If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Road crosses ruled unconstitutional. Chicken inconsolable   (cnn.com) divider line 642
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19679 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:15 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



642 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-19 07:27:31 AM  
Is Christmas unconstitutional?
 
2010-08-19 07:48:53 AM  
Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?

You want a "big government takeover" of Christmas?
 
2010-08-19 07:58:05 AM  
Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...
 
2010-08-19 08:09:43 AM  
I'm not sure I get this. If no state money is used, and they aren't a dangerous obstacle in the ROW, then. . .

Of course, the first golden calf you put up out there might cause an equal and opposite spaz attack.

.
 
2010-08-19 08:15:34 AM  
I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).
 
2010-08-19 08:17:13 AM  
Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...


It's also a secular holiday, as we're often reminded around December when the Right floods the media with accusations of "taking Christ out of Christmas".

If you want secularize the cross as well, you're going to get even more backlash from Christians.

Separation of church and state is a two way street -- because when you bring it into the public domain, the public can and will change the meaning -- much to your clear resentment.
 
2010-08-19 08:17:55 AM  
Next stop: Road Pentagrams!
 
2010-08-19 08:18:38 AM  
Holidays and festivals are only real if they're recognized by the federal government.
 
2010-08-19 08:20:08 AM  
Why don't we just put up large tombstones that are not cross shaped? how about a small billboard? There bickering over shape....
 
2010-08-19 08:20:17 AM  
Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?

At the risk of sounding like a jackass, Christmas was stolen from the Pagans anyway, so...ya know...there's something there, I just don't know what it is yet. Unhelpful. I suck.
 
2010-08-19 08:21:03 AM  
So if the memorials weren't cross shaped, this would all be fine? I'm pretty big on separation of church and state, but this is just nitpicky. Call me when they start erecting crosses in front of courthouses or schools.
 
2010-08-19 08:21:33 AM  
To be fair, the roads are public property. I'd rather just not put anything on the side of the road as opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system. That's what cemeteries and memorial gardens are for.

That being said, if you are so offended by something as simple as a little white marker on the side of the road that you feel the need to sue, you should have a buckshot lunch.
 
2010-08-19 08:22:06 AM  
spin359: Why don't we just put up large tombstones that are not cross shaped? how about a small billboard? There bickering over shape....

beat me to it, but yeah... seriously
 
2010-08-19 08:22:10 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

hikinghq.net
 
2010-08-19 08:23:14 AM  
I was always told that those crosses were there not only in memory of people, but also to serve as a warning to other drivers that due to carelessness or a bad area in the road, someone lost their lives at this place.....Memorials aren't there for the dead, they are there for the living.

I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?
 
2010-08-19 08:23:26 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: To be fair, the roads are public property. I'd rather just not put anything on the side of the road as opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system. That's what cemeteries and memorial gardens are for.

That being said, if you are so offended by something as simple as a little white marker on the side of the road that you feel the need to sue, you should have a buckshot lunch.



Who said it's about being offended? It's about the principal of the thing, which you seem to share.
 
2010-08-19 08:23:41 AM  
I wish death upon all religions but this is not particuclarly a battle worth fighting.
 
2010-08-19 08:24:26 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

No, but I would want my cross made of Fritos.
 
2010-08-19 08:24:46 AM  
Osama is still free, how about you?
 
2010-08-19 08:25:27 AM  
LegalHeaven: how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?

I don't know about Utah, but in Indiana, although it's not really enforced, such memorials are legally the equivalent of littering.
 
2010-08-19 08:25:42 AM  
Oldiron_79: Osama is still free, how about you?

If by free you mean "dead."

.
 
2010-08-19 08:26:33 AM  
FTFA: A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.
 
2010-08-19 08:26:49 AM  
How come cops get State endorsment, but some trucker doesn't get a memorial "for his service and a reminder of fallen comrades"?
 
2010-08-19 08:26:55 AM  
How come there's no Star of David markers?
 
2010-08-19 08:27:13 AM  
If someone in my family died on the roadside I would not need some stupid half assed memorial to mark the spot. My eyes will find it and my heart will break every time I go by regardless.

Oh, and HOTY candidate you got there, subby. +eleventy
 
2010-08-19 08:27:53 AM  
AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

Jews drive better?
 
2010-08-19 08:28:09 AM  
AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

because christians are the worst drivers
 
2010-08-19 08:28:56 AM  
I'm always leery of governmental erections.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:29 AM  
LegalHeaven: I was always told that those crosses were there not only in memory of people, but also to serve as a warning to other drivers that due to carelessness or a bad area in the road, someone lost their lives at this place.....Memorials aren't there for the dead, they are there for the living.

