When I fist heard about this I thought it was false.. something you might see on snopes.com as debunked, until I saw this....

Atheist group wants memorial crosses removed





Questions for debate:

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?

If so which side?

from their website--AA

Even so this is silly. Sometimes its embarrasing being an aetheist. I support removing religious symbols from government buildings--but memorials for fallen police officers that do nothing more than recognize their sacrifice seems to me to be more mean spirited than anything else. Yes I believe they are pushing it too far.

As for the ACLU, is this an actual questions or just another attempt to allow people who despise the ACLU a chance to post their hatred for the organization?

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

In general I believe in total separation of church and state and that the government and church both function better apart from each other.

As far as the memorials go, I have no problem with the crosses for fallen troopers as long as the trooper identified him/herself as Christian and the family does not object. If, for example, a trooper was Jewish, I don't think the cross is appropriate.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?

Only if the cross is used to commemorate a non-Christian or the family of the trooper objects.

If so which side?

If a cross is used to commemorate a non-Christian or the family objects, then the cross should be removed on an individual basis.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

From the quoted article in The Salt Lake Tribune:



So, we've got an atheists' group filing suit agains the Utah Highway Patrol & it's leaders for using memorial crosses - they don't especially object to memorials without religious connotations. They want the crosses removed, but have gone out of their way to say that they don't mind them being replaced with some other, non-religious memorial. ("We think it should be totally secular, with no religious theme")

It is not critical to the remembrance of the fallen officers (a noble and laudable thing) that the shape of the monument be a Christian cross, is it? Does passing traffic really need to know the religious affiliation of people who died in their service? (And were all of the fallen officers pracising Christians anyway?) Presumably they not actually buried at the roadside, are they? Surely their graves are elsewhere and commemorated with whatever symbol the family chose.

Sgt Todd Royce is plain wrong - most of the 'internationally recognised' memorials exemplified by those at Arlington National Cemetary are not crosses at all. Here's a photo, looking across towards the Pentagon

Similarly, most British servicemen who die in service (for the international comparison) are buried with a simple marble tablet decorated with their regimental insignia and a religious symbol relating to each individual's affiliation.

Here is a photo of the British Military cemetary at Bayeux in Normandy

As you can see, not one is cross-shaped, though most have crosses on them; most Britons & Americans identify themselves as Christian when they sign up, the main purpose of which is to determine the form of burial. But many do not - the first from the right in the front row in the Normandy photo, for example.

A memorial along these lines would strike me as perfectly acceptable to everyone - atheist, Mormon, or Christian. (Even if it does have to be twelve feet tall to be seen by passing traffic - though why UHP officers have to be commemorated by such big monuments when Allied servicemen, even in Arlington or Gettysburg, are marked with rather more modest memorials is beyond me)

If such a format had been chosen (and if Sgt Royce had ever actually bothered to Google Arlington National Cemetary, or Gettysburg National Cemetary - let alone been to one or both of them like I have - maybe he'd have chosen such a format) I very much doubt whether anyone would have batted an eyelid.

And if American Atheists were to object to this type of memorial, then I think the outrage manufactured by the likes of Sgt Royce and Mr Tabish would be entirely appropriate. But they aren't, and it isn't.

Then, on top of that, you've got religious leaders in the Mormon faith saying "If they wanted to do something else, that would be fine, but I'd hate to see them take it down."
And you've got relatives saying they would feel aggrieved if the memorials were torn down in response to journalists' questions.

Reading between the lines of this article, the coverage and opposition of the atheist suit assumes a false dichotomy - that the only alternatives are a cross or nothing.

This is patently not the case - the memorials could have been in any shape or style. There could have been fourteen lifesize marble statues of the fallen officers, fourteen simple military-style headstones, fourteen neon-lit 20-foot-high Homer Simpson inflatables, or even fourteen UHP memorial casinos, for goodness sake!

Someone (in this case the somewhat ill-informed, or perhaps just agenda-laden Sgt Royce) chose to use crosses, and when they did, they probably had a good idea that church-state separationists, including some atheists, would object to them.

Of course a relative is going to be outraged if asked a question by a journalist along the lines of "the American Atheists want to tear down your father's/husband's/brother's memorial!!. How do you feel about that?". That the atheists only have an opinion on the form of the memorials used does not seem to have been mentioned to them - their published reactions certainly don't betray it if it was mentioned.

Then at the end of the article, you've got :


Ah yes - the good old "silent majority" approach. Need I point out that nobody has the first idea what the silent majority thinks, because they are silent?

It seems to me that the people who most closely fit the description of "the vocal minority pushing their agenda", as in so many others with a religious dimension in modern America, are not the likes of the Atheists or the ACLU, but the fundamentalist Christians who think that "It's time we stand up and put God back into our country."

It's the likes of Mr Tabish who are picking a fight over this issue, not American Atheists. The AA's have just taken the (rather obvious) bait. To this extent, I share Christopher's embarrassment at the behaviour of some atheists. Clearly, these one's are not very bright

Should the ACLU get involved in this case? If so which side?

They should monitor the case, and if the court finds against the atheists in a way that sets an unconstitutional precedent, they should do what they do best and campaign against it.

If the court finds for the atheists, as I believe it should, or finds against them without setting any precedent (for example on a technicality) then no further action needs to be taken.

Julian

As long as I can remember I had seen small crosses set up along the highway. I can remember asking my parents why they were there, and they would tell me that somebody that was in a car accident died there and it was a way for the family to remember them and the place that it happened(as well as for others to see).





