The track of my school has a lot of advertisements. Companies pay about 1000 dollars to put a poster up on the fence along the outside of the track for the year.

Just yesterday, I noticed a poster memorial for a dead marine that (roughly) says:

"Only two forces have ever died for you: Jesus and [Marine name]."
"One for your soul, the other for your freedom."

My first reaction was that that the comparison seems a bit stretched, but then I figured that most memorial engravings are magnifications of the truth.

My second reaction was that this is a fuzzy area for separation of church and state.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Is it constitutional (references to court cases would be nice)? If not, is it worth fighting (contacting the ACLU, FFRF) for?

Good question. I don't have an answer for you, but just a suggestion. Go ahead and contact the ACLU and see what they have to say. They will know. 

Dan

I looked up and American Law Review annotation on this subject, " State Constitutional Challenges to the Display of Religous Symbols on Public Property" by William Howard. I am uncertain that you will be able to find it outside of law libraries or online directories related to the law. I have linked the cases he cites for the issue. From what I have read, albeit limited, it looks like you would lose in California. Plus since it is not an advertisement for a church,but actually done for anothe purpose I would think that would hurt the feasability of someone like the ACLU getting involved as well. Hopefully that helps or in the least doesn't make it so you know less. 8)

This may be obvious, but I havee heard many people make the mistake of thinking that the same rules apply to private institutions as public and that isn't the case. If you go to a private school, high school or college, they can do as they like regarding religion.

I can't remove the hyperlinks it seems, but clicking on the cases won't take you to them.

Kong v. City and County of San Francisco, 18 Fed. Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying California law)
Tucker v. State of Cal. Dept. of Educ., 97 F.3d 1204, 113 Ed. Law Rep. 102, 71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1863, 12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 167, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44338 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying California law)
Christian Science Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. City and County of San Francisco, 784 F.2d 1010 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion amended on other grounds, 792 F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 1986) (applying California law)
Paulson v. Abdelnour, 145 Cal. App. 4th 400, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575 (4th Dist. 2006), review denied, (Feb. 21, 2007)
Park Access and Restoration Committee v. City of Laguna Niguel, 2003 WL 1908048 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003), unpublished/noncitable
Okrand v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. App. 3d 566, 254 Cal. Rptr. 913 (2d Dist. 1989)

Interesting. Life is one of the most pressures things we have. (May be only because we have no other way to be). But the other side of life is death. It is part of every life. And in nature a single life is only a short period out of many. And nature found many ways to pass it on. I.e. as DNA, children, ideas. And so every life ends at one point, but not completely ... what we leave behind are traces of our existence.

And when a life becomes not worth living anymore, because we are in prison, ill etc., one of our last freedom is to end it. So death becomes freedom. And so it is a question of circumstances if it is worth to live or die

Interesting post, only, we have a Freedom of speach in the USA and in Ireland. We can clearly speak that and write it onto a tomb stone. Even tho' it is a waste of money

 you think you have freedom of speech dont you. but the fact is that without god you follow false profits (the government) and their false promises like a bunch of headless chickens.

 I don't quite see the logic of that - how does not believing in the existence of a god, or gods make you blindly follow the government? Or any other organization for that matter? And how does following what someone, or some source considered "holy", ascribes to a divine source help you not to do this?

Atheists in general, at least in my experience, are quick to question authority, whether it is claimed by a religious body, or a worldy organization - most atheists that I've interacted with are concerned with evidence, and with the practical effects of policies, and whether or not those policies can be demonstrated to provide a reasonable expectation of bettering the lives of people. As such, blindly following any source claiming authority without good, strong evidence is something quite foreign to most of the atheists I know.