Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol

[SPURSX3]

rickortreat,

If you really want the separtation delinieated, be very carefull of what you wish for. The constitution is not friendly to religion, it's something that one should do on their own time.

I think you miss my point.

The Constitution can be *MADE* friendly to religion.  Push the line too far, and it *WILL* be - the same way that many states did with homosexual marriage.

The founding fathers wanted RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  They wanted the FREEDOM TO LIVE AS THEY CHOSE.  They wanted NO ONE TELLING THEM WHAT THEY COULDN'T DO.

Now you tell me - who's telling who what they can't do - the people putting up crosses as memorials, or the people telling them to take them down?

Joe,

Maybe in Lala land.  You have to keep in mind the middle class has not been pushed YET.  Try to enforce a religion in a way the burdens the middle class and you will be handed your ase, i.e. the board that got elected out after allowing the joke known as ID into classrooms.  You want to see the US get out of Iraq, institute a draft that sends middle class kids off to war.  The war in Iraq will be over quicker than a FEMA director's career.

Religion has been the cause of the greatests evils ever inflicted on the human race, I hope it doesn't happen again.  You have to understand and ACCECPT the REALITY of religion and GOD, it's a tool for evil moreso than good.  Do you think the collective Arab world didn't sit up at the mention of the word "crusade" that was uttered by that piece of shyte G. W. Bush?  The "crusades" are not a distant history lesson like the civil war is to us, it's more like the holocaust is to present day jews, very fresh very raw memory.

It makes me sick and angry to see the religious right trying, and to a certain extent suceeding, to push their evil agenda upon us.  Very taliban like if you ask me, lucky for the US we have a strong middle class that steps up to the plate when you need them.  It would be all to easy to get the poor to ralley behind a religious or revolutionary cause as has been the case in history.

Don't get me wrong, I know the TRUE teachings of the various religions are righteous at the core, I wouldn't allow my children to learn them if I didn't truely believe that, but the REAL world practice of religion today and throughout history has been mostly evil.

WOW, and Athiesism is not a religion in any sense?  There is no practice or belief system in place for Athiests?  Right.  Some of them are more zealous about thier beliefs than some hard core people of faith are.

Look I can agree that religion has lead to horrible wars in history, however it is up to the individual to decide what thier faith means to them and what direction it will take them.  To make a blanket statement that because religion has been a cause of conflict therefore is bad is insane.  Politicians have lead thousands to thier death throughout history whether it be for thier self indulgence or whether it be because of religious faith - and yet I dont see anyone saying get rid of all forms of government.  

Now the people in this city did not make an issue of these crosses for years - it should be up to them to decide if it is ok or not to erect such memorials.  These crosses are not infringing on anyones rights, nobody is holding mass or service at these crosses, it's a freaking memorial.  If these Texas/New Jersey Athiests really give a crap about it let them rally in thier own home states about such things.  Why should the families have to rehash the memories of losing loved ones because some freaks have a stick up thier arse over this.  They can try to make this country Godless if they want, you are going to end up with more people standing up FOR religion and the right to religious freedom - which IS allowed in our country, these crosses have nothing to do with whether someone is being oppressed or not.  Do these people really give a damn about OTHER religions?  I don't think it has anything to do with stopping ALL religions as much as it does with stopping Christianity.  Would it be more accepting to put up Budha or the Star of David?  Let's face it, if it is a cross it is wrong.  if it is anything else, it must be OK because it is politically correct.  right?  It's all BS.  

[rickortreat]

The point is any religious symbol on public land violates the principal of separation between religion.

As for Arlington and the national Cemeteries:  Gravestones typicaly reflect the belief of the people who died.  It is entirely fitting that there are crosses there, displaying the beliefs that enabled them to come to the aid of their country.  There are Jews buried at Arlington too, and they don't have crosses.  They died in the service of their country, the ultimate sacrifice, the deserve to have a head stone reflective of their beliefs.

If these state troopers were burried at these spots, then I would have no problem with crosses if that is what they and their families asked for.  Respect for other people's wishes and rights is certainly part of what it takes for a society to stay together.

But on the other hand, I really don't want to see crosses everywhere I go.  As many of you know from my other posts, I am generally not kind to religion.  I respect your right to believe the way you do, but don't expect me to go along with it if it doesn't make sense to me!

I have seriously considered leaving this country.  It is definitely not moving in the direction that I want it too.  But with that said, the founding fathers, were my kind of people.  When I read Jefferson or Franklin, I know what these men wanted for us and for the country, and I believe in their ideals.  Some of you might not be so comfortable with them!  They were revolutionaries and mistrustfull of government and the abuse of power.

