in charge of our government. He'd be more than pleased to remove that line in the Constitution that prohibits religious tests.

I believe it's possible to accommodate "God as we know him" in the public space without turning the US into a church. That's where we need to go.

[Goblinmonger]

212. Isn't this a sign of the theocracy

I don't care that Utah is run by mormons. This violates the establishment clause, and if it is allowed to continue, it just makes it more clear to everyone that this is a xtian country. Then when you say Bush is doing something bad, people just say "hey, look at all the crosses around on public land; clearly this is a country based on xianity--love it or leave it, pagen." They do that now. They claim the founding fathers founded this country on xianity which is utter bullshit. But things like this keep happening which support their little dream world.

Why is it wrong to call bullshit on this?

[jmowreader]

214. Got news for ya: this IS an xian country

It's not an xian country because our Founding Fathers were all Christians and put Jesus and God in the Constitution, or whatever shit the fundies are claiming. And it isn't an xian country because we have crosses on public lands.

It's an xian country because Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell filled school boards and city councils all across this land with rabid fundamentalists and WE fucking let it happen. WE couldn't have been bothered to run for the school board. WE couldn't be bothered to point out that all of those fundamentalists who were running for the school board, which would engineer the curriculum YOUR kids would study, were homeschooling/Christian schooling their own children. WE could have shut down this whole fucking "fundy stuffing" campaign by publicizing what was in "Far Beyond Rubies," which was a homeschooling curriculum for girls that was VERY popular among the kind of people who were running for the school boards. Far Beyond Rubies taught girls to be barefoot and pregnant, for lack of a better description. Line up FBR and A Beka Book curricula, explain that this is OBVIOUSLY what they want your kid to study because their kids already study it, and how many elections do you think those guys could have won? (This shit is OUT THERE, man, they start with the supposition that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together and go from there.) And now that Honest, Upright America is used to voting for fundies and fundies know how to run for office, fundies will run for anything right up to president and people will vote for them.

I think we have a real chance at common sense leadership come the 2006 election, if good people run for every office. Otherwise we'll sink further into theocracy. In the 2005 election Bush's people lost bigtime; if--and this is a BIG if--we run quality people and we follow the proven Clinton Strategy for campaigning (attack first and respond to any attack within the same news cycle, and preferably within the hour) the fundies can lose big. They've got to.

[Goblinmonger]

227. I think we are on the same side

This became a xian country because we let it happen by baby steps. This is an example of more baby steps. Yet people can't see that we need to call bullshit at EVERY BABY STEP or it is too late.

[Mr_Spock]

197. Oh, Jesus, what in God's name do they think they are doing?

:rofl:

...or not :D

[Synnical]

207. As I posted in LBN - Utah only allows 3 types of road side memorials

Thread Killer!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1961309&mesg_id=1962584

[nemo137]

293. so in that case

have the lawsuit to be about allowing for a memorial appropriate to the trooper - cross, pentagram, star of david, OM symbol, whatever. Not about automatically tearing them down.

[Silverhair]

224. What's next? Suing over the crosses in national cemetaries? NT

[Goblinmonger]

235. Jesus Fucking Christ

I know the task of reading a couple hundred posts might seem like difficult task for you, but this point has been discussed over and over in this thread. Thanks for popping in and making a point that has been made, incorrectly, many times already.

[Silverhair]

240. Not incorrectly, and notice I didn't say Arlington.

You are correct that I didn't read all the posts before posting. However, when you look at some cemeteries with thousands of crosses (and a few stars) in neat rows, then surely it must be being used as a generic symbol in the absence of all other symbols. In some older civil war cemeteries, only crosses are used.

[Goblinmonger]

241. OK

I am a little trigger happy and I apologize if I jumped on you with little provocation. But even when there are crosses being used currently (I will not argue the civil war bit because that is a whole different era in our country), they have other alternatives.

And there are still two distinctions. First, the cemetaries are the place where the actual remains are. Nobody in the lawsuit, nor any atheists in this thread, have said that those should be removed. The crosses in the lawsuit are on the public freeways. Second, there are alternative available that would be non-religious yet still let people honor the dead. Why not use those?

[Taxloss]

277. Like these ones at Arlington?

Or do you mean more like these ones in France?



See? Perfectly simple to mark a grave without a cross.

