Roadside cross memorials unconstitutional?

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Yes, and that's what it has become mainly -- a belief and philosophy of many -- and stretched well beyond the Constitutional "government may not establish a religion..."

Exactly!! Thank you. That's the point I was makng way earlier about the Constitution being misinterpreted.

??? So are you trying to say that all atheist try to deny others the right to believe in God?
If so, sorry but that is a bunch of BS.

That's not what that poster was saying at all. They were saying that there are certain Atheists (I believe they used the term "extreme Athiests") who do this. I called them fundamental Athiests earlier.

You need to brush up on religious history.
The Christian God is also the God of the Jews and the Muslims.

Actually not all Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe this. In fact, the grand majority of Christians beileve in a Trinitarian God, in that the Godhead has three persons - Creator (some say Father), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit/Ghost. So, for many of us (certainly for me) Jesus is God, as is the Creator, as is the Holy Spirit. This is simply not the case for Muslims, Jews, and a variety of other religious faiths.

Again, aren't the Islamic "God" and the Jewish "God" and the Christian "God" all the same "God"?

See my answer above. I think you are speaking of the common origins that we all share. While it could be said that we share some religious history, it's much more difficult to say we currently believe in the same God.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

You need to brush up on religious history.
The Christian God is also the God of the Jews and the Muslims.

No - not the same God, as Jesus CHRIST said, if you do not know the Son, you do not know the Father.

 

[Chuck S]

So Christians (mankind) changed God as they saw fit or what? Remember that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have their roots in the same "old Testament" and that God is the Alpha and Omega and constant/unchanging, so when did the "new" God come into existence, and what happened to the "old" God?

Jesus is the SON of that God. While it can be said that there is a part of you within your chidren, you are not the same entity as your children. Not all "Christians" believe the Trinity doctrine. Or perhaps not even all Christians have the same God?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

So Christians (mankind) changed God as they saw fit or what? Remember that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have their roots in the same "old Testament" and that God is the Alpha and Omega and constant/unchanging, so when did the "new" God come into existence, and what happened to the "old" God?

Jesus is the SON of that God. While it can be said that there is a part of you within your chidren, you are not the same entity as your children. Not all "Christians" believe the Trinity doctrine. Or perhaps not even all Christians have the same God?

No, I don't believe that Christians changed God, I believe that God changed God when God chose to come to earth in the human form of Jesus Christ. I don't believe that God is unchanging, in that God just remains stagnant. I believe that God is constantly active in our lives and is quite fluid through the Holy Spirit. I think you will find that the majority of Christian denominations believe in a Trinitarian God.

 

[Chuck S]

No, I don't believe that Christians changed God, I believe that God changed God when God chose to come to earth in the human form of Jesus Christ. I don't believe that God is unchanging, in that God just remains stagnant. I believe that God is constantly active in our lives and is quite fluid through the Holy Spirit. I think you will find that the majority of Christian denominations believe in a Trinitarian God.

The majority, perhaps, but what about the Christians that don't?

Hebrews 13:8 says he didn't change. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." KJV

And Malachi 3:6 says God does not change "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

So is the Bible right, or not?

 

[jimmiej]

The majority, perhaps, but what about the Christians that don't?

Hebrews 13:8 says he didn't change. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." KJV

And Malachi 3:6 says God does not change "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

So is the Bible right, or not?

The Trinity has always existed. God didn't morph from one to three 2000 years ago.

 

[Chuck S]

The Trinity has always existed. God didn't morph from one to three 2000 years ago.

Again, not all Christians believe in the Trinity Doctrine. It makes just as much sense that the three are separate entities, and this allows for the common roots of the three religions. However, one could also theorize on the Trinity Doctrine, that there is one God, the same God, reflected in the three different religions. Three ways of worshipping the same God.

 

[jimmiej]

Again, not all Christians believe in the Trinity Doctrine. It makes just as much sense that the three are separate entities, and this allows for the common roots of the three religions. However, one could also theorize on the Trinity Doctrine, that there is one God, the same God, reflected in the three different religions. Three ways of worshipping the same God.

I personally have never heard of the Trinity referred to in that matter.

 

[Chuck S]

I personally have never heard of the Trinity referred to in that matter.