I would say if they were alive today they would start up a revolution again.  All the things they wrote into the consitution to prevent the country from going down the wrong road have been ignored or side-stepped by the politicians who have held office since.

I don't think most of you have any idea of what freedom means!  You may think you are free, but you are not.  Your money is a debt instrument, not a store of value.  Your government is not protecting you or your way of life, allowing foreign powers to steal away our industries and our jobs.  You are being played for fools, and all I'm trying to do is explain to you that you don't see what's going on.

It comes down to this: I love the America the founders envisioned.  By that standard I am a patriot and a true American.  I would only leave if I saw another country that adopted the ideals this one once had.  Freedom requires economic autonomy and respect for private property and intellectual property.  If you don't understand that, you really should get educated.  This country could be so much more than it is, and it is going in the wrong direction, faster than you think.

Crosses in Utah is the least of my concerns, it's so far away from the real issues that affect our lives, it's not worth the effort.  From that perspective I agree with Joe and Ted.  If it was people in Utak being affected it would be different, but if these are athiests from Texas and New Jersey, they should be worrried about the violations of the constitution in their back yard, and leave Utah to the people who live there.



 

[SPURSX3]

Rick, first off, who are YOU to say that ANY of us don't know about freedom?  I am sure we each no that there ARE pros and cons to are form of government, I am sure we all know that our country has done as much BAD as it has done as much Good.  What society has not in the history of our species?  You may not say it, but you make it sound as if there is some Utopia out there that we have fallen from.  Are you assuming that none of us know the history of our country?  Or is it that some knowledge in the market automatically makes you a certifide expert in the founding of our nation?  The Constitution does not include the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" - nor does it mention "Freedom of relgion", and yet it protects us the right to practice it:

First 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.


They can argue that the basis of our country was to be secular, however the reason for that was due to clergy (Catholic officials) holding powerful government offices around the world.  Many of the forefathers were of Christian faith in some form or fashion, they did not however like the tyranny that the "church" - and for the most part this was the Catholic Church - forced upon them directly or through government influence.  It was because of the tyranny that the Constitution was written protect us from being OVERRUN or being placed under thumb of ANY religion in this country.  Are the followers in Christianity really putting anybody "under thumb?"  Nobody is FORCED to become a Christian.  The crosses  used as a MEMORIAL seems to be more personal than tyrannical.  Arlington IS a good example to use Rick, Yes, there are crosses and stars there - but it is still a NATIONAL cemetary, and what department oversees that?  U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, it seems to me that if the first amendment did prohibit ANY government body from expressing religion, the VA should be a prime target for going against the first amendment in the first place, The Treasury could punished too for "In God We Trust", and "Dubya" should have been fined every time he mentioned "God" in a speech.  The point is, the expression of religion is legal, under no circumstances is ANYONE saying Christianity is the OFFICIAL religion of our country - which would be illegal.  The first amendment is designed to let the country NOT base laws on any particular religion, but to also allows freedom to practice religion without any one religion oppressing another.  It's makes level playing ground for any religion to work here basically.  The memorial - whether it be on cemetary grounds or not is just that - a memorial - it does not serve any other purpose; it is not a place of worship, it is not a political venue to persuade the people, it is not an office of taxation, etc it's a memorial, and as such should be allowed to honor the fallen in whatever manner they deemed respectfull and suitable.  If it is ok to allow religious symbols for the dead of those who sacrificed for our country, shouldn't the same right be given to those who died for the law of the land - local, county and state as well?  There IS NOTHING wrong with that IMO.  Here is a nice article to put things in perspective:

America's Unchristian Beginnings?
 
 

Gregory Koukl

Greg responds to an L.A. Times Op-Ed article by this title (sans question mark), subtitled "Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus."


There has been a lot of confusion on the issue of whether or not we' re a Christian nation, and I'm not exactly sure why. But it is hotly debated in our culture right now. The reason I say I'm not sure why is because the historical record is quite clear. I think that Christians, though, often make inappropriate, unfounded, or inaccurate applications of some of the information, and I want to speak to that in just a moment.
As to the faith content of those who were our Founding Fathers, there can be absolutely no confusion about the fact that virtually every single one of them shared a Christian, biblical world view. There is some question as to whether every single one of them held to all the orthodox teachings of classical Christianity; but it seems to me that there is very little question as to what their religious persuasions and world views were.

