How important to you is the Utah crosses lawsuit?

If you don't know what I am referring to, go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1961309

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most important and 1 being least important, how important to you is the Utah crosses lawsuit?

Just like the Founders intended. Screw the Bill of Rights! :sarcasm:

and an honest and fair poll.

How important is religious freedom? Lets make it subject to majority will.:eyes:

Gauging the amount of importance attributed to this case tells us something about that definition as it is held by the posters in the R+T forum who choose to answer the poll.

.

to be how important are issues concerning the separation of church and state, I would list that as a 10. Within the context of issues of separation of church and state, I'd list it as a 7, with God on our money and pledge as probably 8 and 9. Maybe teaching creationism in public school would make a 10, as would public display of the ten commandments in a court room.

But it's silly to put ideals that our country was founded on to a test of popularity. I guess it would be similar to not prosecuting criminals for anything less serious than a felony. Either it's the law or it isn't. If it violates the constitution, try the case. The Christian right is constantly chipping away at the separation of church and state. If we don't stand up to that it will just get worse. We've been backsliding for 200 years on this issue. When our currency was first made, there was no "in God We Trust". It was "E Pluribus Unum". In the 1860's, with increasing religiosity and power of the clergy, and a civil war, that changed.

And it was during the anticommunist hysteria of the 1950's that "Under God" was introduced to our pledge. Nationalism is linked with God, and we are passing through another period of nationalistic fervor now with the neocons and God. Now we hear that God told Bush to invade Iraq. Whether it's true or not, it's not far from the truth. We're heading towards a Theocracy. It's time to present some serious resistance to that trend and reassert the ideals we stand for.

To be one of colossal triviality....

the atheists push it and win, right?:evilgrin:

is directly proportional to how well the right wing is able to use it against us in the next election. "Oh, they tearin' down memorials to heroid dead policemen!" is a wee bit more damaging then "they want actual science taught in science class!"

the issue was not only trivial, but colossally trivial. It does not matter how colossally trivial points are decided; only points of consequence, so if this is colossally trivial to the theists, them let the atheist win:evilgrin: ...

I'd wager the point to be made was that it was too trivial to be brought up at all, let alone decided.

not refute my "Let the atheists win" argument. If it is too trivial to be decided (by you), let someone who cares about it decide it.

<>

I posted this as a thread of its own, but it applies here. We have been doing jack shit for years and here we are, not in power. And who are you to decide the relative importance of a particular issue for a particular group of people because this is NOT a party issue. The DNC is not involved in this case. Man, we went down this road once before in another thread, but I'm willing to do it again.

And here's the other thing that was argued by atheists that never got addressed. Why not "memorialize" the death spot of the officers with something that looks like a police shield or badge. Then there is no church/state problem and the thing is still there.

to the people reading it.

<>

That's trivial?

Oh wait, that's atheists shoving their lack of religion in everyone's face. Sorry, my bad.

They are pushing the limits of audacity and arrogance like a cock attracting a hen.

Remember, no 12 Foot High Crosses were proposed for any regular ole citizens, only for some Representatives of the State. Hmmmm...

They are counting on ignorance to gain more power, and I don't wish to be a factor.

12 Foot Crosses
Representatives of the State
12 Foot Crosses
Representatives of the State

American Atheists is pulling our chains here with this publicity stunt. Utah, of all places, and they think they'll prevail? They aren't even trying to get the crosses taken down, just the state police symbol off of them.

The monuments are ridiculously huge and the penultimate in bad taste, but whatever constitutional questions they raise are not worth raising. The roads across America are filled with monuments to the dead of the roads, and religious symbols abound. Our veterans are buried in national cemetaries with crosses and stars above them.

This obscenely garish display is not a display of public religion, but respect for the religion of the dead person. Take 'em down because they are ugly, traffic hazards, and violate highway beautification laws, but not because they are religious.

Of course, this being Utah, one doubts a crescent or six-pointed star would ever be found on the roads, but that still doesn't affect the fundamental principle.

Using your own words:

"The monuments are ridiculously huge and the penultimate in bad taste"

There goes the "honoring the dead" argument.

I've heard the claims that Rove is behind the Atheist effort.
It makes more sense that Rove is behind the "ridiculously huge and the penultimate in bad taste"
monuments in order to pick a fight with rational folks on emotionally charged irrational issues.

"Of course, this being Utah, one doubts a crescent or six-pointed star would ever be found on the roads, but that still doesn't affect the fundamental principle."

What fundamental principle are you supporting here?

are not necessarily the harbingers of good taste.

Claims that Rove is behind the atheist effort are not worthy of notice without concrete evidence. Such a thing is, of course, possible, but remember that things ascribed to conspiracy are far more often attributable to stupidity.

The fundamental principle I refer to is that shrines and memorials have been put by the roadways for years. It is a very old European tradition, with some very memorable shrines over there and I imagine it got carried over here from the Old
Country. I personally think it's a bit silly, but it's not my dead relatives or cow orkers who are being remembered. If we are to have such fixtures at all, however, observing the religion of the dead seems perfectly appropriate.

Again, it's not the memorials that I object to, but their outlandish size. I have no trouble understanding that some people might think these monstrosities to be a bit in-your-face.

"I have no trouble understanding that some people might think these monstrosities to be a bit in-your-face."

Good. Right. Then you see the atheist point.

Fuck them. Different country, different rules. Do you want to live in a country with an official national religion? I don't. Some might if it was their particular brand of religion, but would not like it if it wasn't.

Let me tell you a little story. A bunch of people left England because they couldn't practice their religion. They went someplace where there was no real government and started their own "colony." As soon as they got there, they started persecuting anyone who was different from their religion (this is the only funny part of the story, because irony is inherently funny). Then, when a revolution occurred, the people that won (basing their decision on the Inquisition, the group of zealots that came to persecute in their own fashion, and the original problems in England) decided church and religion were a bad mix (kind of completely the opposite of chocolate and peanut butter). Do you get it?

Church and religion have not had a good history in Europe. I think the Inquisition was kinda screwed up. But, hey, if you want to hold up their "tradition" as something we should do here, good luck to you. As for me, reread the first two words of this post.

I've heard that Karl Rove is really behind DU in an attempt to get liberals and progressives all in the same place reinforcing their wildest paranoid conspiracy theories in an effort to weaken and discredit the Dems.

Do I have any evidence for this? Not a shred, but because it's Karl Rove, it's worthy of notice. Right?

And did you know they actually passed the 14th amendment that said that EVEN UTAH needs to follow the constitution? But Utah is controlled by a religious group, so we should just throw out the 1st Amendment when in the borders of Utah? I think the Puritans in Massachusetts might like to get back to some good old heathen burnin' if that is the case.

It is a violation of the establishment clause. You all but admit it.

The "Arlington Crosses" argument is a red herring. Stop making that argument.
1) it is the actual grave site, not the place where the death happened.
2) there are no headstones in the shape of crosses (that is Normandy). Each headstone is identical. They have different "emblems" that you can put on them.

Go here for a look http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/emblems.htm

You will notice there are all kinds of them. Even an atheist one. So the government is not establishing one religion over another. That's a mighty big difference. One you could drive an establishment clause through.

religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.