American Atheists oppose U.S. Supreme Court review of Utah highway crosses case

[chloe]

SALT LAKE CITY — American Atheists Inc., has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny Utah's request to decide whether fallen state troopers may be honored with roadside crosses on public land.

The group's attorney, Brian M. Barnard, said there's no reason for the nation's highest court to hear the case because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled the crosses violate the doctrine of separation of church and state. That court also declined to reconsider the decision in December 2010 and this past April.

"My clients believe the deceased troopers should be honored for their sacrifice," he said. "They should be and can be honored with appropriate memorials that do not emphasize religion and do not promote one faith to the exclusion of all other religions."

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and the Utah Highway Patrol Association this spring asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing a three-way split exists between circuit courts on which legal test applies to the passive display of religious imagery.

The state asked the high court to set aside the "endorsement test" in favor of the "coercion test," arguing passive memorials don't coerce anyone to do anything. Utah also argues that no court has held the memorial crosses unconstitutional or that they establish a religion.
Barnard contends in his 68-page brief that the issue has not come up before.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16534337

[Missileman]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16534337

A fringe group as whacko as the Middleboro Baptist Church. I really wish they'd both STFU.

[J.T]

What if Jewish troopers get a Star of David, Muslims get a Crescent Moon, and Atheists get a square piece of wood nailed to a pole?

I'd say to use tombstones for everyone, but that'd seem a bit grim.

I know! I have a solution!

Okay, so the State Troopers (as an organization) can't put crosses up, lest anyone think it an endorsement of crucifixion (or whatever). That's fine. What if the troopers and their friends and loved ones (as individuals) put them up on their own time and their own dime, with the aid of personal donations from supporters of the cause? As individuals, they've a right to erects these things, right? S

So they get a PayPal and supporters send a few bucks to help their friends and fellow officers, as individual citizens, erect roadside memorials like those we oft see (a tad smaller, usually) near the sites of automotive accidents. That way, everyone wins and everyone's happy, right?

[chloe]

What if Jewish troopers get a Star of David, Muslims get a Crescent Moon, and Atheists get a square piece of wood nailed to a pole?

I'd say to use tombstones for everyone, but that'd seem a bit grim.

I know! I have a solution!

Okay, so the State Troopers (as an organization) can't put crosses up, lest anyone think it an endorsement of crucifixion (or whatever). That's fine. What if the troopers and their friends and loved ones (as individuals) put them up on their own time and their own dime, with the aid of personal donations from supporters of the cause? As individuals, they've a right to erects these things, right? S

So they get a PayPal and supporters send a few bucks to help their friends and fellow officers, as individual citizens, erect roadside memorials like those we oft see (a tad smaller, usually) near the sites of automotive accidents. That way, everyone wins and everyone's happy, right?

I guess your smart J.T., Mormons don't even beleive in crosses because crosses celebrate Jesus death. But I don't really see why it matters to atheists so much.

[ConHog]

I don't know why people can't just shut up with their hatred towards Christians, and let's be adults here there are many people who just flat hate Christians.

Some people need to read the COTUS to, there is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religeon.

[chloe]

I don't know why people can't just shut up with their hatred towards Christians, and let's be adults here there are many people who just flat hate Christians.

Some people need to read the COTUS to, there is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religeon.

Interesting point.

[J.T]

there is no freedom FROM religion

Dude, that's kinda what the whole 'respecting an establishment of religion' thing was about. You know what happened with the Anglican Church and religious doctrine being forced upon people, right? You've a right to practice or not practice religion and to neither have another's religion imposed upon you or be denied your free exercise of your own.

[KartRacerBoy]

I don't know why people can't just shut up with their hatred towards Christians, and let's be adults here there are many people who just flat hate Christians.

Some people need to read the COTUS to, there is no freedom FROM religion. Only freedom OF religeon.

Do you understand the doctrine of separation of church and state? Your post indicates that you don't.

In its simplest terms, the doctrine says that since govt can't choose which religion is right, it shouldn't pick and choose who can use govt resources and who can't. So Scientologists can't put up stuff on govt grounds. Nor can Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus.

If your think about it, its kind of a smart idea. Govt isn't forced to choose a favorite religion. Which was kind of the "original intent" of the establishment clause. Some extreme Christians, however, seem to have a different idea. Silly gits.

[ConHog]

Do you understand the doctrine of separation of church and state? Your post indicates that you don't.

In its simplest terms, the doctrine says that since govt can't choose which religion is right, it shouldn't pick and choose who can use govt resources and who can't. So Scientologists can't put up stuff on govt grounds. Nor can Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus.

If your think about it, its kind of a smart idea. Govt isn't forced to choose a favorite religion. Which was kind of the "original intent" of the establishment clause. Some extreme Christians, however, seem to have a different idea. Silly gits.

I only studied the COTUS for 8 years in college and married an attorney. Nope, I don't understand the document at all.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Show me where that says that you have the right to not be exposed to religion.