There was a piece in the L.A. Times on the third of this August on the Op-Ed page entitled "America's Unchristian Beginnings." It is subtitled "Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus." There are a couple things that trouble me about this article, the biggest thing is the word "most" in the subtitle. "Most of our Founding Fathers" apparently were deists, according to this person's assessment. This is a canard that's been tossed around even by some Christians who ought to know better. This piece was written by Steven Morris who is a professor of physics at L.A. Harbor College and he is also a member of the L.A.-based Atheists United.

Some might say, what does a physicist know about history? Just because he is a physicist doesn't mean that he can't have an accurate opinion about this particular issue. I take issue with his research. It' s simply bad.

He goes on to reply to the Christian Right, who he says is trying to rewrite the history of the United States in its campaign to force its view of religion on others. His approach is to quote seven different people: Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and Ben Franklin. His point is to quote these individuals who he thinks apparently are, first of all, Founding Fathers, and secondly, characteristic of the lot of them in rejection of Christianity and in acceptance of deism.

I am frustrated by this because it is characteristic of the way a lot of people want to treat this issue. They think that they can take names that we associate with that period and are well known, sift through their writings and find some things that they think are hostile to Christianity, and therefore conclude that not only these people are anti-Christian, but all of the rest of them are anti-Christian, as well.

It's an example of Steven Morris turning the exception into the rule. Since he can find what he thinks are seven different people that are important personalities during this period of time, who at some time in their lives may have written something that can be understood to be non-Christian, then that characterizes the whole group of them as deists, ergo the subtitle "Most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus."

Morris' sightings are simply specious. Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen, for example, were in no- wise intellectual architects of the Constitution. Rather, they were firebrands of the Revolution. Was that important? Sure, they made an important contribution, but they weren't Founding Fathers. Period.

Now, as for Washington, Sam Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. If one looks at the literature of the time--the personal correspondence, the public statements, the biographies--he will find that this literature is replete with quotations by these people contrary to those that Mr. Morris very carefully selected for us. Apparently, he also very carefully ignored other important thinkers: John Witherspoon, for example, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry. All individuals who were significant contributors to the architectural framework of this country and who had political philosophies that were deeply influenced by Christianity, especially Calvinism.

But there is another thing that he completely overlooks in this analysis. Something that makes a mockery out of his analysis, and also answers the question quite simply and directly and in the affirmative for us about the Christian beginnings of our Republic.

This issue is actually very simple. The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. In other words, Founding Fathers refers directly to a very specific group of people (although I think you could be a little bit flexible and include a little wider group of people). Those who intellectually contributed to the Constitutional convention were the Founding Fathers. If we want to know whether our Founding Fathers were Christian or deists, one needs only to look at the individual religious convictions of those 55 delegates of the Constitutional convention.

How would we know that? We look at their church membership primarily, and also at their correspondence. Back then church membership was a big deal. In other words, to be a member of a church back then, it wasn't just a matter of sitting in the pew or attending once in a while. This was a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.

Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

To heap more fuel on the fire of my point, of the 55, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed (which make up 45 of the 55) were Calvinists, for goodness sake! In other words, these weren't just Christians, these were among the most extreme and doctrinally strict Christians around. Of the 55 delegates, virtually all of them were deeply committed Christians. Only three were deists. Even Franklin is equivocal because, though not an orthodox Christian, Franklin seems to have abandoned his deism early in life and moved back towards his Puritan roots. Indeed, it was 81 year old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was actually the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Constitutional convention. We have his appeal on record thanks to James Madison who took copious notes of the whole proceeding. His appeal contained no less than four direct quotations from Scripture. This does not sound like a man who was hostile to the Christian religion.

But this assessment doesn' t answer a more fundamental question: Are we a Christian nation? It seems clear that most of the Founders were Christians, not deists. But what about the question "Are we a Christian nation?" I think the answer depends entirely on what is meant by "Christian nation."

Are the theological doctrines of the Bible explicitly woven into the fabric of government? The answer is no. The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely prohibits such a thing. However, was the Biblical view of the world--the existence of God who active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights--was that the philosophic foundation of the Constitution? The answer is, without question, yes. The American community presumed a common set of values which were principally biblical. Further, the founding principles of the Republic were clearly informed by biblical truth.

A question can be asked at this point. Given the fact that most of the Founding Fathers--either those who are among the 55 delegates to the Constitutional convention or those outside of that number who were significant architects to the Constitution--were in fact biblical Christians and had sworn to that, and those that weren't were at least deeply moved and informed by a biblical moral view, one could ask the question, "So what? What does that have to do with anything today?"

