Memorial crosses unconstitutional

[RydiaLockheart]

link

A federal appeals court ruled that memorial crosses set up by the Utah Highway Patrol Association to honor fallen police officers is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state.

I'm an atheist and I say WTF?! I don't have a problem with memorial crosses on highways. I don't associate them with Christianity. I see them and realize that someone died there. But some atheists with sticks up their asses had to sue. This goes in line with Ravariel's "Skeptics are dicks" thread. The American Atheists are being hypocrites by shoving their beliefs on everyone.

[gumOnShoe]

Government property is government property. Separation of church and state is also law. I see no reason they SHOULD be allowed, let alone the need for the state seal to be on the cross.

If someone you know died on private property, you wouldn't be allowed to erect a memorial there in their honor either... Maybe its emotionally "cruel" but oh well.

[Memorize]

At 8/19/10 07:49 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Government property is government property. Separation of church and state is also law. I see no reason they SHOULD be allowed, let alone the need for the state seal to be on the cross.

The funny part is that you actually believe a cross is a religious symbol.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/19/10 07:40 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I'm an atheist and I say WTF?!

I'm not an atheist and I say that the state could have simply used some other type of marker that doesn't carry a religious association with it. Though, I do agree that the American Atheists group look like dicks for suing to have the memorial program halted altogether and the crosses removed.

I wonder if either side even attempted to compromise before making it a legal matter. I mean, how hard is it to use rectangular markers decorated with flowers instead of crosses decorated with flowers? Pff.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/19/10 07:53 PM, Memorize wrote: The funny part is that you actually believe a cross is a religious symbol.

...the real funny part is you pretending it isn't.

[Memorize]

At 8/19/10 08:09 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 8/19/10 07:53 PM, Memorize wrote: The funny part is that you actually believe a cross is a religious symbol.

...the real funny part is you pretending it isn't.

How many people were put up to be killed on crucifixions before Jesus came along?

How many people were put to death by it after him?

Can you point to me where in any part of the Christian's "holy text" that makes out the object to be of a religious nature?

No?

Then you're as fucking retarded as those religious idiots who think that spear that pierced Jesus' side means a damn thing.

[orangebomb]

Some people just fail to see that a cross doesn't always mean its Christian by nature. Of course the irony in this is that this takes place in Utah, where a lot of people are Mormon, which is a branch of Christianity.

Regardless, The American Athetist group are basically hypocrites, they see tolerence and understanding with the religious groups, yet go batshit when the cross, star of David, etc. is erected in the middle of a highway, which is really sad, once you think about it.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/19/10 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Can you point to me where in any part of the Christian's "holy text" that makes out the object to be of a religious nature?

religious texts are the only sources of religious thoughts and practices? ...or just the only legitimate ones?

[RWT]

At 8/19/10 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/19/10 08:09 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 8/19/10 07:53 PM, Memorize wrote: The funny part is that you actually believe a cross is a religious symbol.

...the real funny part is you pretending it isn't.

How many people were put up to be killed on crucifixions before Jesus came along?

How many people were put to death by it after him?

Can you point to me where in any part of the Christian's "holy text" that makes out the object to be of a religious nature?

No?

Then you're as fucking retarded as those religious idiots who think that spear that pierced Jesus' side means a damn thing.

Okay, dude, 99.99% of Christians would assure you that the cross is a symbol of Christ. I think that constitutes a 'Christian belief.'

But back to the point; I think it is silly. The cross is of course a Christian symbol, but it has come to represent memorial in a secular way, at least in my mind. If a specific family whose loved one was being honored objected, that's one thing. And in that case, it's simply a matter of taste. But I seriously doubt anyone, even a non-Christian, would be offended by the erection of a cross to mark the site where a loved one was killed.

The cross is a symbol in the Christian tradition. The United States is not a stated follower of, nor does it endorse, Christianity. But that doesn't mean that many public traditions can't be rooted in that tradition without breaking separation of Church and State. Many public buildings are built in the Greco-Roman style; does that mean an endorsement of that culture?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/19/10 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Can you point to me where in any part of the Christian's "holy text" that makes out the object to be of a religious nature?

Can you explain to me why you apparently think an image may become a religious symbol by official decree only? Because to me, that's what seems "fucking retarded" here.

The ichthys is a symbol for Christianity also; nowhere in the Bible does it say that the fish or the cross have to be religious symbols, and no one with half a brain claims that Christians were the first people to use fish or crosses to symbolize concepts... but to deny that they're both symbols for Christianity is just asinine, especially since they've been in active use as Christian symbols for centuries.