Except crosses



So you think if they changed it to a slab like those at Arlington National Cemetery, where a cross was still visible to passing traffic that was engraved into the marble, that this group would not complain? I wold be willing to bet they would complain.

If the family's had put these crosses at the roadside (and if they'd been small) that would be one thing. Provided the landowner - private or public - does not expressly object (many cemetaries are publicly-owned, after all, yet crosses are not out of place there).

But if an organ of the state - such as the Utah Higway Patrol - does so, in a nation where there is a constitutional separation between church and state (whether or not that separation is arguable in fact or extent), they can expect to be challenged. We Brits could put up crosses on public land wily-nilly, having (as we do) an established church, but these days we don't because we just don't think it's appropriate most of the time (being a vastly more secular people than Americans). America's Founder have, to all intents and purposes, put in place a law against governments favouring one faith over another. If you'll forgive the Biblical reference, as you sow, so shall you reap.



Those pesky founders! If only they'd put a clause nto the Bill of Rights that could be interpreted to bar roadside statues of state officials, symbols of death, inflatable cartoon characters or gambling establishments.

But - oops! - they only said things that could be interpreted to bar establishment of churches. (If you think this is a general point about religion, remember what the Church of Latter Day Saints guy said in the quoted article about the cross not being meanginful to his faith...)



Would all of the slabs have crosses on them? Is every UHP officer a self-identified Christian? No Mormons at all ("the cross is not used in his religion")? Even in Utah?

But anyway, maybe you're right and the AAs would have sued anyway. Maybe so, but if they did, they would have my opposition and not my sympathy.

And what's more, I'd put money on their case being thrown out by the court rather than being quite conceivably (and legitimately) victorious there, not to mention Constitutionally correct.

He isn't wrong. He said, "The crosses are used as an international sign of memorial similar to those in Arlington National Cemetery". He isn't referring to tombstones. Crosses are the sign of memorial, to recognize the fallen not bury them under it. Example Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, Arlington west memorial.


Again, we aren't speaking of tombstones but memorial crosses.



Why would that be acceptable to everyone? The athiests specifically stated that religious symbols are unacceptable on public property. A large memorial with the religious symbol of the dead person's choice, even presented in an understated way, is out-of-bounds by that guideline.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

In my opinion, yes, but it just might work. Utah is a very religious state (home for a LOT of Mormons). I have the feeling this is intended to be personal. I've seen memorial crosses dotting roads in the Carolinas and Florida at the points of past accidents (small ones though). This has never been a problem before in those states, to my knowledge.

This very much reminds me of the days when the Roman church chopped off penises on the ancient Roman statues. Did they have the right? Yes. Was is stupid, petty, mean spirited, obsessive and just plain pathetic? Yes.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?

They were involved in the case to get the boys scouts kicked out of a national park not so long ago, and won. This sounds right up their alley.

This is probably a minor point in terms of this discussion, but Mormons are Christians. Hence the official name of the church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The non-use of the cross as a symbol is for other reasons.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

In every question like this, I always look to the exact wording of the first amendment...

...and then ask myself two questions:

Does the issue establish a religion for anyone?
Does the issue prohibit the free exercise thereof?

In both cases, the answer is no. I believe the AA is definitely pushing the meaning too far, to the point of trying to establish their own (anti-) religious agenda.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?
If so which side?
The ACLU, if it really were concerned about "civil liberties", would look to the families of the fallen officers for direction. If a family was offended, and if the state refused to remove or replace the symbol at the family's request, then the ACLU would have a job to do. Since they haven't done that, I don't think they should be getting themselves involved. To do so is not to defend civil liberties, but to enforce its own views on others.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?



I have to agree with Jaellon here and also add my own two cents worth. People have used the first amendment for years to try and push religion out of public view. I am sorry but in most cases they are just dead wrong.

Take this one for example. As long as the Utah Legislature doesn't make a law saying that all roadside memorials have to be cross shaped it doesn't matter if they are on public land. Government can say that you can or can't put up a memorial. They can put limits on where they can be placed and the size, etc. They can even limit certain types for moral reasons if you want. (No anatomically correct naked statues)

Government can't forbid someone from using a religious symbol if they want even if it is a government agency putting up the memorial as long as the families of those being memorialized agree to it. It might be nice if they went to the family and said here are three choices that we would foot the bill for.

The law says "no law" it doesn't say that the goverment can't have anything to do with religion. It says they can not make a law to promote one in particular. I will even say promoting it in general as a nod to the atheist out there. But this isn't promoting it.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?

Only if they needed to come in on the side of the memorials. The atheist civil liberties are not being violated, but the publics are if the atheist group gets their way.


On a side note let me put this out there. In my home county a few years back our county coroner, with his own money, went out and put up a cross at every spot there had been a fatal accident recorded. (small county there's probably less than 100 all total.) He did this for two reasons. One was as a memorial because many of the crosses represented people we all knew. Second though was to remind people driving through to drive safe or they could be represented there too.

Why did he choose crosses? He knew that it could be controversial and could draw a lawsuit. However there is no other symbol, in the United States at least, that people could identify as representing a death as quickly or as easily as a cross. Will everyone recognize that these represent a tragic death? Probably not. Will a majority? Probably. He did it not to offend people but to warn them.

Finally a cross is a quick, and cheap memorial. That is at least one reason it has been so popular. Tombstones, statues, and even billboard style signs can become very expensive very quickly, not to mention maintenance.

I know it's not exactly the same for the UHP memorials but in a way it is. It may not be put up as a warning, but it is an easily identifiable symbol that isn't going to break the budget.

