[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude? [/quote]
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
and as a Jew, I don’t know of any Jew that would put up a Star of David on the side of the road.
[/quote]
Why’s that? I used to know someone that wore one on a necklace. Is wearing it or putting it somewhere considered blasphemous?
Edited: Felt dumb for quoting the entire thread.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
There is also the freedom from religion. I know it seems great to be able to Google something and think you know the whole story, but that usually isn’t the case. Your right to express your religious beliefs cannot infringe upon my right to be free of your religion in a public area. And especially it cannot be sheltered on public tax paid for land.
here you go, this was in that link.
They Are Unconstitutional and a Hazard
Robert Tiernan is a lawyer in Colorado. Nine years ago, he represented a person accused of illegally removing a roadside memorial. His client was acquitted.
There are three reasons why privately placed roadside memorials should not be allowed.
First, they constitute the taking of public property for private purposes.
Second, they invariably include Christian crosses and other religious symbols. This violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because public facilities are being used to promote religion.
(Photo: Kevin Moloney for the New York Times)
Hoping to avoid safety problems when mourners stop to mount, maintain or visit homemade memorials along the highway, the state of Wyoming produces and maintains its own signs, which sport a dove over a broken heart.
Third, they are a distraction and, therefore, dangerous to the motoring public. Many of these memorials are on median strips along the highway or are just off the shoulder. They are often elaborate and include symbols that are anchored into the ground. If a motorist happens to lose control of his car and hits one of these displays, it could result in serious injury or death.
Furthermore, the fact that grieving family and friends frequently visit these memorials to leave flowers and to pray presents an additional danger. In the case I handled, the memorial was in the â??Vâ?? of an interstate off-ramp. When mourners slowed down to pull off and visit the site, it created a serious traffic hazard.
Many states, including Colorado and Wyoming, have programs designed to commemorate victims of traffic accidents that donâ??t involve religious symbols or displays that are distracting. This is a better alternative than allowing citizens to erect their own shrines.
But we can keep with the personal insults that you started if that is easier for you?
[/quote]
Actually, I wasn’t googling anything, I know what I know because of my education on the subject during the completion of my degree. We went quite far into depth on what the government does and does not protect when it comes to religion in several of my law classes.
Speaking of making things up…weren’t you just accusing me of making things up about you and here you go assuming that I have been googling this the whole time? Even more ironic is the fact that you go on to post an article that you undoubtedly found when googling for a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this argument.
Because the affirmed the man’s legal right to remove private property that is essentially abandoned on public land doesn’t mean that they denied the person who erected said memorial’s right to leave it there.
“Freedom from religion” is a crock of shit in this application. No religion is being forced upon you by seeing said monuments, and if they bother you so much, you do have the previously affirmed right to remove them. Whether or not you are disrespectful enough of the deceased and their family to do so its an entirely different story.
If you want to be free from religion, then be so, but do not depend on the government to maintain a spiritually neutral environment for you as you go about your life. Like the little girl sent home from public school for wearing a t-shirt with a religious theme, this is simply a case of overly sensitive atheists being so obsessed with everyone and everything being as “God-free” as possible that they themselves commit one of the offenses that they condemn religions for committing.
The only thing more irritating than an evangelical Christian fanatic is an evangelical atheist fanatic.
I guess they never really bothered me so much. There are worse things about driving than roadside memorials. It sucks when people get killed in cars b/c it is one of the most needless reasons for your EXISTENCE to END.
[quote]Mettahl wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
and as a Jew, I don’t know of any Jew that would put up a Star of David on the side of the road.
Why’s that? I used to know someone that wore one on a necklace. Is wearing it or putting it somewhere considered blasphemous?
Edited: Felt dumb for quoting the entire thread.[/quote]
A personal necklace is a bit different then a public display
[quote]anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.[/quote]
I am just saying, I can totally disagree with someone, respect their opinoon, and not call them a bitch or an asshole. What does that prove? That you can’t debate for shit?
[quote]anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.[/quote]
Excessive?
You mean like suggesting that people be banned from erecting small memorials on the side of the highway in honor of lost loved ones in order to protect fragile atheist’s freedom from acknowledging the existence of religion?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
There is also the freedom from religion. I know it seems great to be able to Google something and think you know the whole story, but that usually isn’t the case. Your right to express your religious beliefs cannot infringe upon my right to be free of your religion in a public area. And especially it cannot be sheltered on public tax paid for land.
here you go, this was in that link.
