Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, something is sacred: the separation between church and state.
These "intolerant bigots" did not object because this family wanted to erect a memorial for their son. They objected because this family wanted to erect a religious symbol--a cross--on a public road. Please don't try to tell me there was no other place the family could have erected that cross!
There is no mention of separation and church and state in the constitution.
There is a however, wording as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Would you like to explain how a private citizen placing a cross on a public road constitutes the state of California establishing a religion?
The OP clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word bigot. Asking that the law be upheld equally for everyone, as the constitution requires, does not make one a bigot.
Would you please explain how a private person placing a cross on a public road in memory of their son constitutes the law being unequally applied?
You can't - and the AHA is acting entirely out of hatred for religion.
It isn't the exact same thing, and no one would ever claim it was. That is a total non-issue.
But this isn't an act by the government. It is an act by Christians who want to display Christian symbols on public property, thus claiming privilege for their faith to do so. That cannot be allowed.
Actually, the establishment of religion issue is the only pertinent thing and that is what is being claimed by the AHA.
The First Amendment does not allow an official religion to be established.
It protects the free exercise of any religion.
Christianity has not been established as an official religion in California by the memorial being placed in memory of the accident victim.
Claiming privilege?
That is the last thing that was on the mind of the family.
Anyone of any religious persuasion can put their own symbols up - it appears that you are just upset at the presence of a cross.
A large billboard sign is even more distracting to drivers. Why not ban those?
I'd be up for that, especially the really bright LED ones (bad for night vision) and the ones that aren't really signs but screens where the image changes periodically. Those are very distracting too.
Would that mean that I can't wear my cross if I appear on public property? Would I have to slip it inside my collar so it isn't visible and doesn't offend anyone? How about an "angel on my shoulder" pin? How about a cross on a book bag? How about a Bible under my arm in the public square. Can we read the Bible in the city park? Can we share the Bible in a public park?
Or is all the above still to come?
A roadside memorial causes me to remember the family's loss, to say a prayer for them and other drivers on the road with me, and remember to slow down and be careful.
You can absolutely wear a cross on public property. Many people do, every day. This isn't about what you wear or carry around on your person during the course of the day. It is about erecting religious displays on public property. That's all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Intolerant bigots force family to remove memorial for son.
