Roadside cross memorials unconstitutional?

[smartestnumber5]

There is not a total seperation of religion and politics in any country and certainly not in America. As I've said, I don't think that any one religious group should be running a country or forcing views on other people. That doesn't mean though that it's oppressive every time that religion and politics are part of the same discussion. And those who believe this, I think, are missing the intention of the demand of a seperation of "church and state" that was originally intended in the Constitution. So, if the courts have set a precedent built on misinterpretation, maybe they want to go back and re-evaluate this part of the Constitution.

For the record, I do think that school prayer in a government-funded public school is a violation of children's (and families') rights. To me, that is the government dictating religion because they are forcing someone to do something that they might not be comfortable with, without even asking them first. I can't believe this is still an issue in the US. Most countries figured this out 50-60 years ago.

If we were to go back and reinterpret the 1st amendment as originalists we probably would still have prayer in schools. There's no evidence that the founders intended not to have prayer in public schools. They didn't even have public education in those days, so how could the founders have had any intention about it at all? (You can probably tell, I am not at all an originalist about the constitution.) Also, I don't think that the courts believe your bolded line, nor do I think that most people who are strong supporters of the separation of church and state believe it. What 1st amendment says about religion (and what it has been interpreted to mean by the courts) is that the state cannot spend taxpayer money promoting a religion and that it cannot favor one religion over another. It says absolutely nothing about "politics and religion being in the same conversation." What is at issue in the cross case is whether the govt is promoting or endorsing religion. I assume that if it goes to the supreme court they will apply "the endorsement test" which asks--would a reasonable observer take the crosses as the government intending to convey a message of support or disapproval of religion? I think how the case will play out in court is that so long as the Utah Highway Patrol argues that they are just memorializing the men who happen to be Christian, and had the men been atheists they would have put up a Darwin fish, then they'll be fine. Of course, I think any suggestion that they would have put up an atheist symbol had one of the men been an atheist is a bald faced lie, but since it's just a hypothetical they can easily make that assertion in court. So I think in this instance the display will probably be found constitutional.

I think this is a hilarious approach. (And as I've stated above, one that is clearly not working.) Make all the religious groups get along by not talking about religion. Not only hilarious but it's sad too. Why can't American embrace the multiculturalism that it has by really upholding freedom of religion? I live in perhaps the most multicultural country in the world and we don't waste our time ensuring that our government never speaks of religion. Instead we spend our time embracing and celebrating all of those cultures and religions. That's what I want to fight for - not to make religion a private hush-hush affair.

I think the U.S. does have extensive freedom of religion. I don't see what putting up crosses on government owned land has to do with freedom of religion. We also have freedom of thought and speech. It is not a violation of my freedom of thought if the govt doesn't put up a sign on govt property supporting my views.

Our separation of church and state also doesn't mean that religion has to be hush-hush. Listen to some of the presidential candidates give a speech sometime. It's all about God this and my faith that. Or listen to the debates about same-sex marriage or abortion. Politicians bring up religions reasons for making/keeping these things illegal all the time and there is no law against that. The separation just means that the state cannot favor one religion (and generally anytime religion is brought up by the government, it's only Christianity) and it cannot put taxpayer money into promoting a religion. (I don't actually know anything about Canada and the relation of govt to religion. What is allowed and not allowed there? Can the govt promote one religion and ignore all others? Can it give taxpayer money to promote religion?)

I'm all for multiculturalism, but I don't think most people complaining about the separation of church and state actually want to celebrate all religions. In the U.S. for instance people actually make the ridiculous claim that "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a non-denominational term that can represent the beliefs of any religion whatsoever. They just plain don't care that the word "God" is not part of many religions, that some religions involve belief in multiple higher powers, that some religions do not involve a higher power at all, and that many people lack any religious beliefs at all. If we make a go at multiculturalism I have no doubt that it would be just like this. It's going to be all about Christianity. (Just look at the situation with the Seattle Airport last year when a rabbi asked that they follow the law and put up a menorah along with the Christmas trees. He even volunteered to provide the menorahs to save the airport money. But the airport just refused outright and chose to take down the Christmas trees instead. Apparently they thought "better no decorations at all then to allow non-Christian decorations into the mix.") And there's just no way in heck that Americans are going to start celebrating Wicca or atheism. I would bet just about anything that had one off the officers in Utah been Wiccan they would not have put up a Wiccan symbol. (In fact, up until a few years ago veterans buried in military cemeteries could have almost any religious symbol they/their family wanted on their headstone. But not a Wiccan symbol--those symbols were banned until about 2 years ago and the president himself declared that Wicca is not a real religion.)

 

[salmoneous]

That doesn't mean though that it's oppressive every time that religion and politics are part of the same discussion. And those who believe this,

Huh? Nobody believes this. Who are you arguing with?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Huh? Nobody believes this. Who are you arguing with?