I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?


No one gives a shiat when a private citizen does it. However IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I read road side memorials are a distraction to drivers. Distractions=bad results.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:37 AM  
We can get something as innocuous as a cross on a highway ruled unconstitutional, yet the very clearly unconstitutional 'drunk driving' checkpoints continue unabated. If only memorial crosses made the state money those bereaving families could have their way.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:39 AM  
This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

/the bat-shait insane-ness is getting out of control - on both sides of the political spectrum.
 
2010-08-19 08:30:24 AM  
AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

It's Utah. They have no Jews.
 
2010-08-19 08:30:51 AM  
habitual_masticator: AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

because christians are the worst drivers


actually a number of asians in the US are actually christians.

wait did i just go there?
 
2010-08-19 08:31:26 AM  
Why the hell does this have a "sad" tag?

There's nothing wrong with putting up markers for a state trooper's death (though it is a big waste of money), but there is a big problem when you're using obnoxious and completely religious symbols like that cross. Like the article says, Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.
 
2010-08-19 08:31:40 AM  
DarnoKonrad: Who said it's about being offended? It's about the principal of the thing, which you seem to share.

I agree with the principle. I just don't understand what goes through the mind of somebody who is driving down the road and sees one of those and feels the need to take it to court. Pick your battles, people.
 
2010-08-19 08:31:53 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.


Actually, the markers at Arlington are your standard tombstone shape with an engraved indicator of the deceased's religion. You're thinking of the graves at Flanders. Don't worry, Cheney made the exact same mistake, so you're in good company.
 
2010-08-19 08:31:56 AM  
I don't get the lettering people have done on their cars/trucks memorializing a loved one. It would suck to think my final legacy is lovingly inscribed on the rear window of a 1998 Hyundai hatchback.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:02 AM  
tricksiecat: ...Call me when they start erecting crosses in front of courthouses or schools.

That could happen if someone dies in front of one.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:06 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I dunno. Some think it is the place where the soul was released into the ether.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:14 AM  
This is a use of the word "sad" with which I am not familiar.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:30 AM  
They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.
 
2010-08-19 08:33:03 AM  
I thought the "Chicken" crossed "The Road" by turning state's evidence.
 
2010-08-19 08:33:46 AM  
WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?
 
2010-08-19 08:34:31 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: I just don't understand what goes through the mind of somebody who is driving down the road and sees one of those and feels the need to take it to court.

Probably something like:

ShillinTheVillain: opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system.

Taking something to court isn't always an exercise in malice. There's good reasons, for all faiths and lack thereof, to keep the law on the side of secularism.
 
2010-08-19 08:34:33 AM  
username101: There's nothing wrong with putting up markers for a state trooper's death (though it is a big waste of money), but there is a big problem when you're using obnoxious and completely religious symbols like that cross. Like the article says, Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.

Well, some people can look at a cross and think "grave marker" without thinking "obnoxious and completely religious". Apparently the Mormons are more open-minded than you.
 
2010-08-19 08:34:38 AM  
Yeah_Right: This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

/the bat-shait insane-ness is getting out of control - on both sides of the political spectrum.


The article clearly states that it was the "Utah Highway Patrol Association" that put those crosses.

And besides, it isn't roadside crosses that are unconstitutional, it's obnoxiously large and very obvious ones that are, because, being on the side of a highway and clearly visible, having Utah allow them is essentially Utah supporting Christianity, as highways are public, not private, land.
 
2010-08-19 08:35:28 AM  
Oh give me a farking break. Crosses are generally recognized as a memorial symbol without having to have a religious undertone. While they might be right in asking for them to be taken down is this really worth the damn effort? Being Utah and all I'm sure they could have found better things to aim for rather than pissing on dead troopers.
 
2010-08-19 08:35:32 AM  
B-b-b-but Pocket Ninja:, If people don't have their voodoomumbojumbo made up fake B.S. pseudo religeous rites, then you're denying them the sanctity of voodoomumbojumbo made up fake B.S. pseudo religeous rites. Which are constitutionally neglected.
 
2010-08-19 08:35:33 AM  
i171.photobucket.com

RIP Charing Cross Road


/sorry, couldn't resist
//are the kids still doing this?
 
2010-08-19 08:36:31 AM  
Yeah_Right: This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

The policy is that private citizens are not allowed to put permanent displays along the roadside of any sort. That is a good policy. The government isn't supposed to erect religious displays, this is also a good policy. Together they mean no roadside crosses. Put up one of those historical markers like you see for all the civil war battle sites if you want to mark the spot.
 
Displayed 50 of 642 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report