BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<BTR1702-8105C3.15183531102003@news.west.earthlink.net>...

In article <5db3f6ef.0310310920.16935bb0@posting.google.com>,
bigbore@comcast.net (McGuyver) wrote:

Your opinion on the issue is not shared by me or many other atheists
in this country who are fighting that very battle and winning in
courtrooms.

Cite me the court decision that supports the idea that a person placing
a religious symbol on a highway right-of-way is unconsitutional.

After all, if you've been winning in courtrooms, it shouldn't be hard
to come up with a case citation.

You got me... mostly. I was remembering something I heard locally.
Turns out the Denver chapter of the FFRF got the local DOT to agree to
take down RMs when ever there was a complaint just by THREATENING
court action. I'm pretty sure they still have the deal but that the
memorials often go back up shortly after the DOT takes them down.

I didn't find anything in a search regarding a court decision going
either way, so it seems it has yet to be decided on by a court. That
doesn't mean it can't happen. Perhaps the Atheists in Maryland are the
first to have the balls for it. (Look at how unpopular Newdow is and
how unpopular the Pledge rulings have been.)

I don't think it's a violation of seperation, as you say, "for private
citizens to express their religious views on public property". That's
fine. I believe it's a violation because the government is endorsing
religion by allowing religious shrines to remain on tax-payer-funded
land.

BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<BTR1702-8105C3.15183531102003@news.west.earthlink.net>...

In article <5db3f6ef.0310310920.16935bb0@posting.google.com>,

BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<BTR1702-C6720D.12564830102003@news.west.earthlink.net>...

In article <5db3f6ef.0310300911.7b0987de@posting.google.com>,

BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<BTR1702-E68BEE.22265329102003@news.west.earthlink.net>...

In article <5db3f6ef.0310291456.31e25bbe@posting.google.com>,

Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:<3f9ef7fe$0$75889$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>...

Larry Mundinger <see.below@signature.org> writes:

Maryland Atheists Want State to Remove Roadside
Memorials Steve Brown
Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - American Atheists in Maryland said
Friday they want the state to start removing roadside
memorials; crosses, flowers
and sometimes teddy bears that people leave next to
highways where a
loved one or family member has died in an automobile
accident. The
practice is repeated all over the country.

Their problem with it is that placing religious symbols on
public/government land is a violation of the seperation of
church and
state.

Gee, I didn't see anything in the story on Maryland
Atheists' website
about flowers or teddy bears. I guess that part was just
spin added
by some Christian to intentionally miss the point as
Christians almost
always do when it comes to issues concerning seperation of
church and
state.

So whenever a private citizen expresses themselves
religiously on public land, they are violating the separation
doctrine?

Interesting.

So if a group of people wanted to gather once a week in a
public park
to read the bible together, they could be forbidden from
doing so?

How about anti-abortion protestors standing on the steps of
the Supreme
Court? The vast majority of them are expressing religious
views on public property. Should they be silenced?

It's not the same and you know it.

Why is it not the same? In all cases we have private individuals
expressing themselves on public property.

You're intentionally missing the point;

No, I'm intentionally challenging you to provide an explanation
as to why you believe it's a violation of the separation doctrine
for private citizens to express their religious views on public
property.

I can't say that I'm surprised. This is exactly the kind of
spin that Christians put on seperation issues to mislead people
and confuse the point.

Funny that because I'm not a Christian. I'm actually an atheist.
You should be more careful about your stereotyping.

The people are constructing a religious symbol and leaving it
there and the government is allowing that religious symbol to
remain on government-owned land.

And when people gather on the steps of the Supreme Court to
protest abortion, they construct and display religious symbols
and shout and pray and recite verses from the bible and the
government allows them to remain on government-owned land.

It's the same as the Ten Commandments being displayed in a
courthouse.

No, it's really not. I'll leave you to figure out why. (Hint: who
put up the religious display in each case?)

What would happen if it were a pegan symbol that someone
constructed that Christians found offensive?

I have no idea. I can't speak for them because I'm not one of
them. Maybe they'd complain. I wouldn't, that's for sure.

I like the way you deleted this part of my post:
"I, personally, don't give a ***** about roadside memorials and
wouldn't put the time and energy into fighting something like that.
I think atheists should pick their battles better.

I'm glad you liked it.

I like the way you failed to respond to my challenge.

which proves my "spin" statement about you whether you're a
Christian or not.

So because I deleted a part of your post, that proves I'm a
Christian?

Wow.

Take me through that logic step-by-step if you can.

I said, "whether you're a Christian or not". It was the "spin" part
you were proving, not the "Christian" part.

Your opinion on the issue is not shared by me or many other
atheists in this country who are fighting that very battle and
winning in courtrooms.

Cite me the court decision that supports the idea that a person
placing a religious symbol on a highway right-of-way is
unconsitutional.

After all, if you've been winning in courtrooms, it shouldn't be hard
to come up with a case citation.

You got me... mostly. I was remembering something I heard locally.
Turns out the Denver chapter of the FFRF got the local DOT to agree to
take down RMs when ever there was a complaint just by THREATENING
court action. I'm pretty sure they still have the deal but that the
memorials often go back up shortly after the DOT takes them down.

I didn't find anything in a search regarding a court decision going
either way, so it seems it has yet to be decided on by a court. That
doesn't mean it can't happen. Perhaps the Atheists in Maryland are the
first to have the balls for it. (Look at how unpopular Newdow is and
how unpopular the Pledge rulings have been.)

I don't think it's a violation of seperation, as you say, "for private
citizens to express their religious views on public property". That's
fine. I believe it's a violation because the government is endorsing
religion by allowing religious shrines to remain on tax-payer-funded
land. (Especially in cases where other messages/symbols or
non-christian shrines are not allowed.)

BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In article <acb7fa96.0311021409.43e5d829@posting.google.com>,
thurston_phoremost@hotmail.com (Thurston Phoremost) wrote:

BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<BTR1702-C6720D.12564830102003@news.west.earthlink.net>...

In article <5db3f6ef.0310300911.7b0987de@posting.google.com>,
bigbore@comcast.net (McGuyver) wrote:

...

It's the same as the Ten Commandments being displayed in a
courthouse.

No, it's really not. I'll leave you to figure out why. (Hint: who
put up the religious display in each case?)

So, if that moronic judge simply stood back and allowd a private
citizen to lug that lump of rock into the courthouse and dump it
there, it'd be allowed to stay?

As long as he allowed anyone to dump any kind of memorial of any kind,
sure. Content-based restriction on the speech of private citizens is not
allowed.

So I'm allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater?