• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Court rules highway cross unconstitutional

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Pens1566 said:
Not so excellent dodge on the whole apples/bananas comparison ...
Click to expand...

Is the case about the memorials, or the use of religious symbols? If the latter it's quite apples to apples. Why do you hate the Constitution and people's freedom of religion so much?
 
Wow, using dead troopers to push your religious agenda onto others?
Disgusting. I am OK with small crosses, stars of David, etc for families to be able to commemorate.
 
xj0hnx said:
Is the case about the memorials, or the use of religious symbols? If the latter it's quite apples to apples. Why do you hate the Constitution and people's freedom of religion so much?
Click to expand...

Its the latter, and if you can't grasp the difference between it being on public vs private land I have to wonder who is constantly reminding you to breathe.
 
senseamp said:
Wow, using dead troopers to push your religious agenda onto others?
Disgusting. I am OK with small crosses, stars of David, etc for families to be able to commemorate.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA, just about what I expected regarding a Christian symbol from our head exploding pretending to support the Constitution loony leftist.

Pens1566 said:
Its the latter, and if you can't grasp the difference between it being on public vs private land I have to wonder who is constantly reminding you to breathe.
Click to expand...

Oh I grasp why you loony leftist rationalize it so you can pretend to still be for the 1st Amendment when it suits you.
 
Pens1566 said:
Another not so excellent dodge.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're really quite terrible at dodging.

If the memorials are ok, and the issue is with the fact that they are using Christian symbols, than you are in fact stepping on their 1st Amendment rights, why do you hate the Constitution and people's freedom of religion so much?
 
xj0hnx said:
Yes, you're really quite terrible at dodging.

If the memorials are ok, and the issue is with the fact that they are using Christian symbols, than you are in fact stepping on their 1st Amendment rights, why do you hate the Constitution and people's freedom of religion so much?
Click to expand...

Freedom of Religion is not Freedom of Practice. As stated many times by the SC and I brought up in the OT thread about the stupid bitch from Morocco trying to sue Disney over her Hijab.

There is a separation of state and religion. Should be and should always be. Even indirect ties can lead to direct ties.

If you want to display religious symbols do it privately. When you do it on public land, about government officials, and use government symbols with the religious symbols, you are giving indirect support of government affiliation to those symbols.
 
senseamp said:
Wow, using dead troopers to push your religious agenda onto others?
Disgusting. I am OK with small crosses, stars of David, etc for families to be able to commemorate.
Click to expand...

And what about those bills that use the dead to push a gun control agenda? Does that bother you too?
 
Seems pretty simple. Crosses on a public right of way aren't allowed because they amount to government endorsement of Christianity.
 
xj0hnx said:
Yes, you're really quite terrible at dodging.

If the memorials are ok, and the issue is with the fact that they are using Christian symbols, than you are in fact stepping on their 1st Amendment rights, why do you hate the Constitution and people's freedom of religion so much?
Click to expand...

Reading is fundamental ...
 
xj0hnx said:
Is the case about the memorials, or the use of religious symbols? If the latter it's quite apples to apples. Why do you hate the Constitution and people's freedom of religion so much?
Click to expand...
Wait, didn't the Judge rule that it wasn't a Constitutional Right? Do you also realize that this applies to other Religious Symbols such as the Star of David and the Crescent (or what ever thing the Moslems use)?

If this was a Private Toll Road the State or Feds couldn't say or do shit about it.
 
senseamp said:
Wow, using dead troopers to push your religious agenda onto others?
Disgusting.
Click to expand...
Give me a break, they aren't using that to push any religious agenda. It's a fucking memorial nothing more.

Seems to me that if these are paid for by a private group it's no different than Billboards on Freeways and I've seen religious Billboards before promoting a Church. Billboards are private property.
 
Throckmorton said:
Seems pretty simple. Crosses on a public right of way aren't allowed because they amount to government endorsement of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Well if they were paid for by the State then yes but if they were paid for by Private Groups it is no different than a Billboard IMO.
 
HumblePie said:
Freedom of Religion is not Freedom of Practice. As stated many times by the SC and I brought up in the OT thread about the stupid bitch from Morocco trying to sue Disney over her Hijab.
Click to expand...

This is so completely removed from the chick at Disney it isn't even funny. Having a memorial with a cross, or Star of David, or Muslim Crescent isn't "practicing religion". And it certainly isn't establishing a state sponsored religion.

There is a separation of state and religion.
Click to expand...
Is that in the Constitution?

If you want to display religious symbols do it privately. When you do it on public land, about government officials, and use government symbols with the religious symbols, you are giving indirect support of government affiliation to those symbols.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
 
I want to erect pentagrams and other Satanic symbols along lots of public highways. I think they should also have some kind of government symbols on them too. Would be cheap to do as long as it's public land. Of course no one would even think it was about promoting Satanism right? No one would have a problem with it would they?
 
Red Dawn said:
Give me a break, they aren't using that to push any religious agenda. It's a fucking memorial nothing more.

Seems to me that if these are paid for by a private group it's no different than Billboards on Freeways and I've seen religious Billboards before promoting a Church. Billboards are private property.
Click to expand...

Are these crosses on public property or on private property adjacent to the road like a billboard would be? You can put a big cross and crucify yourself on it if it's on your private property.
 
Red Dawn said:
Give me a break, they aren't using that to push any religious agenda. It's a fucking memorial nothing more.

Seems to me that if these are paid for by a private group it's no different than Billboards on Freeways and I've seen religious Billboards before promoting a Church. Billboards are private property.
Click to expand...

A little bit different, Billboards are (usually) on private land. These memorials are in the R.O.W. for the road, or public land.

Really if they wanted to do it the right way they could be like California and dedicate a small section of the highway to the officer. No religious symbols, just a road sign.
 
The judges also disregarded suggestions that since most of the deceased troopers were Mormon, where the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not uses the cross as a religious symbol, the highway memorials were merely symbols of death and did not promote a a particular faith.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, most of these troopers were Mormons not Christians and the Mormon Church doesn't even use the Cross as a religious symbol.
 
Last edited:
Red Dawn said:
Well if they were paid for by the State then yes but if they were paid for by Private Groups it is no different than a Billboard IMO.
Click to expand...

What if private groups paid to turn the White House into a Mosque where B-Rock The Islamic Shock Hussein Superallah Obama could be the Imam-in-Chief?
 
xj0hnx said:
This is so completely removed from the chick at Disney it isn't even funny. Having a memorial with a cross, or Star of David, or Muslim Crescent isn't "practicing religion". And it certainly isn't establishing a state sponsored religion.
Click to expand...

How so? You brought up the freedom of religion. Putting up a cross is a practice of a religion. Since you are the one that mention the association between these roadside crosses and religion, then I brought out the fact that freedom of religion does not grant the right to freedom of practice. The principles behind the two examples, while dissimilar in appearance, are the same. Also when you look up the word religious practice it is refering to a religious ritual. Are you tell me now the act of placing a cross at a memorial for the dead is not a religious ritual? Are you telling me that wearing a Hijab around is not a religious ritual? While the rituals are different, they are still both rituals. Rituals can be restricted by the government. End of story there.

As for the second sentence in that paragraph, you are right and wrong there. It is not a direct sponsorship or endorsement, but an indirect one. It would be akin to a business that does not belong to the BBB, but still puts the symbol on their door to drive in customers. Is the BBB endorsing them? or are they using an indirect endorsement? So what if the BBB finds out and asks them to take it off, aren't they entitled to that? Is that any different than the government finding out that someone is using them as an indirect endorsement and they are asking now for that to be removed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top