Families of Fallen Utah Highway Patrol Troopers Fight Atheist Group Over Roadside Cross Memorials

If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of 12-foot-tall memorial crosses that adorn Utah's highways will be taken down.

But not if the families of the people those crosses honor — state Highway Patrol troopers killed in the line of duty — have anything to say about it.

American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion.

But the families of the fallen heroes say otherwise. They say the crosses, which bear the names and badge numbers of the troopers, were built strictly as memorials.

"We're being attacked personally for something we did to help us heal," said Clint Pierson, whose father, Trooper Ray Lynn Pierson, was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 1978.
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311956,00.html)


As an atheist myself, it seems to me American Atheists Inc are completely out of order on this.

~shakes head~

this is beyond sad. Of all the things wrong in this world people have to choose this to take a stand on

I'm not sure why the HP has to have crosses to honor the dead troopers instead of something else. A bunch of twelve foot high crosses is rather tacky, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why the atheist organization is making a big stink about it. Oh noes, crosses! Everyone run!

Both sides are wrong here.

Wonder how it would effect things if the state erected a disclaimer.

Yeah, instead of crosses they could erect giant 12 foot badges. That wouldn't be tacky. State trooper badges with the troopers name and number and a nice family photo.
That way when people drive by they wont be thinking, Those poor troopers died.
They'll be thinking, What the hell is that?

I'm not sure why the HP has to have crosses to honor the dead troopers instead of something else. A bunch of twelve foot high crosses is rather tacky, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why the atheist organization is making a big stink about it. Oh noes, crosses! Everyone run!

Both sides are wrong here.Exactly why is using a time honored tradition to honor fallen troopers wrong? Just because you find it tacky is not a very good reason, imo.

The only side wrong is the organization scared of a symbol they have no belief in to begin with.

Exactly why is using a time honored tradition to honor fallen troopers wrong? Just because you find it tacky is not a very good reason, imo.

The only side wrong is the organization scared of a symbol they have no belief in to begin with.
I don't care that it's a cross. I think having a twelve foot high cross to honor the dead is in poor taste. Just like, say, a twelve foot high badge would be ridiculous.

The crosses I've seen on the sides of roads to honor those killed in accidents are usually no taller than two feet, if that.

maybe we could erect a 12' high rememberance pole

maybe we could erect a 12' high rememberance pole
Why does anything have to be twelve feet high? Just put out a little cross and be done with it.

I don't think it's how high they are that concern the athiests.

A few states have laws prohititing roadside memorials they got so bad. Some states charge to put up a memorial. I think it is $1,000 here in California. I never see that many especially in the san francisco area! I have seen them in other states and they could be considered a hazard to your driving. At least in some cases. But if it is federal property that the memorials or on that is entirely different if it has a cross. But really I am against them because they are such an eyesore. You don't need to be distracted by them when your driving. There is enough stuff to look out for!

The crosses I've seen on the sides of roads to honor those killed in accidents are usually no taller than two feet, if that.

I couldn't tell to well from the pictures in the article, but the road didn't look all that close. I think the only reason they're 12 feet high is so people can see them.

I'd also have to agree with Trav. They're turning something that isn't really meant to be religious, into a religious matter.

Thats as bad as Fred Phelps going to funerals and protesting.
Those officers should be remembered, doesn't matter if a cross is used or not. That should be the only issue and someone has made it an issue about religion.

Tell me about it!

I hit a wild cross just the other day going into work. The dang thing came running out of the median and right out in front of me. It was in pretty bad shape afterwards... I had to "put it down" with a tire iron. The screams still haunt me.

Tell me about it!

I hit a wild cross just the other day going into work. The dang thing came running out of the median and right out in front of me. It was in pretty bad shape afterwards... I had to "put it down" with a tire iron. The screams still haunt me.
rotfl

A friend of mine hit a dear once and we argued for 45 minutes until the cops got there about who was going to kill it with the tire iron.

The humane service came with the police and gave it an injection.

should have just ran it over again and drove away.

anyone ever wonder how the families of the troopers feel? Are they all of Christian faith? What if a one of those families were atheist?

I don't care that it's a cross. I think having a twelve foot high cross to honor the dead is in poor taste. Just like, say, a twelve foot high badge would be ridiculous.

The crosses I've seen on the sides of roads to honor those killed in accidents are usually no taller than two feet, if that.OH.....lol i agree with you then.

should have just ran it over again and drove away.

At first we were thinking about having it butchered and you need the cops there to say its ok to take it home. It messed up his grill and front bumper.

anyone ever wonder how the families of the troopers feel? Are they all of Christian faith? What if a one of those families were atheist?

exactly. what if a trooper is muslim and his family wants to put a 12' high statue or symbol of mohammad? (of course that would never happen because it is idolatry). But let's say it did. The Christians would be out in droves fighting tooth and nail.

