It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


But the car is on "public" property. Essentially, a cross decal on the rear window of a car is simply a mobile version of the cross on the side of the road.

ETA: However, I am glad to see you are consistent with your view of anti-religious symbols being prohibited as well. Many are not.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by WTFover]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover


But the car is on "public" property. Essentially, a cross decal on the rear window of a car is simply a mobile version of the cross on the side of the road.

ETA: However, I am glad to see you are consistent with your view of anti-religious symbols being prohibited as well. Many are not.



The difference is that the car is not sponsored by the state.

If government vehicles (for example state trooper patrol cars) had crosses on them, that would indeed violate the Constitution, because the state would be "establishing" or showing preference for a particular religion.

However, what you put on your own personal vehicle is entirely your own business, provided it does not violate local obscenity laws.


In other words, the government (at any level) is not allowed to show a preference for or against any particular religion.

While I disagree with the crosses being removed (because I think it is a harmless gesture), the argument that they are unconstitutional is completely solid. Perhaps the local government can find a more suitable non-denominational way to commemorate the fallen state troopers.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The families have the right to remember their fallen family members in a way that the see fit. The state does have an underlying obligation to provide for the memorial of those that did die in service to their country. The problem with the State (government) suggesting that the crosses violate the seperation of state is that the government is disallowing freedom of religion and denying the rights of the fallen. The meer suggestion that the government has a right to infringe on religuos fredom is in contempt of the US constitution. At what point does the government decide that it has the sole right to search and seisure of religuous paraphernalia on any and all federal and government land? These are serious times and lines are being crossed. How much longer will wait in the shadows, how much longer will we allow the subordination of our beliefs and rights?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Why don't we just allow any belief systems to erect any and all memorials, as long as they are not hazards?
Why NO religion.
Why not ANY religion or belief system welcome?
I just don't get it.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
well what the MSM fails to say is that the atheists started this by saying "the crosses violate the establishment clause" so much for god and country. the hole story can be read at salt lake city tribune search UHP, Aug 19 2010, well i hope our AG takes this all the way to the S.C. some will say but if they would have left off the bee hive, well how would you that a trooper died



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by CestLaVie
 
well why not flags or anthems or other things that show your belief, this nation was built on the founding fathers belief in GOD, they all did. Ben Franklin more than once pointed this by saying "gentlemen it is time for GOD to lead us" see thoughts and memoirs of Ben Franklin as well as other references, thy did not feel that there should be a national church or religion. nor do i, but when you start telling how one should then you are now better than a tyrant, or a dictator ship.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 

What do you think of this view,
"When one is told what to do it is a dictatorship, when one is told what not to do it is a dictatorship?"

IMO,There is altogether too much telling what to do and not to do, I miss common sense myself !
Common sense would say "Let people put up reasonable monuments, if you want a different one, put up your own."
Common sense would tell a community when a plethora of differing monuments becomes unsightly or hazardous.
Common sense says to each person that it is beneficial to let others express themselves respectfully.
Common sense tells people when to be quiet, and when to live and let live.
No one is required to worship at these monuments, nor are they labeled as religious symbols, they are a common symbol placed at the site of a death. I know atheists who still place a cross on a pets grave, or at a highway death site. They could put up a circle, a triangle or a star, I would not fault them.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I can't wait for some clown to try to remove any of the markers that top the graves of our troops in Arlington and actually get some fool of an activist judge to go along with it. That's Government property. It allows all types of religious symbols atop these military graves.
How do those who think this is right and unconstitutional in Utah rectify their idea with Arlington and every other US military cemetery in the world?

Zindo

edit for terrible grammar!




[edit on 8/21/2010 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CestLaVie
I miss common sense myself !
Common sense would say...
Common sense would tell...
Common sense says...
Common sense tells...


I fear there is more common sense in your post, than remains in the entire country.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join