Here is a link to the Atheist page that includes a picture of one of the crosses:

http://64.177.238.218/UtahAA/cross.html

Can you imagine what a tombstone or a statue that visible would cost?

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

Something similar to this came up in San Francisco a few years back. Basically, there was a threatened lawsuit concerning a memorial with Christian themes purchased by the city. The solution: private donors stepped up to the plate and purchased the memorial. Voila! No more state sanctioned religion. I'm sure that those who are outraged can cough up the funds to have these memorials be privately owned and managed.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?

No. But, I agree with christopher that this question appears to be an invitation for the anti-ACLU'ers to rhapsodize on the evils of the ACLU.

The whole Bills of Rights argument cracks me up. It's held as the 400 pound mallet to beat the country into submission, but those same people ignore every other document that has references to God and our creator. Just read the Declaration Of Independence. We are endowed by our creator. Why do atheists hate our freedoms (relax - that's a joke)?

In any case, this is clearly bigotry. Some people have no tolerance for people's age, sex, or religion. These people are bigots - plain and simple. If someone were to change the displays in a Jewish community and remove the Hanukkah or Menorah references, I would be deeply, deeply offended. What someone has done, is assumed I have no tolerance for someone's religion and am bigoted enough to be bothered about it.

This entire Christmas/religious symbol debate is about people being asked to accommodate bigots.

Yes, Christians are being oppressed. They can't get jobs, they don't hold any power at local, state or federal levels, there are no holidays recognizing their religious traditions, they're clearly a minority at 70-80% of the US population, there are only a couple of TV channels devoted solely to Christian issues. That 400 lbs mallet has been pretty effective at beating the country into submission.

I'm not sure these crosses come from public funds to begin with....at least that isn't the argument against them that the atheists are making. They object to these crosses (according to the webiste), because the UHP insignia is on them, and nine of the fourteen are on public land.

"The presence of the UHP logo on a poignant religious symbol is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. It is government endorsement of religion," said Rivers, Utah director for American Atheists.

Its hard to dictate what is offensive to everyone. I find it personally funny when I watch an animated skit on the net that shows Jesus with blood running from his anal cavity, I doubt for that to make everyone else laugh.

Then you get to deal with the politics of it all. AA is just another group with another banner and political motivations. One can make speculation on what it is, but I doubt for the separation of church and state to last under the current administration really then anything more then a neat sound byte to bypass. So I guess this is why you may get more militant aspects from such groups.

More over I think at some point the U.S got the whole melting pot wrong. I read about nations in Europe where stuff like this just comes together, where people just do what they want, where a shirt with Jesus on it to one with a burning Jesus on it and people don’t try to use the government to punish each other over difference. I think this is the model we need to work for. So in that light, the government again should basically come to remember why we have a separation clause, its so issues like this do not become a conflict in government with people trying to impose each other on each other via law, its simply stupid, more so then this case by the AA. If you simply shrug and say well, its fine to have in god we trust on are money, then it should be find to say in god we don’t trust on are battle ships, but one could see where that would not work via social bias against difference. We corrupted an aspect of our constitution, this is the fall out of such to me.

Colorado has a law that prohibits any roadside memorial for anybody or anything, except those historical signs that are officially erected to direct tourists to roadside sites and thereby help them better understand our state and history. I think that's the proper exercise of government, not erecting religious symbols on publicly-owned land.

The Christian symbol display is upheld in nature by the Holy Cross Mountain area. It's a natural cross symbol in snow on a high mountain, but it does have one broken arm that happened in a 19th century land slide, an act of God if you will. This really bummed out those guys in top hats who took it as an omen of decadence to come. Sure enough, women got the right to vote. Then came Civil Rights and basic cable, and oh my gosh, the Internet! Never mind the pollution from mineral extraction, including gas and oil.

I look at Holy Cross Mountain and think how lucky Christians are to have such a simple emblem. What if it were an ampersand (&)? Nature would have nothing to do with it. Whoever heard of a constellation called the Southern Ampersand? Hey, maybe the atheists will want to rename the Southern Cross constellation to the Souther Lower-Case T (t) Constellation? Religion is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Regarding religious symbols in the public eye, they are all over the place. I see no lack of them, nor do I think that taking them off the public throughways will make any difference one way or another. Montana erects the little white crosses to indicate individual deaths on that part of the road. They make good caution signs, unless one is rip roaring drunk. Maybe they ought to be replaced with super-sized whiskey and beer bottles. Or how about billboards that advertise DWI fines and punishments? I've seen that done in other states for speeding.

So what about the ACLU? So far, it doesn't look like they give a darn. That's probably a wise stance, as there are bigger threats to our civil liberties than Utah. I kinda feel the same way, except that Colorado is smarter than Utah. Our lakes aren't salty, our religious nuts are clearly marked, but I do admit that we need work on our choirs.

When it comes to honoring our fallen public servants, a memorial like the Vietnam Memorial in DC seems more appropriate to me. Give them a shrine where people and angels can congregate, with the demons attending their stalls on the fringes.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?
When I first heard about this case, I thought a mountain was being made out of a mole hill. That was because I thought we were talking about the little roadside memorial crosses that appear next to highways across the nation. Then I heard that we're talking about twelve-foot high monuments. These don't sound like simple, sincere memorials - these sound like someone trying to make a larger point (i.e., shoving religion down the throats of any motorist who happens to be passing). And, frankly, they sound downright tacky.