[KartRacerBoy]

I only studied the COTUS for 8 years in college and married an attorney. Nope, I don't understand the document at all.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Show me where that says that you have the right to not be exposed to religion.

Wow. Amazing. 8 years? And you're still a little confused?


Guess what? I'm a lawyer and my wife is, too. So I guess that trumps you cz we have more years. Now that you've waved your big dick at me and I've done the same, can we discuss this?

Why do you imagine the separatin doctrine was adopted? Is govt really good at selecting the "correct" religion? Is it the govts business to choose who is telling the "truth" as to god?

As to your inane comment that folks "hate christians," there are plenty of christians who think govt and religion dont mix well.

[ConHog]

Wow. Amazing. 8 years? And you're still a little confused?


Guess what? I'm a lawyer and my wife is, too. So I guess that trumps you cz we have more years. Now that you've waved your big dick at me and I've done the same, can we discuss this?

Why do you imagine the separatin doctrine was adopted? Is govt really good at selecting the "correct" religion? Is it the govts business to choose who is telling the "truth" as to god?

As to your inane comment that folks "hate christians," there are plenty of christians who think govt and religion dont mix well.

Show me where separation of church and state exists in the COTUS..... Oh, oops it doesn't. Which seems to mesh with the fact that the founding fathers blended their religion into the founding of this nation and in the early running of said country. But by all means, please show me where in the document that is the foundation of our government the founding fathers mentioned seperation of church and state. Please bring something stronger than " no law establishing a a religion means separation of church and state" , because no it does not.


Oh and PS I never said that those who think government and religion and government don't mix hate Christians, if however you insist on pretending that there are not people out there who hate Christians and would like to see them relegated to second class citizens who have no say in anything, well then I will consider you to be dishonest and best and conclude this conversation.

[KartRacerBoy]

Show me where separation of church and state exists in the COTUS..... Oh, oops it doesn't. Which seems to mesh with the fact that the founding fathers blended their religion into the founding of this nation and in the early running of said country. But by all means, please show me where in the document that is the foundation of our government the founding fathers mentioned seperation of church and state. Please bring something stronger than " no law establishing a a religion means separation of church and state" , because no it does not.


Oh and PS I never said that those who think government and religion and government don't mix hate Christians, if however you insist on pretending that there are not people out there who hate Christians and would like to see them relegated to second class citizens who have no say in anything, well then I will consider you to be dishonest and best and conclude this conversation.

If your wife is a lawyer, have her explain to you what legal precedent is and how that binds the court in the future. I'm guessing you already know this but you are pretending to be an originalist who thinks legal precedent doesn't bind them. Surprise! It does. Ultimately, if you read the church/state caselaw, you will understand how Jefferson's "separation of church and state" evolved and makes sense as a constitutional doctrine. Really, is govt the right instrument to chose which christian religion is the "right" one? Or Christian vs non christian? How stupid is that?

And if you're one of those idiots who thinks liberals are having a "war on Christmas," thiere is no hope for you. Enjoy your 90% majority Christian persecution complex.

[ConHog]

If your wife is a lawyer, have her explain to you what legal precedent is and how that binds the court in the future. I'm guessing you already know this but you are pretending to be an originalist who thinks legal precedent doesn't bind them. Surprise! It does. Ultimately, if you read the church/state caselaw, you will understand how Jefferson's "separation of church and state" evolved and makes sense as a constitutional doctrine. Really, is govt the right instrument to chose which christian religion is the "right" one? Or Christian vs non christian? How stupid is that?

And if you're one of those idiots who thinks liberals are having a "war on Christmas," thiere is no hope for you. Enjoy your 90% majority Christian persecution complex.

Legal precedent is binding? So courts can NEVER reverse themselves? You really want to go there?

And you're changing the argument anyway. There is a VAST difference between a government allowing religious activities and government establishing an official religion, and THAT is the ONLY thing that TJ was concerned with. He set right in government while prayers were made and God was discussed. Why did he do that if he didn't approve? I suppose you also believe that Obama sat through 20 years of Wright's sermons but he didn't REALLY agree with them.....


As for your other contention. You prove I hit a nerve when you resorted to name calling. Anyone with even a bit of honesty about them will admit that there is a concerted effort to shut Christians up in this country. Now I would certainly debate that it isn't because people are afraid of Christians, but rather it is because people are mean assholes and by and large Christians are the only group who hasn't stood up and said "fucking enough" so people feel safe in "picking on them" , certainly don't see these people making fun of Islam and so forth do you...

[LuLu]

Who even complained about this? How is this effecting anyone?

[J.T]

I only studied the COTUS for 8 years in college and married an attorney. Nope, I don't understand the document at all.

Did you study under obama?

Why do you have to lie about the premise of the complaint, anyway? Nobody's complaining about the crosses existing. They're complaining about a government agency using the symbolism of a given religion, giving the appearance of an official adoption or endorsement of a given religious institution or doctrine by an arm of the State.