True, but if the roots of the three major religions are indeed the same, it is certainly a possibility. Remember that religion is based on mankind's interpretations of ancient text. Text that is both archaic and symbolic rather than literal.

 

[jimmiej]

True, but if the roots of the three major religions are indeed the same, it is certainly a possibility. Remember that religion is based on mankind's interpretations of ancient text. Text that is both archaic and symbolic rather than literal.

Your opinion.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The majority, perhaps, but what about the Christians that don't?

Hebrews 13:8 says he didn't change. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." KJV

And Malachi 3:6 says God does not change "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

So is the Bible right, or not?

I'm not a fundamentalist so I can't answer the question the way that you have posed it. It would depend on whose interpretation you would like to go with.

Again, not all Christians believe in the Trinity Doctrine. It makes just as much sense that the three are separate entities, and this allows for the common roots of the three religions. However, one could also theorize on the Trinity Doctrine, that there is one God, the same God, reflected in the three different religions. Three ways of worshipping the same God.

I'm not quite sure you are understanding what I, and most theologians, mean by a Trinitarian God. It doesn't refer to the gods of three different religion. It refers specifically to the Trinitarian formula of Creator/Father, Son/Jesus, and Holy Spirit/Ghost. I'm not saying that we all aren't trying to form a relationship with the same divine mystery. However, the experiences of God in those three religions is really quite different. I think it's an oversimplification to suggest that it's all just the same thing.

Remember that religion is based on mankind's interpretations of ancient text. Text that is both archaic and symbolic rather than literal.

Wait a minute . . . in the first quotation I've cited from you, you're asking for people to declare if the Bible is literally right or wrong and now you're talking about human interpretation? What is it that you believe?

And I wouldn't use the term "archaic" to describe the Bible. For most Christians, it is very much a living text.

 

[Chuck S]

Wait a minute . . . in the first quotation I've cited from you, you're asking for people to declare if the Bible is literally right or wrong and now you're talking about human interpretation? What is it that you believe?

And I wouldn't use the term "archaic" to describe the Bible. For most Christians, it is very much a living text.

I've posed a simple question. For most fundamentalists, the Bible is literal, no room for human interpretation. For instance, they believe the earth as we know it was literally created in 7 days. Therefore, the Bible must be literal and right, and God has not changed...ever.

Also, in that sense, the Biblical text is archaic, in that it is ancient and unchanging, a "living" Biblical text would be changed and updated to fit the circumstances of today's world, wouldn't it? And by symbolic, I meant that the text is chock full of symbolism, isn't it? For instance, every time you partake of communion it is symbolic, unless you truly believe the grape juice or wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, and the bread literally transforms in to some sort of human/divine flesh.

What do I believe? I believe Christ existed, that he had "divine" powers. Whether the Bibile actually reflects a true diety, or attempts to explain higher concepts, like genetics, and good vs. evil, in a way that humans were capable of comprehending 2000 years ago, I have no idea. You see, there were cases of "3 gods in one" even in ancient egypt, similar but not identical, to Christian Trinity Doctrine. Virgin birth was also a symbol of "divinity" in ancient times, and there were earlier "virgin births" relating to dieties than Christ's. Perhaps the Bible built on contemporary beliefs of the times, much as ancient pagan rituals and symbolism were morphed into the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter we know today.

But, back to the topic of this thread...since it has gotten away, the State has attached approved insignia to those crosses along the road, thus, by extrapolation, the State could be seen as endorsing the religion. Hence the lawsuit on the premise of separation of Church and State.

 

[Charade]

I thought I heard on the news yesterday (or the day before) that a judge said the memorial was OK.

 

[Chuck S]

I thought I heard on the news yesterday (or the day before) that a judge said the memorial was OK.

If so, hopefully someone will post a link to an article. I wonder if it was a "lower court", and will be appealed?

 

[sha_lyn]

For instance, every time you partake of communion it is symbolic, unless you truly believe the grape juice or wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, and the bread literally transforms in to some sort of human/divine flesh.

From my understanding the Catholic Church teaches that is does transform into his blood and flesh. It was actually a very heated topic here on the DIS a while back.

 

[Charade]

If so, hopefully someone will post a link to an article. I wonder if it was a "lower court", and will be appealed?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19360

Federal judge upholds crosses honoring Utah troopers

By The Associated Press
11.26.07
SALT LAKE CITY — Twelve-foot-high crosses honoring deceased Utah troopers along state highways are not an illegal public endorsement of religion, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge David Sam said the 14 crosses communicate a secular message.

