Oct 31, 2011
Print This Post
Atheists won a major legal victory against public religious memorials after the Supreme Court announced it would not take up the case of roadside crosses in Utah meant to honor fallen law enforcement officers.
“It is time for the crosses to come down,” David Silverman, president of American Atheists, told Fox News.“The case is over.”
“Now the state troopers can be honored in a way that is legal – by a secular memorial that is good for everybody,” he said.“We hope and expect the Utah Highway Patrolman’s Association to honor their fallen troopers in a way that supports the Constitution that those troopers died protecting.”
The decision left standing a lower court ruling that declared the crosses, on public ground, conveyed “to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or other endorses a certain religion.”
American Atheists sued the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Transportation Dept. in 2005 claiming that the roadside memorials were a state establishment of religion.
“This was a perfect example of the state endorsing one religion and trying to get away with it by saying the crosses were not Christian,” Silverman said. “Everybody knows the crosses are Christian and when you look at a cross you see Christianity.”
But supporters of the memorials argued that they were funded and maintained by a private organization – the Utah Highway Patrol Association.
Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund called the Supreme Court ruling “very disappointing.” The ADF represented the Utah Highway Patrol Association before the Supreme Court.
“Certainly Americans ought to be able to honor fallen heroes in a way they see fit, “attorney Gary McCaleb told Fox News. “The angst of an atheist should not trump the ability to recognize fallen heroes.”
McCaleb called the ruling a “sad victory” for atheists”– who he accused of “imposing the values on the families and colleagues of fallen officers.”
“The ADF will do everything in its power to ensure that those crosses remain while the case continues to be litigated,” he said. “We are confident at the end of the day those troopers will be able to memorialize their fallen.”
Among those blasting the Supreme Court decision was Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
“The Supreme Court has failed to recognize that religious liberty is a fundamental right given to us by God and protected in the Constitution,” wrote in a statement. “I find it tragic that our freedoms are now at greater risk from our own courts than from the foreign or domestic enemies we’ve faced.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
ATTN All Godless Maroons: If I believe in God and am wrong, I lose nothing after death. You don't believe in God, but what if you are wrong? Have a nice day.
That's a loser's argument because it all depends on how "god" is defined. You can lose sleep about which religions you might be "wrong" about, but no reasonable person should. As for this ruling — it's fine with me. Trust me, even without crosses all over the public highways, visitors to Utah will still find plenty of symbols of Christianity.
Putting death aside, the problem, Toby, is that for people who believe in magical creatures while living tend to do some awful things based on that nonsense. That's why we care–we care about how people are treated while we're alive. If you want to argue that what happens after you die is more important, please step forward and be the very first person to show us anything about that, other than ancient myths and superstitions from people who who didn't even know they were living on a planet. Your claim needs to be reasonable to be considered. It's not, so it won't be.
Ray Stern There is only one God, the God of the Holy Bible. He is not a religion. He is the creator of the universe and everything in it. Believe in Him or not. The choice is yours. He will not force Himself on you. Just because an aethist does not believe in God, doesn't make Him not real.
Brian Magee : we won't ever know til we know.
@Linda: Wrong. We can know now. The claims of ancient peoples based on hallucinations are not even valid for consideration. The question of a magical invisible creature who is everyone at once (over 13.7 billion years of space-time) and has a peculiar interest in blood is just too stupid to contemplate.
Norma: What makes your god not real is that the universe is exactly has it would be without any magical creatures living outside of its rules. Your claims are about as worthy of consideration as someone who claims Superman is real.
Ha. The old "I'm right no matter what" argument. Good one.
Brian Magee – Your statement is illogical. Of course, only a believer in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit would understand that the teachings of God's words INSPIRE us to live each day as Jesus Christ lives in and through us. You have no argument at all.
Linda: Just saying something is illogical is not logical. Sorry, but there's no there there from you. Believing in your fantasies is just sad. But those of us who look for what's really there do feel compassion for you. We only hope that you'll not hurt anyone with your beliefs while you're holding them. That's all we atheists really want.
Ray: Try and offer something worth the space your words take up. Please.
Ray Stern I take it , by your comments that you are one of those fools that voted for obama. Only fools believes there is no God.
Ray Stern, your perspective is wrong. The creation doesn't define the Creator. But you knew that. You just reject it. You believe you can find truth by the discernment of your intelligence. And that is your limitation. I wonder what SCOTUS will say if the crosses are moved (with permission) to private land along the roadways)? Now they become private expressions of faith.
Ray Stern I can tell by your comments that you are one of those fools that voted for obama. Only fools believes there is no God.
Brian Magee While I grew up religious, I have veered from the dogma related to it, realizing that we can't really define something we don't understand. I would concur with you, but your use of inflammatory language causes me to think you are incapable of honest dialogue.
Even Stephen Hawking admitted that "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."
By assuming that God is a 'magical creature' – you have relegated yourself to the same rigidity you accuse them of having. And you have given your own mind the supremity of knowledge, while simultaneously admonishing them for doing the same thing.
