I’m an agnostic…

August 19th, 2010

…but this is ridiculous.

Memorial crosses erected along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers have been found unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

In order to avoid violating the Establishment clause, viagra sale search how about we use crosses for Christians, stars for Jews, crescent moons for Muslims, and middle fingers for Atheists?

Entry Filed under: Observations

15 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nick  |  August 19th, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Or atheists could use a pile of spaghetti

  • 2. Wendy  |  August 19th, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I don’t think they are unconstitutional, just distracting. There is an accident site I pass frequently that has one of those decorative flag posts for gardens, and they change the flag seasonally. They also put flowers and balloons there regularly. Is the side of the highway truly where you need to go to remember your loved one?

  • 3. Billiam  |  August 19th, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Ridiculous and wrong.

    “A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as “government’s endorsement of Christianity.”

    The 1st amendment, not that these idiots care, says Congress shall make no Law respecting the establishment…. NOT endorsement, of Religion. Since Congress has made no Law establishing ANY religion as the ‘official’ religion of the US, which IS prohibited by the 1st Amendment, all these rulings can only be seen as activist. If one reads the writings and of the actions of the Founders and writers of the Constitution, one can easily see what their intent was. Instead, we get judges who have decided the Constitution says what they want it to say. End of story. Just another nail in the coffin of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  • 4. John Foust  |  August 19th, 2010 at 9:27 am

    What part of “no law” do you have a problem with? Is there some part of the ruling you disagree with, and on what basis?

    Crosses are religious symbols. It’s ridiculous to suggest they are innocuous “symbols of death”. Of course they promote Christianity. Some of the religious are always eager to push their religion on others, especially on public property. They see it as a victory, as one step towards the theocracy they would prefer.

    People die everywhere. You want to memorialize every spot? You want to prevent construction of conflicting worship huts within a certain number of feet from spots where some have died? How about we block churches from being built within 1,000 feet of schools, out of respect for the sexually abused kids?

  • 5. Elliot  |  August 19th, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Well, John, is the expenditure of money by a government always “a law?”

    But more importantly, I’ll gladly double down on the side of “no law.”

    I’ll trade you the crosses on government monuments for eliminating all hate speech laws, all campaign finance laws, all control of commercial speech, etc…, etc… Since I’m feeling charitable, I’ll let you keep slander and libel laws, but only as civil issues.

  • 6. John Foust  |  August 19th, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Planting crosses in the public dirt? Smells like Christians in government to me. They’re probably hiring someone to pray when they’re planted, too.

    As for speech, I suppose you don’t want the local Barney Fife handing out disorderly conduct tickets for swearing, either.

  • 7. Elliot  |  August 19th, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Nope. ESPECIALLY if I’m swearing at him!

  • 8. John Foust  |  August 19th, 2010 at 10:13 am

    So where’s your line when it comes to the magical symbols, Elliot? “No law” means it’s OK to spend money or let employees practice religion on the public dime? Mandated taxation isn’t a “law” to you? It’s OK to erect crosses and Christian credo plaques? Why stop there? Why not public-funded churches?

  • 9. BobG  |  August 19th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    The crosses are mainly there as markers; they are more easily recognizable by most people as death markers. The only people here in Utah who are bitching about them are the non-religion extremists, and they see religion in every little thing. The rest of us atheists wish they would shut the hell up and quit making non-believers look like intolerant assholes.

  • 10. John Foust  |  August 19th, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Sure, BobG. You think they’d happily switch them out for some other kind of marker that might also evoke their service as a trooper? A star? A badge? A little sign in the shape of the state of Utah?

    Crosses are only death markers when Christians want them to be. The cross is also the symbol of Christianity when they want it to be. They also want it to be a symbol of life, resurrection, forgiveness, suffering, redemption, you name it. When it comes to proximity and sensitivity, you’d be happy placing it over anyone’s death spot, no matter what beliefs they had?

  • 11. Fuzz  |  August 19th, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    “I’m an agnostic…”

    You keep telling yourself that. I wonder if you’ll ever actually believe it.

  • 12. BobG  |  August 19th, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    They are accident markers, John. Believe me, as someone who has lived here over 50 years I have a little better handle on the people here than you do. Most people just look at the cross on the side of the road as a universal sign that someone was killed there. You don’t don’t have to read a bunch of religious symbolism into it.

  • 13. Billiam  |  August 20th, 2010 at 5:46 am

    John, the 1st Amendment refers to something that Congress can’t do. The States were free, in many respects to make their own laws as far as Religion, and many other things went. The Constitution was never intended to completely chase Religion from the public square. It was to prevent abuses that resulted from the Church of England, or other examples when Religion had too much influence on Government. As to your crack about sexually abused kids, I guess I shouldn’t have expected anything else from you. Lumping all churches together with that travesty. This is a State matter, not a Federal one. Then again, that hasn’t mattered to the courts for decades.

  • 14. Debunked  |  August 20th, 2010 at 8:00 am

    When humanity (all of humanity) finally moves on from doing things in the name of an invisible sky friend, the world will be a much better place.

    I gave up imaginary friends when I was six. I will never understand why the majority of human adults can not escape their childish fantasy world.

  • 15. John Foust  |  August 20th, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Wish I had a time machine! I could’ve gone back to 1987 and saved one artist a whole bunch of trouble! If I’d only told him to tell people it was just an accident marker!

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta