In Utah, as posted earlier, Amnerican Atheists is part of a lawsuit to remove blatantly illegal 12′ crosses on the side of the road. Agree or disagree with that if you will, but don’t lie!Recently, certain questionably ethical news outlets have asserted that American Atheists is also trying to get the crosses on graves at Arlington National Cemetary removed as well. This is NOT TRUE. We have made no such statements, no press releases, and have made no effort in regard to Arlington, and WILL NOT DO SO.Crosses on the graves at Arlington (or any other cemetery) obviously pertain to the people who ARE buried under the stones. Christians get crosses, Jews get stars, Muslims get Crescents, and yes Atheists get Atheist symbols. No preference is given, and there is no inference of government endorsement of one religion, even though it’s a public cemetery.In Utah, we are talking about 12′ steel crosses ONLY, where there is no body, where there is no grave, and where there is no cemetery. It’s just an excuse to put up a great big cross in full view, with full knowledge that it’s illegal.Another thing we’re getting is that crosses are not Christian symbols rather universal symbols of mourning. Puh-lease! If you go to a Jewish cemetery, do you see crosses? Muslim cemeteries? Do church parishioners get on their knees in front of a universal symbol of mourning, or a uniquely Christian Icon? To thine own self be true!The death of a hero is not a reason to break the law, nor is it an excuse. We FULLY SUPPORT the idea of memorials commemorating heroes, but obelisks, plaques, or flower gardens would do the same thing without breaking the law — so why the religious symbols? Why only one brand of symbol? Why claim that a giant cross isn’t religious, when we all clearly know that’s not true?And why distract the people with bogus reports about Arlington? Hmmm????
Comment from: David Silverman [Member] ? http://www.atheists.org/
What? You’re complaining about lawsuits? Then why stick your nose in it? Why force YOUR views on others?
Let me ask you this. Is the Navy Cross unconstitutional?
One other question. Who originated the lawsuit?
Seeker:
Now, YOUR post on separation of church & state is by far a more compelling & thoughtful rendition that I’ve ever seen on this blog. It gives pause to the open-minded.
You provide a secular link, & a good & telling argument.
There are those here who could benefit from your good example.
I find a # of minor issues w/a few things:
A.
Witnesses to verify this, in lieu of time/date stamps? It’s a minor rhetorical point, true, but am curious about it.
B. Noteworthy is the absence of mentioning YHVH, JC, etc. The seemingly diplomatic effort of not defining just which creator, etc. Again, seems to be a minor point. Of course, the general public (& the Baptists) would know of whom he spake.
It’s the effort at remaining less than specific that intrigues me. It seems to my uninformed eyes, that even then, TJ was refusing to be pinned down. Leaving the definition of ‘religion’ open-ended.
Each man/woman, is entitled, as the letter states, “that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship”, I also believe, that religion is best kept to oneself, unless there is a willingness to share from another.
Of course you do.
It’s open-ended. Fluid.
Moral relativism has such far reaching ramifications on all sides of the fence.
I’m a broad constructionist/constitutionalist (substitute your noun of choice here).
Nothing is locked in stasis.
Gee Dave,
Agree or disagree…..but don’t lie!??? Talk about misleading. Does that apply to both sides?
Your own web site tells a slightly different story. These crosses are erected by a “private” organization.
I wonder why you didn’t that to the troops?
NO STATE TAX DOLLARS !!!!!!!
The real purpose of the lawsuit is to force your views on America.
These statements reveal your sides true intentions.
And according to your own “Mike Rivers” even he doesn’t claim they “establish a religion” only that they give the “impression”.
Weak. Very weak.
And very disappointing……..
Did I say it was tax funded? I don’t think I did…
It’s an irrelevant point. If we all chipped in to make an anti-religious (as opposed to secular) icon, we would not have the right to place said icon on public land. That would also be illegal. Good for the goose…
David:
question:
The crosses were funded by the UCHP.
Who owns the land?
No Dave…you never said “tax funded”. But you sure implied it as the comments prove.
You never answered my question.
Is the Navy Cross unconstitutional?
Reluctant: The government owns the land. If this were private property it would not be an issue (unless there were zoning violations).
Phreed, I don’t know — I’d need to learn more.
Now a question for you: Would you accept the reverse? Would you accept Satanist (upside down) crosses, paid for by private donors, on public land, 12 feet high, next to the highway? Would that be Kosher for you?
David:
If it’s government-owned – nix the crosses then.