Based on our standards, yes, the onus is upon the believers. I think you would find the true believers feel no true need to prove to you the existence of God.
Boy, you believers are just on fire! Keep it coming — I feel a conversion coming on!
Linda: I don't know what you would accept as an "argument." To assert someone is illogical without pointing out why is just silly. You can make all the magical claims about magical ancient deities and them "inspiring" you, but you're just talking to yourself. There is nothing there other than you.
Something else to consider: When you make the claim of gods to a non-believer, you might as well as tell a mathematician to divide by zero. It's a nonsensical claim. Come up with something real or just give up. Your fantasies do nothing for those rooted in reality.
God teaches us that we should care for and help each other. When you let Jesus become your Lord and Savior, you become a different person. You have joy beyond words. God is not a magical creature. You cannot understand God because you do not know Him. I won't argue with you because it is useless to argue with unbelievers. They simply cannot understand, when they are not willing to have an open mind. It takes a step of faith to become a Christian. Once you do, you will never be the same.
Brian Magee I have attempted to respond twice now to your post and it was deleted. Not sure why, it is very frustrating. I will summarize:
Your position is haughty at best – you accuse believers of the same close-mindedness that you display yourself (magical creatures). While I am not a religious person, I do believe a great many things have come from religion, along with the bad.
You have given yourself the intellectual supremacy that you admonish believers for having, something that no sane person can respect. Even Stephen Hawking knew that it was foolish to say that God cannot exist.
Riley, Yes, for whatever reason, my entries are being deleted. Someone is not keen on my participation and you may not see this one either.
Quoting a person, Hawkings or not, makes no difference. I don't know Hawking's opinions and I don't care. Not everyone who has a bit of knowledge in one area doesn't mean it carries over, or is complete.
You need evidence for claims and since no believer produces them, I call then worthless. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.
And, yes, those of us who do not believe in magic do have a measure of superiority. It's just fact. People who find unreal things to be real are definitively on a lower level. It's not being arrogant, it's just the way it is.
@Brian Magee First of all, I treat every human being as I want to be treated myself, you know some of that Magical Creature Golden Rule stuff. I don't care about what nationality, creed, color, religion (or lack thereof) the person is. My religion (Catholic) does not condone doing "awful things" in the name of the Faith. Thirdly, the question of whether God exists is yet to be determined. I simply offered the fact that when the time comes, we'll all know, one way or the other. One set of us (believers or non-believers) will be right, the other group wrong. And BTW, just because you can type fancy words and such does not hide the fact that you are a condescending, arrogant ass.
Ray Stern Unfortunately they will not find religious symbols all over public highways. One by one, the beliefs of the Atheists are being honored over everyone else's beliefs. If a cross really doesn't matter, then why all the fuss? Why not let the fallen hero's be honored in a way their loved ones see fit. If they want a secular memorial then so be it. If they want a cross, then get the narrow minded, self serving, atheists out of it. They seem very comfortable in attempting to deny anyone the ability to have their own beliefs and freely display or talk about them. Freedom of religion is the freedom to talk and openly represent it. It is also coupled in freedom of speech. But now a days, because our country has been so free, enemies of our country, our culture and our way of life are perverting our system to deny us the very rights they claim for themselves. They are despicable and disgusting. Ray, you are simple a useful tool for the moment. You don't look at the long game, you just parrot what makes you feel magnanimous, and gives you the false illusion of moral superiority.
If I'm a parrot, you're a turkey — and that makes your illogical argument turkey poop. By the way, your reading comprehension stinks and you misparaphrased what I said about finding Christian symbols in Utah. If you want to see your religion's symbol from the highways in Utah or anywhere else, you're free to rent space on a billboard.
Ray Stern If I'm a parrot, you're a turkey -
I'm rubber you're glue. What a maroon.
Parroting my parrot joke doesn't help your intellectually dishonest argument gain traction. Perhaps you don't know your history, but Christians have already had several centuries of denying people religious freedom. Denying religious zealots the ability to line public highways with the symbol of Christianity is minor compared to Christians burning witches at the stake. You probably even think some of the witches deserved it.
Brian Magee
God is very much real. Without him love wouldn't exist. He's present in all of us. You just have to open up your heart.
Brian Magee "And, yes, those of us who do not believe in magic do have a measure of superiority. It's just fact."
This is the epitome of what I was getting at Brian. You profess to know as much, if not more, than believers. How does that differentiate you from them?
Your superiority complex blinds you from understanding because you are now a follower of the church of science. Science is not an answer to the question of Why, it is the answer to the question of How.
ray stern—-If I'm a parrot, you're a turkey ?????????? LOL WHAT A MORON!!!!
Um, you brought up the "parrot," first, ya bird-brain!