"Even classic religious symbols may have various meanings and purposes depending on their context," Sam noted in the Nov. 20 ruling American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan. "The memorial crosses at issue communicate a secular message, a message that a UHP trooper died or was mortally wounded at a particular location."

Each cross features the Utah Highway Patrol logo, a name and badge number, and a plaque with a biography of the fallen trooper. Public money was not used to make them.

Texas-based American Atheists, Inc. sued, arguing the crosses have no place on public land. The group believes an American flag or a tombstone would be more appropriate.

"There's no question these troopers should be honored," said Brian Barnard, attorney for the atheists. "Let’s just do it in a way that does not emphasize religion."

The judge said U.S. military cemeteries display crosses to represent the deaths of public servants. The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control uses the cross in its billboard campaign against drinking and driving.

Sam noted that Utah's majority religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, does not use a cross as an icon.

A cross along Interstate 80 in Parleys Canyon memorializes Trooper Dan Harris, who died there in 1982 while chasing a speeder.

"I am just beyond delighted," his widow, Andrea Augenstein, said of the court ruling. "We made this sacrifice along with him, and we get to have this symbol of what happened.

"It's who we are," she added. "We tell everyone we know, 'Look for the cross.'"

Barnard said he planned to appeal the case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

 

[Charade]

From my understanding the Catholic Church teaches that is does transform into his blood and flesh. It was actually a very heated topic here on the DIS a while back.

But scientifically, it doesn't.

 

[talulabelle]

From my understanding the Catholic Church teaches that is does transform into his blood and flesh. It was actually a very heated topic here on the DIS a while back.

Transubstanciaton. It changes in substance. No, under a microscope, it is still gonna look like bread and wine. But the Holy Spirit has come into it, therefore, in substance it is no longer bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ. As we do believe in the Trinity, if the Holy Spirit has come into it, than that is Jesus Christ. We do believe it is very much truly the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is our spiritual food. Actually physically taking in the Holy Spirit.

 

[LuvDuke]

<<If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of 12-foot-tall memorial crosses that adorn Utah's highways will be taken down.

But not if the families of the people those crosses honor — state Highway Patrol troopers killed in the line of duty — have anything to say about it.

American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion....>>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311956,00.html

It's public land that belongs to all. If the families of the fallen wish to purchase an acre or 2 and put whatever they want on their privately owned land, this wouldn't be an issue.

End of story.

Btw, I would think all the mega-churches would be more than willing to part with a few of the millions they rake in to help purchase that land. Even the self-proclaimed Christians ought to be willing to add to those coffers too.

Yeah, when pigs fly.

 

[talulabelle]

It's public land that belongs to all. If the families of the fallen wish to purchase an acre or 2 and put whatever they want on their privately owned land, this wouldn't be an issue.

End of story.

Btw, I would think all the mega-churches would be more than willing to part with a few of the millions they rake in to help purchase that land. Even the self-proclaimed Christians ought to be willing to add to those coffers too.

Yeah, when pigs fly.

First of all...why so angry against Christians?

Second, do you see the difference? If it was the Gov. putting up a cross to be religious, or promote a religion on public land, that would be unconstitustional. They are using public land to memorialize fallen officers. The officers and/or their families happen to be Christians and choose to be memorialized with a sybol of their religion. The crosses on the public land are to symbolize the officers, not Jesus, it just so happens that these officers and their families have FREEDOM OF RELIGION and can choose practice their religion WHEN REPRESENTING THEMSELVES (not the government). I post about the difference before. To deny the families to memorialize their loved one with a religious symbol is to deny them theri freedom of religion. The fact that it is on public land doesn't mean it cant be a religious symbol, it mean it can't be religious land, this is a memorial to empployees. Not religious. Just so happens, those empoyees have freedom of religion. It is the same s if I am a government worker and I choose to put a statue of Jesus on my desk. Or wear a cross on my neck, are you going to deny my freedom of my personal religion to do that just because it is on governmetn proberty? I'm not preaching on the job, just holding my religious belief. As said MANY times in this thread, if those officers were a different religion, they would have put up a memorial fitting ofthat religion if that is what the families chose.