Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Gadawg73]

@Fox
My kids graduated high school at Woodstock Baptist Church in Cherokee county, Ga.
None of them were restricted in practicing their religion in any way at any time.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is at the school they went to and my son was a member.
They all prayed before and after every game. He dropped aTD pass one game and I, and a lot of other folks, prayed right there he would catch the next one.
He did.
NO ONE stops you from praying all you want.
Respectfully, you sound about as spoiled as they get. You have no restrictions whatsoever on practicing your religion and moan about government not being able to put a symbol on something and government can not sponsor prayer on Friday night.
Now take a good look at who is restricting religion in this country as I post. County governments nationwide denying Muslim mosques left and right for BS this and that.
All the while you moan and groan about not having a cross on a county bulletin.
Jefferson would be fighting for the Muslims and side with those that do not want the cross on the county bulletin.
Something about the Constitution.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various and chainging religous opinions.

 

[Gadawg73]

Makes me wonder whether this Nation was built on Rock and Roll or Advertising and Commercialism.

So what is the greater threat to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Lawyers or Salesmen?

The majority of the Founders were lawyers. 30 of the 55 that were the framers of the Constitution and DOI were lawyers.
Next time someone tries to take your freedom away by force with the power of government go hire a salesman from WalMart and see how far that gets you.

Again you miss the point. Lighten up Girly Man.

Girly Man?
We had a maniac DE that turned out to be a girly man. Doesn't bother me but that ain't me.

 

[Vargulf]

True. The U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically say that there is a separation of church and state. It only forbids the government from banning the establishment of any religion, no natter how far fetched it may be.
However, in Europe, thousands of people were tortured into conversion or killed for simply not accepting the Catholic church as their true religion. When early explorers landed on western shores, the church was a part of it and forced to natives into its folds.
In early America, when Puritans set up communities, those who did not follow its tenets strictly were physically punished. Witch hunts took place and people died.
Fast forward to present day. Present day Islam is both a religion and a political philosophy and one merely has to look at the Islamic nations, not only in the Middle East, but also other areas such as Indonesia (where they supposedly have religious tolerance in their Constitution). Islam is fundamentally, a Theocracy. As such the governments obey the will of the Imams, Ayatollahs, Mullahs, or Clerics, just as did the governments when the Catholic church had too much influence with them. Non-Muslims are considered second-class citizens, they are treated poorly, not only by the governments, but also by the local populace.
Because of all this, religion has "absolutely NO place" heavily influencing the government, whether, Christian, Islamic, Judaism, Bhuddism, et cetera. Once it does get control over a government, the true evil begins.
So, while the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out a separation of church and state, keeping it separate prevents the creation of a Theocracy. And that, that is true evil.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

 

[Intense]

I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote that there should be a wall between the Church and the State and I believe that was part of the basis for the Everson case.

For the record I think the Separation of Church and State is a great thing! However, I am getting sick of the atheist assault on all things religious (specifically all things Christian) and there desire to have freedom from religion. The pledge of alliance shouldn't be spoke without in god we trust. A court house shouldn't have to remove the 10 commandments monument! ETC.

The 'wall of separation' of which Jefferson wrote, however, was in response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptists expressing concern about their rights and liberties as Christians. In their letter:

". . . .Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . ."
The Danbury Baptist's letter to Jefferson


In his response, Jefferson wrote:

"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

It should be noted that Jefferson, as does all of the Constitution, states what the federal government and cannot do. It cannot infringe on the right of the Baptists to practice their faith freely and without government interference. His letter clearly was meant to reasure the Baptists of this fact, and that they had nothing to fear from their government. The 'wall' was to protect the people from the government. It was not to protect the government from the people.

I do believe Jefferson would be contemplating organizing a second full scale revolution if he lived now and saw how much the government has restricted the free exercise of religion. He wouldn't miss how much more the government and courts respond more to the pressures of those demanding restrictions on religion than they respond to those objecting to the erosion of our freedoms.

Religion is restricted in no way in this country.
How does anyone stop you from attending your church and worshiping in your home in any way you want?
Jesus never took his prayers in the public forum. He was a radical for his day and scolded the public servant religious leaders of his day that aligned themselves with government to preach their message.
You do not know much about Jefferson. He butchered the Bible to make his own version and you claim he was a champion of government sponsored religion.
You must be reading Barton.

Religion is restricted in no way in this country.

Worship is restricted, some justifiably, some not. That's another fail for you.