Ray Stern Yes, I know all that. I don't see much of that happening today, do you? Oh, wait, yes I do. It's not Christians killing infidels, beheading raped women, executing gays, etc. It's the damned Muslims doing that. If you want to attack a religion, that's one you should be going after. We Christians ain't the ones denying anybody any civil rights, but you non-believers start crying like babies when we (Christians) put up a roadside cross to honor dead cops or soldiers? You are the one who has his Spongebob panties in a wad. You and your kind (our intellectual superiors) are the ones pushing YOUR beliefs on approx. 90% of the population of the USA who believe in God. Quit your bitchin' and jump on something worthwhile, not this subject. The people who want you dead are trying to take over your country. But you are too "intellectually dishonest" to see that. Or you are too much of a pu$$y to admit it and do something about it. Signed, Your Intellectual Inferior.
Brian Magee Second try, love the automatic renewal of a page when unrequested, makes for much more typing. Brian, first, you have the right to believe what you will, as do all the others posting here. Who is right? How about this, GOD. Oh, sorry, some of you do not believe in "Fantasy". That is not really true, you all believe some sort of Fantasy, maybe even the Fantasy you believe was vested in truth, or is real Truth, but you believe. Step that forward to GOD and Christianity, and search for facts and you will find all sort of information that is not published often, but is "Scientific Fact". My degree is in the Sciences, and the interesting thing I discovered early on was my knowledge was already in my brain, for I knew in 1965 the Speed of Light was not a limiter (you can go faster), so where did I get this knowledge??? From the DNA, I carry????? Maybe!!! Or from the "SOUL" for you non-believers, "Life Force" (Life force is quantifiable)! So, I know I can't sell all you who are smarter than I, but research "Past Life Memory", Remote Viewing, Psychic recognition, and all sorts of other Magic occurences. If you want Quantification of Magic it is out there!!! So, in closing I will offer one quote," Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", read this and see the Magic the Supreme Court just accomplished, "Denial that their Job Exist"!!!!
Ray Stern I never said any about a parrot you MORON
No, I guess that was a different bird-brain. But still, it's both ironic and idiotic of you to call someone a moron in such a grammatically bankrupt sentence.
Ray Stern a fairy like U always know where to put the period, huh? LOL
Ray Stern <——– GEEK ALERT!!!!!!
Roy Gabbard <—– PERVERT ALERT!!!!!
LOL if i was a pervert, I would be wanting comrade obama re-elected. And I don't, so your theory is wrong. LOL— you are such a moron.
LOL.
Its so confusing that they don't take this up. Its not like they haven't taken similar cases in the past.
Hmmmm, Seems to me, Utah could pass a statue legitimizing this display. 2. I am all for people not believing in something that rules their existence, but please do it on your nickle and stay the hell away from me. I find you contemptable, GOD IS, GOD WILL.
And for the Supreme Court, please do me the favor of Removing the Supreme….
AMEN. GOD IS, GOD WILL! NOTHING CHANGES IT. EVEN IF THE WHOLE WORLD FAILS TO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS, STILL GOD IS. NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE IT! AMEN AND AMEN!
Those cross's are my freedom of Religeon! And freedom of expression & my rights as an American!
Spending public money on any religious symbol is in violation of the first amendment. You are free to express yourself however you like. But the government cannot endorse any religion. No one is trying to stop you from expressing yourself. This is about the government, not the citizen.
Josh Saunders The money used to put the crosses there are from a private organization. It requires zero public funds to maintain them there. It's in the article.
get a life Bozo Silverman, nobody gives a Rats ass what You Think!
This really suck where are "We The People" come on people don't let 14% of the people change our lives. It's our duty as Americans to act now.
Actually the Constitution is there to ensure that the rights of ALL are equal and upheld. In essence actually protecting the rights of the minority FROM the majority.
If you don't want to live in a society where every citizen has equal fundamental rights maybe you should choose to live in a totalitarian state without constitutional protection where the majority can shun and mistreat the minority – whether that's because of their race, ethnicity or religious viewpoint.
If you know God, you know. If you don't know God, you don't understand. It is not a faith without proof, just requires your asking for the proof. God can deal with your questions. They don't know him.
It's actually all about what people think they know about god, not what they really know. People of all faiths think they know something about their god, yet those same people disagree about the nature of god. "If you know God, you know," is a concept similar to the thoughts rattling around in the minds of the 9/11 terrorists before the planes hit the buildings.
Ray Stern you don't know what we are talking about. You are one of those who doesn't KNOW him.
So, you're saying that if only I believed, I'd believe. How very clever.
Kathy Allen you are sooo right. I can't imagine my life without knowing GOD. I have been so blessed through all my hardships, illnesses, and pain to have HIM with me giving me strength, wisdom and courage. I have felt HIM with me. Surviving one brain aneurysm and doctors monitoring a second smaller one I am not afraid. I am blessed. I am loved. I am forgiven! I have the gift of eternal life after I leave this worldly place. What more could I want or ask for???? Accept my freedom to be respected and treated the way every group out there expects to be treated even if we do not agree!
Ray Stern No, I am not saying that. I am saying it is God's job to prove his existence, not mine. So if you want to know if he is real, then humble yourself and from a contrite heart ask him to show you. You'd be an intellectual fool not to take that simple advice. It's just that easy. God bypasses the wisdom of the wise to prove a point, we are the creature, not the creator. He is an awesome God! You do not know him…yet.