Whether there's a legal issue rather than just a taste issue depends on whether any of the "public land" is part of the federal highway system. If it is, there would be First Amendment precedent for this being unconsitutional (whether we agree with those precedents or not). If they are state or local higways, the Constitution and Bill of Rights have nothing to do with it. For that matter, Utah has the right to establish a state religion, should their legislation or electorate so decide.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case? If so which side?
Only if civil liberties are being violated - and that would only be the case if this were a federal issue. I doubt they will - and I doubt this question was asked for any reason other than as an invitation to gratuitous ACLU-bashing. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, the ACLU is non-partisan and has taken many cases relating to the prohibition of the free exercise of religious beliefs as well as the "establishment clause" casesto which the right gives so much publicity. That would seem to be what's happening here to an extent. Knock yourselves out, guys. The ACLU is not going to be destroyed by a bunch of drama queens: they'll still be there to defend you when your civil liberties are violated.

Who said anything about oppression? What does bigotry have to do with oppression? Intolerance has nothing to do with stature in society - it comes in all flavors. This is just another example.

He was joking, quite obviously using satire and sarcasm to denote that we've never had a non-Christian President, etc.

As for the debate. I live in Utah and I must admit, I was surprised by the American Atheists group's response to the crosses. I'm agnostic myself, and I generally side with the atheists in their political standpoint. But here is where I diverge from them: the First Amendment does not prohibit religious expression. In fact, it asks for it. Government can not endorse one religious value over another. While I feel church and state should always remain separate (one is a spiritual matter, the other is the complete opposite), I do recognize that people with religious beliefs will end up in political positions.

However, my problem is primarily with theists who push their religious symbols into government with no room for anything else. I'm against "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and I'm against "In God We Trust" printed on our monies. Judge Roy Moore did not get in trouble because he put a 2-ton monument in the rotunda--he got in trouble because he wouldn't allow any other religious monument from being displayed in similar fashion. If the Utah Highway Patrol wants to commemorate their befallen comrades with crosses, so be it. But if one of the troopers was Pagan or Jewish or Buddhist or whatever, they should be likewise allowed to put up their own memorial. This can become rather obnoxious at some point, which is a good reason to take the memorials away from streets (wouldn't it be ironic if someone caused an accident because they were distracted by a memorial of a highway patrolman?).

And before everyone gets all uppity about "atheists are just promoting their religious ideals!", let's clarify--the removal of God does not endorse its opposite. Removing God from government in no way argues for atheism. It's an absurd argument that logically falls flat on its face. Read the Pledge of Allegiance with "under God" and then without it. One contains a divisive reference to a higher power, the other does not.

So, to answer:

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

Yes. But on the other hand, theists push the context of the 1st Amendment too far in the other direction by demanding the inclusion of religious symbols and references to God in the public arena. Both are wrong.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case? If so which side?

If they do get involved, they should defend the crosses. The state has not prevented other religious displays from being erected. Should that occur, the ACLU would have to switch sides. Either way, the ACLU must be asked to take a case--they do not simply show up without someone requesting their assistance.

Questions for debate:



As christopher pointed out, the placement of the crosses is against the rules.



If this is the case, then why is it so hard for people to abide by this? Silly or not, it is the rule and it should be followed no matter what. The AA more than has a case here and they are in the right. Who owns the roads? The state of Utah does. If you put these crosses on state property, you are specifically showing the driving public that the state favors one sectarian group over all of the others. Have your memorials, but on state property, make it more generic and inclusive of everyone.



Other than a friend of the court brief, I fail to see why they would, it's already being handled by the AA.



They should back the AA and the three plaintiffs in the case. Obviously the state has erred by erecting crosses on state owned property. Crosses on your own property is one thing, on state property-it's quite another.

DR please leave us out of this one. First off we do not seem to have the same need to push our religion out for the whole world. Displays should only be on private property, never public. We are used to being a minority religion, and I hazard to guess that most American Christians would not function very well in a society where you weren't the dominate religion.

As for the issue at hand, it appears that the State of Utah needs to apply their own laws and there would be no issue at all. It's against their laws, then enforce the laws as written. How much more simple could it get?

Just because American Atheists claims that Utah is violating its own laws, it isn't necessarily therefore true. But regardless, the "issue at hand", as per the debate questions posted, is whether or not these groups are pushing the First Amendment too far, not Utah state law. (after all, this suit is being brought in federal court, which has no jurisdiction to enforce state law)

The answer to the question is yes, they absolutely are pushing it too far. These crosses were not put there in an effort to push Chistianity onto society. As has been pointed out by others, they're just universally recognized memorial symbols similar to the type used by the military. I notice these guys aren't suing the military to take their crosses down. That's because they lack the courage of their convictions to take them on. They'd rather start with a relatively defenseless target first, and then use it as a precedent to go after bigger targets. Anyone who thinks they intend to stop here is just plain lying to himself.

An aside here...

By labeling those who strive to keep separate the state from the church as bigots, you are shutting down intelligent debate. In the threads about gay marriage, you yourself have reacted strongly to those who state that people opposed to gay marriage are homophobes or bigots - and rightly so. It is very unproductive way to debate. You might really believe that these people are bigots (even though many people who work towards the separation are themselves Christian), but saying so is singularly unhelpful here. Likewise, one might really feel that the people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic bigots, but still not use that as a debate point.

Many people, Christian, atheist, Hindu, alike feel that the first amendment to the Constitution is important in clearly mandating a strict separation of state and religion. You may disagree, that is of course your right. It is, however, quite disingenuous to say that these people are bigots with no tolerance. I would even venture to point out that these people are quite often guided by a strong sense of tolerance. As others have said, removing a cross (or a statue of the ten commandments) does not endorse its opposite (whatever that may be).



You have done a fair bit of guesswork here. You have made several unsupported (and likely unsupportable) assumptions here:

1. "These crosses were not put there in an effort to push Christianity onto society."

I agree that is likely, but we don't really know, do we? Was the cross chosen by-the-way, or did someone or some group lobby specifically for these to be crosses? Think about this - we are talking about crosses twelve feet high. To the motorist passing at 60 miles per hour, they see a giant cross at the side of the road. Is their first thought going to be, "hey, it must be a memorial!" or is it going to be "wow, a big cross - is there a church somewhere here?" Perhaps from a distance, and at speed, a motorist will see the huge cross, and have a chance to make out the insignia of the state police. I'm thinking that could certainly give the wrong impression.

2. "I notice these guys aren't suing the military to take their crosses down."

How do you know they are not doing this, or planning to do this? Are the two really related? Seeing two-foot crosses in a graveyard, I would venture, leaves quite a different impression than seeing twelve-foot crosses beside the highway.

3. "That's because they lack the courage of their convictions to take them on. They'd rather start with a relatively defenseless target first, and then use it as a precedent to go after bigger targets."

And how do you know this? You have picked two very different types of displays, and then concluded that because these folks are fighting one, the real reason they don't fight the other is out of cowardice. Like Daytonrocker's "bigot" statement, you are debating by trying to attack the messengers, without having to address the message, the issue.

4. "Anyone who thinks they intend to stop here is just plain lying to himself."

This is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I could as easily say that putting these crosses up by the side of the road is only the beginning - that they will obviously go on to post twenty-foot high statues of each of the Commandments - and that anyone who really thinks they won't is just lying to themselves.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

No. What does "too far" mean? Taking the first amendment "too far" is using freedom of speech to incite violence, to shout "fire" in a theater. Something that causes injury or death. Many people have very different understandings about the first amendment. They all have the right to express their views and to try and persuade others to their cause. These people are not rioting and tearing down the crosses. They are using a proper, legal method to persuade others to their cause, which is as it should be in a republic. We are free to agree, or to disagree, with their position.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?

The ACLU may, if they are asked, and they may not. I really don't know. They do not involve themselves in any and all cases like this, even ones that have a clear Constitutional aspect. The ACLU does not have an anti-religious stance, they have a pro-civil rights stance. They have defended churches, synagogues, religious groups, atheists, liberals, and conservatives when there are first amendment issues involved.

Blackstone wrote;


Or herself.

As pointed out, again, in a pure sense of the constitution it would count as a breech would it not. Even going by your own standards that you appointed in the debate on in god we trust on our currency, this is without a doubt definitely then pointing to a certain religion. About the whole bias thing, I will believe that as soon as someone can point to me where a group like the AA is attacking a Christian cross light fixture on someone’s yard in respects to Christmas decorations as an example I will put it to that level in my opinion of such actions, besides that I feel its just a reflection brought on by those certain aspects of our culture that feels the need to make America christain via the government with no regard for the seperation clause, and furthermore if such a clause had respect for its reason for existence none of this would occur.

It was a reasonable enough assumption given the fact that nobody alleges that it was done for that purpose. Not even the organization bringing the suit is alleging that that was the purpose. The most that they've been claiming is that it might have the effect of appearing religious to people. As for that:


If AA were suing to reduce the size of the crosses, you might have a point. But they want them removed altogether. As we've discussed on an earlier thread, people can have all kinds of different subjective impressions of whether or not they're looking at something religious. In this case, we're looking at a pole with a perpendicular bar going across. And most people are going to know what their purpose is. Those few who don't, and who wind up broaching the subject with their neighbors, will find out the reason then, with presumably no permanent harm done to their sensibilities.


These aren't just "messengers". They're not just expressing an opinion; they're trying to get the courts to enforce their opinion. As such, they're open to legitimate criticism. And contrary to what you said, I'm not avoiding debating the issue.


Well, then why don't you say it? You'd be at a disadvantage if you did, though, because recent trends would not have been supporting you on that. Quite the opposite, actually.


That's one way of pushing the context too far. Another way is to ridiculously expand the Establishment Clause to cover anything that could contain any hint of religion, as these people are endeavoring to do.


Except these things are not there to promote a religion. Interesting you should bring up the "In God We Trust" thread. Remember there when we were talking about the use of "in the year of our Lord" in the Constitution? Remember when that objection was dismissed on the grounds that it represented no attempt to promote Christianity? Well, this case falls in that same category.

If that's true, then it's a poorly worded question to being with. The First Amendment applies only to the U.S. Congress, does it not? Is there anything in the Utah State Constitution that affirms this for their legislature?

As an agnostic, I would welcome such memorials. We should have more of them. Anything that can be done to secularize symbols that were once religious is OK by me. Personally, I don't believe that religious symbols mean anything. So the only harm is for those who are actively insulted by such things. It doesn't harm Atheists to see crosses all over the place except as a depressing general indication of the insanity of the world -- something which will not change and which I don't think is actionable.

It's unfortunate that our collective semiotic consciousness equates a religious symbol with death, but, like AuthorMusician points out, there it is. Hopefully, given time, it will lose its religious meaning like saying "Goodbye" has.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?
Federal, no. Local, it depends on the jurisdiction. In this case, we'd need to look at the Utah State Constitution.

So I guess it would be a much bigger deal if an agent of the Federal government were to have erected these monuments.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?
Assuming someone can make a case that civil liberties are threatened, then sure, why not? I wouldn't expect that this particular Atheist organization could do that, however.

