Rainbow crosswalks?

While I post a lot of things here that the people here tend to disagree with, let me take just a second and post something here I think most you will agree with me on…

I think this is a HORRIBLE idea (painting crosswalks in rainbow colors to show “diversity”)

But, here is the interesting part.

I object when the cities do things that are supportive of a specific religion (usually Christianity) on the grounds that governments, local, state or federal, should not use its power to promote religion. I feel EXACTLY the same with respect to promoting cultural attitudes.

It’s really sad that people in power, be it on the right-left or in the middle can’t see beyond the ends of their noses and realize 1) the hypocrisy of what they are doing, 2) how a decision like this can be abused by whatever group controls whatever governing body it is that is making decisions.

That said, next time you support the government using its power to promote Christianity or some other cultural idea or causeyou support, remember this moment.


Like it or not, the United States was formed as a CHRISTIAN nation. I realize that pisses lots of people off, but it’s a FACT. All the first amendment says about it is that the nation cannot establish a State Religion. It further says that Congress may not enact ANY law that prohibits people from freely exercising their religious preferences…period. When it suits them, Democrats claim to prefer “majority rules,” hence the push to abandon the Electoral College. However, when the majority of Americans are Christians, the left balks at their being able to freely express their religious beliefs. Fact is, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted PRECISELY to protect the minority from the majority as well as the majority from the minority, but louder.


Independent of the reason for doing it, I agree with the federal government that it would be confusing. Many people who drive up to that intersection the first time will be inclined to slow down or stop to try to figure out what traffic rule it implements. Or if they don’t slow down, they might be craning their necks to try to get a look.

Pedestrians would likely be looking at the crossing instead of scanning for wayward cars. So no one would be paying attention–a recipe for disaster.

1 Like

Don’t care. Not one bit. As a Christian, you have no more right to use the government to promote your beliefs or ideas than the LGBT community does. The rest is just you trying to rationalize government promoting Christianity.

But, just like the LGBT community, you have every right to promote your ideas however you want as long as it does not violate the established rights of others and does not use public money to do it.

Yeah, I wasn’t really addressing the more pragmatic issues with it, though I’ll say, in general I agree with you. Crosswalks are “devices” used to protect people and the public. While I don’t think that people are stupid and completely unable to negotiate some colored paint on the ground and that such an arrangement will cause it to rain cats and dogs, I think it just opens a Pandora’s Box, which sooner or later could result in real harm, both physical, cultural and political.

When Government uses it power to support a group as controversial as LGBT community in the name of “diversity”, I think those statements have real cultural impact, but for every positive, there is an equal negative and I’d argue that people are more likely to act with respect to negative reactions than they are to positive ones.

In other words, this is more likely to harm the LGBT community than help it, in the long run IMO… Many the people in this forum feel like LGBT rights are being pushed upon them, and while I think that people should have the right to dress and have sex with other adults regardless of gender, I also realize that LGBT people aren’t entitled to the rights they think they are. They can only have the rights they can convince others of. Ask the LGBT community in Russia.

That said, I don’t want to make this thread about LGBT rights, but rather, the point was to discuss the fact that the local government decided to openly support this group which, seems to me, is a HUGE slap in the face to a lot of people who don’t share the same cultural beliefs.

It’s a state purview-thing. They’re allowed to run their social experiments. If it’s not using federal money, have at it.

If people in the city don’t like it, they know who to vote out.

So lets assume that you are correct and the USA was founded as a Christian Nation. Since we are assuming that statement for this discussion between us is correct, do you not find it interesting that they then passed a law that basically made it so that they couldn’t keep it that way? It seems to me like it was pretty important to the founding fathers (Law #1 as you so pointed out!) that they not try and hammer the “Christian Nation” mantra and the Christian ideals on the people. Thus it seems silly, at least to me, to lament about “Christian Nation” when all the data seems to point to less and less people identify as Christian as time marches forward.

Also I think I mentioned years ago, conservatives and liberals love big government when it suits them, with what they want to enforce and relax mostly being centered on moral and financial freedoms. Conservatives want to enforce moral values on the people, while lessening restrictions on financials. Liberals want tighter controls on financials, loosening restrictions on morals. Both love big gov, just in different ways.

Federally you couldn’t; but States blatantly did.

What changed that wasn’t the Government, it was some super-star preacher that everyone wanted to go see, regardless of their faith, and that somehow created blowback onto the State-sponsored churches, which people no longer wanted to support. So ballot initiatives and state legislators, one-by-one, phased out the practice.