It is amazing that Godless people have so much time on their hands that they have to stick their nose in everybody else's business. I think that everyone should make and or buy as many crosses as they can and put them up everywhere! And if it offends someone I would be more than happy to discuss it with them where my fist meets their face.
A religious person threatening violence. What a shocker! Read the first amendment and maybe then you will begin to understand why the courts ruled as they did. The cross was on public property!
Josh Saunders is incorrect in understanding what our forefathers meant by separation of state and government. The tue meaning has been twisted and torn apart from what our founding fathers meant and that is why government has involved GOD in everything from public meetings, the dollar bill, on courthouse walls, swearing the truth on the BIBLE, in the PLEDGE, and more. If not. none of these things would have ever been there in the first place. Removing prayer from public schools more than 50 yrs ago was the beginning of destroying one of the best foundations our country was founded on! One based on Christianity and the belief in GOD! Fifty yrs later we can see the result of those changes on our children, our morals, the way people interact with one another, ect. Understanding and researching the true meaning would help many to learn what our forefathers wanted. It worked for 200 yrs! Destroying their ideas will destroy our country.
Josh Saunders Josh….read, read, read….this is the Amendment…=Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Treaty of Tripoli 1797 – Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen(Muslims),—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. – President John Adams. Passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate. The United States is not a Christian nation. It does however, have about 75% of its population as Christians. There is a difference.
Actually, Kathy, the founders of the US had exactly the secular idea of separation of church and state in mind as they knew it was the only way to be entirely inclusive. The job of government is to protect the rights of ALL its citizens. The only way to do that is to be entirely inclusive with its fundamental values. You're making the common misconception of equating secular with "atheistic", when actually secularism has no more to say on atheism than it does on any other religious viewpoint. The term secular means it has no connection with religion at all. Therefore, the only way to be entirely inclusive of all its citizens is for the government to have absolutely no bias on which religion/religious viewpoint it endorses. So basically, if the government, on any level, uses public funds or assets to endorse one particular religious viewpoint, it is in violation of the separation of church and state. If you want to respect the rights of all individuals equally, as the Constitution is supposed to do, then you need to respect the duty of the government to remain impartial on matters of religion.
Well, I guess that next the VA cemetaries will be required to change the headstones since they are government property…taking this to its logical conclusion, anyway.
I was going to comment that even as an atheist, I think this is a little much. Then I saw all the people decrying all Atheists for being 'fascists' and 'sticking their noses in other people's business' and I remembered why arguing about religion is like dancing about architecture.
Evan Taylor It does dishearten me to see folks act like that towards atheists.
I would agree with everything said here. But these Judges are spinless and this country is headed for doom. We knoow Jesus is coming and they work for the devil. We know where there going. Jesus is coming and soon. This world is going to get worse.The rapture will be here soon and then they can beginthere torments of wailing thinking how stupid they were. God bless you all. Keep the faith.
It just doesn't make any sense. If athiest don't want to believe in GOD, then why does a couple of sticks matter to them at all? We must mark these spots, if for no other reason than to make you stop & think before you risk your own life on that corner, stretch, intersection, etc.
No, its all about forcing Religeon out of America. My bet is Soros funds these rediculous waste of judicial time.
It does make one wonder why a group that doesn't believe in God is so concerned with something you would think they would view as nothing more than superstition – yet it bothers them a great deal, as if these crosses represent a step towards the Church of the United States of America.
The cross is on public property and violates the first amendment. It's really quite simple.
Josh Saunders Exactly…it is on public property and do you know what I see when I see it?…I don't see Jesus….I see a fallen Law Enforcement Officer…get a grip on life.
@David Rickard – So we get to pick and choose which parts of the law we will follow in our society? That doesn't sound like a sound way to run a country. No one is saying that they can't have some type of memorial for the fallen Officer, it just can't be a religious symbol on public property.
Stacie Horne – You make the assumption that there are only two possibilities. The Bible being true or it being not true and then nothing happens. What if Zeus is real? Or Thor, or Mithras? Then you and I would both be in hell! What if you are wrong?
Stacie Horne with the rant and the quick delete. Thanks for giving me a chance to respond. /sarcasm
Josh Saunders What in the first amendment is violated by these crosses?
Josh Saunders There is no violation of the first amendment here. If the state disallowed another religious symbol, then it would be a violation.
@Riley Secrist – For example, only the Christian cross being allowed at ground zero. There is a court case going for that violation already.
Josh Saunders And has no bearing on this whatsoever.
Come on josh answer Jim Spaulding's question; What in the first amendment is violated by these crosses???????????????????????
Roy Gabbard There is no answer to that because there is no basic violation of the 1st amendment by allowing them to stay. Only a violation of someone's feelings or sensibilities.
I wonder what his response would be to a proposed question: Is it a violation for someone to wear a religious t-shirt on public property?
Riley Secrist – it was a violation of the establishment clause because the state of Utah refused any other display. That is why they lost.
Wearing offensive or non-offensive clothing does not break any of the first amendment as far as i know. Correct?