They Are Unconstitutional and a Hazard
Robert Tiernan is a lawyer in Colorado. Nine years ago, he represented a person accused of illegally removing a roadside memorial. His client was acquitted.
There are three reasons why privately placed roadside memorials should not be allowed.
First, they constitute the taking of public property for private purposes.
Second, they invariably include Christian crosses and other religious symbols. This violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because public facilities are being used to promote religion.
(Photo: Kevin Moloney for the New York Times)
Hoping to avoid safety problems when mourners stop to mount, maintain or visit homemade memorials along the highway, the state of Wyoming produces and maintains its own signs, which sport a dove over a broken heart.
Third, they are a distraction and, therefore, dangerous to the motoring public. Many of these memorials are on median strips along the highway or are just off the shoulder. They are often elaborate and include symbols that are anchored into the ground. If a motorist happens to lose control of his car and hits one of these displays, it could result in serious injury or death.
Furthermore, the fact that grieving family and friends frequently visit these memorials to leave flowers and to pray presents an additional danger. In the case I handled, the memorial was in the �¢??V�¢?? of an interstate off-ramp. When mourners slowed down to pull off and visit the site, it created a serious traffic hazard.
Many states, including Colorado and Wyoming, have programs designed to commemorate victims of traffic accidents that don�¢??t involve religious symbols or displays that are distracting. This is a better alternative than allowing citizens to erect their own shrines.
But we can keep with the personal insults that you started if that is easier for you?
Actually, I wasn’t googling anything, I know what I know because of my education on the subject during the completion of my degree. We went quite far into depth on what the government does and does not protect when it comes to religion in several of my law classes. Speaking of making things up…weren’t you just accusing me of making things up about you and here you go assuming that I have been googling this the whole time? Even more ironic is the fact that you go on to post an article that you undoubtedly found when googling for a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this argument.
Because the affirmed the man’s legal right to remove private property that is essentially abandoned on public land doesn’t mean that they denied the person who erected said memorial’s right to leave it there.
“Freedom from religion” is a crock of shit in this application. No religion is being forced upon you by seeing said monuments, and if they bother you so much, you do have the previously affirmed right to remove them. Whether or not you are disrespectful enough of the deceased and their family to do so its an entirely different story. If you want to be free from religion, then be so, but do not depend on the government to maintain a spiritually neutral environment for you as you go about your life. Like the little girl sent home from public school for wearing a t-shirt with a religious theme, this is simply a case of overly sensitive atheists being so obsessed with everyone and everything being as “God-free” as possible that they themselves commit one of the offenses that they condemn religions for committing.
The only thing more irritating than an evangelical Christian fanatic is an evangelical atheist fanatic.[/quote]
I didn’t Google, it was in the link the OP provided. See I read the whole post.
it has nothing to do with disrespecting the family, it has to do with someone usurping public land for their own religious use.
I think it is great you went to law school, good for you, can you please cite the case that allows the support of religious shrines on public land? Don’t paste anything that is a war memorial. We already had that huge case out here in San Diego where it took an act of Congress to remove the public lands to Federal lands to allow for a cross.
I also don’t like it when people don’t take down their old Garage Sale signs.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.
Excessive?
You mean like suggesting that people be banned from erecting small memorials on the side of the highway in honor of lost loved ones in order to protect fragile atheist’s freedom from acknowledging the existence of religion?[/quote]
How about the idea that they are a distraction, just like certain electronic billboards on the side of freeways with advertisements that are distracting to drivers. What religion will you crucify for that? Capitalism?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
There is also the freedom from religion. I know it seems great to be able to Google something and think you know the whole story, but that usually isn’t the case. Your right to express your religious beliefs cannot infringe upon my right to be free of your religion in a public area. And especially it cannot be sheltered on public tax paid for land.
here you go, this was in that link.
They Are Unconstitutional and a Hazard
Robert Tiernan is a lawyer in Colorado. Nine years ago, he represented a person accused of illegally removing a roadside memorial. His client was acquitted.
There are three reasons why privately placed roadside memorials should not be allowed.
