Utah’s Cross Controversy

I live in NC and it is common to drive down the road and see crosses as memorials to anyone who has died in a car accident. When I see these it doesn't make me think of my Chrisitian beliefs of the cross, but rather how the family that errected that memorial must be suffering. It also makes me wonder how the accident occured, and I might take the time to slow down on a particular dangerous section of road. Now these monuments that have been erected in Utah are paid for by the State Troopers, no public funds are being used. So, I think that most people when they see these are going to wonder how these Troopers fell in the line of duty, and what is being done to ensure that deaths such as these don't happen again, At least that is the way that I would see it.

Let us be specific and detailed. Many of us in this nation realize that all forms of religion do a disservice both to their believers and society as a whole, but we elect to tolerate these beliefs because they are a private matter. If the Christians of this nation want to make it a PUBLIC matter, we can begin with taxation of the parasites who pump the vile nonsense into the minds of the weak whilst all the time living in opulence at the expense of their flock Their are those among us who believe that Christianity and other religions are inherently evil and REFUSE to have our tax money or public property used in any form of expression of religious preference what so ever. In the use of private lands and private funds the matter is private, but any public usage of monies or properties that invokes religion is unacceptable and will be met with resistance by any and all means. So please be advised that although many Atheists are also pacifists, not all of us are. Follow the law of the land, not of some nonexistent God, or you will be held accountable.

When you go down the roads in the Republic of Texas you will see many memorials along the roaside. They have been set there by family and friends people who have lost their lives on the road. Some are simple crosses and some have become larger when flowers and teddy bears have been added. It is something we do in Texas, just like pulling over and stopping when a funeral passes by. Those that don't like it can go back to where they came from, "DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS"
roaddog1943

and by-the-way, crosses never bothered me nor churches nor anything depicting any religion. as far as i am concerned all the above are part of a history. and yes eventhough i am spiritually oriented i am not member of any organized religion

russia fought nazis without any religious pretext so i don't c any reason not to be able to respect if one doesn't believe in some form of God. its the fact that those who do not believe in themself are actualy part of the problem. i c nothing but intolerance towards ones belives becouse that explains y there is so many religions. its astouding, the denominations and the sub-denominations of the religions and all that because u very religious people cannot come to a common terms. so don't portrate atheists as evil. it is after all the religion itself puting such destuctive divisions among people in this world. maybe if man believed in himself and his neibourgh more than enything else the world might've been a better place to live in

4 *** sakes, r u yankees completely so f@#ked up? i dont belong 2 any organized religion but when i see a cross along the road it always makes me to think of that unknown person/persons that died. nothing more and nothing less. can't u just stop and think 'bout the dead ones rather then yapp like bunch of idiots? and u r the choosen ones 2 deliver prosperity and harmony around the world??? gimme a break

misterharban: Are you saying that impermissible harm might result from the erection of certain memorial symbols, and the existance of this harm is the criteria by which we judge what is and is not permissible? On the face of it this seems reasonable except that symbols tend to represent groups of people whereas speech is typically expressed by an individual. For example, a Star of David symbol in a predominantly Christian cemeery might result in desecration by a group of anti-semites. I think we'd probably agree that such a reaction would not warrant removal of the Start of David. Using such a heuristic we run the risk of having the majority trample on the rights of the minority. Not a big problem provided you are fortunate enough to remain in the ranks of the majority.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "absolute position on religious expression". The issue is concerning religious memorial symbols (a very narrow reading of expression), and my position is that an arbtrary ruling of what religious symbols are permitted and what are not is unlikely to ever be objectively fair and inclusive. On the other hand a policy of no restriction is likely to fall victim to abuse and objectionable symbols. Lastly a position of prohibition of religious symbols (we are still talking of military cemetries, are we not?) seems excessivly draconian and disrespectful to both the living and the dead. I don't have a simple answer; it's not a simple situation.

I am loathe to advocate any curtailment of free speech. The US has, in my opinion, far too many restriction on this fundamental freedom as it is. That being said I am all for accountability toward individuals who use their speech to incite forseeable harm against others and other's property. Again not a simple issue, and deserving of a far better argument than I have attempted here.

We draw the line the same way we do with regard to free speech. We have always distinguished between permissible speech and impermissible speech (which seems to be a rapidly expanding category) by reasonably weighing the impermissible harm (or lack thereof) which will result from any particular utterance. I might buy your absolute position on religious expression if you are consistent enough to accept no societal barriers whatsoever on our utterances.

Well I notice that Atheists get an approved symbol. They are by definition, without theistic belief. I agree that the two examples I raised should be prmitted to display their own symbols, but my unstated question was: where do we draw the line between what is permitted and what is not? Who decides for example that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is innapropriate (assuming it is innapropriate)? I don't have an answer, but that doesn't mean I don't see issues with the current situation.