Riley Secrist there is nothing in the Constitution that protects a person's feelings or sensibilities that I know of——- if there is, please inform me of it'
Josh Saunders you made a statement to Karen Wallace Addison -" No one is trying to remove the cross around your neck" — in fact this statement is untrue, back in 2007 in England, Teachers demanded a 13 y/o to remove her chain and tiny crucifix from around her neck despite the school allowing Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear symbols of their religion. NOW!!! I know you are going to say that didn't happen in this country- but the fact is that what starts in English comes to the United States. And this proves it, earlier this year in Houston Tx. a 8th grader was suspended after wearing a rosary to the school. The school said it was suspending the student because of some gangs was wearing a rosary as a symbol for their gangs. —- I don't believe it.
Yeah, why believe a bunch of police gang detectives from Texas, New York, Missouri and other states who says gang members sometimes do this? Those cops are probably Obama's secret religious police — thank God Roy's on the case.
Ray Stern <——– ANOTHER GEEK ALERT!!!!
@Roy Gabbard – Gonna have to disagree with you. What England does is their business.
Do you have a link to the article about kids being suspended? I'd like to know more about this incident.
Then maybe you or someone else who seems to have a better plan for what to do should suggest or give your own money freely to do it. Ppl who are so concerned with following the law to the letter don't seem to ever take into account that they are offending good ppl who just want to show their sorrow and respect. If you just want it gone and don't really care about respect for fallen law enforcement officer then maybe you should tell ppl that and be honest. The courts never follow the law to the letter, law enforcement officers don't either. They enforce the laws that are there to keep ppl from harming one another. Some things need to be overlooked and ignored. Lots of things done by ppl who have other beliefs other than mine offend me. i choose to look the other way. cause its of no consequence to me what they think. Maybe some of you should try to be decent human beings and do the same when it comes to ppl mourning the loss of someone they hold dear.
How amazingly sad. The crosses are private, by private people and a private organization. Shame on the Supreme Court. If a Buddhist or anyone else put up images they wanted to, I would have no problem with that at all! But look at the atheists. They are the most intolerant, hateful, fascists around. And, I only became a Christian in my 30s, so don't come around with "you don't know what it's like being an agnostic or atheist." What a load of… I hope Utah and all those involved do their own protesting and ignore the courts.
The crosses are on public property, not private. This court case is about the law and it was upheld. Now if you would like to read a intolerant, hateful book I would suggest the Bible. A few suggestions, 1 TIM 2:11-14, LEV 20:13.
Josh Saunders is suggesting a couple chapters. One from the Old Testament that is history only and the other 1st Tim stating a woman is to be silent in the church and not preach over a man (so???). A chapter I agree with although many other christians disagree with claiming the meaning was law and not for todays believers. Although I disagree I am not out there protesting and trying to change their beliefs. I know what the Bible says about love for those that believe and follow. I also know what it says about those that don't believe and follow. A choice we can make because of our freewill. If you see that as hateful than you don't know the feeling others get from the love and blessings received from living a christian life. God loves you and so do I. I want the same rights others get. Remove the cross so your not offended. What about removing what I see as vulgar??? Removing foul language and songs that offend me?? Instead of telling me to look the other way or not listen to what has already offended me. Why not turn your head from the two sticks that offend you but makes a mourning family content???
Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus speaking -17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." That doesn't sound like the Old Testament is just history to me. It sounds like you are suppose to follow ALL of the bible.
Foul language and songs that offend you are still covered under free speech. Good luck getting the first amendment changed. There are things I don't think are appropriate but you and I don't get to stamp out someone's expression because the first amendment gives us all the same freedoms. You are free to practice any religion you choose so long as you aren't breaking the law. One of those laws means no religious symbols on public property.
Josh Saunders That is like throwing out all of psychology because Freud was a cocaine addict.
Those so called myths tell us that the day will come when Christians will be under attack. That day is here! Those that claim they don't believe in GOD but quick to do the work for the devil. Remove what is soooo terrible from their vision but live the filth for the rest of us to look at and tell us to look the other way when we are offended. The same should go for those unbelievers……LOOK THE OTHER WAY if you don't like what you see! JUST TRY REMOVING THE CROSS I WEAR AROUND MY NECK! What are these people that hate our belief so afraid of…. I guess if I was one of them I would be scared too..their day will come!
Karen- I would love to a fly on the wall when Ray faces the day of his death. and to hear him begging for God's mercy.
So would I. I have never understood why these individuals want to attack us for our beliefs but expect us to accept them for theirs. We have freewill to believe in GOD if that is our decision. I have to put up with foul language at pubic ballgames, public obscenity, and the rights of every organization out there. But a cross they do not believe in bothers them. WHY? The only thing that makes sense to me is that if they want to waste their time focused on my belief than there has to be a deeper reason for their fight. They have satan in their corner. No doubt in my mind!!