I think that Christians may be a little out of line on this part of the issue, and I want to bring it into balance. Regarding the question, Is America a Christian nation?, if we mean by that that Christianity is the official, doctrinal religion of this country, the answer is of course not. That's prohibited by the exclusion clause of the First Amendment. If we mean that we were founded on Biblical principles by Christian men who had a deep commitment to the Scriptures by and large, the answer is certainly yes.

But then the question is, So what? How does what happened 200 years ago influence what is going on now? I actually have two points to make.

This fact doesn' t give Christians a trump card in the debate on public policy, in my view. Just because Christians were here first doesn't mean that their views should continue to prevail. Within the limits of the Constitution, the majority rules. That's the way this government works, ladies and gentlemen.

But let's not rewrite history to relegate those with religious convictions to the sidelines. That is the other half of this. The privilege of citizenship remains the same for all despite their religious convictions. Everyone gets a voice and everyone gets a vote. Christians don't have a leg up on everyone else because we were here first. Even the Christians who wrote the rules didn't give us that liberty. They didn't give us that leg up. They made the playing ground even for everyone, every ideology, every point of view.

Having said that, though, in writing the First Amendment and the non-establishment clause, they did not have in view this current idea of separation--that the state is thoroughly secular and not informed at all by religious values, especially Christian. This view that is popular now was completely foreign, not just to the Founders, but to the first 150 years of American political thought. It's absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. In fact, they were friendly to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, and encouraged its education and expression.

As to the durability of this tradition, I suggest that anyone who has any doubts about this simply read Lincoln's second inaugural address, which is etched into the marble of the northern wall of the Lincoln Memorial. Go there and read it. Face Lincoln, turn right, and there it is. It contains no less than three or four biblical references.

After that you can reflect on Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863. It begins this way: "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions [By golly, how did that get in there?] in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord."

I think that pretty much settles it.
 

Like I said, it's all BS, the thought of tearing down a memorial because of these idiots is upsetting to say the least.

[Joe Vancil]

GREAT ARTICLE, SpursX3.  That is *EXACTLY* on point as to how I feel about the issue.

And it's also how I think most of the country feels about the issue.  We don't want organized prayer in our public schools, but we think that folks arguing about crosses along the highway are fanatical nuts.  We don't want a law mandating Christianity, but we object to being told that we can't put the 10 Commandments in a courthouse.  We don't want the Bible being one of our schools textbooks, but we don't see a problem with a Nativity scene in the public square.

Most of the folks here seem to think ORGANIZED RELIGION is a bad and evil thing.  And yet, many folks seem to think the ideals of religion aren't bad ideals.  I pose the possibility that the problem folks have isn't organized RELIGION, but ORGANIZED religion.

How long until we see that the problem that most of us have right now isn't organized ATHEISM, but ORGANIZED atheism?

I pose this possibility:  if there were an atheist highway patrolman, whose family objected to a cross being put up in his memory, MOST EVERY CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY, Christian or not, would agree that his family's wishes should override any "policy" of putting up a memorial.  There wouldn't even be an argument.

So why is there an argument against doing something APPRECIATED by the families?

It's because some people think they know better the "right" thing to do, and appoint themselves, rather than their vote, the protectors of our freedoms.

Put up a resolution that allows for a cross or other marker to be placed up as a memorial for vote, and that resolution will pass - overwhelmingly.  Put up a resolution that *REQUIRES* a *CROSS* to be placed up as a memorial for vote, and that resolution will *FAIL* - OVERWHELMINGLY.  Why?  Because the first is an EXERCISE of freedom, while the latter is a RESTRICTION of freedom.

You know, I'm wondering why this hasn't been challenged so blatantly before.  Is it because there are tons of these oppressed atheistic highway patrolmen?  Or is it because generally, these highway patrolmen are Christian (or at the least, Christian-friendly)?  Is it, perhaps, that folks who believe in no higher power than themselves place themselves so high in priority that it is pointless to "waste" their lives serving others, and therefore don't choose professions like being a member of the highway patrol?

Our founding fathers didn't just envision a country of RELIGIOUS freedom.  They envisioned a country of *FREEDOM*, and most specifically freedom from TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY.  One person cannot outvote two in the system our founding fathers set in place.  This is why most of the power in our country is placed in the hands of Congress rather than in the judges or the President.

You see, the founding fathers KNEW about the tyranny of the minority.  They had a king enforcing a religion.  So they prohibited the masses from forcing the most egregious things, but established that the masses were to rule - even to the point that the masses could change the rules.  They intended for people to LIVE BY the ideals presented in the Constitution - not HIDE BEHIND them.