I don't see this as a bigotry issue. It's a matter as to whether or not we affirm the private-"free exercise thereof"/public "establishment" doctrine, or if we are going to completely and totally stand it on its head. It is painfully obvious that this display flunks the test(as the highway rules clearly state that such displays are to be taken down) If it's on your own property, that is one thing, if it's on public property, it's quite another. It's only bigotry if crosses are being taken out of private lawns and property. It's respecting the rights of everyone when they are being taken out of public property.

blackstone wrote;


What I remember from that thread was you generally taking a different position then you are now. I know it’s a different debate topic, but your position was that the statement, “in god we trust” does not break the establishment clause because it was not promoting A religion. Well, I would think this, a collection of religions symbols, obviously from Christian thought, would be promoting then a religion. Also the establishment clause does not ask for promotion, just that no laws can be established in respects to religion, not A religion again, or promotion of A religion either.

About the year of our lord statement, my counter argument to that is what other calendar should have been used, the Aztec? If I remember such correctly, and even so, it’s the establishment clause that was created by those people, not me or some group of sinister atheists waiting in the bushes or something.

I do find this case silly, as I find the argument against the statement in god we trust on our currency, but without bias existing for religion in my mind as has been demonstrated by many posters that do support such, I can clearly see where its all a breech of the separation clause, simply because its government and religion existing together on the plane of law, government is nothing more then a system of laws, the separation clause was to make it so no laws about religion could exist in government, as is the standing rule on such, its terribly evident as per how its worded.

So for me to make a ruling on this, I simply do the math, government, laws, religion, yes I think we have a winner folks, its called the AA. Now I guess the crosses will have to be moved back ten onto privately owned land as was the intentions of our religious founders, well some of the founders, or some faiths at any rate.

I would like to address two points that you made.

Are these crosses an effort to push Christianity onto society - simple yes heck yes. To the Christians the cross is a memorial sign. To a lot non-Christians it is a symbol of hatred and repression. It matters not if is a memorial cross or the Red Cross. It has been used for over a thousand years as a symbol to oppress non-Christians.

As for the military. Guess what they don't put them on non-Christian graves.
Graveyard for D-Day France You might notice that not all the graves are marked with a cross.

Geez, I really hate the debates where I have to disagree with loreng59...

I have no problem with anyone protesting a government institution forcing religion on the public. I think Judge Roy Moore is a perfect example of someone taking it too far. The display of the 10 commandments had nothing to do with a court house or what goes on inside. After all, it's not illegal to covet your neighbor's spouse.

But these crosses were put up as a memorial to those who put their lives on the line to protect we the people - endowed by our creator. These crosses were not installed to act as a dangling carrot to accept anybody's religion.

The first amendment is intended to protect us from the feds creating a religion and forcing that down our throats. For example, in Maryland you can buy liquor anyplace (at least, it used to be that way). In Ohio, you need to buy it from a state store. I think we need to be protected from the state making us go to a state-sanctioned church (much like my state store example). What if the feds decided Islam was not a religion of peace, so instead, you need to practice the "legal" religion. I believe that is the "spirit" of the amendment. Again, the first is an amendment. Without the 10 amendments, the Bill oF rights would have never been ratified. So, somebody had serious reservations about what the feds could impose on us. It is implausible to think (in my opinion) that they created an amendment to make sure religion was kept completely out of government. Otherwise, no document from the founding fathers would have ever contained any reference to God, our creator, etc.

With that being said, these crosses were put up as a memorial at the place of their employment - which happened to be public property. The crosses were not attempting to shove anything down anybody's throat. The purpose of the cross used here was a memorial - not a celebration of any type of religion.

But somebody still needed to have a problem with this. Since it appears I need to use another example as not to offend anyone here, let's say they honored a fallen policeman with a symbol of Islam. Is the state forcing Islam on us? No. It's a memorial for someone who's made a sacrifice on public land for the public.

If someone were demanding that we removed symbols of Islam instead of these crosses, I would have an equal problem with this issue. Someone is assuming I'm too much of a bigot to tolerate someone else's religious beliefs.

In my belief, people are finding scraps of evidence to remove religion completely from our society. I'm sorry, but I think they are as bigoted as anyone. They have no tolerance for anyone's beliefs in a predominately Christian society.

So, to make sure I can offend everyone in this debate, let me finish by saying:

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Ramadan, and Happy Kwanza!

DR go ahead and disagree. It's in the spirit of AD

I would have as much issue with the memorial if they used the Star of David. I would be siding with the Atheists over that as well. Crosses are religious symbols, they have been for many hundreds of years. The menorah was our first religious symbol and the Star of David or more correctly the Seal of Solomon is our second.

The State of Utah receives millions of federal dollars for their roads so it does belong in a federal court and they have a written law that states no religious symbols on state lands. It could not be more black letter law than that.

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion in this issue. I support 95% of what you wrote. It is "Freedom OF Religion" not "Freedom FROM Religion". I would have the same issue for Federal employees (which my better half is one) as well. But the issue at hand is the law, not freedom of religion.

I agree with you on this.



The provision in Utah's department of roads regulations mentions *religious symbols* and not intent. Who owns the highways? If you want to honor troopers, then honor them. But while you do that, you should follow the dictates of your own departmental policy.



That's fine, but why a cross? Why can't there be another symbol that isn't the sole property of a faith? Planting the crosses on public property *implies* that the state backs that faith over all others.

