Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
At first I thought "Now that's just silly" until I saw the crosses... Those things are ridiculously huge. Unconstitutional? Who knows. Straight-up gaudy? Absolutely.
I agree, that the courts should have ruled this unconstitutional, but the jackass who filed the lawsuit in the first place has problems. Much like how the spontanious memorials after 9/11 were technically graffiti, but it was an asshole thing to take them down so quickly. We should be pushing for a more secular government and society but this is not the kind of battle we should not be fighting. It won't do us any good.
If the police officer involved was a Christian, and his family asked for this, then I don't really see a big issue in him being remembered in a Christian manner. It would only be a problem if all officers where memorialised by crosses regardless of faith, as a default practice.
The question is, why is it, that the family do not mourn in private? Why do they have to put signs for the dead policemen? And if they can do it, and we all can, then this will be a country with a lote o crosses!The matter is, that in state land no religion can impose it's belifs in detriment of others. Now in private land, I think, you can put as many crosses as you want.
What, praytell, kind of memorial do you imagine they would put up for a non-Christian officer?
does this chick on Fox noise ever have anyone that isn't christian hetero and white on her show ?!?
I hate the fox bimbo talking heads. When can we see a normal person instead of a barbie doll look alike. Fuck fox!
What an interview!!!!!!!!!Where is the opposition?????
Memorials do NOT need to be in the form of crosses, which ARE christian symbols. The Vietnam War Wall for example - a simple list of names on a Cenotaph in the town square for example....The crosses look cheap and nasty - home made tat done on the cheap.I also love the fat donut head making reference to "The American Atheists" like they are some underground terrorist cell.
I fully agree thought the whole piece was stupid, until i saw their size!
This is how Police Memorials should be, this one went up recently here in Austin, I believe there are others like it around Texas. http://www.statesman.com/multimedia/dynamic/00500/RBB-Monument-settin_500100c.jpg
In the UK the standard police memorial for individual officers looks like this;http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Forces/West_Midlands/2002%20Ling%20-%20Police%20Memorial%202.jpg
So, upholding the constitution has makes you a jackass? Maybe it's the constitution that's the jackass then.
I agree that the crosses could be seen as unconstitutional, but I think in this case it's not a big deal. If the families of the troppers wanted crosses up, then why should we bother preventing them from putting crosses up? It's not like using crosses to memorialize the death of christians is particularly offensive.I just think we atheists have to pick out battles, this one just hurts public opinion of atheists, and makes it seem like we want to attack everything religious regardless of circumstance :/
Joe, I totally agree.
I like the granite memorials. These are REAL memorials and when viewed from the road may actually get somebody to pull over and stop to read about the person who died in serving their community rather than a giant, gaudy ass cross that says absolutely nothing about the individual officer.
Notice how the lawyer talking head on the left side of the screen said that these crosses serve a secular pupose, thus the crosses are constitutional; and then he bemoans the evil American Atheists for attacking "religious liberty." He performed this *facepalm* *WTF* contradiction in the span of a few sentences.Thats not to bad of a xian hypocrite time score, but I have seen quicker.I must conclude that his argument runs thus: The crosses serve a secular, non religious purpose, and any attempt to question the asserion of a secular purpose is a violation of religious liberty. Yes. That is incoherent, but it is what he said. Have cake, eat cake, and still have cake by God!
Did I miss the whole "Fair and Balanced" part somehow???
Judges are supposed to uphold the law. Putting up religious markers along a highway (public land) does seem to me a violation of church and state. I don't fault the judges for doing their job. I fault whoever brought the case up in the first place because they were, "so offended" by the crosses that they thought they needed to file a complaint to get them removed. Sometimes the right thing to do is just to let something go; put your humanity before your neverending quest for vindication.Letting families of killed officers have their markers, even if it requires to see crosses as you drive down a certain highway, that just seems like a no brainer. The Constitution isn't the problem. The problem is people being offended by everythign and anything so we need to get the courts involved in everythign because we can't just be decent to one another.