Oh, yes - if the founding fathers were alive today, they'd organize another Revolution.  They'd fight against taxation without representation - as corporations control Congress rather than the American voters.  They'd fight against foreign entanglements - and not only such as the things as Iraq involvement without a declaration of war, but our membership in the United Nations, as well.  And they'd fight against the tyranny of judicial legislation - courts setting policy, with judges sitting like kings, making the laws as they go.

And in the founding fathers' new America, they'd clarify the difference between "the freedom to" and "the freedom from."

Trust me - I don't think the atheistic minority would appreciate the founding fathers' returning of America to its orginal vision.  Instead, they believe the founding fathers' would be "enlightened" by the "new ideas" of today.  They believe that the founding fathers' were "forward-thinking intellectuals."  They weren't.  They were common folk - the same kind of common folk that this type turns their noses up at today.  The founding fathers would be smart enough to say, "Fine.  You're free to think that.  So let's put it to a vote, and be done with it."  Why?  Because the founding fathers understood the strength of the country was in relating to the common man and his beliefs.  And organized Atheism is out-of-touch with those.

 

[WayOutWest]

Because the founding fathers understood the strength of the country was in relating to the common man and his beliefs.  And organized Atheism is out-of-touch with those.

I pretty much agree with most of what you posted but the above two lines show the problem I have with the religious right today.  You seem to think YOU know what the common man's beliefs are while the Atheist do not.  That is the typical line of thinking from a religious mind, WE know what's better or good for YOU.  We know that so well that we should control you is just a few steps away.  Read about it, seen it, been there done that.

The average Joe cares more about his freedom to practice his/her religion moreso than his religion being the one practiced in the country today.  That may or may not be the absolute truth but the poles taken durring the 10 commandments in court drama showed that to be the case.  Their surveys, there was more than one done by more than one news agency, may or may not be 100% accurate but at least there is an attempt there to find out rather than just proclaiming the "Christians are out of touch".

Is it so hard to understand it's not so much what's going on today that's concerning the "non-believers" but where it COULD go.  We are starting down the path we've seen before.  It may seem that the "majority" of the country is behind this Taliban like influence of our gov, but the reality is it's a MINORITY that's pushing their agenda.  A very focused, active and influencial minority but a minority non the less.

Not to mention with Islam being the fastest growing religion on earth, YOU may find yourself out of touch with the common man.  I am not very well versed on Islam or Judiasm (sic?) because they have never tried to conquer me nor my ancestors.  The only reason I know anything about christianity is because it was shoved down MY throat at the point of "eternal damnation" and down the throats of my ancestors at the point of a gun.  In the words of Public Enemy "haters taught hate".

[Guest_spursfan101]

I'm generally against roadside markers marking the dead. In Texas, we have oodles of them, and I just don't see the point marking the spot where people have passed on.

The lawsuit is BS though, hope it fails.

[Reality]

My only comment would be that the appropriate symbol be errected if a Jewish, Muslim, etc... officer fell in the line of duty.

I can't help but visualize....

If W.O.W. took a trip to Utah and an unfortunate accident occured, could a picture of Kobe be put up?

Or if a local Fan had a similar accident, a Karl Malone picture?

Would the taxpayers and the USP put them up?

[rickortreat]

I think Joe makes some very good points, including this one:

Because the founding fathers understood the strength of the country was in relating to the common man and his beliefs. And organized Atheism is out-of-touch with those.

There can be no doubt that the founders belived in a God.  Many of them referrred to God in their writings and believed that God was guiding them in their quest to bring the United States into being.

Remember, Episcopalians, are the American version of the Church of England, and the head of the English Church is the Monarch.  It was believed at the time that the King was the King by divine right.  Therefore, for Americans to preach revolution meant to some that they were going against God!

It all comes down to how you belive in God, doesn't it?  Which, IMO is why they wrote the clause prohibiting the establishement of a state religion.

These men were preoccupied with Tyranny in all it's forms.  Anyone who opposses tyrany and supports freedom is definitely for the common man.  

The Atheists, with this lawsuit are projecting an extreme view- no reference to religion on public land.  But then again so is the UHP by choosing a religious symbol- a cross to memorialize the death of officers.

Remember, these aren't grave sites.  These men are interred in different places.  This is just a public marker, a big ostentatious mark along a public highway.

Again, It's important to understand why the Atheists think this is an abuse.  Had the UHP choses a star or other symbol- a non religious symbol the atheists couldn't have a complaint.