I mean, do you even understand what a "symbol" is? Because it doesn't really seem like it.

[Memorize]

At 8/19/10 09:10 PM, RWT wrote:

Okay, dude, 99.99% of Christians would assure you that the cross is a symbol of Christ. I think that constitutes a 'Christian belief.'

At 8/19/10 08:59 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

religious texts are the only sources of religious thoughts and practices? ...or just the only legitimate ones?

I like how you people pretend as if the cross didn't exist until Christianity came along.

But hey, let's say I start a religion where by some happen-stance, tables are now symbols of my religion.

From henceforth, thou shalt not have tables in thine Government due to Separation of Church and state.

[Memorize]

At 8/19/10 09:11 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Can you explain to me why you apparently think an image may become a religious symbol by official decree only? Because to me, that's what seems "fucking retarded" here.

Really?

Then can you explain to me why you don't apply this logic in EVERY place a cross is seen?

Why is it that you only care about a cross next to a gave site?

Why is it that when the architects of Government buildings made them with characters of wisdom from religion, legend, and myth... the only one you people bitch about is Solomon?

Why not complain about the Letter "t" in our alphabet?

But let's not stop there, we need to ban the "X" too.

Because what is an "X" but a tilted cross?

[thedo12]

Yeah this is stupid , it's a damn cross and has a secular purpose.

This isn't like that day of prayer bullshit from before.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/19/10 09:13 PM, Memorize wrote: I like how you people pretend as if the cross didn't exist until Christianity came along.

No ones doing that.

But hey, let's say I start a religion where by some happen-stance, tables are now symbols of my religion.

If by "some happenstance" you mean that a table or tables played a significant role in the formation of your religion, and the image of a table could immediately bring to people's mind just how your religion was started or what it stood for...

From henceforth, thou shalt not have tables in thine Government due to Separation of Church and state.

...and the table was used as an identifying image of your religion for over a thousand years? Yeah, that seems fair enough. Then again you're trying to compare a table (which is used in a very broad function) with a crucifix (which isn't) so the comparison is kinda stupid to begin with.

At 8/19/10 09:17 PM, Memorize wrote: Really?

Then can you explain to me why you don't apply this logic in EVERY place a cross is seen?

For the same reason I don't think "that must mean ANARCHY!!! :o" every time I see the letter 'A'.

Why is it that you only care about a cross next to a gave site?

Because 'context clues' apply to more than just reading.

Why is it that when the architects of Government buildings made them with characters of wisdom from religion, legend, and myth... the only one you people bitch about is Solomon?

"You people"? Solomon? I literally have no idea who or what you're trying to complain about here.

[RWT]

At 8/19/10 09:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/19/10 09:11 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Can you explain to me why you apparently think an image may become a religious symbol by official decree only? Because to me, that's what seems "fucking retarded" here.

Really?

Then can you explain to me why you don't apply this logic in EVERY place a cross is seen?

Why is it that you only care about a cross next to a gave site?

Why is it that when the architects of Government buildings made them with characters of wisdom from religion, legend, and myth... the only one you people bitch about is Solomon?

Why not complain about the Letter "t" in our alphabet?

But let's not stop there, we need to ban the "X" too.

Because what is an "X" but a tilted cross?

You be trollin', in my honest opinion.

Evidence for my argument (that the cross has been adapted as a secular symbol):

http://www.riotacts.com/fire/maltesecros s.html

Have you ever heard anyone bitch about how your local fire department uses a cross-shaped symbol? Knowledgeable firefighters themselves will tell you that the current symbol is derived from the cross of St. Florian, the patron saint of fire protection. It has become such an icon, and has evolved such a benign meaning, that it's acceptable to stamp it on U.S. government property.

If you look around, you'll find many crosses on government property. All of them, including the markers in question in this debate, have a secular meaning.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/19/10 09:30 PM, RWT wrote: If you look around, you'll find many crosses on government property. All of them, including the markers in question in this debate, have a secular meaning.

Hmm I don't think so. There are many different designs for a cross (as your article pointed out); you're trying to conflate crosses with bars of equal length or with irregular bar shapes with the crucifix-type cross. It's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I think using a cross as a grave marker is obviously NOT a secular tradition; if it is, then I'd be more interested in examples of Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or atheists etc purposely using the crucifix shape as a grave marker.