Of what if he was Buddhist and his family wanted a 12 foot buddha?

Of what if he was Buddhist and his family wanted a 12 foot buddha?

Would look better than a 12 foot high bill-board depicting some guy eating a big mac.

exactly. what if a trooper is muslim and his family wants to put a 12' high statue or symbol of mohammad? (of course that would never happen because it is idolatry). But let's say it did. The Christians would be out in droves fighting tooth and nail.

Of what if he was Buddhist and his family wanted a 12 foot buddha?

Thats the stupidest thing I have ever seen written and I have seen this.

"We're starting to uncover the treasure in this junk," Wang said.

I'm not sure why the HP has to have crosses to honor the dead troopers instead of something else. A bunch of twelve foot high crosses is rather tacky, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why the atheist organization is making a big stink about it. Oh noes, crosses! Everyone run!

Both sides are wrong here.

Maybe they have crosses because the slain troopers were Christian. Maybe they have crosses because it is a time honored sign of remembrance. The crosses aren't hurting anyone and it is just mean spirited of the atheists to protest against them. This puts them in the same boat as Phelps and his people.

anyone ever wonder how the families of the troopers feel? Are they all of Christian faith? What if a one of those families were atheist?

It seems you didn't bother reading the article, Liquid Fork. It makes quite plain how the families of the troopers feel.

Families of Fallen Utah Highway Patrol Troopers Fight Atheist Group Over Roadside Cross Memorials

If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of 12-foot-tall memorial crosses that adorn Utah's highways will be taken down.

But not if the families of the people those crosses honor — state Highway Patrol troopers killed in the line of duty — have anything to say about it.

American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion.

But the families of the fallen heroes say otherwise. They say the crosses, which bear the names and badge numbers of the troopers, were built strictly as memorials.

"We're being attacked personally for something we did to help us heal," said Clint Pierson, whose father, Trooper Ray Lynn Pierson, was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 1978.

Maybe they have crosses because the slain troopers were Christian.

Apparently not. According to the article, the group that put up the crosses claim the crosses are "secular" symbols. Hard to see how that could be the case.

I don't think of the cross as a secular symbol. I think crosses were chosen for the same reason crosses are chosen at national cemeteries, to signify the religion of the person being rememberer. If the person was Jewish I would expect a Mogen David, if atheist some other symbol. Why is the atheist group complaining about the crosses? Are they trying to deny that the slain officers had religious affiliations or are they simply trying to wipe out any public expression of religion?

Frankly, I think both sides in this dispute are making poor arguments for their side. The atheists are picking a poor battle to fight, and the troopers side should just say what you just said...the crosses represent the religion of the fallen troopers, they are not "secular symbols".

Why do the crosses have to be 12 feet tall? Seriously, they couldn't be just a little less obnoxiously large?

I don't think of the cross as a secular symbol. I think crosses were chosen for the same reason crosses are chosen at national cemeteries, to signify the religion of the person being rememberer. If the person was Jewish I would expect a Mogen David, if atheist some other symbol. Why is the atheist group complaining about the crosses? Are they trying to deny that the slain officers had religious affiliations or are they simply trying to wipe out any public expression of religion?


Good post.

Why do the crosses have to be 12 feet tall? Seriously, they couldn't be just a little less obnoxiously large?

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but I might not have been looking good enough.
If you take a look at the pictures, one of them shows the road behind a cross. It doesn't look to close and the picture itself really isn't a good example but I'm thinking, they're 12 feet high because they are so far away from the road and thats the only way they can be seen.

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but I might not have been looking good enough.
If you take a look at the pictures, one of them shows the road behind a cross. It doesn't look to close and the picture itself really isn't a good example but I'm thinking, they're 12 feet high because they are so far away from the road and thats the only way they can be seen.
If you're right, then they're probably fine. I've seen crosses that big before, up on top of hills far away and whatnot. But if they're right on the side of the road I'd make 'em smaller.

I think the Atheists should just get a life, and leave other people lives alone. They don't have jack to do with the crosses.

Thats the stupidest thing I have ever seen written and I have seen this.

"We're starting to uncover the treasure in this junk," Wang said.


Dude, the words "Born Again" under your username are the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written or said!! Born Again?....grow the fuck up!

http://www.foxnews.com/images/325029/0_62_roadside_cross2.jpg

The crosses do look a bit far away.