I am arguing with the people in the OP who brought up this lawsuit. The ones that believe that the government isn't allowed to have anything to do with religion whatsoever. I don't understand what's so confusing about that. Seperation of church and state (i.e. politics and religion) seems to be at the core of the court case.

What 1st amendment says about religion (and what it has been interpreted to mean by the courts) is that the state cannot spend taxpayer money promoting a religion and that it cannot favor one religion over another.

I wholeheartedly agree with this belief. However, I don't think that that's what's happening in the case with these roadside crosses. As you said, the courts will probably figure that out, thankfully. In the meantime, though, I think that the courts time and money are being wasted.

I think the U.S. does have extensive freedom of religion. I don't see what putting up crosses on government owned land has to do with freedom of religion.

You don't? You can't see that denying someone the right to mourn for a loved one using the religious symbols that correspond with their beliefs might be a violation of their freedom of religion?

Our separation of church and state also doesn't mean that religion has to be hush-hush. Listen to some of the presidential candidates give a speech sometime. It's all about God this and my faith that. Or listen to the debates about same-sex marriage or abortion. Politicians bring up religions reasons for making/keeping these things illegal all the time and there is no law against that.

Smartestnumber5, I actually think we are making the same point here. I was trying to make the point that American government seems to favour Christianity in its politics. I think this is wrong. I just find it amusing that people are all up in arms about crosses memoralizing dead people, when their energy really should be exerted to looking at how church heavily influences major issues in the US currently.

I don't actually know anything about Canada and the relation of govt to religion. What is allowed and not allowed there? Can the govt promote one religion and ignore all others? Can it give taxpayer money to promote religion?

There's not a lot to understand really. No, the Canadian government constitutionally cannot favour one religion and ignore all others. Nor can it stand in the way of people from expressing their religious beliefs. I guess it could use taxpayer money to promote or benefit religion as long such programming wasn't exclusive to a particular religion(s). Remember that taxpayer money comes from the citizens so technically the government should be able to do anything so long as the people empowers it to do so.

I'm all for multiculturalism, but I don't think most people complaining about the separation of church and state actually want to celebrate all religions.

I agree with your comments about the disdain for multiculturalism in America. I mean, all you have to do is look at its immigration policies and lack of education about the rest of the world.

 

[Chuck S]

You don't? You can't see that denying someone the right to mourn for a loved one using the religious symbols that correspond with their beliefs might be a violation of their freedom of religion?

No one is preventing the families from mourning their loved ones. The can use all the religious symbolism they like, in their church and on the gravesite.

This memorial is neither a church, nor a gravesite. It is a memorial funded by a private group, but located on publically funded land using state insignia. You dont see the difference?

 

[basas]

No one is preventing the families from mourning their loved ones. The can use all the religious symbolism they like, in their church and on the gravesite.

This memorial is neither a church, nor a gravesite. It is a memorial funded by a private group, but located on publically funded land using state insignia. You dont see the difference?

I think he sees the difference but doesn't see a cross *gasp* on the side of a highway (put simply because these officers were Christian) as the "promotion" of one religion over another.

 

[Chuck S]

I think he sees the difference but doesn't see a cross *gasp* on the side of a highway (put simply because these officers were Christian) as the "promotion" of one religion over another.

Perhaps, but one has to wonder how they'd feel if the state allowed the insignia to be used on a cresent, a star of David or even a pentagram.

You see, as long as it is the "majority" religion it seem to be OK. But I am willing to bet they would be the loudest protesters if the situation were reversed.

 

[NYBlue1]

Perhaps, but one has to wonder how they'd feel if the state allowed the insignia to be used on a cresent, a star of David or even a pentagram.

You see, as long as it is the "majority" religion it seem to be OK. But I am willing to bet they would be the loudest protesters if the situation were reversed.

Good point

 

[Charade]

Perhaps, but one has to wonder how they'd feel if the state allowed the insignia to be used on a cresent, a star of David or even a pentagram.

You see, as long as it is the "majority" religion it seem to be OK. But I am willing to bet they would be the loudest protesters if the situation were reversed.

That would make a interesting poll. I'm sure that some hardliners would (loudly) object to symbols other than Christian but my guess is most would be OK with any. Bottomline is you can't please everyone.

 

[sha_lyn]

Perhaps, but one has to wonder how they'd feel if the state allowed the insignia to be used on a cresent, a star of David or even a pentagram.

You see, as long as it is the "majority" religion it seem to be OK. But I am willing to bet they would be the loudest protesters if the situation were reversed.

Exactly...That's what I was thinking way back when I posted on the first page. IMHO the Xtians who are adamant that it doesn't violate separation of church and state would be singing a different tune if it was a big ole pentagram on the side of the road.

 

[Charade]

Exactly...That's what I was thinking way back when I posted on the first page. IMHO the Xtians who are adamant that it doesn't violate separation of church and state would be singing a different tune if it was a big ole pentagram on the side of the road.

