A good example of why athiests suck

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So your making a leap in interpretation and attaching a religious belief to something that probably doesn't have to do with religion.

I do no think it's a stretch to consider a cross Christian on some level. It is used in many different situations. Some ambiguously and many blatantly. I think the association of a cross on a church and one of the side of the road is too close to consider it a shut issue like you have done for the reason you have yet to clarify.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

The cross is only a symbol of sacrifice to those who believe in god.

Not in the least. Obviously the cross's symbolism surrounding sacrifice is rooted in a relgion's history, but there is ample evidence that the symbolism has long since transcended that religion.

One does not need to believe in a god to understand that these crosses symbolize sacrifice:

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Now, obviously the cross has long been associated with Christianity, but I have to ask, when you see a roadside memorial that uses one, do you believe the average person views it in a religious sense? In a society that is growing considerably more agnostic as time goes on, I would say no.

I think the FFR people could pick their battles better. Want to keep intelligent design out of public science class? - sure, I can support that. Fighting over crosses, or nativity scenes at City Hall, seems trivial to me.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Feel free to address the points when you grow up. I'll ignore your attacks till then.

peter12 seems good at that. Last week he called me "small brained" and didn't address a single point I made.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The cross symbolizes Christianity.

Unfortunately there's no internationally recognized symbol for "here lays a dead guy."

[Thor]

I wonder tc if you had not just the cross but also symbols from other smaller religions on the side of the road, would that not illicit a negative response from a mainly christian nation?

Like I said before, in Iceland its symbolism nothing else considering the majority here are non believers but look upon christian cultural traditions with respect. Well minus denying people rights to marry and bombing abortion clinics

I just think its hard for an atheist in America to be tolerant when they feel so besieged.

Not that I agree with them.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, there is no protection in the US constitution against something that is "unavoidable". That decision was made because of the supposed religious implication alone.

The fact the crosses were unavoidable is the reasoning behind this decision. You started this thread. How could you miss that?

the appeals court made several arguments, such as the large size and location of the crosses -- on busy public highways where motorists cannot help but notice. Other similar memorial crosses have been erected on public land such as Arlington National Cemetery to honor fallen war dead. But the judges noted those markers are generally accessible or visible only to those who expressly choose to visit them, unlike roads where citizens cannot help but see them.

The Sonnenberg memorial was the first thing I thought of when I read this story. The second was the high number of memorials you will find on any Alberta highway, and many streets in the city. The majority of them
use crosses.

And small enough to go unnoticed.

There are a great many implications about this decision that should be disturbing to people.

Or encouraging depending on your perspective.

Now, obviously the cross has long been associated with Christianity, but I have to ask, when you see a roadside memorial that uses one, do you believe the average person views it in a religious sense? In a society that is growing considerably more agnostic as time goes on, I would say no. I would say that in a secular world, a cross in this context is considered simply a memorial and not a Christian symbol, so I don't accept the relgion angle of the athiest's argument. Unfortunately, the appeals court seems detached from my view of the average person, which is why I made the comment about courts banning things because people are unreasonably offended by them.

Personally, I find it totally reasonable to object to enormous crosses on public land. Due to the separation of church and state mandated by law. No problem in enforcing one's right under the law, no?

Second, it has already been noted that the SCotUS has already held that while goverment cannot favour a specific religion ("separation of church and state"), it also should not be adversarial towards religion either. So, even if you accept a religious connotation in these memorials, the simple fact that they are all shaped as a cross at present is not prima facie evidence that the government is favouring one denomination unless you can show that the family of a deceased trooper has requested that a memorial be shaped like the Star of David or a crescent moon (or another symbol) and been denied.

The display of any unavoidable religious symbol on public land is on it's face government endorsement of religion.

Third, I think something like this can easily be couched in the freedom of speech argument. It is a non-profit that erected these memorials, not the government itself. Related, people of any faith, even those who have faith in nothing, need to accept that they will never be free of images, symbols and commentary that their faith opposes. In my view, this is blatant, court endorsed, censorship by a group that simply refuses to accept that not everyone thinks and believes as they do.

You can't do whatever you want on public land. You know why? Because you aren't the only one who owns it. I own it too.

If you break the law, I have the right to ask for enforcement.

You, as a response, have the right to get the law changed through legislation.

I have yet to see any problem whatsoever with this decision.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Are you trying to say that it must be some wacky coincedence that crosses just happen to mark graves only in christian nations?

If not I apologize but some posters sure seem to be making the stand that
the origins of a cross marking a grave is for memorial puposes only and in now way has/had any christian context is just plain dishonest.

