ridiculous, a group of jackasses sues to remove crosses from troopers death sites

[Againsheila]

Federal appeals court says highways' crosses are unconstitutional - CNN.com

fucking ridiculous. a complete waste of our judicial system's time. I hope the family of the troopers killed sues if/when the crosses are actually removed.

If the crosses were on private land, this would be a non-issue. As it stands, I doubt any counter lawsuit would gain any traction.

I respect the desire to honor fallen state troopers, however it is a little ignorant to assume they were all Christians or even religious. Do we specifically know that these troopers would want a memorial to them to be an expression of religion? Why not choose a badge?

Look at it another way: have you ever seen the cemeteries of the fallen American Soldiers on Normandy Beach?

Did anyone ever insist that a Jewish soldier had to be buried under a cross headstone? Would you want to be buried under a Star of David (assuming you are a Christian)?

Instead of counter-suing (which is a loser case), a rational solution is for someone to donate private land along the highway and move the memorial.

Instead of going into histrionics over the matter, why not start a fund and organization to buy the land and do such a thing?

Private land is no guarantee they won't go after it. My brother's cross was on private
land, with permission of the owners and they ripped it apart, broke his picture frame, ripped up his picture and trashed the place.....the hatred of Christianity knows no bounds...

They've even taken out the crosses at the veteran's cemetery where my Dad was buried and put in headstones instead, which cost a whole lot more money, btw.

I believe putting crosses over graves to be about as religious as a Christmas tree, but, there ya go...

 

[Rozman]

Tell that to the ACLU,if you're a Christian watch out.

 

[Rozman]

It's kinda sad really.Things that were OK growing up,things that really weren't a big deal,things that really didn't or shouldn't get people nuts are now,well making people nuts.You say good morning to someone and they go running for a lawyer because their rights may have been violated.

 

[ConHog]

You gotta know it's just a matter of time before Women or men for that matter who have a Crucifix necklace showing under their shirt will be told to either button up or remove it.

That would be equally illegal.

You guys really have a difficult time with the first amendment, don't you?

No it is YOU who don't understand the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


That means the crosses stay

 

[Immanuel]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

Headstones are more expensive than crosses. That's the simple answer. Require them to be headstones, and where does the money come from? Ya wanna bet they just go away? Yep, no memorial at all, that's what's gonna happen.....

Those who are against the crosses don't care if they are put up by private or public funds, they will still rip them down, as our family found out personally.

Do I sound bitter? Only because I am...my brother, our family deserved better.

 

[chanel]

I posted this the other day. If the troopers or the families were opposed, then take them down. But these were outside agitators. Again. The cross was declared a "secular symbol" by the legislature. Just as many have done with Christmas trees.

 

[ConHog]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

Piss off. Anyone who sacrificed a family member in service to this country should get any memorial service they wish paid for in full by the government.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

Headstones are more expensive than crosses. That's the simple answer. Require them to be headstones, and where does the money come from? Ya wanna bet they just go away? Yep, no memorial at all, that's what's gonna happen.....

Those who are against the crosses don't care if they are put up by private or public funds, they will still rip them down, as our family found out personally.

Do I sound bitter? Only because I am...my brother, our family deserved better.

Except, I did not suggest a headstone on the side of the road.

I suggested the headstone at his gravesite. What the state puts up on the side of the road does not need to contain any religious symbols at all... but don't mistake me, I have no problem with the crosses.

The only issue being this stupid lawsuit.

Immie

 

[Missourian]

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

We do know that it wasn't the families of the fallen Troopers that brought the suit.

Would this be acceptable?

Still a cross, and on government land.

This was the exact point I was making earlier. This is protected because the cross is viewed as this individual service member's expression of religion as it is his headstone.

What if he were Jewish and the policy was that everyone had to be buried under a cross?

Completely different.

I see nothing in the article that insinuates any of the fallen Troopers were Jewish, or atheist, or Muslim, so that's something of a red herring.

These are memorials to public servants that died in the line of duty.

As far as I know, there are no National Cemeteries for policemen so erecting a memorial where they fell is no different than putting a headstone in at Arlington, or the new Veteran's Cemetery outside Ft. Wood.