Since this is about a memorial program devised by the state, I think it's more relevant to look towards something like Arlington National Cemetary: all their markers are rectangular with rounded tops, which in-itself has no religious association at all. On the face of the markers is depicted the symbol of the person's religion, or no symbol at all if they weren't religious. And, obviously, for the people who identified with Christianity, they all have the Christian cross on their markers.

That isn't to say that other crosses don't or can't have secular meanings, but I think in the context of a grave marker, a crucifix-type cross has an obvious religious connotation.

[Memorize]

At 8/19/10 09:26 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

No ones doing that.

Sure...

But hey, let's say I start a religion where by some happen-stance, tables are now symbols of my religion.

If by "some happenstance" you mean that a table or tables played a significant role in the formation of your religion, and the image of a table could immediately bring to people's mind just how your religion was started or what it stood for...

But that still doesn't make that table religious. Or anything other than some inanimate object.

Should we ban swastikas just because they bring images of Nazi Germany, despite the fact that he stole the image from asia?

...and the table was used as an identifying image of your religion for over a thousand years? Yeah, that seems fair enough. Then again you're trying to compare a table (which is used in a very broad function) with a crucifix (which isn't) so the comparison is kinda stupid to begin with.

What's funny is that you say that when the crucifix was being used well before Christianity for a specific purpose that was very common.

And it's still used that way in some areas of the world.

It predates a religion that doesn't even signify it in any way.

Yet you're calling it religious?

For the same reason I don't think "that must mean ANARCHY!!! :o" every time I see the letter 'A'.

Not exactly a fair comparison since the word "Cross" doesn't have the letter "T" in it while you're using the letter A for a word that begins with A.

Because 'context clues' apply to more than just reading.

Even when I give you direct facts concerning Christianity as it relates to a cross.

But you still feel the need to call it a religious symbol (even today as it's been 'secularized') just because some religious assholes 1000 years ago say it did.

"You people"? Solomon? I literally have no idea who or what you're trying to complain about here.

Complaining about the 1 character on a Government building that's next to a group of other considered "wise" figures from other myths, religions, and legends.

But I guess complaining only goes towards the top 3 religions, right?

Kind of like how I hardly see an atheist bitch about Buddhism despite the little fact that they're also against homosexuality, but for "nature/natural" reasons (ie. We have 1 man and 1 woman for procreation, therefore we must follow natures natural course).

At 8/19/10 09:45 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Hmm I don't think so. There are many different designs for a cross (as your article pointed out); you're trying to conflate crosses with bars of equal length or with irregular bar shapes with the crucifix-type cross.

I like how you're all "ok" with a cross being for "saving people", but it can't be used as a grave marker.

Holy inconsistency, batman!

It's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I think using a cross as a grave marker is obviously NOT a secular tradition; if it is, then I'd be more interested in examples of Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or atheists etc purposely using the crucifix shape as a grave marker.

Nevermind that it's a symbol that's been around for far more than 1000 years before Christianity, and also used in many cultures, even graves.

Dare I say: Egyptians...

But oh, you're not going to give a damn about that are you?

More excuses, please?

[Gario]

Har, I forget how funny many philosophy/politics/etc. forums can be.

Fine then, I'll play along for a second, Mezmorize (even if you are trolling - I think trolls are fun, especially those that try to sound intelligent). What does the cross on the road symbolize, from a purely secular point of view? For the sake of this argument specifically, the cross cannot represent any religion, since that would also elicit the ban for being unconstitutional (and would really be a redundant point to take, because of that). What does the symbol represent to you, and why?

So far all you've done is point out a bunch of random facts and thrown them at the problem. Let's see where application of these facts take us, shall we?

[Korriken]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

nothing chaps my ass quite like seeing some atheist organization bitching and whining about a plus sign on the side of the road. I love atheists though, they scream about being open minded and all, but are some of the most closed minded, intolerant people i've ever met. The extremes they will go to in order to try and remove anything they deem a religious symbol is... disgusting.

if there is a good, they're in deep shit. if there isn't a god, then they can drift into oblivion knowing that they wasted their life fighting for nothing, instead of just living and being happy the had to be unnecessarily hostile towards other people. I would pity them, but they're not worthy of my pity. As they die whatever painful deaths await them, they can feel the sting of regret that they could never be happy, all because they had to be pricks in life.

[Entice]

The crucifix is a Christian symbol. It may have been represented things before Christianity, but it has been a symbol for Christ for so long that other interpretations are virtually meaningless to the majority of people. A swastika might have other meanings, but its overshadowed by the horrible things that the Nazis did. Show me one person that doesn't scream "Nazi!" when you show them a swastika. It still has other meanings, but when a cross is placed over the grave of someone it obviously has a religion meaning and it is a Christian symbol.