That's reasonable question. Traditionally, we die and go meet our maker. You can choose to not believe that premise and all is well and good. When people die, we don't send them caramels. People die and almost always receive flowers and a service. The symbol of a cross means nothing in terms of establishing anything other than being the most obvious symbol of hopefully moving on to a better afterlife.

If I go to a viewing, I will typically stop in front of the casket and say a small quiet prayer. And I'm not even all that religious. But it's a sign of simple respect.

Did I stop to ask if the person was atheist, Jewish, or a Scientologist? No..I'm not forcing Christianity on anybody - even in death. It's a token of respect that is not going to harm anyone. This entire issue is a display of intolerance and complete disrespect for people out there dying try to help us. These crosses are memorials of thanks - not Pat Robertson pointing a finger at us.

Where does this stop? Do we deny people who are taking their last breaths in a car accident a quick prayer by a cop at the scene because it's unconstitutional? If not, where does the gray area start and stop?

Like I stated previously, Judge Roy Moore should have got his butt kicked because he was blatantly forcing Christianity in his courtroom. This issue is an intolerance of religion.

DR wrote;



You can bring to light a zoo of situations in which on a personal note Christianity could be being oppressed but currently is not. Christian extremists, or the Christian right, which ever one you like makes such statements when they get negative feedback about there desires to plant Christian thought or use the government as a means to enforce or spread Christian thought.

I have asked for any form of evidence to be shown in which could support such a bias going on actively that supports any form of such that does not involve people actively pursuing keeping the separation of church and state solid and sound from any particular religious purpose or motivation. To date none have been shown, so I am prompted to think of it as a diversion from the real issue at hand, which is the social conflict in America over the separation of church and state, which I would have to lay the blame on Christians at large, simply because I cannot remember the last time individuals in government tried to have any other religious token or something atheist even mandated by law, such as in god we trust stamped on our currency, which all Americans of course come to view and pretty much have to use.

Of course not every Christian is like this, there are the anti Farwell Christians that call him a poser simply because simple things, like not having a beard for example, which I guess under Christian thought is how you should look if you accept that point of view as understanding of the natural world.

In this talk of treason and being anti American, one could ask how American it is to simply shrug off this aspect of our constitution in regards to favor something higher on a person or a group of persons food chain of importance. Of course no one wants to hear that, they just want to accept what clicks with there perceptions, such as the founders wanted a Christian nation, thus the separation clause…

To simply look at the words, then the definition of the words, its quite plain to see that the government, as a standing body of law, was to have to laws established in respects to religion. Its terribly plain again, you would of course having to view this case in such a context realize in the most base or primal sense it exists in breech of the separation clause.

I have openly admitted many times over that I am an agnostic, that I follow science in respects to my understanding of the natural world, which of course means evolution and all that good stuff. I have also expressed that my concern into these issues go no farther then I care not to live in a theocracy, and do firmly support the separation of church and state. It seems every day more and more or inch by inch the Christian right in America has more motivation and plans on how to use the government to meet their mission, heck its even stated by these people that they want to do such, should I not be scared and look at every issue, even if small as a potential doorway to fulfilling the dream of the Christian right? Heck Bush junior makes it very plain where his beliefs are, its not just a simple issue of crosses on the road that is the real issue here anymore, and again, if the separation clause had received the respects it deserves for purpose of existence none of this would even be an issue. If you accept the crosses, that means you accept on personal individual levels, which are relative and personal again, you accept that the separation clause really has no validity, its something taken on faith, it only exists as long as people support it, not something like gravity with exists regardless of human perception of such.

You are tying "oppression" and "intolerance" together and sorry, I'm not biting.

Nobody could ever suggest Christians get oppressed here in the US (Of course, I would beg to differ outside the US). Quite the contrary. What I am suggesting, is that some groups target Christians because of their contempt and hatred for Christianity. I believe this issue (whether you agree or not) is an example of that hatred. To me, that is intolerant and bigoted.

I'm sure there are plenty of skinheads and homophobes who could justify their intolerance for many of the same reasons I hear right here in this thread. I'm not comparing the two and am not suggesting anyone here is bigoted/intolerant, but it is extremely easy to be intolerant. For many, it is very difficult to be tolerant.

It's funny how a flag is just cloth and a wooden stick when people think burning a flag is not hate speech and therefore, ok; but complain about two boards nailed together on the highway where people died trying to protect us as a simple memorial typcially used when people die.

And to reiterate, I am for a clear separation between church and state. And although I believe there is a God, I am am not terribly religious. I am not protecting my beliefs because really, I don't have very much when it comes to religion. But if you ask me, the more liberal members of this board seem to be the least tolerant in their efforts to show tolerance.

Then do we need to change all the crosses in Arlington National Cemetary?

Technically no, you don't need crosses, but it is a symbol of rembering those who have fallen. I think the nit-picking about seperation of state is getting a little out of hand. We have symbols that have been around forever, why should we stop using them? They aren't offensive, are they?

You don't have to be a christian to enjoy Christmas, why do you need to be a christian to appreciate a cross representing a fallen officer?

I think these people probably have too much time on their hands.

Then do we need to uproot the crosses at Arlington?

I think we're being way over sensitive to seperation of state when we demand absolutely no religious representation associated with gov't. We have a history as a christian nation, there's no reason not to just take a breath and accept that somethings will reflect that.

It's not the end of the world, the pope or Jerry Falwell isn't going to start telling us what to do.