If a headstone with a cross is acceptable on one plot of public land, then a cross as a memorial is acceptable on a different plot of public land.

I suspect this will be overturned on appeal.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

Piss off. Anyone who sacrificed a family member in service to this country should get any memorial service they wish paid for in full by the government.

Piss on yourself, my friend. The families do not pay for those crosses on the side of the road.

No one has even claimed that families have requested the crosses.

These crosses are placed there by the state with or without the request of the families and my point in regards to that is that in one way or another we should recognize the service and sacrifices these men and women have given for their fellow countrymen. By all means, we should recognize them, if crosses are offensive then find something non-religious to honor these fallen heroes.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

You gotta know it's just a matter of time before Women or men for that matter who have a Crucifix necklace showing under their shirt will be told to either button up or remove it.

That would be equally illegal.

You guys really have a difficult time with the first amendment, don't you?

No it is YOU who don't understand the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


That means the crosses stay

Yeah, read the whole sentence. A memorial on state land is "establishment of religion". Choosing to be buried under the simple of your religion is "free exercise thereof".

These crosses weren't over grades. They were a group of private citizen's who deemed it a proper way to respect the sacrifices of state troopers on state land.

No one's right to practice religion has been hindered. The people who erected the memorial didn't own the land they put their memorial on. The people do.

That means you play be federal rules.

 

[geauxtohell]

We do know that it wasn't the families of the fallen Troopers that brought the suit.

Would this be acceptable?

Still a cross, and on government land.

This was the exact point I was making earlier. This is protected because the cross is viewed as this individual service member's expression of religion as it is his headstone.

What if he were Jewish and the policy was that everyone had to be buried under a cross?

Completely different.

I see nothing in the article that insinuates any of the fallen Troopers were Jewish, or atheist, or Muslim, so that's something of a red herring.

These are memorials to public servants that died in the line of duty.

As far as I know, there are no National Cemeteries for policemen so erecting a memorial where they fell is no different than putting a headstone in at Arlington, or the new Veteran's Cemetery outside Ft. Wood.

If a headstone with a cross is acceptable on one plot of public land, then a cross as a memorial is acceptable on a different plot of public land.

I suspect this will be overturned on appeal.

It's not a red herring. What if they were atheist or not even particularly religious? Without knowing the express wishes of the fallen, it's really not germane.

Memorials are different than headstones because headstones mark a body.

 

[geauxtohell]

Federal appeals court says highways' crosses are unconstitutional - CNN.com

fucking ridiculous. a complete waste of our judicial system's time. I hope the family of the troopers killed sues if/when the crosses are actually removed.

If the crosses were on private land, this would be a non-issue. As it stands, I doubt any counter lawsuit would gain any traction.

I respect the desire to honor fallen state troopers, however it is a little ignorant to assume they were all Christians or even religious. Do we specifically know that these troopers would want a memorial to them to be an expression of religion? Why not choose a badge?

Look at it another way: have you ever seen the cemeteries of the fallen American Soldiers on Normandy Beach?

Did anyone ever insist that a Jewish soldier had to be buried under a cross headstone? Would you want to be buried under a Star of David (assuming you are a Christian)?

Instead of counter-suing (which is a loser case), a rational solution is for someone to donate private land along the highway and move the memorial.

Instead of going into histrionics over the matter, why not start a fund and organization to buy the land and do such a thing?

Private land is no guarantee they won't go after it. My brother's cross was on private
land, with permission of the owners and they ripped it apart, broke his picture frame, ripped up his picture and trashed the place.....the hatred of Christianity knows no bounds...

They've even taken out the crosses at the veteran's cemetery where my Dad was buried and put in headstones instead, which cost a whole lot more money, btw.

I believe putting crosses over graves to be about as religious as a Christmas tree, but, there ya go...

If the state removed a cross from private property, you should sue.

 

[Missourian]

This was the exact point I was making earlier. This is protected because the cross is viewed as this individual service member's expression of religion as it is his headstone.

What if he were Jewish and the policy was that everyone had to be buried under a cross?

Completely different.

I see nothing in the article that insinuates any of the fallen Troopers were Jewish, or atheist, or Muslim, so that's something of a red herring.