First, they constitute the taking of public property for private purposes.
Second, they invariably include Christian crosses and other religious symbols. This violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because public facilities are being used to promote religion.
(Photo: Kevin Moloney for the New York Times)
Hoping to avoid safety problems when mourners stop to mount, maintain or visit homemade memorials along the highway, the state of Wyoming produces and maintains its own signs, which sport a dove over a broken heart.
Third, they are a distraction and, therefore, dangerous to the motoring public. Many of these memorials are on median strips along the highway or are just off the shoulder. They are often elaborate and include symbols that are anchored into the ground. If a motorist happens to lose control of his car and hits one of these displays, it could result in serious injury or death.
Furthermore, the fact that grieving family and friends frequently visit these memorials to leave flowers and to pray presents an additional danger. In the case I handled, the memorial was in the �?�¢??V�?�¢?? of an interstate off-ramp. When mourners slowed down to pull off and visit the site, it created a serious traffic hazard.
Many states, including Colorado and Wyoming, have programs designed to commemorate victims of traffic accidents that don�?�¢??t involve religious symbols or displays that are distracting. This is a better alternative than allowing citizens to erect their own shrines.
But we can keep with the personal insults that you started if that is easier for you?
Actually, I wasn’t googling anything, I know what I know because of my education on the subject during the completion of my degree. We went quite far into depth on what the government does and does not protect when it comes to religion in several of my law classes. Speaking of making things up…weren’t you just accusing me of making things up about you and here you go assuming that I have been googling this the whole time? Even more ironic is the fact that you go on to post an article that you undoubtedly found when googling for a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this argument.
Because the affirmed the man’s legal right to remove private property that is essentially abandoned on public land doesn’t mean that they denied the person who erected said memorial’s right to leave it there.
“Freedom from religion” is a crock of shit in this application. No religion is being forced upon you by seeing said monuments, and if they bother you so much, you do have the previously affirmed right to remove them. Whether or not you are disrespectful enough of the deceased and their family to do so its an entirely different story. If you want to be free from religion, then be so, but do not depend on the government to maintain a spiritually neutral environment for you as you go about your life. Like the little girl sent home from public school for wearing a t-shirt with a religious theme, this is simply a case of overly sensitive atheists being so obsessed with everyone and everything being as “God-free” as possible that they themselves commit one of the offenses that they condemn religions for committing.
The only thing more irritating than an evangelical Christian fanatic is an evangelical atheist fanatic.
I didn’t Google, it was in the link the OP provided. See I read the whole post.
it has nothing to do with disrespecting the family, it has to do with someone usurping public land for their own religious use.
I think it is great you went to law school, good for you, can you please cite the case that allows the support of religious shrines on public land? Don’t paste anything that is a war memorial. We already had that huge case out here in San Diego where it took an act of Congress to remove the public lands to Federal lands to allow for a cross.
I also don’t like it when people don’t take down their old Garage Sale signs.
[/quote]
You spend far too much time worrying about insignificant things.
By erecting a cross on the side of the highway, someone is essentially abandoning property on public land. You have every right to remove that property. I’m not disagreeing with that, I’m just saying that your assertion that the government somehow has the responsibility to promote atheism via elimination of all things spiritual from public environments is completely absurd.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.
I am just saying, I can totally disagree with someone, respect their opinoon, and not call them a bitch or an asshole. What does that prove? That you can’t debate for shit? [/quote]
Well, here’s your problem: you are disagreeing with someone while still respecting their opinion. This is not how the Internet works. You simply aren’t cool unless you not only disagree with someone, but express pure contempt at their entire thought process and act flabbergasted at the fact that they even have enough brain cells to rub together to generate ANY thought whatsoever - much less one as completely, embarrassingly off the mark as the one they had the temerity to share in your presence.
Remember, you aren’t arguing to prove the other person wrong so much as you are arguing to show how intelligent and awesome you are to the e-audience following along. And nothing screams how intelligent you are quite as well as expressing the inability to grasp another persons point of view on a subject without tweaking out.
Make sense, asswipe?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.
Excessive?
You mean like suggesting that people be banned from erecting small memorials on the side of the highway in honor of lost loved ones in order to protect fragile atheist’s freedom from acknowledging the existence of religion?