Dude, the words "Born Again" under your username are the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written or said!! Born Again?....grow the fuck up

I expected much better from you Mesk. It is usually not your style to be so nasty. He is born again. That is a religious term stating that he considers himself saved by some life altering event. For you to mock him for it is beneath you.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/325029/0_62_roadside_cross2.jpg

The next thing to protest is the American flag at the site. You know everyone driving by today may not be an American. :drive:

I think perhaps the atheist organizations main complaint may be the fact that the crosses are on government land. While they may not have a real problem with the crosses in this case, they may be afraid a legal precedent will be set if they don't file a lawsuit and have the crosses removed/replaced.

Dude, the words "Born Again" under your username are the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written or said!! Born Again?....grow the fuck up!

Mesk,

You need to read Inviolable's thread in relation to his conversion and subsequent new take on life. Whether you believe in God or not, there is no question that Inviolable's life has been changed based on his belief.

And as far as your "grow the fuck up" comment.... poor taste and even poorer judgement.

I think perhaps the atheist organizations main complaint may be the fact that the crosses are on government land. While they may not have a real problem with the crosses in this case, they may be afraid a legal precedent will be set if they don't file a lawsuit and have the crosses removed/replaced.

Could be a bad precident TO remove them. My father is buried in the National cemetary in Chattanooga. It is government owned/maintained land and is a veritable "field" of thousands of crosses.

Could be a bad precident TO remove them. My father is buried in the National cemetary in Chattanooga. It is government owned/maintained land and is a veritable "field" of thousands of crosses.

I didn't say I agreed with the atheist organization in this case, I was just commenting on their possible motives. It's equally likely they were desperate for some press.

However, for the sake of discussion, I suspect the rules for putting up crosses on government land (if there are any), would and should, be different, if that government land happens to be a cemetery ;)

I didn't say I agreed with the atheist organization in this case, I was just commenting on their possible motives. It's equally likely they were desperate for some press.
I didn't mean to infer you agreed with them, and as far as the attention from the press... you are most likely correct.

However, for the sake of discussion, I suspect the rules for putting up crosses on government land (if there are any), would and should, be different, if that government land happens to be a cemetery ;)
I would certainly hope so, but I HAVE been amazed at the amount of money and time that is spent on various church/state issues.... that could have been used to actually accomplish something of true worth. And yes, I think both sides are equally guilty of this.

If the crosses are on federal land they should be removed. It is an endorsement of religion. Trying to say it is secular is just crazy. If it is against the law they should be removed and if not the atheist group do not have a case.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a law preventing crosses from being put on government land.... Although I could easily be wrong. :p If it was against the law this probably wouldn't be an issue.

The next thing to protest is the American flag at the site. You know everyone driving by today may not be an American. :drive:

Well no really. We are IN "America" so flag is ok. We are NOT in jesus-land!

http://www.foxnews.com/images/325029/0_62_roadside_cross2.jpg

The crosses do look a bit far away.



I expected much better from you Mesk. It is usually not your style to be so nasty. He is born again. That is a religious term stating that he considers himself saved by some life altering event. For you to mock him for it is beneath you.

Thanks for your high expectations. I also do appreciate your style of debate without the insults. However, his comments on my comments were not proper debate sytle, but rather insults.

On the born-again thing, one knows the holier-than-thou attitude of born-agains also gets tiring.

Mesk,

You need to read Inviolable's thread in relation to his conversion and subsequent new take on life. Whether you believe in God or not, there is no question that Inviolable's life has been changed based on his belief.

And as far as your "grow the fuck up" comment.... poor taste and even poorer judgement.

I do apologize for the bad taste. With that said, let me sum up any born-again's "life changing experience". They hit some hard times or something happened to them while growing up and they could not handle it so they used religion as a crutch and continue to do so. People don't want to feel alone.

And what exactly is wrong with that? What about that makes them fair game for insults and mockery?

You happen to be wrong about born agains only becoming born again if they are facing some sort of tragedy. Many consder their life changing experiences to be triggered by happy events not sad or scarey ones.

As for not wanting to be alone, who but a hermit wants to be alone. Almost everyone wants to be part of something. We are part of a family, part of a peer group, part of a work organization or part of a religion. We all desire to be part of something. Born again Christians feel they are part of a family, God's family.

While some born agains are judgemental and very unaccepting of others not all are like that. The majority are filled with love for the world. Extrapolating a mind set for all born agains from the actions of a few is no different from doing the same for a political party for the actions of a few of its members or an entire ethnic group for the actions of some who belong to it.

I do apologize for the bad taste. With that said, let me sum up any born-again's "life changing experience". They hit some hard times or something happened to them while growing up and they could not handle it so they used religion as a crutch and continue to do so. People don't want to feel alone.

You're right I should have been nicer. I thought it was funny, sorry.
I had some hard luck and became a Christian. But it wasn't your random unfortunate hard luck. It was something that was completely uncontrollable.
And I wasn't looking for God, he found me.
I should have been looking, but explaining that will only sound like I'm preaching.