They also want to push their own morals. Policing Micro-aggression, “diversity” quotas, child sex-reassignment surgery.

Throw in anything you can think of that attaches to “virtue signalling”. Supporting fiber bags over plastic, green sources over Natural Gas/Nuclear, handing more public money to high speed rail.

They are not neutral. They do not appreciate questioning those things, much less loosening them.

And we don’t care that you don’t care, CSB. You don’t seem to have any problem with Kalifornia schools promoting Islam, but you object to some church erecting a nativity creche in a public park. That’s pretty hypocritical, of you ask me. Please explain to us HOW the latter “violate[s] the established rights of others.” I had Bible study all through elementary school and it didn’t “warp” my perception of reality one iota.

I disagree. It’s about the government acknowledging. And contrary to what some on the left are attempting to revise history to claim, this nation was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And as I’ve done in the past, I’ll argue that (for reasons given in the past) the farther our nation gets from those principles, the less sustainable morality is period.

I don’t think there’s any “assume” about it; it’s pretty well established historically, at least as far as the founding principles (without which our nation would come apart at the seams, as it’s doing) are concerned.

Generally agree.

I hate it when you make me agree with you…

1 Like

You’re forgetting one critical thing here, Maylar. In the 18th Century, different “religions” meant different DENOMINATIONS of Christianity for the most part. Oh, I realize that a few of the founders, Thomas Jefferson, for one, included “Mohammedans” in his definition of different religions, but a substantial percentage of the signers were Christian MINISTERS. Do you REALLY believe that they approved of the 1st Amendment meaning ANY WORLD RELIGION WHATSOEVER…Druids, Satanists, Paganism, Wicca, Hinduism, etc.?

1 Like

It seems that’s the way it works as you say, but I object to it, not just painting the crosswalk pretty colors, but the whole idea that 7 members of a city or county board are the best places to run these experiments. People that hold those positions aren’t usually interested in trying to create “diverse” social environments, rather they are interested in making the world conform to their idea of it. This gives the majority (who ostensibly voted for the people who make the kinds of decisions as given here) the power to shape communities in the image of the majority. In this case it’s painting rainbows, but I think this opens the door to much more nefarious uses of this power.

Now what happens when state or even national organizations realize that they can use money as a way to support local or county candidates in order to bring influence to local boards far beyond the boarders of the communities where these sorts of decisions are getting made?

I think we’re seeing this with Sinclair Media buying up local TV stations to broadcast a singular message in the guise of a local format. Now that’s a different issue, but if we chalk this case up to “voters decide” I think it will eventually stretch far further than that.

Your talking about the liberals who use Twitter as a way to bludgeon those liberals that step out of line, be it comedians or college professors. But I would argue that these people while the loudest and some of the most influential, do not actually represent most liberals. Conservatives like to paint liberals this way, but it’s just not the case that most liberals embrace the ideas you’ve outlined. There is some push-back from the likes of Bill Maher and others.

Even if I concede that, so what?

You know I disagree, but I don’t think we want to re-hash this here… That said, that does not give anyone any authority to use the state to promote principles on the grounds they are Christian.

That is, if the government wants to run a public service announcement telling people that “it’s wrong to murder”, I’m fine with that. If they want to run a public service announcement that “god says it’s wrong to murder”, that’s where I have an issue.

So while I agree with Christianity that murder is wrong, I disagree that this concept was only known once the Christain god deemed it so.

I think there is a difference between the US founded as a Christian nation vs a nation founded by people who were mostly Christian.

That said, I think there is evidence that the founders rejected the idea that the US was specifically founded as a “Christian Nation”.

Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists of Danbury being the best example thereof.

Jefferson’s letter has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of how and why the 1st Amendment was passed, CSB. It was merely his OPINION…an opinion that was soundly refuted by the Federalist.

When that happens I just assume his account is hacked and somebody else is "sock puppeting " him…:joy:

Haha…You can dismiss it if you like, but I think it gives us some insight into how Jefferson (arguably one of the most influential of the founders) and others at the time thought. Clearly it’s not as cut-and-dry as you would make it sound.

There is no vocal center-left. In context, in person, they’ll go along with finding reasons to support the extremes, and call you out for not being compassionate enough or a bigot.

Because tribalism is real.

No. It gives us “insight” into how Thomas Jefferson thought at the time.

In general, I agree, but as a person who represents the “center-left”, I spend a lot of time criticizing the far left.

But, I am just one man.