IMO, they're right to complain.  From a consititutional standpoint, getting in the habit of using a religious symbol like the cross on a highway marker is about to a public display of religion as you can get.  And that implies the establishment of a religion, if not in the state's laws, at least in the exective branch's behaviour when it comes to their dead.

Why did these UHP authorities decide to use a cross?  They knew damn well that it was a religious symbol, and their lying in the press about it!  Isn't bearing false witness a sin?  Aren't they actually hypocrites for denying that using the cross was motivated by their religious belief?

 :bs:

The Consitution is actaully on the athiests side in this.  The appearance of the 10 commandments on a judicial building- the Supreme Court no less, is technically unconstitutional.  Along with the Roman Numerals marking the number of each commandment.  

So why are these things there?  Becasue the architect and the people who built the place believed in the bible and the authorities that contracted them also were belivers, and they wanted the authority of "God's right and wrong" behind their laws.

Every session in Congrees starts with a plea to the almighty.  When people give testimony, they place their hand on the bible.  The phrase in God we trust is on our money.

It's there because most of us feel good about it.  I personally belive in God, so I'm fine with it.  Even though I'm not a Christian, I can't have a problem with the 10 commandments wherever they came from!  Is there a commanment in that 10 that you don't agree with, or see as being essential to a civil society?

Rick, first off, who are YOU to say that ANY of us don't know about freedom? I am sure we each no that there ARE pros and cons to are form of government, I am sure we all know that our country has done as much BAD as it has done as much Good. What society has not in the history of our species? You may not say it, but you make it sound as if there is some Utopia out there that we have fallen from. Are you assuming that none of us know the history of our country? Or is it that some knowledge in the market automatically makes you a certifide expert in the founding of our nation? The Constitution does not include the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" - nor does it mention "Freedom of relgion", and yet it protects us the right to practice it:

I am the one to say it because I understand what freedom really is.  I understand the gift the founders led us to through a fight.  A lot of common people died so we could have this government.  I feel like we are corrupting their memory when we don't live true to what they fought for.

Thou shalt not steal is a good one.  The governent used to back our money by gold and silver, they even wrote an act codifying this:  http://tinyurl.com/9c35g

It is my assertion that the government is stealing from each and every one of us.  This is not what those who fought for us died for.  

Confiscation of private property was also considered stealing, until the Supreme Court came along and ruled that New London Conneticut could use emminent domain  to force a private property owner to sell his home so a developer could build hs big waterfront project!

Everyone of those Justices swore an oath to uphold the consitituion and this is what they do?  May God have mercy on their soul, because for what they've done I can't!

I say this becasue I don't think you get it. If you did, you'd be pissed off about it as I am, and then maybe we could take the country back together!  

[Ted]

The point is any religious symbol on public land violates the principal of separation between religion.

That is not fact. That is interpretation. Extremely broad interpretation.

[SPURSX3]

I think Joe makes some very good points, including this one:

Because the founding fathers understood the strength of the country was in relating to the common man and his beliefs. And organized Atheism is out-of-touch with those.

There can be no doubt that the founders belived in a God.  Many of them referrred to God in their writings and believed that God was guiding them in their quest to bring the United States into being.

Remember, Episcopalians, are the American version of the Church of England, and the head of the English Church is the Monarch.  It was believed at the time that the King was the King by divine right.  Therefore, for Americans to preach revolution meant to some that they were going against God!

It all comes down to how you belive in God, doesn't it?  Which, IMO is why they wrote the clause prohibiting the establishement of a state religion.

These men were preoccupied with Tyranny in all it's forms.  Anyone who opposses tyrany and supports freedom is definitely for the common man.  

The Atheists, with this lawsuit are projecting an extreme view- no reference to religion on public land.  But then again so is the UHP by choosing a religious symbol- a cross to memorialize the death of officers.

Remember, these aren't grave sites.  These men are interred in different places.  This is just a public marker, a big ostentatious mark along a public highway.

Again, It's important to understand why the Atheists think this is an abuse.  Had the UHP choses a star or other symbol- a non religious symbol the atheists couldn't have a complaint.

IMO, they're right to complain.  From a consititutional standpoint, getting in the habit of using a religious symbol like the cross on a highway marker is about to a public display of religion as you can get.  And that implies the establishment of a religion, if not in the state's laws, at least in the exective branch's behaviour when it comes to their dead.

Why did these UHP authorities decide to use a cross?  They knew damn well that it was a religious symbol, and their lying in the press about it!  Isn't bearing false witness a sin?  Aren't they actually hypocrites for denying that using the cross was motivated by their religious belief?