Naval medals? Well, there’s a few that are upside down stars – don’t make ‘em satanic. Have to say – neither one’s unconstitutional.
Love this thing about the ‘troops’: I’m guessing you’re the general? Should I salute? Goose-step? What?
Am I a PFC in your personal ‘army’?
Sir, yes SIR!
The whole exercise is clearly religious in form and function. If the intent is to honor the fallen officers, why not erect the officer’s name or the UHP logo to be a prominent 12 feet tall? By building giant crosses, it is obvious who is being glorified.
You know, Christians like to act like there’s nothing wrong here because so far, all the fallen have been honored with crosses. We see this happen all the time with public meetings being opened with a prayer. Christians defend the practice until the day when a non-Christian gets a chance to give the prayer. Suddenly, the prayer is removed from the agenda. Just let one officer fall who is Atheist, or Muslim, or Wiccan, and then we’ll see how the Christians react.
Phreedm seems to be under the impression that we’re all a bunch of robots here. It’s just the observer effect in action, Phreed. We unite whenever you drop a bomb on the party, but as soon as you leave we start right back up debating amongst ourselves.
We’re all independent thinkers here and there is no official atheist canon for any of us to adhere to. This is nothing like your local church.
this is an issue where even if you win the battle you lose the war. it is not a good way to make friends and influence people. it makes atheists seem like cold, uncompromising individuals and whiners to boot.
so it’s technically illegal. there are many things illegal that go on without enforcement.
the group that paid for the crosses, the UHPA should have some say so in what the memorials look like. it’s for their dead comrades.
we would be better served to insist that a 12′ steel memorial, be it a cross or billy goat or whatever, is a potential safety hazard to a motorist who may run off the road and hit it. this would seem to be a REAL problem, i.e., a public health and safety issue. might be able to win that way without the negative publicity.
Dave…..any recognized religion can use any public land as far as I’m concerned. Freedom of religion you know. Now, since atheism isn’t a religion……….nix on your monument. Nothing about “freedom of non-religions”.
So what I gather is no one in Utah complained. Instead the local chapter of the “American Atheists” filed the suit to protect the highways from all of these 12 foot crosses that are littering the highway.
So 3 resisdents of Utah are forcing their views on the entire state. Hmmmm…………..
Have any of the 12 families complained?
Nice cop out on the Navy Cross.
Off topic but i think i found Tims website
http://www.therefinersfire.org/challenging_atheism.htm
Navy Cross isn’t very christian looking to me.
Phreedm:
So all we have to do is ‘admit’ that atheism is a ‘religion’ and you’ll let us erect 12′ high steel atheist atom symbols along the highway? The twisting of constitutional rights aside, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist who would ever be so presumptuous.
udonman:
Awesome. Probably the weakest collection of arguments ever assembled. I especially love the ‘Don’t Argue with Unbelievers’ link. I agree they shouldn’t – they would lose.
It’s contained in the famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in which Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state.”
Exactly.
Yep. But the point is, Jefferson’s comments would be considered an endorsement of religion by today’s criteria.
Keeping to one’s self ? to empower government to silence Christians is to empower government to silence atheists. Or, to empower government to silence phreedm is to empower government to silence σσ The Seeker ♂.
Government should not have that power.
Comment from: rainbows4dinosaurs [Member]
It’s a type of Jerusalem Cross or a Greek Cross. Used in early eastern Christian churches. Also used as a coat of arms during the first crusade.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jerusalem%20Cross%20%20
I’m not sure what the fuss is since even the article doesn’t claim an “endorsement” of religion.
I have learned through my life experiences that the Christian is generally a very conniving and manipulative person. And it seems the stronger their belief in their chosen God (there are so many religious sects that claim their God is the true God) the more dishonest and manipulative they are.
Therefore, it does not surprise me in the least when contradictory statements are made or published.
Whatever fits the bill to keep the scam alive!!
The old saying “follow the money” is very applicable when it comes to religion. You will truly find the most despicable people at the end of the money trail!
Seeker:
Okay, my ORIGINAL comment was about the ink drying. Sorry, apparently didn’t qualify it properly.
Yes it would, but really, even by today’s standards, all it would point to is that he’s religious.
Now see here, sir, I was inferring nothing of the sort.
What you are claiming is censorship are voices of protest at the invidious influences of, & obvious bias towards Xtianity.
& of course, compromise is such a rare commodity on either side.
The state/federal govt. shouldn’t endorse it either way.
& true, some officials are religious, it does have some impact on their decision making processes.