How does anyone stop you from attending your church and worshipping in your home in any way you want?

How about you coming up with your own ideas of Religious persecution without our help. We are not your think tank.

Jesus never took his prayers in the public forum. He was a radical for his day and scolded the public servant religious leaders of his day that aligned themselves with government to preach their message.

So you were an eye witness? The Sermon on the Mount never happened either, right? Healings and Miracles were all officially done on Private Property? Thanks for the heads up. It changes everything.

You do not know much about Jefferson. He butchered the Bible to make his own version and you claim he was a champion of government sponsored religion.

Jefferson was not big on Dogma. He took Christ's speaking, and kept his foundation there. Extreme for most in his day. Not easily herded either though. He had the luck to be born Privileged, huh. You could learn well by him. Where does this silly champion assertion come from. I'm sensing a tendency to distort here. Just a heads up. This obsession with Barton is curious too. Then I see the Ink Blots, I always try to imagine seeing Breasts, big ones, little ones, perky ones, melon, grapefruit, orange, lemon, types, I love them all. .... We all know what you see in the Ink Blots, .... Barton.... you really need to get over that. I don't think he swings that way, you can't be him, you cant be with him or possess him, you should move on.

Reading The Jefferson Bible

The editor suggests that The Jefferson Bible be read as Thomas Jefferson intended, without even thinking about what was left out or moved from one place to another. His purpose was to present a code of morals, suitable for instruction in ordinary living, not a code of religious dogmas and supernatural beliefs. It is the editor's hope that readers of The Jefferson Bible will be better able to appreciate the strikingly sublime ethical philosophy of Jesus when his words are separated from the other doctrinal issues, and that they will be able to agree with Jefferson that these "doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend all to the happiness of man."
The Jefferson Bible

THE
Jefferson Bible

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted Textually from the Gospels

Compiled by Thomas Jefferson

Edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.

The Jefferson Bible

Hey, work on your Core, Conscience First, in all things, remember, We are all related, we each have to go through Trial.

 

[Intense]

The majority of the Founders were lawyers. 30 of the 55 that were the framers of the Constitution and DOI were lawyers.
Next time someone tries to take your freedom away by force with the power of government go hire a salesman from WalMart and see how far that gets you.

Again you miss the point. Lighten up Girly Man.

Girly Man?
We had a maniac DE that turned out to be a girly man. Doesn't bother me but that ain't me.

Good.

 

[Intense]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

You bring up a great point. When Tragedy strikes, no matter where I am, I Pray. Accident, Terrorism, Earth Quake, Fire Flood, Tornado, I tune in to the Man Upstairs. Sometimes, you may see my lips move. I don't think that I should have to turn myself in to the Authorities. Do you?

 

[Gadawg73]

Funny how the argument always is liberal this and liberal that. That liberals and the anti religous are the only ones or the motivating factor behind supporting separation of church and state.
Amazing that everyone that I know these parts that wants that held up are very religous.
They are from other religions other than Christian. They
Of course to many the views and opinions of others from other religions do not compare to those that claim majority, mob rule status and want their way no matter what.

And that is what this adds up to.

 

[Gadawg73]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

You bring up a great point. When Tragedy strikes, no matter where I am, I Pray. Accident, Terrorism, Earth Quake, Fire Flood, Tornado, I tune in to the Man Upstairs. Sometimes, you may see my lips move. I don't think that I should have to turn myself in to the Authorities. Do you?

We had a serious drought years ago. Our Governor had a state prayer day to pray for rain.
I have no problem with that at all.
I pray.
However, the other states had their staffs preparing documents for the farmers in those areas to help them with relief, alternatives for their farms to grow other things next time that are drought resistant, erosion advice for when it did rain as to how to stop the run off, etc.
All while our Governor had all his chips in on the prayer.
Never rained. Got him re-elected next election though.

 

[Intense]

Funny how the argument always is liberal this and liberal that. That liberals and the anti religous are the only ones or the motivating factor behind supporting separation of church and state.
Amazing that everyone that I know these parts that wants that held up are very religous.
They are from other religions other than Christian. They
Of course to many the views and opinions of others from other religions do not compare to those that claim majority, mob rule status and want their way no matter what.

And that is what this adds up to.

My issue with you personally is not "Separation of Church and State", it is with the meaning, understanding, and application, and Powers related to the Term. Again, my issue may not even be with you there, but, with those, that undermine Liberty. The State has real limits on what it is allowed to impose on you as an Individual. In relation to Public Property and Display, It should be a Local matter, usually resolved best by permit.