 :bs:

The Consitution is actaully on the athiests side in this.  The appearance of the 10 commandments on a judicial building- the Supreme Court no less, is technically unconstitutional.  Along with the Roman Numerals marking the number of each commandment.  

So why are these things there?  Becasue the architect and the people who built the place believed in the bible and the authorities that contracted them also were belivers, and they wanted the authority of "God's right and wrong" behind their laws.

Every session in Congrees starts with a plea to the almighty.  When people give testimony, they place their hand on the bible.  The phrase in God we trust is on our money.

It's there because most of us feel good about it.  I personally belive in God, so I'm fine with it.  Even though I'm not a Christian, I can't have a problem with the 10 commandments wherever they came from!  Is there a commanment in that 10 that you don't agree with, or see as being essential to a civil society?

Rick, first off, who are YOU to say that ANY of us don't know about freedom? I am sure we each no that there ARE pros and cons to are form of government, I am sure we all know that our country has done as much BAD as it has done as much Good. What society has not in the history of our species? You may not say it, but you make it sound as if there is some Utopia out there that we have fallen from. Are you assuming that none of us know the history of our country? Or is it that some knowledge in the market automatically makes you a certifide expert in the founding of our nation? The Constitution does not include the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" - nor does it mention "Freedom of relgion", and yet it protects us the right to practice it:

I am the one to say it because I understand what freedom really is.  I understand the gift the founders led us to through a fight.  A lot of common people died so we could have this government.  I feel like we are corrupting their memory when we don't live true to what they fought for.

Thou shalt not steal is a good one.  The governent used to back our money by gold and silver, they even wrote an act codifying this:  http://tinyurl.com/9c35g

It is my assertion that the government is stealing from each and every one of us.  This is not what those who fought for us died for.  

Confiscation of private property was also considered stealing, until the Supreme Court came along and ruled that New London Conneticut could use emminent domain  to force a private property owner to sell his home so a developer could build hs big waterfront project!

Everyone of those Justices swore an oath to uphold the consitituion and this is what they do?  May God have mercy on their soul, because for what they've done I can't!

I say this becasue I don't think you get it. If you did, you'd be pissed off about it as I am, and then maybe we could take the country back together!

Rick I think WE ALL understand whats going on in our country.  Not everyone of us is going to be as upset as your are, but it does not mean we are not upset about it or that it does not bother us.  We just don't make it sound as crazy as you do basically.  Like I said, we all know tha pros and cons, we all know right from wrong as well.  Your statement just makes it seem as if we are blind to all of this and take the freedoms of our country for granted.  I don't, I can't speak for the others, but I can only guess they appreciate our liberties.  

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, WOW, I've got problems with those two statements, too.  Those are two sentence fragments.  My writing has really gone south.

I agree that there is an agenda being pushed by the religious right.  I also agree that there's a big part of it that the average American wants nothing to do with.  However, the average American finds more in common with it than they do with the radical left, which is why we've seen the results we've seen in the last two major elections.

The next swing will be back to the other side.  The failure of the current government will make sure that a new one gets a chance.  But it's unlikely that that one will last for long, either.

Neither Democrat nor Republican philsophies represent the people anymore.  Both are too extremist.  So, therefore, it's easy to see when a radical fringe group - like organized Atheism - makes a statement, it doesn't represent the majority.

I can tell you this right now:  there are more members of the religious right than there are organized Atheists.  There are also more people whose beliefs are closer to the religious right than there are whose beliefs are closer to to organized Atheism.  How do I know that?  Because both Democratic and Republican parties try to pull in support from "semi-religious moderates."  The Democrats do this by making sure their candidate ISN'T a card-carrying Atheist.  The Republicans try to appeal to the "religious values" that their candidate, often a member of the religious right, shares with the "average American."

The Democratic party could be a juggernaut in America if it could get rid of the ultra-liberal, ultra-atheistic fringe elements.  The problem is that it would take YEARS out-of-power to accomplish that.  Zell Miller sees that, and talks about that in "A National Party No More."

How many people do you think would vote for a candidate if this were his Party's agenda:

1)  Leave Roe vs. Wade alone
2)  Stop exporting of American jobs
3)  Reduce taxes/eliminate pork
4)  Implement National Health Care
5)  Make firearms available, but require licensing
6)  Spend more money on education
7)  Reduce foreign entanglements
 Appoint judges who do not legislate from the bench
9)  Eliminate inheritance tax

The Democrats fail on 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9.
The Republicans fail on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.

This means if your priorities are 5, 8, and 9 - you should vote Republican.
If your priorities are 1 and 4 - you should vote Democrat.

But if a moderate party promised *JUST* 2, 3, 6, and 7 - which BOTH parties fail on (or somewhat support) - they could get a great deal of support.

That's right;  if your priorities are stop exporting American jobs, reduce taxes and eliminate pork, and reduce foreign entanglements, YOU DON'T HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE.  You're screwed.  Yet if you ask EVERYONE on this board, I'll bet good money that those three things are three things they want to see happen.

Am I right, folks on the board?  Is there ANY ONE of these 9 things at the top that you disagree with?  And if so, to what level?  (I'll bet money that the "most controversial" three will be 4, 5, and 9.)

Better yet - let's do this line-item veto style.  You've got a line-item veto.  Which of the 9 items above would you veto?

Personally, I'd veto line-item 7.  America is a world power, and therefore, a world leader.  It can't just "sit on the sideline," whether it be trying to act against terrorism, or joining in the United Nations.  Foreign entanglements come with the territory.

 

[Joe Vancil]

Rick,

Oh, I agree that the cross was chosen because of its religious significance.

And I also believe that had the country been predominantly Jewish, they'd have chosen a Star of David.  

I'm upset that folks would try to get away with such an obvious lie.  Oh, don't get me wrong - I understand why they tried it.  They're thinking that if they say the cross is a religious marker that they're making the case for the atheists.  They're running in fear from the courts.

I see no problem - no right being enfringed upon - by choosing a religious marker when most people acknowledge that religion.  And, like I said before, if a family DIDN'T want that marker, I don't think anyone would object to them not having it, or a different marker being placed.

*INTENT*, hard to judge as it is, is what this entire mess is about.  If the INTENT is to found a national religion, then Consititutionally, this can't happen.  Yet if the intent is to acknowledge the beliefs of the men who died, then there is no Constitutional entanglement.

And looking at intent, the atheists are doing more toward enforcing a belief than those who placed the marker are.

 

[Ted]

"IMO, they're right to complain. From a consititutional standpoint, getting in the habit of using a religious symbol like the cross on a highway marker is about to a public display of religion as you can get. And that implies the establishment of a religion, if not in the state's laws, at least in the exective branch's behaviour when it comes to their dead."

A public display of religion implies the establishment of a state religion? Seems like a huge gap in logic to me.

"Why did these UHP authorities decide to use a cross?  They knew damn well that it was a religious symbol, and their lying in the press about it!  Isn't bearing false witness a sin?  Aren't they actually hypocrites for denying that using the cross was motivated by their religious belief?"

I don't think they're lying. Of course the cross is a religious symbol. But it has been used as a memorial or graveside marker for centuries, so long and so universally, IMO, that when used in such a manner, it takes on a different meaning than a cross in a Christian church.

"The appearance of the 10 commandments on a judicial building- the Supreme Court no less, is technically unconstitutional."

No, not "technically"—that implies that somewhere in the Constitution it says, "the ten commandments shall not appear on a judicial building." The Constitution says nothing of the sort. Again, you are superimposing one interpretation as fact. The Constitution is a written document, it is on record. It is not some blob of putty you can shape and form into whatever you want it to be.

"Is there a commanment in that 10 that you don't agree with, or see as being essential to a civil society?"

I agree with you totally Rick, especially the one about having no other Gods before him. :rofl: Is there a teaching of Jesus Christ that you see as damaging to society?

"I am the one to say it because I understand what freedom really is.  I understand the gift the founders led us to through a fight.  A lot of common people died so we could have this government.  I feel like we are corrupting their memory when we don't live true to what they fought for."

You and I agree that we are corrupting their memory. Just not on how we're doing it.

"Confiscation of private property was also considered stealing, until the Supreme Court came along and ruled that New London Conneticut could use emminent domain  to force a private property owner to sell his home so a developer could build hs big waterfront project!"

I agree with you completely here. This ruling is a travesty and it truly frightens me. Did you happen to see which justices were in the majority?

[WayOutWest]

My only comment would be that the appropriate symbol be errected if a Jewish, Muslim, etc... officer fell in the line of duty.

I can't help but visualize....

If W.O.W. took a trip to Utah and an unfortunate accident occured, could a picture of Kobe be put up?

Or if a local Fan had a similar accident, a Karl Malone picture?

Would the taxpayers and the USP put them up?

I KNOW a fair weather fan CANNOT comprehend this, my alligance is to the Lakers, not Kobe/Shaq/Magic/Kareem/Wilt/West/Mikam.

Plus I would request a solid Amethyst (sic?) and Gold monument like this:

[Ted]

WoW, what is that symbol?