It wasn't something I "hit" and it wasn't something that happened to me while I was growing up.
And as you can see by my "rude" post. I could care less about being alone.
I'll say whatever comes to mind.

It's a misconception. Everything you said is stereo typing and it should be beneath anyone with an open mind.
I believe it's whats happening with the crosses in the OP and with you.

You're right I should have been nicer. I thought it was funny, sorry.

You are right. Putting crosses or any large religious symbols is definitely funny. It goes both ways.

I had some hard luck and became a Christian.

There it is! There's the crutch!

Mesk, no offense, but if you had read his thread about his experience you would not say that. :)

Mesk, no offense, but if you had read his thread about his experience you would not say that. :)


I'm gonna stop now.

You are right. Putting crosses or any large religious symbols is definitely funny. It goes both ways.

OK, Do you have any links to any information regarding Christians protesting people putting up Buddha symbols to remember loved ones?

There, now its formal debate.

OK, Do you have any links to any information regarding Christians protesting people putting up Buddha symbols to remember loved ones?

There, now its formal debate. Well not for remembering love ones but a christian group is protesting, in Bloomington,Illinois about having some Buddhist things at the courthouse. Sorry, I don't have the link but I'm sure if you do a search it will come up!

Well not for remembering love ones but a christian group is protesting, in Bloomington,Illinois about having some Buddhist things at the courthouse. Sorry, I don't have the link but I'm sure if you do a search it will come up!


Couldn't find anything.

Why do they have Buddhist things at the Courthouse?

OK, Do you have any links to any information regarding Christians protesting people putting up Buddha symbols to remember loved ones?

There, now its formal debate.

Well, the Christians in my hometown made a lot of noise when an old stone head of a viking god was returned to my town from the museum. So yeah, there are plenty of Christians that would do the same.

Well, the Christians in my hometown made a lot of noise when an old stone head of a viking god was returned to my town from the museum. So yeah, there are plenty of Christians that would do the same.

That doesn't sound like the same thing.

Couldn't find anything.

Why do they have Buddhist things at the Courthouse?


I am against both. There should be NOTHING religious in our public funded places. That's how our founding fathers wanted it.

I am against both. There should be NOTHING religious in our public funded places. That's how our founding fathers wanted it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."


"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

"I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter.

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

"The pleasures of this world are rather from God's goodness than our own merit."

Ben Franklin


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We...took our horses to the meeting in the afternoon and heard the minister again upon "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." There is great pleasure in hearing sermons so serious, so clear, so sensible and instructive as these ...."

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."

John Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."

"Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divine services."

Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

"Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government."

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage....Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

James Madison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion.

To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian."

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."

"Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me gracious God, the good work for which Thou hast sent it.

"Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never said, anything about religion in the courts, you made it out that way.
I simply asked, why it was there.

I am against both. There should be NOTHING religious in our public funded places. That's how our founding fathers wanted it.


Since you are claiming to speak for the Founding Fathers would you please post a link to something that says they said there should be nothing religious in our public places. You had better start looking right soon because you are going to have a hard time finding it.

Since you are claiming to speak for the Founding Fathers would you please post a link to something that says they said there should be nothing religious in our public places. You had better start looking right soon because you are going to have a hard time finding it.


*****************************
A Memorial and Remonstrance *{1784}

4. While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace ,to profess
and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine
origin,we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds
have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. "

-- James Madison





* Considered by scholars to rank with the Declaration of Independence
and Gettysburg Address.
This protest was made against a bill introduced by Patrick Henry,
December 1784," establishing a provision for Teachers of Religion ".

One things for sure a society can't be therocratic and free at the same time. And the united states constitution was no way founded upon the christian religion! This is a secular nation!

One things for sure a society can't be therocratic and free at the same time. And the united states constitution was no way founded upon the christian religion! This is a secular nation!


Sweet! Someone who likes quotes!!

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
George Washington

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest."
Ben Franklin

"It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted. For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominant, ought they not to warn their hearers against those vices? If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue? If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, how muchsoever it may move the gall of Massachusetts."
John Adams

"RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony of all Denominations, that THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer...to confess the sins...to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression...and a blessing on the Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People; and especially that the union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights (for hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed....And that AMERICA may soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven."
By Order of the [Massachusetts] Provincial
Congress, John Hancock, President.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Patrick Henry

"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."
William Penn

One things for sure a society can't be therocratic and free at the same time. And the united states constitution was no way founded upon the christian religion! This is a secular nation!

*************************
I really Don't believe :
In God We Trust



Was founded Upon Urban Legend !
Like nearly every thought occuring Today,with them
Dagnabbit GenXer's.