 

[Intense]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

You bring up a great point. When Tragedy strikes, no matter where I am, I Pray. Accident, Terrorism, Earth Quake, Fire Flood, Tornado, I tune in to the Man Upstairs. Sometimes, you may see my lips move. I don't think that I should have to turn myself in to the Authorities. Do you?

We had a serious drought years ago. Our Governor had a state prayer day to pray for rain.
I have no problem with that at all.
I pray.
However, the other states had their staffs preparing documents for the farmers in those areas to help them with relief, alternatives for their farms to grow other things next time that are drought resistant, erosion advice for when it did rain as to how to stop the run off, etc.
All while our Governor had all his chips in on the prayer.
Never rained. Got him re-elected next election though.

Wow. Never is a really really long time. Like forever and ever.

 

[Gadawg73]

You bring up a great point. When Tragedy strikes, no matter where I am, I Pray. Accident, Terrorism, Earth Quake, Fire Flood, Tornado, I tune in to the Man Upstairs. Sometimes, you may see my lips move. I don't think that I should have to turn myself in to the Authorities. Do you?

We had a serious drought years ago. Our Governor had a state prayer day to pray for rain.
I have no problem with that at all.
I pray.
However, the other states had their staffs preparing documents for the farmers in those areas to help them with relief, alternatives for their farms to grow other things next time that are drought resistant, erosion advice for when it did rain as to how to stop the run off, etc.
All while our Governor had all his chips in on the prayer.
Never rained. Got him re-elected next election though.

Wow. Never is a really really long time. Like forever and ever.

Great come back.
Quoting you "You totally missed the point".

 

[Intense]

We had a serious drought years ago. Our Governor had a state prayer day to pray for rain.
I have no problem with that at all.
I pray.
However, the other states had their staffs preparing documents for the farmers in those areas to help them with relief, alternatives for their farms to grow other things next time that are drought resistant, erosion advice for when it did rain as to how to stop the run off, etc.
All while our Governor had all his chips in on the prayer.
Never rained. Got him re-elected next election though.

Wow. Never is a really really long time. Like forever and ever.

Great come back.
Quoting you "You totally missed the point".

Knock: Door Opens.
Ask: Receive.
Seek: Find.

God helps those that help themselves.

Maybe he just did not get the memo?

 

[Gadawg73]

I wonder if the anti-religionists, anti-Founders, anti-history buffs among us really understand what the 'free exercise' of religion means? Or if they drink that same water that seems to afflict some of our members with the inability to see the rebuttal offered to them? If I am allowed to pray in private but forbidden to pray in public or use a religious symbol, even one depicting religious history, in my workplace, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.' If I can attend church on Sunday but am forbidden to enjoy a religious piece of art in a public venue, I do not consider that the 'free exercise of religion.'

When the government presumes to tell me if and where I may pray outloud, if and where I may use an illustration from the Bible, if and where I can use a historical religious symbol, if and were I can use religious music, if and where I can enjoy religious art, it isn't a whole lot of different from the old concept of 'those' people can do anything they want so long as they stay in their 'place'.

"anti religionists, anti Founders"
That is all you continue to come to the table with?
NO ONE denies you the right to pray in public or use a religous symbol.
The government does not tell you if and where to pray out loud. The ACLU represents and wins cases against municipalities that have ordinances against street preaching.
And they win every one.
You are full of crap. All made up nonsense you speak. No truth or fact in it.
You know it so quit the BS.
You know that it is GOVERNMENT sponsoring it that is not legal.
YOU can do it all you want so quit the lies, distortions, twists and side steps.

 

[Intense]

Utah Highway Patrol trooper badgeIn the case of American Atheists v. Davenport, Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Byron Babione is defending the state troopers association. He says the crosses can easily be seen from the highway.

"[In] the late 90s, they began to put up memorial crosses in honor of highway patrol officers who had been killed on the highways in the line of duty, and these memorial crosses were put up at or near the places where the officers were mortally injured," he explains.

An ADF press release notes the American Atheists claim the memorials are "a state establishment of religion." Babione disagrees.

"The American Atheists brought suit against the state saying the state violated the Establishment Clause by allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association, a private organization, to put up these crosses in honor of these fallen troopers," he points out.

Babione says no government funds are involved and that some of the crosses are on private property and some are on public easements. The case is now before a federal appeals court.

