Roadside cross memorials unconstitutional?

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I'm extremely happy with the court ruling but I'm not surprised.

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.

You do know that the majority of Christians actually aren't fundamentalists, right?

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?

No. The Bible is said to be a living document because we can fit ourselves into its story and it can still be relevant to current situations in our own lives. The Holy Spirit is very much alive and can use the Bible to transform our hearts and minds and to help God to speak to us. If it were dead, it would be nothing more than a piece of inspiring literature. While some people might see it that way, most Christians see it as living.

And by symbolic, I meant that the text is chock full of symbolism, isn't it?

You can't really lump the Bible together as if it is one book. It is actually a series of pieces of writing. Therefore, some of it is symbolic (like the poetic books), some of it is literal (like the historical books), some of it is in parable form (like bits of the gospels).

 

[Fitswimmer]

I'm extremely happy with the court ruling but I'm not surprised.



You do know that the majority of Christians actually aren't fundamentalists, right?



No. The Bible is said to be a living document because we can fit ourselves into its story and it can still be relevant to current situations in our own lives. The Holy Spirit is very much alive and can use the Bible to transform our hearts and minds and to help God to speak to us. If it were dead, it would be nothing more than a piece of inspiring literature. While some people might see it that way, most Christians see it as living.



You can't really lump the Bible together as if it is one book. It is actually a series of pieces of writing. Therefore, some of it is symbolic (like the poetic books), some of it is literal (like the historical books), some of it is in parable form (like bits of the gospels).

I turn to my Bible for help in living a Christian life. I don't go there for science or for history. It's a faith document to me, and I limit it's use for that.

I would agree that the majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible literally in terms of science or history, but they do interpret it literally when it comes to faith.

 

[LuvDuke]

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

They've earned it.

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.

THey are using public lands to memorialize their relatives with their religious symbol. No one is denying anybody the right to memorizlize their relatives. People can do whatever they want on their OWN property and not their next door neighbors.

Btw, if you're a government worker, it isn't your desk. It's the taxpayer's desk, all the taxpayers and not just the Christian ones.

And what you put around YOUR neck is your business.

To say a cross isn't a religious symbol is not only ludicrous, but downright delusional.

Make no mistake about it, all the "Christians" who love the idea of a cross on public lands would be passing a gold brick of it was an Islamic religious symbol such as a crescent.

Btw, keep blurring the line between church and state because sooner of later, what the government gives, the government takes away. Political winds change. Bank on it.

 

[Chuck S]

No. The Bible is said to be a living document because we can fit ourselves into its story and it can still be relevant to current situations in our own lives.

The same can be said of many non-Biblical stories & fables, too. Odd that they're not considered "living documents."

 

[talulabelle]

They've earned it.

and your points get lost amid your hatred.

THey are using public lands to memorialize their relatives with their religious symbol. No one is denying anybody the right to memorizlize their relatives. People can do whatever they want on their OWN property and not their next door neighbors.

Btw, if you're a government worker, it isn't your desk. It's the taxpayer's desk, all the taxpayers and not just the Christian ones.

And what you put around YOUR neck is your business.

To say a cross isn't a religious symbol is not only ludicrous, but downright delusional.

Make no mistake about it, all the "Christians" who love the idea of a cross on public lands would be passing a gold brick of it was an Islamic religious symbol such as a crescent.

Btw, keep blurring the line between church and state because sooner of later, what the government gives, the government takes away. Political winds change. Bank on it.

ok, and you keep just totally erasing the line on freedom of religion.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The same can be said of many non-Biblical stories & fables, too. Odd that they're not considered "living documents."

Well why can't they be? I'm certainly not saying that.

 

[LuvDuke]

and your points get lost amid your hatred.

ok, and you keep just totally erasing the line on freedom of religion.

Just for the record, I have no respect for most organized religions and very little respect for some. I do, however, have a very healthy respect for someone's right to their religion.

Someone like me also has rights and one of those rights is freedom from your religion.