I will add:…. that if a family wants a cross that should be part of their religious freedom. If a family does not want to mark a loved one with a cross than fine. Provide what they think proper. But to punish everyone is against our religious freedom. The separation of religion and government has been taken to the extreme. Our forefathers included GOD in everything from the dollar bill, courthouse walls, and public meetings. The true meaning of separation has been greatly twisted from what our forefathers meant. Government was not to interfere, chg taxes, ect. Christians need to come together now stronger than ever before and FIGHT for our rights and for the true meaning of SEPARATION. I will put 3 crosses in my front yard if I decide to and let someone tell me to take them down and watch me say NO!!!
I believe these atheists fight is not only against the crosses on the side of the highway. But with the Holy Ghost t working within them.
Does anyone else besides me think that one definition of the word "pervert" is a person who would "love" to hear someone begging for god's mercy in the face of death?
@Karen Wallace Addison – 'In God We Trust' was not added to the dollar bill until 1957 during the red scare of the Communists, not by the founding fathers. Several of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. No one is trying to remove the cross around your neck. A cross on public property however is a violation of the first amendment.
I didn't mean the beginning forefathers added GOD to the $bill. Our forefathers had no problems using GOD from the beginning and using GOD in their oathes when swearing in officials and laying their hand on the Bible. For generations our ancestors continued to include GOD from our National anthem, to the pledge, courtrooms, ect. This continued until some decided THEY didn't like it and argued separation of state and government and twisting the true meaning developed by our ancestors to protect RELIGION from ridicule and under the control of government. While the Constitution does not mandate that anyone in specific should administer the oath, the oath is typically administered by the Chief Justice, but sometimes by another federal or state judge (George Washington was first sworn in by Robert Livingston, the chancellor of the State of New York in 1789, while Calvin Coolidge was first sworn in by his father, a Justice of the Peace and a Vermont notary public in 1923). By convention, incoming Presidents raise their right hand and place the left on a Bible or other book while taking the oath of office.
Karen Wallace Addison – Doing something just because the person before you did it doesn't mean they were doing it right! Maybe arguing the separation of church and state was not challenged previously because of numerous reasons unknown. You say the meaning of separation of church and state is being twisted from the true meaning but if the courts are not siding with you, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the church and state debate.
The first six presidents of our country were not Christians. They were deists or non-believers. There is no mention in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution of Christianity. So the country started off very much secular, then in the past and present there have been many references to god. But now the country is becoming more secular again and the people want a clear separation. Times change and people change.
Josh Saunders There is also no mention of separation of church and state in the Declaration. The first amendment is clear that the state shall not respect one religion over another. It doesn't say that religion cannot be respected at all by the state, only that all must be respected equally.
Josh Saunders It seems John Adams believed in God, "Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty." -John Adams advise to his wife, in concern for his sons
Josh Saunders and it seems that John Quincy Adams believed in God. "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." – John Quincy Adams
Ray Stern Does anyone else besides me think that one definition of the word "pervert" is a person who would "love" to hear someone begging for god's mercy in the face of death? —Ray Stern Well it seems ray, you are one of the few that thinks that way. Like you would be one of the very few that think obama is doing a great job
Josh Saunders and it looks like ole Ben believed the God too. "The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" – Benjamin Franklin
You don't have to be a presumptuous idiot your whole life, Roy. You're also a pervert, for the reasons I described.
Ray Stern — LOL and this coming from a moron like yourself.
Roy Gabbard – I said the first few Presidents were not Christians. Many of them believed in a god or creator. But did not believe that god interacted in everyday life. Look up 'deist.' After looking up some other info you could say I was incorrect about John Q. Adams. He was a Christian but had his doubts. "I reverence God as my creator. As creator of the world. I reverence him with holy fear. I venerate Jesus Christ as my redeemer; and, as far as I can understand, the redeemer of the world. But this belief is dark and dubious."
Thanks for the conversation, I learned something new today.
what amazes me most is not that Godless people have so much time on their hands, but that our government won't stand up and say "Hey, In case you have forgotten, America was founded on these very Christian beliefs that you choose to deny. So if you don't like it, move to a country that wasn't founded on Christianity."
I read a sign in Texarkana Texas that made a unusal statement.The sign was on apublic billboard at the school.The sign stated (people should always be open minded, but not to the extent that their brains would fall out)that is just my opinion of all who deny GOD and the people who support them in any way+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.
What really aggravates me, is that "athiests" who claim that there is no God, spend the majority of their lives trying to prove to everyone else and themselves that there is no God. They are never able to prove that there is no God and try to put the weight of the arguement onto the believers to prove the existence instead of they themselves proving the lack of a God.
Now, if I was a truly an athiest, it would be no consequence to me what anyone else believed because it would all just seem foolish. Therefore I would not be actively finding ways to remove religion from the world. There are a great many things that have come about due to religion as well as bad. But if you will look back into history, usually the people who use religion as a reason to harm other ppl, usually with a few exceptions would have been abusive to their fellow man regardless.
But, why with all of your lack of belief, does it trouble you that Christianity symbols are around. If anything it would only be humorous to you. And if its truly a lack of religion that you seek, then in theory you should be showing more of a lack of concern than actively trying to remove it. Cause if religion is bound to fail, maybe you should just let it happen instead of trying to kill it. Cause the more you fight, the more people will come to the aid of the cause you are trying to squash.
