Roadside Memorials, Utah fight

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Again, what is wrong with a cemetery? Is that not the appropriate place for mourning the dead if you feel you need a public place to do so?
Want to do more, buy time on television or a billboard.
Public land is not the place.

So, you're opposed to things like war memorials, say, the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall?

Originally Posted by Cloud

So, you're opposed to things like war memorials, say, the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall?

Not at all, same idea as buying a billboard or commercial, which I suggested earlier... as long as they are not religious in any way.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Not at all, same idea as buying a billboard or commercial, which I suggested earlier... as long as they are not religious in any way.

Why can't they be religious? Over 85% of this country believes in some form of religion. Just because it offends you is a rediculous argument. Only those lacking in faith do not "believe" in something. I understand I may be in the minority here on this topic, but I still get my say, - do I not?
Actually I just said it, so I guess I do.

Link to statistic - http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_28.asp

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by classicman

Why can't they be religious? Over 85% of this country believes in some form of religion. Just because it offends you is a rediculous argument. Only those lacking in faith do not "believe" in something. I understand I may be in the minority here on this topic, but I still get my say, - do I not?
Actually I just said it, so I guess I do.

Link to statistic - http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_28.asp

True, as long as they are not on public land, I have no issue with it.
But, on public land, no breech of separation of church and state.
It protects the religious as well as the state... many ignorant cannot see that.
Those fighting for the separation of Church and state the hardest, and always have, are religious leaders because they know this, like the AU and those opposed to changing the national motto the the current stupidity and adding superstition to our money. All who lead the fight were religious leaders.
It is a founding principle of this nation and needs to be kept, and returned to where needed, in all sectors.
If someone is religious not having the state "validate" it does nothing against them in any way.

[lookout123]

could you point to the words "separation of church and state" in the constitution pleased? maybe in the bill of rights? no? certainly it must be there. ok, maybe it just isn't in my copy - i did buy it online and all. so could you point me to the part where it goes on to explain that what the founding father's meant was a complete eradication of any signs of religion in the public eye? no? weird.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

... complete eradication of any signs of religion in the public eye? no? weird.

By "in the public eye" do you mean "established by the government"? As far as I've seen, rkzenrage has only called the latter unconstitutional. The former is up to the private entity who owns the property which may be in the public eye. He (and I) may be happy when such an entity discontinues a policy based on the assumption that everyone is Christian, but that is a different issue from Constitutionality.

[lookout123]

for the record, i do not want the government involved in my faith. i also don't believe that my faith should be thrust upon you via a government entity.

that being said i've heard that having a cross with an officer's name on it is a breach of "the separation of church and state". i asked what part of the constitution or amendments specifically points out this "separation", once that part is found please explain how a cross that is not paid for or maintained with tax dollars breaches the separation.

i think the crosses are tacky and overdone so i'm not a big fan of them, but how do we get from point A) a family or group of families expresses their grief by putting up a memorial cross on the side of the road, to Point B) The US government is endorsing the Christian faith as the one true faith?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

By "in the public eye" do you mean "established by the government"? As far as I've seen, rkzenrage has only called the latter unconstitutional. The former is up to the private entity who owns the property which may be in the public eye. He (and I) may be happy when such an entity discontinues a policy based on the assumption that everyone is Christian, but that is a different issue from Constitutionality.

Public eye? I never mentioned that in any way. I don't care what anyone does on private land with private funds. (though I do agree with signage laws)