The line is very clear. The state cannot be involved in the practice of religion. That involves forced prayer in schools, government officials sponsoring religion, etc. What is ambiguous about that? The problem is, you just don't like that line.

Btw, how are you being denied your right to practice your faith? You can go to church whenever you want or not at all. You're free to place any religious display on your own property or no display. You're free to pray when you want as long as it doesn't force others to "go along". So how exactly are you being denied your religious faith? Or is it just you're not being allowed to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it and to hell with someone else and how they feel?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Someone like me also has rights and one of those rights is freedom from your religion.

The line is very clear. The state cannot be involved in the practice of religion. That involves forced prayer in schools, government officials sponsoring religion, etc. What is ambiguous about that? The problem is, you just don't like that line.

If that line was so clear I imagine this Atheist organization would have won their case. So, it actually is ambiguous or else we wouldn't need the courts to get involved.

Btw, how are you being denied your right to practice your faith? You can go to church whenever you want or not at all. You're free to place any religious display on your own property or no display. You're free to pray when you want as long as it doesn't force others to "go along". So how exactly are you being denied your religious faith? Or is it just you're not being allowed to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it and to hell with someone else and how they feel?

In this case people are being denied the right to memorialize their loved one in the tradition of Christianity. The court found that them doing so did NOT infringe on other people's rights. I don't see why you're still arguing this. Take it up with the courts.

 

[talulabelle]

Just for the record, I have no respect for most organized religions and very little respect for some. I do, however, have a very healthy respect for someone's right to their religion.

Someone like me also has rights and one of those rights is freedom from your religion.

The line is very clear. The state cannot be involved in the practice of religion. That involves forced prayer in schools, government officials sponsoring religion, etc. What is ambiguous about that? The problem is, you just don't like that line.

Btw, how are you being denied your right to practice your faith? You can go to church whenever you want or not at all. You're free to place any religious display on your own property or no display. You're free to pray when you want as long as it doesn't force others to "go along". So how exactly are you being denied your religious faith? Or is it just you're not being allowed to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it and to hell with someone else and how they feel?

Here's the thing, you said that I can't put a statue of Jesus on my desk if I am a government worker. That is wrong. That is the point I was trying to make.Just because it is owned by the government, the use of it has been given to me. So yes, I can put a statue on it. Just as even though the property is owned by the government where the memorials are located, the use of the property ws given to the organization putting up the memorials, and that organization chose crosses to represent the officers. The government is not forcing anyone to "go along" with any religion, they just gave the use of the property to an organization that wanted to put a memorial there. Under your line of separation of church and state, if I was Muslim, and wanted to get on my knees and face Mecca at a given time during the day to pray, you would say that I had to get off public property to do that? No, I have the freedom to pray in public and on public land. Even on land owned by the government, even in my place of work, even if I am a government worker or government property. I just can't force anyone else to do it with me. So yes I very much can put a statue of Jesus on my desk. Thank you very much. I also say grace out loud before i eat lunch in the cafeteria. Separation of Church and State was never meant to say that nothing religious can occur on Government or public land. Never meant to say all religious symbols should never be on public land or property (hence the "In God We Trust" on our money. It was meant to give us all our freedom to practice what religion we choose on public land or private land, or no religion at all. No one is making you be a Christian on that land, or saying you can't worship the way you want to there, so why would you tell these families, (who were given use of the land) that they can't worship or memorialize the way they want to there?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Just for the record, I have no respect for most organized religions and very little respect for some. I do, however, have a very healthy respect for someone's right to their religion.

Someone like me also has rights and one of those rights is freedom from your religion.

The line is very clear. The state cannot be involved in the practice of religion. That involves forced prayer in schools, government officials sponsoring religion, etc. What is ambiguous about that? The problem is, you just don't like that line.

Btw, how are you being denied your right to practice your faith? You can go to church whenever you want or not at all. You're free to place any religious display on your own property or no display. You're free to pray when you want as long as it doesn't force others to "go along". So how exactly are you being denied your religious faith? Or is it just you're not being allowed to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it and to hell with someone else and how they feel?

just for the record, there are more than a few Christians that agree with you completely. We know that allowing government to get involved in religion is a recipe for disaster. We don't want prayer in public schools, we don't care if our President is Mormon, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Athiest-we just want them to uphold our right to choose and practice our faith. We don't want civil laws on the books that are based on ANY specific church law. If the only reason for prohibiting something is "because God said so"-it's NOT good civil law. We don't care if there's a creche on the lawn at city hall, we've got them in our houses, on our lawns and in our churches and that's fine. If a sales clerk wishes us "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" we'll return the greeting with a smile and go on with our day.
Our faith is critical to OUR lives, but we believe that everyone has the right to choose their own path. Forced faith isn't real faith, legislated compliance to Church laws isn't real belief in their truth or value. I hold onto the hope that the God I believe in wouldn't want people to come to Him out of guilt, peer pressure, or fear of legal reprisal-but rather out of the conviction in their hearts that following Him is the way to peace.

stepping off the soapbox now, please continue where you left off.

 

[talulabelle]

just for the record, there are more than a few Christians that agree with you completely. We know that allowing government to get involved in religion is a recipe for disaster. We don't want prayer in public schools, we don't care if our President is Mormon, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Athiest-we just want them to uphold our right to choose and practice our faith. We don't want civil laws on the books that are based on ANY specific church law. If the only reason for prohibiting something is "because God said so"-it's NOT good civil law. We don't care if there's a creche on the lawn at city hall, we've got them in our houses, on our lawns and in our churches and that's fine. If a sales clerk wishes us "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" we'll return the greeting with a smile and go on with our day.
Our faith is critical to OUR lives, but we believe that everyone has the right to choose their own path. Forced faith isn't real faith, legislated compliance to Church laws isn't real belief in their truth or value. I hold onto the hope that the God I believe in wouldn't want people to come to Him out of guilt, peer pressure, or fear of legal reprisal-but rather out of the conviction in their hearts that following Him is the way to peace.

stepping off the soapbox now, please continue where you left off.

Hey, I'm right here with you. I feel the way you described completely. I don't care what religion is practiced on public land, as long as I am allowed to practice my religion on public land. I don't want the government to support any religion on public land either. In the case we are discussing the government was not supporting any religion, but just giving use of the public land to an organization to put up a memorial.

If we are going to start saying there can be no religion or religious symbols at all on public land, well I feel bad for anyone who does not own land. "Sorry, you live and pay rent on MY property, and I forbid any religion on MY property, oh, and sorry, you can't go pray in the public park either, that is against the law"

The crosses on pblic land is ok as long as the government did not errect them (which they did not) It just would not be ok if one of the officers was of a different faith and was denied their religious symbol.

Creches on public land are ok with me as long as anyone who wants to put a menora is allowed to put it on the same land, or anyone who wants to put a kwanzaa symbol there is allowed as well (although, kwanzaa is a cultual holiday, not a religious one)

 

[LuvDuke]

If that line was so clear I imagine this Atheist organization would have won their case. So, it actually is ambiguous or else we wouldn't need the courts to get involved.



In this case people are being denied the right to memorialize their loved one in the tradition of Christianity. The court found that them doing so did NOT infringe on other people's rights. I don't see why you're still arguing this. Take it up with the courts.

Translated: I love those activist judges.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Hey, I'm right here with you. I feel the way you described completely. I don't care what religion is practiced on public land, as long as I am allowed to practice my religion on public land. I don't want the government to support any religion on public land either. In the case we are discussing the government was not supporting any religion, but just giving use of the public land to an organization to put up a memorial.

If we are going to start saying there can be no religion or religious symbols at all on public land, well I feel bad for anyone who does not own land. "Sorry, you live and pay rent on MY property, and I forbid any religion on MY property, oh, and sorry, you can't go pray in the public park either, that is against the law"

The crosses on pblic land is ok as long as the government did not errect them (which they did not) It just would not be ok if one of the officers was of a different faith and was denied their religious symbol.

Creches on public land are ok with me as long as anyone who wants to put a menora is allowed to put it on the same land, or anyone who wants to put a kwanzaa symbol there is allowed as well (although, kwanzaa is a cultual holiday, not a religious one)

We're not quite there, because I'm not in agreement with putting religious symbols on public land in cases like this. I don't think the crosses should be there. If the family wants a cross on the gravesite-fine, but the roadside stuff implies permission of the government and that will just lead to chaos. Before you know it, there will be symbols all over the highways to make sure that nobody is left out. When it comes to the highways, honoring NO religion is safer than trying to honor all.
If the family wanted to purchase a billboard and pay for a Christian themed ad honoring their loved ones and others that have died in the line of duty think that would be more appropriate.

 

[talulabelle]

We're not quite there, because I'm not in agreement with putting religious symbols on public land in cases like this. I don't think the crosses should be there. If the family wants a cross on the gravesite-fine, but the roadside stuff implies permission of the government and that will just lead to chaos. Before you know it, there will be symbols all over the highways to make sure that nobody is left out. When it comes to the highways, honoring NO religion is safer than trying to honor all.
If the family wanted to purchase a billboard and pay for a Christian themed ad honoring their loved ones and others that have died in the line of duty think that would be more appropriate.

It doesn't imply anything if the Gov. didn't pay for it. You can infer whatever you like, but it is Constitutional. Basically you are saying the only safe thing to practice on public land is atheism and only atheists can have their way. I don't care to be an atheist. When my loved ones are memorialized, I would choose a cross. I don't want atheism shoved down my throat as much as LuvDuke doesn't want Christianity shoved down his. If you don't want the highways strewn with religious symbols, (i said in an earlier post, I don't really care for roadside memorials myself) then the gov can stop permiting use of roadside land for memorials, but as long as a memorial is allowed, a person given use of the land should be able to reprsent their loved one whatever way they like and not be forced to use a symbol that is tasteful for atheists.

 

[talulabelle]

Translated: I love those activist judges.

retranslated : crosses ARE constitutional if not payed for by the government. The judges upheld the law. Atheist can not erase all religion because they think they should not have to look at it.

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fitswimmer]

It doesn't imply anything if the Gov. didn't pay for it. You can infer whatever you like, but it is Constitutional. Basically you are saying the only safe thing to practice on public land is atheism and only atheists can have their way. I don't care to be an atheist. When my loved ones are memorialized, I would choose a cross. I don't want atheism shoved down my throat as much as LuvDuke doesn't want Christianity shoved down his. If you don't want the highways strewn with religious symbols, (i said in an earlier post, I don't really care for roadside memorials myself) then the gov can stop permiting use of roadside land for memorials, but as long as a memorial is allowed, a person given use of the land should be able to reprsent their loved one whatever way they like and not be forced to use a symbol that is tasteful for atheists.

My point is that roadside memorials should not be allowed-period. We had one on Route 287 near me that was causing accidents because people were either slowing down or pulling off the road to view it. That's just not safe!

If the families want a memorial on the highway where their loved one died, then they should purchase an ad on a billboard. I would think-I don't know for sure-that the placement of the actual billboard would have to be reviewed by the highway dept to make sure it's in a safe place. Once the billboard is up, anyone with the $$ can put whatever they want on it.

It's also not an infringement to eliminate highway memorials. There are plenty of other ways to honor a deceased loved one with whatever religious symbol you want. The gravesite, your home or even your car if you want. I've seen a few back windows with memorials inscribed on them. If the highway was the ONLY place, that would be one thing. This practice of placing memorials in the EXACT spot where a person died seems to be a fairly new phenomenon-I don't remember this going on 10-15 years ago.

 

[smartestnumber5]

It doesn't imply anything if the Gov. didn't pay for it. You can infer whatever you like, but it is Constitutional. Basically you are saying the only safe thing to practice on public land is atheism and only atheists can have their way. I don't care to be an atheist. When my loved ones are memorialized, I would choose a cross. I don't want atheism shoved down my throat as much as LuvDuke doesn't want Christianity shoved down his. If you don't want the highways strewn with religious symbols, (i said in an earlier post, I don't really care for roadside memorials myself) then the gov can stop permiting use of roadside land for memorials, but as long as a memorial is allowed, a person given use of the land should be able to reprsent their loved one whatever way they like and not be forced to use a symbol that is tasteful for atheists.

Your bolded line seems to mix up two different things--atheism and something like secularism.

I just want to point out that the separation of church and state can apply just as much to atheists as to religious groups. If it had been ruled unconstitutional to put up a cross or a star of David, then by the same token it should be understood to be unconstitutional to put up a memorial declaring atheistic beliefs (i.e. "There is no God"). (Just like the cases on school prayer would apply just as much to a situation in which children were led each morning in a chant that declares there is no higher being.) Simply having no memorial at all or a memorial with symbols/sayings that do not mention religious beliefs or lack thereof would not be practicing atheism or atheists getting their way; that would be just be secularism. Memorials on public land simply wouldn't say anything one way or another about religion or the existence of a higher being.

A particular atheist family might wish to memorialize their family member with a symbol that indicates the dead person's belief that there is no God just as much as a Christian might want to memorialize their loved one's death with a cross that symbolizes the person's belief in Christianity. If roadside memorials were not allowed to contain religious messages, then both the atheist family and the Christian family would not be allowed to have the memorial they wanted.

(Personally I don't have a problem with personally funded religious memorials on govt land as long as people of every religion and those who are anti-religion are allowed to choose their own symbols. I also don't have a problem with a completely secular approach to roadside memorials on public land in which no messages/symbols with religious/anti-religious content at all are allowed.)

 

[talulabelle]

My point is that roadside memorials should not be allowed-period. We had one on Route 287 near me that was causing accidents because people were either slowing down or pulling off the road to view it. That's just not safe!

If the families want a memorial on the highway where their loved one died, then they should purchase an ad on a billboard. I would think-I don't know for sure-that the placement of the actual billboard would have to be reviewed by the highway dept to make sure it's in a safe place. Once the billboard is up, anyone with the $$ can put whatever they want on it.

It's also not an infringement to eliminate highway memorials. There are plenty of other ways to honor a deceased loved one with whatever religious symbol you want. The gravesite, your home or even your car if you want. I've seen a few back windows with memorials inscribed on them. If the highway was the ONLY place, that would be one thing. This practice of placing memorials in the EXACT spot where a person died seems to be a fairly new phenomenon-I don't remember this going on 10-15 years ago.

As I said, I don't care for roadside memorials either, and wouldn't mind if they were banned, however, as long as it is allowed, it is perfectly constitutional for it to be a cross or other religious symbol, as was ruled in this case. The atheist organization wanted them down because they were crosses, not because they were memorials.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

If the family wants a cross on the gravesite-fine, but the roadside stuff implies permission of the government and that will just lead to chaos. Before you know it, there will be symbols all over the highways to make sure that nobody is left out. When it comes to the highways, honoring NO religion is safer than trying to honor all.

Do you really believe that this is going to lead to chaos or was that an exaggeration? It's easy to find out if you're right. We just have to keep an eye on that particular highway. Personally, I don't think it's going to lead to an increase in roadside memorials at all. Keep in mind that 99% of people really don't care about this case. The other 1% is not likely to erect memorials of differing faiths out of spite. Besides which, these crosses are their with permission. They are on government land that has been donated to a specific organization.

 

[Saxsoon]

I love the fact that the athiest group is trying to say they want it down for safety issues. The fact that athiest is in the group name suggests much more than that. These types of athiests are just as bad as the Christians who shove it down everyone's throat.

Does anyone have any numbers on accidents where the crosses were considered the cause.