How would you suggest proving a negative?
I'm not sure i understand your question?
How could an atheist possibly disprove your God or any other god? Can you disprove Zeus?
Therein lies the issue. Atheists expect everyone to turn from a widely held belief without being given an alternative reason for the change other than "reasonable, educated ppl, could not possibly believe in a god given the scientific evidence to the contrary". But if atheists possess such scientific evidence then how come they don't use any of it to disprove his existence? To make a body of individuals turn from a widely held belief, the burden of proof is on you to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the existence is not possible. Otherwise, to argue to the contrary is unreasonable.
The other issue i have with this decision, or the lack thereof, is that this country is based on "freedom of religion". Atheists claim that it is infringing on their freedom to practice religion, to have religious symbols out in plain view. But no one said that the atheist could not put up their own symbols marking the dead. The merely prevented someone else from practicing their freedom of religion by prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't harm anyone to place Crosses as markers. This sounds to me like more of an infringement of religious freedom on the part of the atheist group rather than the state police or other private citizens. And furthermore i would charge this group with, if you don't like the symbol being used, maybe you should suggest alternative symbols instead of just abolishing the use of any symbol all together.
But for many ppl this symbol, which you seem to hate so much, brings peace and emotional security in a world full of strife and hatred. But because you are offended so badly by it, you are taking that peace away from a large majority of the ppl which i wud expect would just lead to more strife and hatred. or was that the intention from the start?
I don't know about scientific evidence that disproves the vague concept of "god," but scientific evidence has certainly destroyed any notion that Genesis is actual history.
Dnt give me a radio carbon dating explanation. the science is there but there is too many factors that have to be assumed.
@Andrew Clark – This country is based on freedom of and from religion. You and I are free to practice, or not practice, which ever religion we choose to. The decision isn't about you and I practicing religion though. This ruling is about what the Government can and can't do. It is a violation of the first amendment for the Government to take a side or show favoritism to any religion. That is why the courts ruled that the crosses could not be on PUBLIC property. No one complains about a cross at the local church because that is private property.
I'll respond to your first reply soon. I wanted to talk about the article and court ruling first, since that is how we both got here
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." – Dr. Carl Sagan
Just because many regard something as true, does not make it true. People use to think the earth was flat. Christians have faith that the Bible is true. Faith is belief without evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Do you have evidence of your God or any other gods?
Is it possible that there is a 'god' of some sort? Sure. Do I think it is likely? Not at all. Many people are unaware of the definitions of gnostic and agnostic, theist and atheist. I am an agnostic atheist.
Josh Saunders why are you not on a muslim site telling them there is no allah???
Josh Saunders I'm with you on the proving a negative piece. But you missed the rest of his point.
My post from earlier today got deleted by the page admin
I am here because it is a new story. If there was a news story about Islam and the conversation led to why I think there is no Allah then I would do so.
I'll try to respond again. Hopefully my new posts won't be deleted like it was earlier today.
Josh saunders: I agree with you that this country is based on freedom of and freedom from religion. But placing the crosses at these sites at the death of fallen heroes does not force religion on anyone, nor is anyone trying to force Christianity on anyone. What it does do is prevent a group of ppl from practicing their religion the only way they know how
If anyone had given a reasonable alternative that would provide the same symbol of respect and sorrow, i'm sure it would be considered. But the courts did not rule that the crosses were unconstitutional, just the opposite. They refused to make a ruling, BECAUSE there was "NO OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" that would overturn the customs that are held sacred by the largest part of the general populous.
As i said before, these crosses are in no way trying to force Christianity on anyone. On the other hand, forcing the general populous to remove or cease from a widely held practice is in effect forcing the belief that they are bad on anyone who is affected by it.
But i do appreciate your side of view, and I do enjoy hearing your views. It does enlighten me to the views that are outside of my own. I also appreciate that there has been no name calling or hateful speaking thus far and for that i do thank you.
@Andrew Clark – I enjoy civil talks with other view points as well. Name calling only divides.
A few notes. The crosses are memorial markers, not the sites of their death. The Utah Highway Patrol Association(case actually reads American Atheists vs Davenport) argued only crosses be used at these memorials. That is why they lost. Had they argued equal representation, they may have won. At least, this how I understand it as to why the case was lost for them. By not allowing other types of memorials, this would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and thus would be considered favoring a certain religion by the state.
If you would like to further discuss your earlier post about widely held belief and proving something doesn't exist, you'll have to message me on FB or get my email from my page. The page admin deleted my response to you.
Andrew Clark – I enjoy the discussion and other view points as well. Name calling only divides.
A few notes. The crosses are not at the site of the officers death, they are memorials. The case is American Atheists vs Davenport. Davenport was arguing that only the crosses could be used. That made this case an Establishment Clause issue. Had Davenport argued equal representation, they might have won. By not allowing other memorial symbols it shows that the state is favoring one religion over another.