Atheists challenge roadside memorial crosses (OneNewsNow.com)

SALT LAKE CITY -- The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling reverses a 2007 decision by a federal district judge that said the crosses communicate a secular message about deaths and were not a public endorsement of religion. It's the latest in a recent rash of mixed-bag rulings on the public use of crosses.

A three-judge panel from Denver's 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 38-page ruling that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the state and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity with the cross memorials.

"This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP," the justices wrote.

Read more: Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway | FoxNews.com

Private Organization, Private Funding, Public and Private Land mix. State issue or Federal Issue? These are Memorials.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Private Organization, Private Funding, Public and Private Land mix. State issue or Federal Issue? These are Memorials.

Note that per Constitutional case law, the ownership of a given monument/display is immaterial, that it exists on public is an endorsement of the message. Also irrelevant is the ownership of the monument/display or whether the funding is private – the only issue is venue.

From the ruling:

The fact that the UHPA retains ownership over these displays does not
materially affect our analysis of whether the displays at issue in this case
constitute government speech. In Pleasant Grove City, the Supreme Court noted
that the city had taken ownership of “most of the monuments in the Park.” 129
S. Ct. at 1134. However, the Court gave no indication that only
those monuments which the city actually owned constituted government speech.
To the contrary, the Court strongly implied that all the monuments in that park
were government speech, and further indicated that, in the vast majority of cases,
a permanent monument on public land will be considered government speech. Id.
at 1138. The fact that the Court thought all of the monuments in that park were
government speech is perhaps best illustrated by the Court’s choice of an example
of a permanent monument on public land that would not be government speech: a
“monument on which all the residents . . . could place the name of a person to be
honored or some other private message.” Id. The Court’s choice to use a
hypothetical example, and not just to point to some of the memorials in the park
at issue that might be privately owned in that case indicates that the Court
considered all the monuments in that park to be government speech. Thus, the
fact that the UHPA, not Utah, owns the memorial crosses does not affect our
determination of whether they are government speech.

Similarly, Utah’s attempt to distance itself from the message conveyed by
these memorial crosses, by stating that it neither “approves or disapproves” them,
falls flat in light of the Supreme Court’s discussion in Pleasant Grove City. In
Pleasant Grove City, the Court explicitly rejected the respondent’s argument that,
in order for a monument to constitute government speech, the state must formally
adopt the message conveyed by the display. The Court noted that the City’s
decision to display that permanent monument on its property “provided a more
dramatic form of adoption than the sort of formal endorsement that respondent
would demand . . . .” Id. at 1134. Conversely, the government’s actions in this
case—allowing these memorial crosses to be displayed with the official UHP
insignia primarily on public land—cannot be overshadowed by its attempts to
distance itself from the message conveyed by these displays.

Finally, we reject the state amici’s contention that, because the UHPA and
Utah each retained the right to remove these displays, they are not “permanent”
and, therefore, the Court’s decision in Pleasant Grove City does not cover this
case. This project began more than ten years ago, and there is no evidence that
any of the memorial crosses erected since that time have been removed. We think
that is permanent enough to constitute government speech. See

Davenport v. American Atheists, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

Consequently the 10th Circuit is merely following precedent as established by the Court, nothing is being made up, there his no ‘hostility’ toward Christianity or religion – only the legal process of judicial review.

Given the facts of the case and in the context of the case law, therefore. The placement of the crosses on public land roadsides is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause, as outlined by the court.

 

[gslack]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am probably a day late and dollar short on responding to this but here goes....

The US Constitution states...

" [Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Pretty easy to grasp the concept there I would think... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That means that our congress cannot endorse a religion by law, nor make any law which prevents you or I from practicing that religion. It seems very simple and straightforward to me, surprising really considering it was written by lawyers... It does not specify levels or amounts a Church can influence government, it doesn't have to. ANY influence of church outside the personal beliefs of our elected or appointed representation, directly in our government is an endorsement of a religion, and that thankfully is against the Constitution.

A person be he an average citizen, elected or appointed official or representative of the people to or for our government, has the right to his own views on religion and the practice thereof. That's protected under the Constitution as well. What that means is; if you elect a die-hard catholic to congress and he acts like a die-hard catholic would be expected to, so long as he doesn't violate the laws and constitution, you got what you paid for so to speak...