I am against both. There should be NOTHING religious in our public funded places. That's how our founding fathers wanted it.

How do you feel about our money, Mesk? If you're still adamant about not having religious significance attached, please send me all of yours and I'll be more than happy to dispose of it for you.

;)


THE UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL

Take out a one dollar bill, and look at it. The one dollar bill you're
looking at first came off the presses in 1957 in its present design.
This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend, with
red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It is actually
material. We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special
blend of ink is used, the contents we will never know. It is
overprinted with symbols and then it is
starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that nice
crisp look.

If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States
Treasury Seal. On the top you will see the scales for a balanced
budget. In the center you have a carpenter's square, a tool used for
an even cut. Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.
That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that
dollar bill is something we should all know.

If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles. Both circles,
together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States . The First
Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of
men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this
task and another two years to get it approved.

If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid. Notice
the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was
just beginning. We had not begun to explore the West or decided what
we could do for Western Civilization. The Pyramid is uncapped, again
signifying that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the
capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity.
It was Franklin 's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a
group of men, with the help of God, could do anything. "IN GOD WE
TRUST" is on this currency.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/dollarbillsidetwo.jpg


The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means, "God has favored
our undertaking." The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM,
means, "a new order has begun." At the base of the pyramid is the
Roman Numeral for 1776. (MDCCLXXVI) If you look at the right-hand
circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every
National Cemetery in the United States. It is also on the Parade of
Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery, and is the
centerpiece of most hero's monuments. Slightly modified, it is the
seal of the President of the United States, and it is always visible
whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean.

The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons:
First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart
enough to soar above it. Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had
just broken from the King of England. Also, notice the shield is
supported. This country can now stand on its own. At the top of that
shield you have a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We
were coming together as one nation. In the Eagle's beak you will read,
" E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning, "one nation from many people". Above the
Eagle, you have thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original
colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we
were coming together as one.

Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch
and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to
fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face the olive
branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove, Inviolable. This country is not a Christian nation (in the sense that Christianity is the official religion, nor is it officially sanctioned by the government). The founding fathers made sure that the government could never interfere with people's religious beliefs.

[QUOTE=Inviolable]Sweet! Someone who likes quotes!!


Better than yer Sour Puss Puddin,thar tOOt's !

SMW, yes our money mentions God. It does not mention Jesus Christ, or any individual religion. Therefore, it's not "religious significance". It is theistic, of course, but that's not the same thing at all.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove, Inviolable. This country is not a Christian nation (in the sense that Christianity is the official religion, nor is it officially sanctioned by the government). The founding fathers made sure that the government could never interfere with people's religious beliefs.

I'm proving that it was built, made or whatever... By Christians and it wouldn't be what it is had they not been Christians.

I don't want people who are comfortable in their bias against Christianity to be comfortable in the thought that they have their freedom because it is any other way.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove, Inviolable. This country is not a Christian nation (in the sense that Christianity is the official religion, nor is it officially sanctioned by the government). The founding fathers made sure that the government could never interfere with people's religious beliefs.


Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion {Nov.20,1728}

" I cannot conceive otherwise than that He,the Infinite Father,
expects or requires no worship or praise from us,but that He is
infinately above it. "

-- Ben Franklin

I'm proving that it was built, made or whatever... By Christians and it wouldn't be what it is had they not been Christians.

I don't want people who are comfortable in their bias against Christianity to be comfortable in the thought that they have their freedom because it is any other way.
Yes, most of the founding fathers were Christians. However, I don't doubt that many Christians today would not have called them that if they knew them. Ever heard of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson? He was a Christian in that he believed in the teachings of Jesus, but he did not believe that Jesus performed miracles (From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible): "Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.") Somehow I think that a lot of Christians would disapprove....

And how could you say with such confidence that we have our freedoms today simply because the founding fathers were Christians? No one can say what would or would not be different if they were Jews or atheists or whatever. :)

Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion {Nov.20,1728}

" I cannot conceive otherwise than that He,the Infinite Father,
expects or requires no worship or praise from us,but that He is
infinately above it. "

-- Ben Franklin
Great quote, Fool. I absolutely agree with it.

Great quote, Fool. I absolutely agree with it.

Poor Richard's Almanac

" He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles
of primitive Christianity,will revolutionize the world. "

-- Ben Franklin

I believe the keyword there is primitive, Fool. Jesus' teachings are all good. Not so much some of the teachings of Christianity that don't come from Jesus, like everything ranging from disrespect to oppression for those who are not Christian. :)

I believe the keyword there is primitive, Fool. Jesus' teachings are all good. Not so much some of the teachings of Christianity that don't come from Jesus, like everything ranging from disrespect to oppression for those who are not Christian. :)

I refuse to discuss Theology with the Unenlightened.