You presumably think it's OK for atheists to be buried under crosses, regardless of their wishes? Or presumably you prefer them to be buried in "unconsecrated" ground - perhaps thrown into a pit at the city limits, like the good ol' days when heretics and infidels knew their place. No one is suggesting banning crosses, but a simpler tombstone symbol would avoid this kind of controversy.

[Goblinmonger]

287. Maybe you'll remember

I made this comparison somewhere in this thread from hell, but it went over the head of the person I made it to. Didn't Dickhead Chaney say something about seeing the crosses in Arlington while driving by? And then we all made fun of him on here? And now people are making the same comments all the time in this thread.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

288. Dude I think your points have been made. Can we let this thread die now?

Please?

[Goblinmonger]

289. I'm sorry, I'll take the gun away from your head

and stop making you come in here. I just keep responding to people. If you look at the last few posts I have made, you will find that they have very little to do with the arguments of the OP but instead focus on closure to the civil arguments I have had with a couple of people in this thread. Case in point, you are resonding to something a little off topic that I asked another person.

You, on the other hand, still piss me off with your choice of "retarded" and others that were plain-old offensive for which you have never apologized, even though I pointed it out to you several times. I can only imagine what would happen if I called a Christian "retarded."

If you don't want to be part of the conclusionary conversations I am having with a couple people on this thread, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya (do you get the irony coming from an atheist?)

[rman]

248. Interesting how they go from "atheists" to "The American atheists"

broad brushes, etc.

[peacebaby3]

250. I have respect for all people and their religion or right to have none,

but I do not agree with this lawsuit. I think that anyone who has a family member who is represented by the cross on the road that is not a Christian should be able to request that the cross be removed and/or replaced with the symbol of their choice.

These crosses were put there as a gesture to honor the sacrifice of the men and women who have died in this horrible "war." I feel pretty certain it was done out of goodness and not meant to offend anyone and anything that actually makes note of the fact that over 2100 men and women of the US Armed Forces have died in the "war" of choice is a good thing. At least when people drive by, they hopefully will pay attention to the # that have lost their lives. It's too bad we don't also recognize the many innocent Iraqis that have perished as well.

This is no different from what Cindy Sheehan did in Crawford. The crosses were placed on the right of way until they were moved to private land much later.

If an Atheist organization wants to pay and use some sort of symbol to recognize the over 2100 soldiers that have died, I would have no problem with that. They should also honor any request by a family to either not participate in their memorial or have a symbol of their choice as well.

Edit: typo

[More Than A Feeling]

276. This problem could be solved very easily.

Have the organization who purchased the crosses, also purchase the land they are on. Now it's private property. I bet it would be cheaper than this lawsuit.

[Taxloss]

279. Or by simply using neutral tombstone markers.

But that solution appears to have escaped some people.

[trotsky]

284. Actually that kind of trick has been done before.

And it was struck down, as it should have been, by the courts. Doing that totally circumvents the principle that the government should not be in the business of promoting one religion over another, or religion in general over non-religion.

[More Than A Feeling]

290. My point is that there are other possibilities

There are more options in this discussion than bashing the atheists who brought this case, or atheists firing back. Taxloss came up with another one. Pragmatic solutions that respect both sides, and the constitution.

[Goblinmonger]

291. I have been arguing that pretty much the whole time

I would think my idea of a shield or badge would do a better job of letting people know an officer died there in the line of duty. The little crosses might make them think little jesuses died there. That was funnier in my head, but I'll leave it.

[More Than A Feeling]

292. I wonder if the parties involved tried to work out some such solution

before the lawsuit? :shrug:

[Taxloss]

280. I'm bookmarking this thread.

Some of the responses make great ammo for the next time a theist complains about persecution.

[stevietheman]

282. I'm an atheist, and I halfway agree...

the use of crosses to memorialize Christian troopers seems OK to me, and if they are _temporarily_ placed on the roadways, that also seems all right. But I don't think the roadways are proper locations for permanent memorials at any rate, no matter what the religion of the deceased is. It just seems to be disrespectful to the dead, IMHO.

This may be a crazy idea, but perhaps roadways should be reserved for umm, let's say, driving and biking. Any permanent signs, whether billboards or memorials, become eyesores when they last too long.