It is not dishonest! It is a clear recognition that symbols are not static, and their meaning invariably changes and evolves over time. By the same token, it seems silly to attempt to deny or eliminate "religious tradition", which has been so instrumental in shaping virtually every culture on the planet. While we happen to live in a secular society, it is saturated with remnants of a religious culture, which in many respects have since been re-interpreted to suit the needs and sensibilities of what is now a consumer society.

[tjinaz]

I take it this is strictly christian too.... Better tell the armed forces of all the western nations, they need to remove it as it offends you.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow

It was a joke. I apologize if you were offended.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Symbols are just visual shorthand for wider concepts.

If you saw a sign with a crescent on it, would you think it was for store selling croissants?

Right. And they have the ability to change, evolve, and adapt with time. Everyone knows the cross was and still is to many a symbol of Christianity, but the fact is, many Christian symbols and celebrations have evolved to incorporate, and in some cases personify, secular meanings. This goes back to us sharing a cultural heritage steeped in Christianity, and going forward with a modern world becoming more and more secular.

If I saw a sign with a crescent on it, maybe I would think it's a store selling croissants. Maybe even telescopes. Because the crescent doesn't hold the cultural history, the emotional impact, or the meaning that the cross does in this part of the world, and especially when along the side of a road.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by troutman

There should be a memorial for him, but I'm not sure the side of the road is the best place for it. I think it is important to his family and colleagues, and community at large.

That's my point. Sonnenberg (presumably) has a grave, and is immortalized in an exhibit at the CPS Interpretive Centre which is open to the public.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not dishonest! It is a clear recognition that symbols are not static, and their meaning invariably changes and evolves over time. By the same token, it seems silly to attempt to deny or eliminate "religious tradition", which has been so instrumental in shaping virtually every culture on the planet. While we happen to live in a secular society, it is saturated with remnants of a religious culture, which in many respects have since been re-interpreted to suit the needs and sensibilities of what is now a consumer society.

I feel like we're posting the same things!

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Its true, we should consider the feelings of living survivors of the Salem witch trials.

Don't forget the crusades, the spanish inquisition, residential schools, kiddie diddling priests etc.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I have yet to see any problem whatsoever with this decision.

Only because you have locked yourself into outdated thinking. Again, I would argue that the average person would look at a roadside memorial cross, regardless of size, and consider it a roadside memorial, and not as something promoting a religion.

In short, the problem with this decision is that the judges view on what a reasonable person would think is out of touch with reality.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by 4X4

It's about time we canceled Christmas. Those damn Christians forcing us to take time off work and think about Jesus and stuff.

Don't forget Easter! Who needs a spring-like holiday? While we're at it, let's cancel May Long as that's Victoria Day and we don't want or need a stinking queen either.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

I wonder tc if you had not just the cross but also symbols from other smaller religions on the side of the road, would that not illicit a negative response from a mainly christian nation?

I should hope not, but then again I am a closet idealist.

Originally Posted by Thor

...I just think its hard for an atheist in America to be tolerant when they feel so besieged...

This is the key. But is this perhaps merely the other side of the same coin whereby many Christians protest regarding the trampling of their own liberties and sensibilities? Maybe the problem is not Christians and athiests; maybe the problem in cases such as this has to do with them all being American, as I cannot imagine a similar sort of reaction in any other place in the Western world.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Right. And they have the ability to change, evolve, and adapt with time. Everyone knows the cross was and still is to many a symbol of Christianity, but the fact is, many Christian symbols and celebrations have evolved to incorporate, and in some cases personify, secular meanings.

Christianity hasn't cornered the market on concepts such as valour, first-aid or even death.

Society can evolve and abandon symbolic images as well.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not in the least. Obviously the cross's symbolism surrounding sacrifice is rooted in a relgion's history, but there is ample evidence that the symbolism has long since transcended that religion.

One does not need to believe in a god to understand that these crosses symbolize sacrifice:

To me the crosses represent that the hero that is buried there was a christian, the tombstone represents sacrifice.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I will repeat: A cross at the side of a road is a symbol whose meaning is abundantly clear. Part of the meaning inherent in a symbol is its environment or location, and in this context I tend to think that it is not commonly understood to be religious.

It's abundantly clear that someone has died, that I would agree. You would probably know better than me. But a cross use to convey "dead Christian here", perhaps not as much now. But it is surely not a universal marker for dead people as many road side memorials are not crosses, same with other memorials, grave yards etc.

What I think some people are arguing is that for a long time crosses have signified the deceased, therefore as an increasing secular culture these crosses have little significant religious association. I disagree. I think as an increasing secular culture the cross should be dropped as a memorial because many of us are not Christian. I think it makes more sense to drop the symbol than drop the religious connotations.