Yes, most of the founding fathers were Christians. However, I don't doubt that many Christians today would not have called them that if they knew them. Ever heard of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson? He was a Christian in that he believed in the teachings of Jesus, but he did not believe that Jesus performed miracles (From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible): "Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.") Somehow I think that a lot of Christians would disapprove....

And how could you say with such confidence that we have our freedoms today simply because the founding fathers were Christians? No one can say what would or would not be different if they were Jews or atheists or whatever. :)

We do have a Jewish nation to look at as an example.
Actually we have a lot of other nations to look at as examples of what would happen if they weren't founded by Christians.

Well, set Thomas Jefferson aside, we still have Ben Franklin, Gorge Washington, John Hancock and all the others, who I have quoted, I even quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

If you read it knowing what you have said then it makes more sense.
But it still says, what I have said.

Other nations have not necessarily gone in the direction we would have gone with founders from other religions. What if they had all been Catholics instead of Protestants? What would have been different then? There are plenty of countries founded by Catholics, all in different situations of course.

I just think it's pointless to say things like "You shouldn't insult Christianity because our founders were Christians." (I think this is your underlying point, correct me if I'm wrong.) The founders wanted us to be able to say pretty much anything we want, about religion, the government, whatever. :)

I just think it's pointless to say things like "You shouldn't insult Christianity because our founders were Christians." (I think this is your underlying point, correct me if I'm wrong.) The founders wanted us to be able to say pretty much anything we want, about religion, the government, whatever. :)

Thats not what I'm saying.
I'm saying because you don't agree with Christians doesn't mean they have done things you may not want them to do.
Someone isn't going to be what you have in your mind for them to be.

What? I'm not sure I understand.

What? I'm not sure I understand.

The founding fathers granted us all freedom of religion. That in no way imply's that they wanted it completely excluded from the government.

People are saying, it shouldn't be in the courts or schools. Thomas Jefferson wanted the Holy Bible to be read in schools.
Benjamin Franklin wanted prayers in the court before each session.
Gorge Washington wanted our soldiers to consider praying for help in battles.

You cant take the image you have of what you want something to be and twist it to appear that way if it didn't happen.
I see "freethinkers" repeating that to many times to let them fall prey to their own delusions of grandeur.
Christianity may not be the official religion in the U.S.
But many of the founding fathers did give it credibility for our freedom.
And obviously wished to see it in many places of our government, as they have stated several times.

The founding fathers granted us all freedom of religion. That in no way imply's that they wanted it completely excluded from the government.

People are saying, it shouldn't be in the courts or schools. Thomas Jefferson wanted the Holy Bible to be read in schools.
Benjamin Franklin wanted prayers in the court before each session.
Gorge Washington wanted our soldiers to consider praying for help in battles.
If they really wanted it in the government, they would have established religion in the government. Obviously, these suggestions were not accepted by all the founders, or they would be in the Constitution, right? Just because Jefferson thought the Bible should be read in schools does not mean he thought the government had the power to mandate that. The government does not have that power, specifically because the founding fathers did not allow it to do so.

Are you trying to make an argument for establishing Christianity as our official religion, or for allowing prayer in schools, or what? If you think our country was meant to be a Christian country, what do you want done about it?

Other nations have not necessarily gone in the direction we would have gone with founders from other religions. What if they had all been Catholics instead of Protestants? What would have been different then? There are plenty of countries founded by Catholics, all in different situations of course.

I just think it's pointless to say things like "You shouldn't insult Christianity because our founders were Christians." (I think this is your underlying point, correct me if I'm wrong.) The founders wanted us to be able to say pretty much anything we want, about religion, the government, whatever. :)

I find it a little sad that you've been taught this country was NOT founded on Christian principles, DF. Your education is in direct opposition to what I learned in school. I really don't think our forefather's intentions have changed much since 1776... but I definitely see that our educational system has become so liberal that's it's considered pc to alter history in an effort to minimize the importance of religion.

IMO, America stands for FREEDOM of religion... which also means freedom FROM religion. Nobody can force anyone to believe or disbelieve. However, that doesn't mean people who do choose to worship God are to take the backseat while atheists and agnostics sit up front and drive. I don't care what your history teacher said... it wasn't designed to be that way.

:drive:
SMW

IMO, America stands for FREEDOM of religion... which also means freedom FROM religion. Nobody can force anyone to believe or disbelieve. However, that doesn't mean people who do choose to worship God are to take the backseat while atheists and agnostics sit up front and drive. I don't care what your history teacher said... it wasn't designed to be that way.
I would NEVER say that. I also think that America stands for freedom of religion, because it does! The founding fathers believed that the government should not dictate people's religion or lack of it, period. That's all I've been saying this entire time.

I'm not an American, but as far as I understand from Sam Harris and other atheists in the US, there is freedom of religion, but not yet full freedom from religion. Have seen quotes by Bush and others stating that being an atheist is unpatriotic, and as far as I can gather being unpatriotic is a big nono over there :)

I find statements like that a little disturbing tbh...

I would NEVER say that. I also think that America stands for freedom of religion, because it does! The founding fathers believed that the government should not dictate people's religion or lack of it, period. That's all I've been saying this entire time.

I didn't mean that YOU said that, DF. Actually, the whole point of my post to you was in regard to an earlier discussion we had where you explained how you were taught that the pilgrims came to American in search of economic gain... not religious freedom. That's where our educations differ considerably. Economic gain was never brought up in my studies. That exchange was a real eye-opener to me.

The backseat reference was meant more for those who oppose any symbol of religion being tied to public facilities. I haven't seen you take that stand.

:thumbs:
SMW

I'm not an American, but as far as I understand from Sam Harris and other atheists in the US, there is freedom of religion, but not yet full freedom from religion. Have seen quotes by Bush and others stating that being an atheist is unpatriotic, and as far as I can gather being unpatriotic is a big nono over there :)

I find statements like that a little disturbing tbh...

Well, Angelina, I've yet to see anyone hold a gun to an atheists head and demand that they worship God in this country. They already have freedom FROM religion... they just don't want to be reminded that it still exists. And that's never going to happen. Not in this country.

Welcome to Allforums, BTW. Hope you'll stick around and join in. Always nice to have newcomers around.

;)
SMW

I didn't mean that YOU said that, DF. Actually, the whole point of my post to you was in regard to an earlier discussion we had where you explained how you were taught that the pilgrims came to American in search of economic gain... not religious freedom. That's where our educations differ considerably. Economic gain was never brought up in my studies. That exchange was a real eye-opener to me.
Well, the Pilgrims were in search of religious freedom, but they weren't the only colonists - they weren't even the first. And religious pilgrims certainly didn't make up the majority of colonists. It is interesting that history classes have changed so much. Our tendency to whitewash things and make the past look great is definitely waning - just look at lessons about Columbus for evidence of that! I'm glad that students are now being taught the less biased truth. However, I'm still okay with whitewashing for small children. First graders don't need to know that all the Indians who ate with the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving were later murdered and/or oppressed and taken advantage of by the same people they helped and welcomed. :p

I'm not an American, but as far as I understand from Sam Harris and other atheists in the US, there is freedom of religion, but not yet full freedom from religion. Have seen quotes by Bush and others stating that being an atheist is unpatriotic, and as far as I can gather being unpatriotic is a big nono over there :)

I find statements like that a little disturbing tbh...
Bush and others who say things like that are perfectly able to do so. In the same amendment guaranteeing us freedom of religion we are also guaranteed a little thing called freedom of speech.

Religious people should be just as free to announce their feelings as non-religious people, as SMW just pointed out.

Well, the Pilgrims were in search of economic freedom, but they weren't the only colonists - they weren't even the first. And religious pilgrims certainly didn't make up the majority of colonists. It is interesting that history classes have changed so much. Our tendency to whitewash things and make the past look great is definitely waning - just look at lessons about Columbus for evidence of that! I'm glad that students are now being taught the less biased truth. However, I'm still okay with whitewashing for small children. First graders don't need to know that all the Indians who ate with the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving were later murdered and/or oppressed and taken advantage of by the same people they helped and welcomed. :p

LOL, good points, DF. Except I'm not sure who's the most accurate... the educators of the past or the present! Guess the only way we could know for sure is to zombie up a few of those original pilgrims and ask THEM, eh??

:lolhit:

Bush and others who say things like that are perfectly able to do so. In the same amendment guaranteeing us freedom of religion we are also guaranteed a little thing called freedom of speech.

Religious people should be just as free to announce their feelings as non-religious people, as SMW just pointed out.

Just find it odd that a president who is supposed to represent the whole people can say such things in public tho. Where I come from freedom of speech does not include prejudice against others.

Just find it odd that a president who is supposed to represent the whole people can say such things in public tho. Where I come from freedom of speech does not include prejudice against others.

Regardless of the atheist hype, Angelina, America is still a Christian nation. The president takes his oath of office with one hand on the BIBLE. Atheists are free to live and speak and enjoy all the other aspects of American life. But they do not dictate what the president (or any other Christian) can or cannot say.

All that may change if an athiest is ever elected to the presidency. IF being the key word there.

Just find it odd that a president who is supposed to represent the whole people can say such things in public tho. Where I come from freedom of speech does not include prejudice against others.
Where are you from? What do you think should be done? Should Bush be arrested and put in jail for espousing his opinion?