If you would like to continue a discussion about your earlier post about widely held belief and proving with science something doesn't exist you'll have to message me on FB or email me. The page admin won't let me post my thoughts on that here.
i can understand. i might at a later time. would really like to hear your views on the subject. unfortunately im pretty mentally and emotionally wore out right now due to a run in i recently had with someone professing to be "FROM GOD". He was merely using the good in ppl and their compassion to get by w/o working and living on charitable ppl all the while professing he was from God. This angered me. We got into a heated debate that ended in him threatening me and calling me an "anti-christ" and telling me that i was full of hate. He then told me we needed to step outside which i responded to by telling him to leave the business property and not to return until he had a cool head. But you didn't want to know that. What i was trying to explain tho is that my beliefs have nothing to do with hate. its compassion. and my faith until you have experienced God the way that i have and seen what i've seen, you will probably not ever be able to understand. But my compassion causes me to stand up for ppl who would otherwise be used, taken for granted and pushed to the side by society, simply because they despise confrontation. and for those ppl i will gladly stand up and fight for their rights. If i ever feel like my beliefs are overstepping my legal and moral obligation as a Human Being or a United States citizen then i will gladly cease and desist. but in the case of this hearing, i do not believe that is the case. I looks more like a group of ppl who just want to be seen and heard and like to cause confrontation because they can and get away with it because no one will stand up to them.
Madalyn O'Hair Murray , founder of American Atheists won the right to have prayer abolished in public schools. She was missing for 3 years before anyone missed her, another two years before the bodies of she, her, son and granddaughter were found in a grave on a Texas ranch. She was identified only by a piece of steel from her hip replacement. Her son and granddaughter had to be identified by DNA. Their head, legs, arms had been chopped up. There was a quote attributed to her, " When I die I hope someone will care enough to attend my funeral, other than my dog. Members of FBI and IRS -she hated – were two groups who searched for her and attended graveside memorial. One agent it was reported, got a little misty at the way Madalyn's life ended. Atheists can take pleasure in whatever victories they claim. Not to be missed by anyone – first response, GOOD RIDDANCE-seems sad. Keep the faith and the conversation going.
How is the 1st Amendment being broken by having crosses displayed for the fallen? Read the 1st Amendment carefully and explain.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now by what it says is that Congress shall make no LAW. In Utah and around the nation Congress has made no law. It is up to the individual people and or families to mark the fallen how they feel free to do as long as it does NOT impair the vision of the road or cause accidents.
The second part of the 1st Amendment says; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So Congress can not and has not made any laws saying that you have to participate but allows others to do so freely. How else can you actually interpret the 1st Amendment? Its illogical to see it any other way. If the families wish to have them then they should stay.
Let me add Jefferson's thoughts. "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."
So even by Jefferson's thoughts and words he leaves religion to the STATES and the CHURCHES to decide outcomes of religious matters and laws. So at worse case scenario let the States and Churches within the states work together on an outcome.
KARMA will bite them in the ass…mark my words…just like the dumb hag who started the Atheists…her and her family wound up DEAD
This case is BS the crosses are supplied by non government funds thus making the case that the athiests are arguing moot. There is no grounds for the suit, and the lawyers that helped bring it should be disbarred for waisting the courts time.
The judge in the lower court and the Supreme Court needs to answer to Congress as to why they ruled and chose their stand. This is why I want Gingrich, he wants to hold these judges feet to the fire and have the constitution changed for the life time service of federal judges. We are allowing over glorified lawyers to rule on our rights and well we see what that does to us with a President that is a lame lawyer that is supposed to be a constitutional lawyer at that.
What is it about the first amendment that people don't understand? Has any atheist actually read it? It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How does this get interpreted to mean that no state or local government can put crosses on a memorial? The text is VERY specific, CONGRESS means congress! Can anyone explain to me how that specific institution is interpreted to mean any government institution can't do anything remotely religious? These police officers died defending a constitution that these wackos are twisting to suit their own warped views, and then forcing these views upon the rest of society.
Please read up on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The reason this case was lost for Utah Highway Patrol Association is because they argued no other type of symbol could be used. Only the cross. That is why they lost. Well that and it was on state property. Had they argued there would be equal representation, they would have likely won.
The Constitution has no provision that states you are protected from being uncomfortable.
Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs…just look at our Constitution. If any goes to Washington D. C. and is not blind or stupid, there you will find all the proof that you need to see that our forefathers believed in a Supreme Being. If you are an atheist then you are entitled to believe in NOTHING if that's what you care to do, but to try and take away from the majority of us in this country who do is NOT acceptable. November 2012 is coming, and we, the God-fearing, gun toting, cling to our religion citizens are going to take back our country and put it right side up again. Just goes to show you that as SCOTUS gets older they also get dumber.
WONT THE WAY OF THE ANTICHRIST BE PREPARED BEFORE HE BEGINS HIS MINISTRY? LET ALL THAT BELIEVE IN GOD AND HIS WORD STUDY THE END TIME PROPHESIES. IS THIS NOT IN LINE WITH THEM?