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

[ConHog]

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?

Allowing crosses on state land to memorialize Fallen Troops does not Establish a State Religion. That is the flaw in the left constant attacks on anything Christian on state or Federal land. Our founders wanted to make sure the Government could not establish a state religion, they had NO problem with Any Religions symbolology on State of Federal land. As evidenced by references to god in our founding documents, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the supreme court.

This is why some of us on the right, even if we are not religious, Believe the Left hates Christianity. Because they have wrapped the meaning of the establishment clause to mean you can not have any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

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?

The families of the Slain Cops wanted Crosses, but the left cares nothing about their freedom of Religion.

That's ironic.

No one is impeding anyone's right to religion here. As I said, if this memorial wasn't on public land, it would be a non-issue.

Do you not understand that the first amendment does not mean religion can't be seen on public property?

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Just come out and say you hate Christianity, we'll all respect you more.

Sooo....someone who want's no governmental endorsement of religion on public land "hates Christianity"? Is that the argument you've been reduced to?

That implies he ever had anything more in his deck to play with.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Allowing crosses on state land to memorialize Fallen Troops does not Establish a State Religion. That is the flaw in the left constant attacks on anything Christian on state or Federal land. Our founders wanted to make sure the Government could not establish a state religion, they had NO problem with Any Religions symbolology on State of Federal land. As evidenced by references to god in our founding documents, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the supreme court.

This is why some of us on the right, even if we are not religious, Believe the Left hates Christianity. Because they have wrapped the meaning of the establishment clause to mean you can not have any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

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?

The families of the Slain Cops wanted Crosses, but the left cares nothing about their freedom of Religion.

Just out of curiosity, where did you see that the article stated the families of the slain officers wanted crosses? I missed that part.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Just come out and say you hate Christianity, we'll all respect you more.

Sooo....someone who want's no governmental endorsement of religion on public land "hates Christianity"? Is that the argument you've been reduced to?

I hate to push buttons on a sore subject, but it is no different than stating that anyone who supports civil unions for every couple because they want the government out of the marriage business hates gay people.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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

The crosses are paid for by the UHPA, a private association, and are place with the families' permission.

First erected in 1998, monuments were paid for with private funds and erected only with the permission of the troopers' families.​

Thank you but that is not the understanding I received from reading the OP. It appears to me that these crosses are being placed there by the State of Utah at the death of the officers.

If these crosses are requested by the families of the slain officers, then I must take back what I had stated before.

Immie

 

[Charles_Main]

C'mon, Sheila.

This is a completely separate issue. Someone vandalized your brother's memorial. THAT's a crime. It's much different then the state removing crosses due to the establishment clause.

In fact, if you had caught them, the state would prosecute them.

I am sorry someone inflicted additional emotional distress on your family, but that's a completely different situation than this one.

The people suing to remove the crosses have the same hate as those that trashed my brother's memorial, to anything even remotely Christian. Otherwise, it wouldn't mean anything to them.

Maybe and maybe not. I am really less concerned with the motives behind either side and more concerned with the legalities of the issue.

It's a pretty cut and dry issue.

If by Cut and dry you mean. The Establishment clause of the Constitution, and the guarantee of Freedom of Religion are, despite what courts have ruled, in fact NOT Violated by a Cross on state land. Period.

Yes I am aware courts have ruled the other way over and over, but that does not make it correct.

You called it cut and dry.

If we were really being cut and dry we would read the Establishment clause simply to mean the States and the Fed can not set up an official State Religion. If we were thinking cut and dry we would conclude that Nobodies Freedom of Religion is infringed upon just because of any Religions symbols on State or Federal Land.

In fact I would argue the Hundreds if not thousands of people who like to see them there are having their freedom of religion infringed upon. Having a cross on state land does not say hey the US is Christian and you better be too. It says hey the US lets any Religion put up any symbol they want on state or Federal land for a memorial. It says we are free to express ourselves not that we are forcing Christianity onto the minority. It is in a word ridicules.

However the Left does not think in a cut and dry way. That is how they can twist the meaning of the Establishment Clause and Freedom of Religion to mean Separation of church and state to the extreme.

We do not have to even have something from every religion represented for it to be Constitutionally legal. All we have to do is not infringe on anyone religions right to do it.