EVERY citizen of this country has the right to practice their own religion, senators, representatives, presidents, and citizens. If you do not trust a man to be a quality representative due to his or your own religious practice, preference or beliefs, than exercise your right to vote and hope enough fell the same way and prevent him from taking office. Its all goes back to the advanced citizenship a modern Democratic Republic requires.

The first settlers to this country, many were here for religious freedom. They did not agree with the state or official religions adopted by their respective countries governments for whatever reason, or were persecuted or prevented from practicing their own religion. In fact many of our first Colonies were formed by these religious outcasts. The separation of church and state resides in the 1st Amendment which prohibits an endorsement of any religion by our government. This was part of the FIRST amendment because so many of the people involved in its creation were descendants of, or part of those religious outcasts. They knew full and well ANY endorsement of a church or religion by the government would negate the very reason many of them were here in the first place. All religion, desires to be the one religion. All claim equally to be the truth, the light, the way, et al. Naming one as the official religion of the government will result in an unfair position of power to that religion. That will lead to oppression and persecution, as it has in the past time and again. How can a fledgling country proclaim freedom and equality deny one of the main freedoms they as colonists enjoyed till that time?

A far wiser and greater man than I once gave an important speech on this subject.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmQCwXM9X6o&feature=player_embedded]John F. Kennedy Houston Ministerial Association Speech - YouTube[/ame]

I like what he says about it... Maybe today in our desire to be politically correct, we forget the reason for that political correctness... Hopefully the next time we get an idea about imposing our religious beliefs, or lack of, on another or try and prevent them from the practice of their own religion, we remember a simple truth. The First Amendment protects each of us from an imposed religion, as well as that religions right to exist or practice of equally..

 

[Intense]

Private Organization, Private Funding, Public and Private Land mix. State issue or Federal Issue? These are Memorials.

Note that per Constitutional case law, the ownership of a given monument/display is immaterial, that it exists on public is an endorsement of the message. Also irrelevant is the ownership of the monument/display or whether the funding is private – the only issue is venue.

From the ruling:

The fact that the UHPA retains ownership over these displays does not
materially affect our analysis of whether the displays at issue in this case
constitute government speech. In Pleasant Grove City, the Supreme Court noted
that the city had taken ownership of “most of the monuments in the Park.” 129
S. Ct. at 1134. However, the Court gave no indication that only
those monuments which the city actually owned constituted government speech.
To the contrary, the Court strongly implied that all the monuments in that park
were government speech, and further indicated that, in the vast majority of cases,
a permanent monument on public land will be considered government speech. Id.
at 1138. The fact that the Court thought all of the monuments in that park were
government speech is perhaps best illustrated by the Court’s choice of an example
of a permanent monument on public land that would not be government speech: a
“monument on which all the residents . . . could place the name of a person to be
honored or some other private message.” Id. The Court’s choice to use a
hypothetical example, and not just to point to some of the memorials in the park
at issue that might be privately owned in that case indicates that the Court
considered all the monuments in that park to be government speech. Thus, the
fact that the UHPA, not Utah, owns the memorial crosses does not affect our
determination of whether they are government speech.

Similarly, Utah’s attempt to distance itself from the message conveyed by
these memorial crosses, by stating that it neither “approves or disapproves” them,
falls flat in light of the Supreme Court’s discussion in Pleasant Grove City. In
Pleasant Grove City, the Court explicitly rejected the respondent’s argument that,
in order for a monument to constitute government speech, the state must formally
adopt the message conveyed by the display. The Court noted that the City’s
decision to display that permanent monument on its property “provided a more
dramatic form of adoption than the sort of formal endorsement that respondent
would demand . . . .” Id. at 1134. Conversely, the government’s actions in this
case—allowing these memorial crosses to be displayed with the official UHP
insignia primarily on public land—cannot be overshadowed by its attempts to
distance itself from the message conveyed by these displays.

Finally, we reject the state amici’s contention that, because the UHPA and
Utah each retained the right to remove these displays, they are not “permanent”
and, therefore, the Court’s decision in Pleasant Grove City does not cover this
case. This project began more than ten years ago, and there is no evidence that
any of the memorial crosses erected since that time have been removed. We think
that is permanent enough to constitute government speech. See

Davenport v. American Atheists, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

Consequently the 10th Circuit is merely following precedent as established by the Court, nothing is being made up, there his no ‘hostility’ toward Christianity or religion – only the legal process of judicial review.

Given the facts of the case and in the context of the case law, therefore. The placement of the crosses on public land roadsides is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause, as outlined by the court.

