Comments on: Highway crosses are illegal

By: MYSELF

MYSELF — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:14:53 +0000

Due to separation of church and state then technically certain areas are unconstitutional. I do think it’s a bit annoying about the roads. If someone stops to take the time to look at a cross on the side of the road then…well they’re not doing what they should be: Paying attention. They can be a distraction admittedly but at the same time many people just want others to know someone died there. WHy? Who the hell really knows and why do we care?

By: reberth

reberth — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:47:47 +0000

Unconstitutional? PLEASE! religious views are being attacked. Public cases, diverstiy. It is all a joke! courts, schools, sides of the road. WHY are these the types of things people don’t stand up for. Simple but yet very essential parts of being an “American” stripped away. This isn’t about ROAD SIDE DISTRACTIONS, its about taking GOD out of the equation.
If the government was worried about ‘distractions’ why allow ANYTHING on the side of the road? If a wooden cross is a distraction, how about taking down buildings with neon flashing lights, or better yet, yellow fire hydrants, female joggers. you can get as trivial as you want with that weak argumentative point.
“Government endorsement of Christianity??!?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! The dollar bill, ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’, granted.. it doesnt specify WHICH God, but at the same time it doesn’t read: ‘In Allah we trust.’ The past time government creed we used to remember…. ONE NATION…. UNDER GOD! This is GOD’S COUNTRY, that is pretty government endorsed to me. Now yall nit pick at everything i just said.

By: Burebista

Burebista — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:53:54 +0000

I hope you know what the Constitution is and what it REALLY states.

Ah, smell the air. Don’t you know that the government loves it when the massses stop thinking for themselves. In this manner no threat of rebellion as Jefferson suggested when the gov stops listening to the people

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:23:47 +0000

It is amazing how ignorant Americans are about what the Constitution actually states.

I hope you guys know what the supreme court is, and the authority they have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_since_1947

By: Burebista

Burebista — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:38:24 +0000

Rosta,

It is amazing how ignorant Americans are about what the Constitution actually states. The letter to the Danbury Baptist was to assure them the government would not establish a state religion. How a letter is part of the Constitution still eludes me. Now the Xenophobes freak out anytime there is anything that might even resemble a cross.

I look for them to attack the Arlington National cometary next. I plan on camping out at my ancestors burial plots.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:27:15 +0000

If the Crosses are on private property then there shouldn’t be any problem.
If they are on public property they are unconstitutional. This understanding of the constitution of understood by the supreme court based on what Thomas Jefferson meant contains “separation of church and state” since 1947.
Also, don’t forget the Treaty of Tripoli.

By: Rostam

Rostam — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:13:19 +0000

In order to judge decisions like this one we must go back to the founders actions, not words. Words are easily twisted. Well, they prayed in Congress, they took days off in congress for Sunday school parades and they taught the Bible in schools and prayed in schools.

So, would the founders find a cross on a highway unconstitutional? Absolutely not which is why they never inserted the phrase “wall between church and state” in the Constitution. Isn’t it amazing some letter Jefferson wrote (not even in the country during the Constitution process) to a bunch of Baptist can somehow become part of our Constitution? Even the most misunderstood part?

Going to the Constitution here, the government is not attempting to force a state religion upon the people therefore the Crosses are Constitutional.

Case dismissed.

By: WC

WC — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:01:11 +0000

Ehh… I don’t think they’re unconstitutional unless the troopers being honored weren’t Christian, or they were refusing to honor non-Christians.

However, I do think they are stupid. They are a distraction on the highway that will only cause more accidents. Have something for them that can be seen, but isn’t an eye-catcher.