These are memorials to public servants that died in the line of duty.

As far as I know, there are no National Cemeteries for policemen so erecting a memorial where they fell is no different than putting a headstone in at Arlington, or the new Veteran's Cemetery outside Ft. Wood.

If a headstone with a cross is acceptable on one plot of public land, then a cross as a memorial is acceptable on a different plot of public land.

I suspect this will be overturned on appeal.

It's not a red herring. What if they were atheist or not even particularly religious? Without knowing the express wishes of the fallen, it's really not germane.

Memorials are different than headstones because headstones mark a body.

I understand what you are saying, but it is a red herring in that it is not germane to this lawsuit.

Public land is public land whether it is under a headstone or a memorial.

Pleasure debating with you as always, Geaux...hope all is well in your corner of our beloved state.

 

[ConHog]

That would be equally illegal.

You guys really have a difficult time with the first amendment, don't you?

No it is YOU who don't understand the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


That means the crosses stay

Yeah, read the whole sentence. A memorial on state land is "establishment of religion". Choosing to be buried under the simple of your religion is "free exercise thereof".

It is not, unless no other religeons are allowed to erect memorials, in that case it would be a violation; but that isn't the case.

These crosses weren't over grades. They were a group of private citizen's who deemed it a proper way to respect the sacrifices of state troopers on state land.

No one's right to practice religion has been hindered. The people who erected the memorial didn't own the land they put their memorial on. The people do.

That means you play be federal rules.

Mayhaps you should learn a little about military honors

Fallen Soldier Battle Cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



the cross means far more than "uh oh that's a god damned Christian"

 

[geauxtohell]

I see nothing in the article that insinuates any of the fallen Troopers were Jewish, or atheist, or Muslim, so that's something of a red herring.

These are memorials to public servants that died in the line of duty.

As far as I know, there are no National Cemeteries for policemen so erecting a memorial where they fell is no different than putting a headstone in at Arlington, or the new Veteran's Cemetery outside Ft. Wood.

If a headstone with a cross is acceptable on one plot of public land, then a cross as a memorial is acceptable on a different plot of public land.

I suspect this will be overturned on appeal.

It's not a red herring. What if they were atheist or not even particularly religious? Without knowing the express wishes of the fallen, it's really not germane.

Memorials are different than headstones because headstones mark a body.

I understand what you are saying, but it is a red herring in that it is not germane to this lawsuit.

Public land is public land whether it is under a headstone or a memorial.

Pleasure debating with you as always, Geaux...hope all is well in your corner of our beloved state.

Right. Public. Meaning anything that goes up there has to be representative of the whole and not just one group.

You too.

It's stormy on this end.

 

[Againsheila]

It's not a red herring. What if they were atheist or not even particularly religious? Without knowing the express wishes of the fallen, it's really not germane.

Memorials are different than headstones because headstones mark a body.

I understand what you are saying, but it is a red herring in that it is not germane to this lawsuit.

Public land is public land whether it is under a headstone or a memorial.

Pleasure debating with you as always, Geaux...hope all is well in your corner of our beloved state.

Right. Public. Meaning anything that goes up there has to be representative of the whole and not just one group.

You too.

It's stormy on this end.

So a memorial for a fallen trooper has to be representative of our whole nation? Did everybody die?

 

[ConHog]

It's not a red herring. What if they were atheist or not even particularly religious? Without knowing the express wishes of the fallen, it's really not germane.

Memorials are different than headstones because headstones mark a body.

I understand what you are saying, but it is a red herring in that it is not germane to this lawsuit.

Public land is public land whether it is under a headstone or a memorial.

Pleasure debating with you as always, Geaux...hope all is well in your corner of our beloved state.

Right. Public. Meaning anything that goes up there has to be representative of the whole and not just one group.

You too.

It's stormy on this end.

You are so wrong here. Are you suggesting that Arlington National Cemetery is unconstitutional?

By the way, are you aware that the Washington Monument, to name one, is FULL of Bible quotes? Should we tear that down to?

 

[chanel]

Don't give them any ideas conhog. Then again, the crack team at the ACLU is probably working on that right now.