Understood. However Precedent is it's own problem and does not stand on it's own merit, without support. Without reason, without justification, it is a matter waiting to be rectified. There is nothing Holy or untouchable about precedent. The test of time either testifies for or against it.

 

[CryingKoala]

Private Organization, Private Funding, Public and Private Land mix. State issue or Federal Issue? These are Memorials.

Note that per Constitutional case law, the ownership of a given monument/display is immaterial, that it exists on public is an endorsement of the message. Also irrelevant is the ownership of the monument/display or whether the funding is private – the only issue is venue.

From the ruling:

The fact that the UHPA retains ownership over these displays does not
materially affect our analysis of whether the displays at issue in this case
constitute government speech. In Pleasant Grove City, the Supreme Court noted
that the city had taken ownership of “most of the monuments in the Park.” 129
S. Ct. at 1134. However, the Court gave no indication that only
those monuments which the city actually owned constituted government speech.
To the contrary, the Court strongly implied that all the monuments in that park
were government speech, and further indicated that, in the vast majority of cases,
a permanent monument on public land will be considered government speech. Id.
at 1138. The fact that the Court thought all of the monuments in that park were
government speech is perhaps best illustrated by the Court’s choice of an example
of a permanent monument on public land that would not be government speech: a
“monument on which all the residents . . . could place the name of a person to be
honored or some other private message.” Id. The Court’s choice to use a
hypothetical example, and not just to point to some of the memorials in the park
at issue that might be privately owned in that case indicates that the Court
considered all the monuments in that park to be government speech. Thus, the
fact that the UHPA, not Utah, owns the memorial crosses does not affect our
determination of whether they are government speech.

Similarly, Utah’s attempt to distance itself from the message conveyed by
these memorial crosses, by stating that it neither “approves or disapproves” them,
falls flat in light of the Supreme Court’s discussion in Pleasant Grove City. In
Pleasant Grove City, the Court explicitly rejected the respondent’s argument that,
in order for a monument to constitute government speech, the state must formally
adopt the message conveyed by the display. The Court noted that the City’s
decision to display that permanent monument on its property “provided a more
dramatic form of adoption than the sort of formal endorsement that respondent
would demand . . . .” Id. at 1134. Conversely, the government’s actions in this
case—allowing these memorial crosses to be displayed with the official UHP
insignia primarily on public land—cannot be overshadowed by its attempts to
distance itself from the message conveyed by these displays.

Finally, we reject the state amici’s contention that, because the UHPA and
Utah each retained the right to remove these displays, they are not “permanent”
and, therefore, the Court’s decision in Pleasant Grove City does not cover this
case. This project began more than ten years ago, and there is no evidence that
any of the memorial crosses erected since that time have been removed. We think
that is permanent enough to constitute government speech. See

Davenport v. American Atheists, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

Consequently the 10th Circuit is merely following precedent as established by the Court, nothing is being made up, there his no ‘hostility’ toward Christianity or religion – only the legal process of judicial review.

Given the facts of the case and in the context of the case law, therefore. The placement of the crosses on public land roadsides is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause, as outlined by the court.

Understood. However Precedent is it's own problem and does not stand on it's own merit, without support. Without reason, without justification, it is a matter waiting to be rectified. There is nothing Holy or untouchable about precedent. The test of time either testifies for or against it.

Don't expect much from SCOTUS on the subject. They have been notoriously gun-shy about 1st Amendment religion issues. If they can find a way to dismiss a matter relating to it on a technicality (See Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow) or not granting certiori (chosing not to hear it), they will do that. Anything to duck the issue.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, only a court hostile to Christianity would rule that a cross on a grave conveys any message whatsoever apart from each independent individual's interpretation of what the cross signifies. A court not hostile to Christianity would see that there is no requirement for any person to accept any doctrine, dogma, creed, opinion or whatever because of the presence of those crosses and using the symbol is not an establishment or endorsement of religion but is merely respect for the faith of the fallen. Further nobody is required to be interred in a military cemetary if the family does not want that. I would think it appropriate for say a Jewish family to be able to request a star of David be used instead of a cross but things like that can be worked out.

Unfortunately we have had courts hostile to Christianity making these rulings, the ACLU gets rich at taxpayer expense filing those kinds of lawsuits--in my opinion THAT is a violation of the First Amendment--and other courts then have a precedent to use to keep it going.

And I think that is just plain wrong and an erosion of our unalienable rights.