At 8/20/10 12:38 AM, Korriken wrote: nothing chaps my ass quite like seeing some atheist organization bitching and whining about a plus sign on the side of the road. I love atheists though, they scream about being open minded and all, but are some of the most closed minded, intolerant people i've ever met. The extremes they will go to in order to try and remove anything they deem a religious symbol is... disgusting.

It goes both ways, Christians have fought for centuries to defend meaningless symbols, they have killed each other over different interpretations of the religion. This is just as disgusting (if not more disgusting) as screaming at a plus sign on the side of the road is.

Why is it intolerant to want religion kept separate from the government? That's the only thing that those "intolerant" Atheists you mentioned have ever wanted to do. Religious symbols should not be displayed by the government.

[Korriken]

At 8/20/10 01:22 AM, bgraybr wrote:

Why is it intolerant to want religion kept separate from the government? That's the only thing that those "intolerant" Atheists you mentioned have ever wanted to do. Religious symbols should not be displayed by the government.

if they did it out of a sense of duty, i might agree with it. However, i seriously doubt that. Given how low they will stoop to ensure they remove every religious symbol, is remarkably sickening

so you notice a little thing on the side of the road honoring a dead state trooper? does it REALLY offend you to the point where it affects your life? if so, you need some sort of emotional therapy because that is just plan... stupid.

Good show of tolerance, atheists. very nice indeed.

If i gotta put up with rappers, people who play their music way too loud, drug addicts, incredibly open gays who feel the need to show it in public all the time, beggars, and bottom feeding maggots who live off the government, then you can stand to look at an occasional cross.

[Gario]

At 8/20/10 01:22 AM, bgraybr wrote: Why is it intolerant to want religion kept separate from the government? That's the only thing that those "intolerant" Atheists you mentioned have ever wanted to do. Religious symbols should not be displayed by the government.

First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Religious crosses designed to respect the dead do not violate this (even in public spaces), since the government is not making a law that respects the establishment of any religion. Banning crosses from the freeway is a violation of the amendment, since it prohibits the free exercise of a religion.

Learn your country's constitution.

[Entice]

At 8/20/10 01:42 AM, Korriken wrote: if they did it out of a sense of duty, i might agree with it. However, i seriously doubt that. Given how low they will stoop to ensure they remove every religious symbol, is remarkably sickening

I'll admit that the stories you linked to, especially the second one, were sickening.
That said, emotion and politics can't be mixed for the same reason that religion shouldn't be mixed.

If i gotta put up with rappers, people who play their music way too loud, drug addicts, incredibly open gays who feel the need to show it in public all the time, beggars, and bottom feeding maggots who live off the government, then you can stand to look at an occasional cross.

A little off topic, and I found the comment about gays offensive. Lets discuss those issues in another thread.

At 8/20/10 01:49 AM, Gario wrote: First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, and...

Religious crosses designed to respect the dead do not violate this (even in public spaces), since the government is not making a law that respects the establishment of any religion. Banning crosses from the freeway is a violation of the amendment, since it prohibits the free exercise of a religion.

The government is still showing a bias towards Christianity by placing religious symbols in public places. The freeway is obviously government property and should be completely secular.

[blue-ice-cube]

They had good intentions but they kinda did it wrong.

[Gario]

At 8/20/10 01:57 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 8/20/10 01:49 AM, Gario wrote: First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, and...

Religious crosses designed to respect the dead do not violate this (even in public spaces), since the government is not making a law that respects the establishment of any religion. Banning crosses from the freeway is a violation of the amendment, since it prohibits the free exercise of a religion.

The government is still showing a bias towards Christianity by placing religious symbols in public places. The freeway is obviously government property and should be completely secular.

Read the amendment again, please. The government supposedly has a bias for Christianity (although their decision actually shows the opposite is true, at the moment, but that's beside the point). A bias is not a law. I'm sorry you want the First Amendment to say "The Government will not respect the establishment of any religion", but that's not what it says.

Good job at reaffirming your ignorance.

[Entice]

At 8/20/10 02:19 AM, Gario wrote: Read the amendment again, please. The government supposedly has a bias for Christianity (although their decision actually shows the opposite is true, at the moment, but that's beside the point). A bias is not a law. I'm sorry you want the First Amendment to say "The Government will not respect the establishment of any religion", but that's not what it says.