However the Left sees the Constitution as a foggy unclear document open to wide license when you interpret its words. They are wrong but it appears there is nothing stopping them. They claim the right to speculate wildly about what the founders really meant. When in the Past we always simply looked to their other writings, of which there are many, To get a clearer idea of their intentions. Now the left acts like all we have to go on is the words in the constitution. when nothing could be further from the truth. We ignore the fact the the very founders who wrote and signed the constitution in many cases went on to server this nation, and they had ALL KINDS of religious symbols all over state, and federal land and buildings. As I said for most of our history, and still as far as I know, a huge copy of the 10 Commandments hung in the chamber of the supreme court. after 200 + years of that history now courts have decided they can infringe on all of our rights by Banning any religious symbols on any state land.

It is truly sad.

 

[daveman]

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

The crosses are paid for by the UHPA, a private association, and are place with the families' permission.

First erected in 1998, monuments were paid for with private funds and erected only with the permission of the troopers' families.​

Thank you but that is not the understanding I received from reading the OP. It appears to me that these crosses are being placed there by the State of Utah at the death of the officers.

The OP has an agenda. They left out key facts to serve that agenda.

If these crosses are requested by the families of the slain officers, then I must take back what I had stated before.

Immie

 

[JScott]

My brother's cross was on private land, it didn't make a difference. These people are like rabid dogs...they want to wipe out anything they think is a sign of Christianity.

I don't want to delve too deeply into your personal tragedy, but who exactly removed your brother's cross and what was the reason behind it?

Considering the way it was trashed, hatred was behind it...we never found out who.....

It was on private property, we had the permission of the owners of the property...we set up a small memorial with a cross, his picture and a few personal items....it wasn't just torn up, it was trashed, as were the personal items and his picture.

I've heard to many atheists talking about ripping up crosses on the side of the road to believe it was anybody other than atheists....

I havent heard any stories like that. Im sure its happened but to assume it would be wrong.

 

[JScott]

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?

Allowing crosses on state land to memorialize Fallen Troops does not Establish a State Religion. That is the flaw in the left constant attacks on anything Christian on state or Federal land. Our founders wanted to make sure the Government could not establish a state religion, they had NO problem with Any Religions symbolology on State of Federal land. As evidenced by references to god in our founding documents, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the supreme court.

This is why some of us on the right, even if we are not religious, Believe the Left hates Christianity. Because they have wrapped the meaning of the establishment clause to mean you can not have any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

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?

The families of the Slain Cops wanted Crosses, but the left cares nothing about their freedom of Religion.

If thats what they wanted then great. Dont assume because if you assume, you lose.

 

[daveman]

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?

Allowing crosses on state land to memorialize Fallen Troops does not Establish a State Religion. That is the flaw in the left constant attacks on anything Christian on state or Federal land. Our founders wanted to make sure the Government could not establish a state religion, they had NO problem with Any Religions symbolology on State of Federal land. As evidenced by references to god in our founding documents, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the supreme court.

This is why some of us on the right, even if we are not religious, Believe the Left hates Christianity. Because they have wrapped the meaning of the establishment clause to mean you can not have any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

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?

The families of the Slain Cops wanted Crosses, but the left cares nothing about their freedom of Religion.

If thats what they wanted then great. Dont assume because if you assume, you lose.

It's what they wanted, and it's not an assumption.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Another shot fired in the Progressive Jihad to have Atheism declared the only official religion in America

 

[Againsheila]

I don't want to delve too deeply into your personal tragedy, but who exactly removed your brother's cross and what was the reason behind it?

Considering the way it was trashed, hatred was behind it...we never found out who.....

It was on private property, we had the permission of the owners of the property...we set up a small memorial with a cross, his picture and a few personal items....it wasn't just torn up, it was trashed, as were the personal items and his picture.

I've heard to many atheists talking about ripping up crosses on the side of the road to believe it was anybody other than atheists....

I havent heard any stories like that. Im sure its happened but to assume it would be wrong.

What, you weren't here when Huggy said we would happily lock Christians inside their churches and burn them alive?

I've heard atheists on message boards saying whenever they see homemade memorials of crosses on the side of the road they rip them out.

Sure, we're going to assume that the people who trashed my brothers memorial loved him, love Christians and all people equally.......