But the fine line here, I think, is that when the belief spills over into impacting those who don’t agree, or espouse said religion. & many don’t seem to make that distinction.
Censorship is such an ugly word. But there are extremists everywhere, not just religious 1′s. Extremity is an earmark of the human condition.
Better to raise a voice in protest, even if inconvenient, than to suffer in silence, I think.
No, govt. shouldn’t silence anyone. But then, that’s what the ‘Free Speech’ zones are for, ain’t they?
It’s easy to cry, ‘Censorship!’. Far easier than to say, ‘Oops. Sorry. We’ll correct that.’
If these occurrences were few, & far between, there’d be less noise about them, I think.
I have a problem w/the seeming prevalency of Xtian symbols everywhere. Didn’t notice them prior to my atheism.
Back when I had a baroque meritocracy, I shrugged, & thought nothing of them.
Now that I’m a minority (yet again!), they stand out, & I cannot help but take offense, minor or major.
As the SC pointed out, religion is an issue best left to the parents’ judgment, not to be taught by the state.
Noteworthy exceptions, of course, are Indiana, & Oaklahoma. & Barton’s insidious efforts to bolster the ‘myth of seperation of church & state’.
That’s my nickel’s worth, anyways.
udonman,r4d:
Yeah, that website’s a real hoot.
I note they prattle Barton’s nonsense, & yeesh! That disproven crap seems to be EVERYWHERE on the ‘Net.
I refer of course, to Barton’s statistics on how EVERYTHING in this country went down when prayer was removed from the schools (abortion, crime, goes UP, SAT scores go DOWN, that sort of ubiquitous crap).
I’m reminded of a columnist (whose name escapes me), who said (of McNuggets), “It just proves that Americans will eat anything deep-fried & dipped in sugar.”
Likewise for facts, apparently.
If someone of a religious background pays with his life for our freedom in combat, do we not owe it to him to give him the cross as a head stone?
It’s like saying, “Thanks for your sacrifice, just don’t offend me or use my tax dollars with your headstone”.
phred phlintstone:
Sheee-it. Guess I’m not a citizen. Guess I don’t have any rights whatsoever, in accordance w/your revisionism.
Thanks for the lesson in civics.
& the lesson in how Xtians think.
I also forgot to add, when you’re in the military, they ask you what your religious prefrence is and they base the headstone on what the soldier gives them.
If they are a non-Christian then the families have the option of just having a plain headstone.
jerry,
Obviously you jumped into the discussion late, so you’ve missed a lot. That’s the whole point of this discussion: the difference between personal religous liberty (including free exercise, monuments on private property, and cemetary headstones), and the intrusion of personal religious beliefs in the public domain (including religious monuments on public land).
And regarding headstones, there are literally dozens of headstone designs available for non-Christians, not just a blank. The U.S. consists of people of many beliefs, not just Christian and non-Christian.
Jerry:
& a crescent for Islam? A Star of David for Jews?
Howzabout a Wiccan?
Pardon me, but it seems, from your words, that the Xtian gets a cross, everyone else gets a plain headstone, no religious underpinnings.
That don’t seem right. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Jerry:
Well, visited your website.
The FCC petition via Atheists is a hoax, & the Arlington Cemetary rumor is just that, a rumor.
Left a coupla posts on your site.
It’s a pretty site, I’ll grant you that.
Life’s hard enough, w/o people telling fibs about you.
Thanks for your comments about the site. Didn’t see your posts though.
When I made the post about Arlington I wasn’t really referring to an official position by the Athiests.org, is was mostly in response to some posts I had seen by athiests in other sites forums.
Jerry,
then why do you, on your site, quote your response to this blog? You are certainly insinuating that this is the position of American Atheists.
If that is not your intention, then I suggest you need to make that clear.
As it stands it is clearly misleading and disingenuous.
Jerry,
as for the hoaxes, here is the FCC one.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/fcc.asp
We (the infidels) confirm sources before stating our dislike about religion, we kindly ask you reciprocate. Thanks.
Ok sorry for the misquote. I’ll fix that. I thought I saw it here but it may have been somewhere else.
I’d love to debate other issue’s with you in my forum as I’m not very educated on most of what athiests are disputing.
Regarding the symbols at Arlington, I’m not aware of any fallen athists families that didn’t get the headstone they wanted for their loved ones. Is there an incident I’m not aware of or are you just asking in general what you get, hypthetically, if you were a soldier killed in action?
FYI, the FCC hoax denied by the FCC at FCC.gov
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/Religious.html
I really wish theists would stop lying about us.