The amendment says "law" but I think that the underlying meaning/purpose was to prevent bias against any belief system by the government- what other purpose could that amendment possibly serve? Yay for being completely literal in your interpretation.

[Gario]

At 8/20/10 02:23 AM, bgraybr wrote: The amendment says "law" but I think that the underlying meaning/purpose was to prevent bias against any belief system by the government- what other purpose could that amendment possibly serve? Yay for being completely literal in your interpretation.

Hmm, perhaps it could've been to, you know, allow anyone and everyone to practice their religion without the fear or risk of being oppressed by any outside individuals/entities (that's what the 'literal' interpretation would result in)? Considering the definition you want to adopt is mutually exclusive to the later statement "...or prohibiting thereof...", I'm going to guess that the 'underlying meaning' is nothing more than an opinion of what you want the constitution to support.

Mine isn't an opinion. I stated the amendment and simply pointed out what actions were directly violating it and what actions were not. There's no room for interpretation, as far as that goes (as much as you'd like there to be).

Also, notice the use of the words 'I think...' in your argument (and the lack of it in mine). We've now entered the mysterious realm of your subjective opinion on what something should be, and are trying to apply it to a reality that may or may not share that same opinion or belief. Understandably, you're allowed to hold and state your own belief on such matters (the First Amendment protects that right for you, "...or abridging the freedom of speech..."), but assuming everyone else in this country holds what you think to be true as the truth is asinine, at best (and malicious, at worst, but I'd like to think you're acting out of ignorance rather than malice).

[Entice]

At 8/20/10 02:47 AM, Gario wrote: Hmm, perhaps it could've been to, you know, allow anyone and everyone to practice their religion without the fear or risk of being oppressed by any outside individuals/entities (that's what the 'literal' interpretation would result in)? Considering the definition you want to adopt is mutually exclusive to the later statement "...or prohibiting thereof...", I'm going to guess that the 'underlying meaning' is nothing more than an opinion of what you want the constitution to support.

Okay, I was stating my opinion and not fact (I'm tired)- and I'm not assuming that everyone else shares my opinion. What I was trying to point out is that there are government decisions besides laws, if that makes any sense.

Isn't allowing anyone to practice their belief without persecution is the same as having a completely unbiased society?

(the First Amendment protects that right for you, "...or abridging the freedom of speech..."), but assuming everyone else in this country holds what you think to be true as the truth is asinine, at best (and malicious, at worst, but I'd like to think you're acting out of ignorance rather than malice).

Have you considered the fact that the government is not an individual and does not have freedom of speech? It is unconstitutional for the government to make decisions biased towards any particular group of people, and that's all I was trying to say.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/19/10 11:54 PM, Memorize wrote: Should we ban swastikas just because they bring images of Nazi Germany, despite the fact that he stole the image from asia?

Wait wait wait... now you're conflating the separation of church and state with the banning of political symbols. Nice try, but the crucifix isn't a political symbol, it's a religious one, and that's why the group protested the state putting cross memorial markers all over public land.

You do bring up a good point though... although it doesn't help your argument at all. The swastika symbol predates the National Socialist party... but when people see a swastika, do they immediately associate it with Hinduism? If swastikas were found spraypainted on Jewish tombstones, would it be the suspected work of some East Indian hate group? Probably not.

What you're doing is identical to suggesting that -- since the swastika predates Nazis -- it isn't really a Nazi symbol. That's a stupid argument to make. Claiming that symbols don't change in meaning or gain new associations is the same as claiming that language doesn't change or that words don't gain new associations.

What's funny is that you say that when the crucifix was being used well before Christianity for a specific purpose that was very common.

Uhhhh... what's funny about that?

It predates a religion that doesn't even signify it in any way.

Yet you're calling it religious?

Doesn't even signify it in any way? This is just ridiculous. You're suggesting that the image of a crucifix has absolutely no relation to the religion formed around the narrative of the New Testament... a narrative that includes suffering as one of its major themes, a narrative whose main protagonist suffers and dies on a crucifix only to later magically come back to life. Yeah, when people make a huge deal over the events surrounding the life of a guy they think is God Incarnate, including what he taught and especially how he died... it's safe to say that it takes on a distinctly religious connotation at that point.

It's almost as if you're suggesting that people were looking for an image to symbolize their religion and just pulled the cross picture out of a hat, like one had literally nothing to do with the other. So, like others now, I'm wondering if you're trolling or just really are THAT stupid.

Not exactly a fair comparison since the word "Cross" doesn't have the letter "T" in it while you're using the letter A for a word that begins with A.