How about the idea that they are a distraction, just like certain electronic billboards on the side of freeways with advertisements that are distracting to drivers. What religion will you crucify for that? Capitalism?[/quote]
That wasn’t her initial assertion.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.
Excessive?
You mean like suggesting that people be banned from erecting small memorials on the side of the highway in honor of lost loved ones in order to protect fragile atheist’s freedom from acknowledging the existence of religion?
How about the idea that they are a distraction, just like certain electronic billboards on the side of freeways with advertisements that are distracting to drivers. What religion will you crucify for that? Capitalism?[/quote]
But Maximus, a human being DIED. This isn’t an advertisement meant to sell product. Its a memorial. A person lost their life in that certain spot.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I didn’t Google, it was in the link the OP provided. See I read the whole post.
it has nothing to do with disrespecting the family, it has to do with someone usurping public land for their own religious use.
I think it is great you went to law school, good for you, can you please cite the case that allows the support of religious shrines on public land? Don’t paste anything that is a war memorial. We already had that huge case out here in San Diego where it took an act of Congress to remove the public lands to Federal lands to allow for a cross.
I also don’t like it when people don’t take down their old Garage Sale signs.
You spend far too much time worrying about insignificant things.
By erecting a cross on the side of the highway, someone is essentially abandoning property on public land. You have every right to remove that property. I’m not disagreeing with that, I’m just saying that your assertion that the government somehow has the responsibility to promote atheism via elimination of all things spiritual from public environments is completely absurd.[/quote]
What if one road just become a picket line of crosses? At what point is enough enough? Do you let them just erect one after another after another? And what if I need to pull quickly to the side of the road and I suffer damage due to a cross being hurled through my window or it causes scratches to my paint job? Do I sue the family or do I sue the city for not removing a potential hazard?
EDIT: and stop saying I’m an atheist. You still keep assuming when you’ve never asked me.
[quote]anonym wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Why do you feel the need to call OG a dumb bitch, because she disagrees with you ? If you have a different position on the issue, I think you are entitled, but why call out names dude?
It is a little excessive, isn’t it.[/quote]
I’ve always been touched by roadside memorials though I guess everyone’s entitled to their feelings, pro or con. But please, the name calling…
I should probably come clean and let all those outraged folks know that I just chose a side to pick a fight. I had a bad day so decided to poke at things. I don’t care about the crosses, I think there are much better ways to memorialize a person, but whatever helps those that are left deal with things (to an extent) is understandable. But I do think there should be limits. I am just glad I don’t have to decide them.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I should probably come clean and let all those outraged folks know that I just chose a side to pick a fight. I had a bad day so decided to poke at things. I don’t care about the crosses, I think there are much better ways to memorialize a person, but whatever helps those that are left deal with things (to an extent) is understandable. But I do think there should be limits. I am just glad I don’t have to decide them.[/quote]
Bad days… I know about those. Like Scarlet said “Tomorrow’s another day” ;).
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
But Maximus, a human being DIED. This isn’t an advertisement meant to sell product. Its a memorial. A person lost their life in that certain spot. [/quote]
I would say that if you need a place of significance to vent your grief, the actual resting place of the departed would be more appropriate than the spot they died. Or ANY spot that was a place of significance for the deceased during the time they were alive.
As OG mentioned earlier, a more sensible alternative would be to take some measure to ensure that such accidents do not happen again (erecting a street light, road sign, etc.) and/or planting a tree/engraving a bench with their name and donating it to the local park.
I, personally, don’t CARE how someone chooses to go about the grieving process… but if I died tragically, I would rather my family used their grief as a catalyst to promote a positive change in the community, rather than making a roadside exhibition out of my death.
Different strokes, I guess.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What if one road just become a picket line of crosses? At what point is enough enough? Do you let them just erect one after another after another? [/quote]
Who cares if the whole damn road is filled with crosses? What does it matter? If you think it’s an eyesore, clean it up. With all the other shit all over the roads, I can’t believe anyone would claim that these are a distraction.
Why would you need to sue anybody? You’re the crazy driver that suddenly swerved off the road? If you fall out of bed, do you sue the mattress company? You’re really reaching here.
EDIT: I typed this before your “come clean” post.
Fight’s over? Oh well. I guess I better get back to watching porn.