Are you trying to make an argument for establishing Christianity as our official religion, or for allowing prayer in schools, or what? If you think our country was meant to be a Christian country, what do you want done about it?

I'm not trying to make an argument, I'm just trying to point something out.

It doesn't matter.

Where are you from? What do you think should be done? Should Bush be arrested and put in jail for espousing his opinion?

I live in Norway.
A prominent politician being racist, sexist or otherwise showing great disrespect for other peoples believes would certainly be out of a job very soon. I'm quite surprised this sort of stuff falls under the freedom of speech over there. So if Bush said the same about black people, would that be ok too?
If this is common opinion, I'm starting to get an idea of what Sam Harris is talking about...

I live in Norway.
A prominent politician being racist, sexist or otherwise showing great disrespect for other peoples believes would certainly be out of a job very soon. I'm quite surprised this sort of stuff falls under the freedom of speech over there. So if Bush said the same about black people, would that be ok too?
If this is common opinion, I'm starting to get an idea of what Sam Harris is talking about...
If he said it about black people, the black people and civil rights activists would make a big stink about it, of course. I would think he was completely wrong (as I do in this instance), but we would not impeach him for saying such a thing. He just probably would become a lot more unpopular. I don't believe in punishing people for saying hateful things. Physical threats are, of course, another matter. If Bush said "I'm going to make Christianity our country's official religion and all atheists are going to go to jail." (not that he could do that; the President certainly has nowhere near such power), that would probably be different.

If he said it about black people, the black people and civil rights activists would make a big stink about it, of course. I would think he was completely wrong (as I do in this instance), but we would not impeach him for saying such a thing. He just probably would become a lot more unpopular. I don't believe in punishing people for saying hateful things. Physical threats are, of course, another matter. If Bush said "I'm going to make Christianity our country's official religion and all atheists are going to go to jail." (not that he could do that; the President certainly has nowhere near such power), that would probably be different.

Well, your political system is slightly odd compared to what I'm used to. A bit too much power in few hands for my taste :)

I live in Norway.
A prominent politician being racist, sexist or otherwise showing great disrespect for other peoples believes would certainly be out of a job very soon. I'm quite surprised this sort of stuff falls under the freedom of speech over there. So if Bush said the same about black people, would that be ok too?
If this is common opinion, I'm starting to get an idea of what Sam Harris is talking about...

How is suppressing what one can say freedom?

What does it matter what he said? The point is, he is free to say it.

If hes stupid enough to say something stupid, thats his fault and his responsibility.

They're not responsible enough in Norway to have the freedom to say what they want to?

Well, your political system is slightly odd compared to what I'm used to. A bit too much power in few hands for my taste :)
On the contrary, the power is in more hands, in this case especially. We Americans definitely value our political freedoms, just as much as all the other liberties we enjoy. Our government has historically had comparatively little control over the lives and possessions of its people, and the people have had at least the opportunity to have a lot of control over the government. And that's how it should be - we should be able to live our lives however we want and do whatever we want as long as we aren't infringing upon the rights of our fellow citizens.

How is suppressing what one can say freedom?

What does it matter what he said? The point is, he is free to say it.

If hes stupid enough to say something stupid, thats his fault and his responsibility.

They're not responsible enough in Norway to have the freedom to say what they want to?

You are free to say it, but discrimination is severely frowned upon and would be political suicide.

On the contrary, the power is in more hands, in this case especially. We Americans definitely value our political freedoms, just as much as all the other liberties we enjoy. Our government has historically had comparatively little control over the lives and possessions of its people, and the people have had at least the opportunity to have a lot of control over the government. And that's how it should be - we should be able to live our lives however we want and do whatever we want as long as we aren't infringing upon the rights of our fellow citizens.

Well, I was speaking relatively of course, your president has veto doesn't he? That's a pretty undemocratic concept I would say. Our prime minister has no personal power at all. He just represents government.

As for infringing on other peoples freedom, discrimination does that when it hinders you from getting jobs and such.

It's called checks and balances. Yes, the president gets a veto, but not only can Congress override a veto, but the president can only sign into law bills that Congress signs. The judiciary also has the power to rein in overzealous legislators and presidents.

It's called checks and balances. Yes, the president gets a veto, but not only can Congress override a veto, but the president can only sign into law bills that Congress signs. The judiciary also has the power to rein in overzealous legislators and presidents.

Well, that makes sense. The same would apply to our government more or less, tho no one has veto. The king used to a long time ago, but that power was taken from him against his will.

(The king was Swedish after all, we just gave him a Rubik's cube, and he was never heard from again... :) )

Anyway, the US is just a bit odd for us Europeans with the strong religious influence and all...