If you're so sure, why not poll them? I really love the somewhat specious arguments that if "another" group were faced with similar situations, their reactions are "exactly" predictable.

 

[sha_lyn]

If you're so sure, why not poll them? I really love the somewhat specious arguments that if "another" group were faced with similar situations, their reactions are "exactly" predictable.

Their public record, "outcries", call's for boycotting etc make it pretty easy to predict their behavior.

 

[Chuck S]

If you're so sure, why not poll them? I really love the somewhat specious arguments that if "another" group were faced with similar situations, their reactions are "exactly" predictable.

Hmmm, a non scientific poll on a Disney website is supposed to reflect the feelings of a genuine cross section of Americans? Nothing to keep people from loading the poll, by votong under several names (we've had that happen). Polls really aren't worth the bandwidth to post them, at least if you want them to even be semi-accurate.

Not to say polls aren't fun, but don't take them to really "mean" anything.

 

[Charade]

Hmmm, a non scientific poll on a Disney website is supposed to reflect the feelings of a genuine cross section of Americans? Nothing to keep people from loading the poll, by votong under several names (we've had that happen). Polls really aren't worth the bandwidth to post them, at least if you want them to even be semi-accurate.

Not to say polls aren't fun, but don't take them to really "mean" anything.

Then without a scientific poll you can't say with certainty what they're reaction would be.

 

[Charade]

Their public record, "outcries", call's for boycotting etc make it pretty easy to predict their behavior.

Would that be from all Christians? Most? Some? Just the vocal ones?

 

[Chuck S]

Then without a scientific poll you can't say with certainty what they're reaction would be.

And neither could you. But based on posting trends, I still say the most vocal supporters of the "crosses" would be the most vocal opponents to other religions. What that percentage is overall is only speculation.

I mean, look at the past threads we've had here, like putting "Christ" back in Christmas, a holiday, like most holidays, with pagan roots and heritage.

Or the threads for Creationism (Intelligent Design) vs. evolution, or even the threads of which Christian sects are "true" Christians and which are not.

All have their extremely vocal groups that think the government should recognize "Christian" religious holidays and celebrations, but ignore (or even prohibit) other faiths completely.

 

[Charade]

And neither could you. But based on posting trends, I still say the most vocal supporters of the "crosses" would be the most vocal opponents to other religions. What that percentage is overall is only speculation.

I mean, look at the past threads we've had here, like putting "Christ" back in Christmas, a holiday, like most holidays, with pagan roots and heritage.

Or the threads for Creationism (Intelligent Design) vs. evolution, or even the threads of which Christian sects are "true" Christians and which are not.

All have their extremely vocal groups that think the government should recognize "Christian" religious holidays and celebrations, but ignore (or even prohibit) other faiths completely.

You're still making assumptions based on "posting trends". Hardly scientific and no way to know how accurate.

I guess we won't know for sure until we can find a properly conducted poll.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Perhaps, but one has to wonder how they'd feel if the state allowed the insignia to be used on a cresent, a star of David or even a pentagram.

You see, as long as it is the "majority" religion it seem to be OK. But I am willing to bet they would be the loudest protesters if the situation were reversed.

By "they" do you mean me?

In any case, I would have absolutely no problem if another religious symbol other than the cross was used. I'm for freedom of religion . . . it doesn't matter what that religion is.

 

[NYBlue1]

By "they" do you mean me?

In any case, I would have absolutely no problem if another religious symbol other than the cross was used. I'm for freedom of religion . . . it doesn't matter what that religion is.

It would be a much better country if everybody thought the way You do, same as I do in fact. But unfortunatly people insist that their way is the only way and will fight tooth and nail anybody that dare express an opinion on religion different from theirs. Unfortunatly the biggest offender of that seems to be some of the more extream christian believers. Its their way or we are all going to hell. Sad but true, please folks im not putting down christians, I am a christian just not an extream one.

 

[Chuck S]

By "they" do you mean me?

In any case, I would have absolutely no problem if another religious symbol other than the cross was used. I'm for freedom of religion . . . it doesn't matter what that religion is.

As NYBlue1 pointed out, "they" refers to the "extreme" Christians as a whole, not anyone in particular. You know the type, "it is our way to Heaven, or no way at all." Even for other Chrisitian sects. And sometimes it is only some people of a sect that have such extreme beliefs, but they are also generally (and unfortunately) the most vocal, branding the entire group wih a stereotype.

 

[NYBlue1]

As NYBlue1 pointed out, "they" refers to the "extreme" Christians as a whole, not anyone in particular. You know the type, "it is our way to Heaven, or no way at all." Even for other Chrisitian sects. And sometimes it is only some people of a sect that have such extreme beliefs, but they are also generally (and unfortunately) the most vocal, branding the entire group wih a stereotype.