How the word 'cross' is spelled has absolutely nothing to do with why people associate particular images with particular ideas, events, and persons. You're not really good as this whole 'context' thing , are you?

Even when I give you direct facts concerning Christianity as it relates to a cross.

The only 'fact' you've shared is the crosses were around before Christianity... which has no bearing on crosses being a Christian symbol both in the present day and for well over a thousand years beforehand.

But you still feel the need to call it a religious symbol (even today as it's been 'secularized') just because some religious assholes 1000 years ago say it did.

Again, do you even understand what a "symbol" is? Pictures, sounds, letters, words... they're ALL symbols. Symbols convey ideas. The crucifix conveys the idea of Christianity because it's an image of what Jesus suffered and died on. Jesus' suffering, death and magic resurrection is a major (if not THE major) theme of Christianity. This is all simple, straight-forward stuff. How you fail to understand any of it is beyond me.

Complaining about the 1 character on a Government building that's next to a group of other considered "wise" figures from other myths, religions, and legends.

But I guess complaining only goes towards the top 3 religions, right?

Dude, do you just up and assume that any individual person who disagrees with you belongs to one big pool of people who all share the same opinion of everything? I personally don't give a shit what characters appear on government buildings. How about you just stick to the topic at hand?

I like how you're all "ok" with a cross being for "saving people", but it can't be used as a grave marker.

Holy inconsistency, batman!

Huh? I'm saying that the cross is obviously a religious symbol. I'm saying that when you use a cross on a grave marker (including AS a grave marker) then it has an obvious religious context to it. And with regard to the topic at hand, it's simply a matter of the separation of church and state. It isn't that the cross can't be used as a grave marker, it's that the government probably shouldn't be erecting crosses all over public land.

Am I a member of American Atheists? No. Do I live in Utah? No. Am I personally offended by crucifix markers? No. I honestly don't care. That being said, I still think it would have been smarter (and no less of an honor to the fallen) to have normal, rectangular markers instead. Making them all in the shape of a cross was just inviting complaint.

Nevermind that it's a symbol that's been around for far more than 1000 years before Christianity, and also used in many cultures, even graves.

Dare I say: Egyptians...

Again, the fact that the symbol in some form predates Christianity doesn't mean that it isn't a symbol of Christianity. It's like claiming that since the term "gay" used to mean "happy" eighty years ago, it doesn't actually mean "homosexual" when people use it now... even when it's obviously being used in that context. Symbols change in meaning and gain in meaning. That you seem unable to get past that is mind-boggling.

...

When most of the living world starts to associate the crucifix with something besides Christianity, THEN you might have a point. That day hasn't arrived yet, so until then, you don't.

[Gario]

At 8/20/10 03:02 AM, bgraybr wrote: Isn't allowing anyone to practice their belief without persecution is the same as having a completely unbiased society?

Nope. I allow Pastafarians and Scientologists to practice their own belief without attempting to repress them in any way, but I'm terribly biased in my opinion against them. Given the chance, I'd question them and discuss how they could believe the crap that they do, but I wouldn't restrict or repress them from believing it. Asking for an entity to be unbiased would be to ask them to make all of their decisions outside of the opinion of every other person, which is virtually impossible (the government is made up of people, too, and people cannot get rid of their biases - they can only change them in favor of one thing or another).

One is a feasible task that Americans should strive for. The other is impossible.

At 8/20/10 03:02 AM, bgraybr wrote:

Have you considered the fact that the government is not an individual and does not have freedom of speech? It is unconstitutional for the government to make decisions biased towards any particular group of people, and that's all I was trying to say.

I have considered that, and I agree that the government isn't a person, and thus doesn't hold the same rights as one.

Have you considered that an action that bans all crosses from the highway is a 'biased opinion' in favor of atheism performed by the government, while the status quo is a 'biased opinion' toward the majority of America, not just a religious group (Christians still make up over 80% of the population, you know)? Or, perhaps, that removing crosses from the road (that the government had in no way participated in erecting) is restricting the Christian people from practicing their own faith? It's the equivalent of Christians telling the government to ban images of Buddha because it isn't representative of their own beliefs, and the government responded to it by making a law banning the use of images of Buddha in public spaces. Wouldn't you see that as an infringement on Buddhists right to express their own religion (or other people's right to criticize the stupidity of assigning an arbitrary numbers and images with so much meaning)?

It's harder to see what the truth is when the action directly favors your own position. Look at it from a perspective that doesn't favor your bias and try to make your same arguments. You'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to do so.