Edited to remove images in accordance with forum Rules

A question, then: would you also support the state if they had decided to place twelve-foot tall upside-down crosses beside the public roads? What about twelve-foot tall five-pointed stars inside pentagrams? After all, it's not like the Satanists are going to start telling us what to do!

That's a non sequitur. The things we are debating about are only subtle, respectful tributes to people that died. The things you are talking about is equivalent to loudspeakers shouting out prayers in Muslim countries. If you talked about having pentagrams of the same size marking graves of people that worshipped the devil (not that many Satanists are patrolling ) I'd be OK, although I would feel awkward because of all the cult rumors, but nevertheless, my rights wouldn't be violated. In religion/state debates I WORSHIP jaellon's analysis



I don't think this has been debated sufficiently. I think that the people debating against these crosses should break one of these links, or tell of another criterion. Without doing those, they aren't proving anything at all, because you aren't proving a violation of the First Amendment. The only thing they seem to be doing is making emotional statements, rather than analytical ones.

My advocacy is: if that trooper practiced that religion, and wouldn't be averse to having a cross/crescent/star where they died, then no rights are violated at all. It supports the individual right of that person to worship after they die, and actually, NOT allowing the person to have an option to put up a cross/crescent/star/etc. where they died would be RESTRICTING that person's relgion. To preempt the argument that would inevitably come that is "but it's public property": sorry, the government can't restrict religion on public property either.

Currently, I am believing that the people arguing against these crosses are restricting more rights than they are helping (if any are being helped at all) because they are restricting the religious rights of the dead to impose their own equivalent "religion".

First off, I'm not an active christian or a believing christian, so I am sensitive to things like ID in the public schools or Bush giving money out to strictly christian-only organizations, etc..

But an upside down cross would be offensive to christians, no? It's similar to saying "if we can have a black history month, why can't we have a KKK history month as well". And no one is talking about a 12 foot anything. THey're little 2 ft crosses on the side of the road to honor fallen police officers.

But I think people are just going way overboard on worrying about this. If the officers were Muslims and the family put a crecent on the side of the road or even if the police had, I wouldn't care. Why does it matter? Give people some slack.

I see crosses on the roadside all the time where someone's loved one was killed in a car accident or hit by a driver. Why should this bother anyone?

I think you need to pick your battles and this isn't one of them. I get upset when anti-abortion groups harass women at clinics and this is sort of the liberals version of that. Just let some stuff slide.

Ahhh... here we are again QH.

The point of the post was that we have a history as a Christian nation, yet your insinuation would elude to the idea that our nation's culture also revolves around satanism??? HUH?

If our nation was largely muslim, Jewish, or Hindu.. I'd venture to bet that crosses wouldn't be used in any public fashion.

Our nation, by self-admission, is largely Christian. The fact is that this permeates nearly all levels of government, our culture, and our society as Americans. The only time this becomes an issue for the public is if you happen to go to school in Plano, TX or drive by a cross on the side of the road...

Consider that power that is secularized and cut free of civilizing traditions is not limited by moral and religious scruples. V.I. Lenin made this clear when he defined the meaning of his dictatorship as "unlimited power, resting directly on force, not limited by anything." Christianity's emphasis on the worth of the individual makes such power as Lenin claimed unthinkable. Be we religious or be we not, Christianity emphasizes our mastery of our own souls and political lives. "Such a religion as this is worth holding on to even by atheists." (Paul Roberts)

To negate the fact that our nation's very existence is embedded in threads of Christianity is beyond historical fiction. It's who we are as a nation. The rest of the world gets it... why can't a few liberals?

Whoa...time for a level set. We're talking about crosses on the side of the road. We're not talking about "negat[ing]... our nation's very existence". That's some extreme rhetoric you've got a hold of there. Besides if Christianity is such a dominant force in America, why are Christians so up in arms about this case? Surely, a Christian can be comforted in the fact that Christianity is so culturally embedded that it's not going anywhere.

I still believe the case can be easily resolved. Move the crosses to private land on the side of the road AND make sure that public funds are not used in the purchase and maintenance of these crosses. Voila! No court case...

That is fine; but the problem is, so many of the people arguing for these crosses are insisting there is no religious significance to them. They are crosses merely because many memorials are crosses, not because of Christianity. Yet, when I ask a question about an alternative, suddenly it is religious? I think you guys need to decide which it is!

I think when a motorist sees twelve-foot tall crosses by the side of the road, their first thought is not "hey, must be a memorial!" I think their first thought is more likely to be "wow! Someone sure loves Jesus 'round here!"

And the minority of Christians who think that those of us trying to uphold a clear separation between religion and government are trying to get rid of religious expression need to get over it, because that is not what we are doing. Our ranks are made up mostly of Christian people. No one wants to take away your religion, or stop you from worshipping in the way you see fit.

Many of the people who formed this nation were escaping religious persecution. Deists like Jefferson wanted to enshrine into our founding document an insurance that such persecution could not continue here in the New World.

So let me amend my pose:

In protestantism, the empty cross is an important symbol. We reject the Catholic focus on the Passion of Christ. Theologically, this is a very important difference.

So let us suppose the Utah State Police decide to put up twelve-foot tall Catholic crosses - crosses on which a realistic statue of Jesus hangs, bleeding, eyes turned to the heavens. Would you see a problem with this? Or will you switch positions about the Christian nature of America again, and say these are only memorials, and have nothing to do with religion?

Stop using gigantic quotes then writing the same responses that people have argued against.



Unfortunately, that's the stupid people, not the people on this board.



Please, I want to see one of these crosses.



If you are saying that the government CAN'T support religion by having memorials with a religious connotat