Atheist group wants memorial crosses removed

By Michael N. Westley
Salt Lake Tribune
Friday, Dec. 2, 2005


A lawsuit filed by the American Atheists in U.S. District Court on Thursday seeks to remove steel crosses that dot roadways throughout Utah and memorialize Utah Highway Patrol troopers who have died in the line of duty. The suit has drawn harsh reaction from family members of the fallen troopers and promises to be the source of an emotional battle.

The crosses, which stand about 12 feet high and bear the trooper's name and the UHP insignia, were erected starting in 1998 and serve as a memorial for 14 troopers who have died since 1931. About nine of the crosses are on public land and all of them are placed near the spot where the troopers lost their lives.

Plaintiffs Stephen Clark, Michael Rivers and Richard Andrews in conjunction with the American Atheists Inc. also seek to have the UHP symbol removed from the crosses.

"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.



http://sltrib.com/utah/ci_3271385

It is hard in this country in general, but in Utah? Ughhh.

...and disgusting capital punishment.

Sort of like using a miniature of an "Iron Maiden" as a grave memorial. I always thought it odd...even when I was a Lutheran.

> I always thought it odd...even when I was a Lutheran.

At least you Lutherans don't have a bloody body hanging on yours
unlike, say, Catholics who, if Mel Gibson is any indication, seem
to be into some sort of violence-porn thing, spending a lot more
time depicting Christ's crucifiction rather than his resurrection.

Tesha

So a crucifix would be an appropriate symbol.

I think the Catholic use of the crucifix is:

1) that the crucifiction has an eternal quality in its benefit to people.
2) reminder of the penalty of sin, which God assumed for us

So, it is bloody, but it is appropriate in light of the meaning. The resurrection is important, but without the death would not have been possible.

1) How many died as a hero?
2) How many died when they didn't have to due to incompetence?
3) Why would the families of troopers want to be reminded of the death of their loved one? Will they be reminded on a daily basis or an inopportune time?

listing names and dates of all state troopers dying in the line of duty.

That's what I have a problem with.

Then all the state is endorsing is the memorial. The families themselves determine the shape of the memorial.

This is a stupid, alienating lawsuit.

And I am an atheist.

This *is* a stupid, alienating lawsuit.

And I am an atheist too.

.

An awesome attitude. It's battles like this that belittle those who are trying to create a stronger separation between church and state. Don’t attack a memorial. It’s going to cause a lot of pain for those who lost their loved ones…

its personal expression--no public $ involved, no public representation or endorsement of religion.

I think these kinds of things are lovely and I'm not a Christian.
I've seen some similar kinds of things which were native american-- medicine wheels and such.

I'm sure that some people referred to Brown v. Board in that way at the time. And it did alienate a lot of people from the Democrats.

But was it the right thing to do?

This is NOT Brown v. Board of Ed. Puh-leez.

In my post there are two critiques:

1) The lawsuit is flawed in its reasoning. This is not state endorsement of a religion. That's A. So, to answer your question, it is NOT the right thing to do.

2) In ADDITION TO being flawed in its reasoning (i.e., STUPID) it is ALSO alienating: it compounds stupidity of analysis with alienation of the vast majority of citizens.

Supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry alienates a "vast majority" (according to votes) of citizens, too. Should we tell them to "fucking give it up"?

Since they do have a claim, no.

My point is that the atheists have no claim here. Then, in addition to having no claim, they also alienate. Reading problems, there, Trotsky?

Legal system problems, there, alcibiades_mystery?

Free fucking speech problems, there, boyo?

:shrug:

but it's up to a court to decide whether they have a claim. Sorry to spoil your delusions of grandeur.

please elaborate.

are more important than others?

As Democrats, I thought we valued the protection of the rights of ALL minorities.

group being sensitive about memorials to fallen officers who most likely Christians anyway. It's not even close. If they win such a lawsuit we will not be celebrating it on its anniversary.

Should the day come when Christians are in the minority and some other religious group is trying to foist its symbols into the public arena using public tax dollars, but is prevented from doing so due to a lawsuit like this, they might be quite happy about it.

It all seems so innocuous when you're in the majority.

It wasn't until I went online that I discovered that 'atheists' were (allegedly) such a bunch of petty whiners.

Where is the sensitivity here? Nice PR some people have. Are you sure they haven't been infiltrated by people who want to make them look bad?

Why don't those uppity niggers just stop their whining. Nobody likes it. Oh, we're not talking about blacks.

Well those fags should just realize that they can't get married. Quit pissing people off and maybe things will get better. Oh, not gays either.

Well the pagens should stop rocking the boat, too.

It's only petty whining when it isn't your issue. I thought progressives should be able to understand that, but I thought wrong.

Are they considered public land? I know that in Tallahassee we have a city cemetery, but I really don't know whether the land is public or not.

If so, that would be precedent.

Seems to me they could solve it with an obelisk-type structure and then engrave the symbol of choice?

If so, then the policy for public cemeteries would be valid here.

Somehow I don't think that's the case, however.

Funny thing about public service. You get killed in public places.

The vets are buried in a cemetery, just like the troopers, where they can have any kind of religious monument they or their families wish. No atheists are threatening to take away that, are they?

What do you think Arlington is, genius? Land privately owned by a Halliburton subsidiary?

Really, why pretend you have a consitutional objection when it's just your usual cosmic beef with the other side of the coin?

Public cemeteries are entirely different than public land by the side of the road. On one type of land, we bury people. On the other, we don't. See it yet, Mr. Flip Side?

Maybe you can explain how the constitution distinguishes between public land that is where we bury people and public land where we don't. And how a memorial establishes religion if it's at the roadside unless there's a corpse under it. Don't forget the case citations.

Good luck. We all know it's just the cosmic beef you have with the fundies talking, and not the constitution.

'Cuz if not, I'm not interested.

Bon appetit.

So how could I be partaking?

Where's the beef? :shrug:





(edit spelling)

I was so looking forward to the patented Inland "whatever" when you lose an argument.

you pretend that you have "won" an argument by reducing your posts to one line insults and refusing to debate at all.

And you're there, guy. You've reached your patented safe harbor...an abandonment of any position you once held, reduction to insults and the kumbaya moment with some other party on your side of the fundie coin, accompanied by a really pathetic declaration of victory as a salve to your self esteem. And now you're off to fight your cosmic beef somewhere else, as I really don't fit into your idee fixe.

Whatever.

That good enough for you, Zenmaster? I thought it was pretty good.

"Whatever" makes its appearance!

I still hold quite firm to my position, that these crosses violate the separation of church and state. Your opinion differs, but you didn't offer up anything to back it up.

So instead, you back OFF with "yawn" and "whatever."

Typical, so typical.

and abandoned it when I pointed out its flaws.

You decided that all you wanted to have was your cosmic beef.

But then you declare you won, once again, so pathetic. Only one thing to say to something so sorry. And that's "whatever."

Here I thought you were playing dumb!

I can't believe I have to point this out, but oh well. Cemeteries are a different type of public land. (That is, IF they are public in the first place. Most are owned by churches.) No, there is not a distinction made in the Constitution. Cemeteries are recognized, though, as places to honor the dead. But even in a public cemetery like Arlington, there are not crosses to mark graves, there are headstones, with a symbol (if so desired) of the family's choosing engraved on it.

As noted in the original article, American Atheists would have no problems with a similar generic memorial marker with a religious symbol ON IT. They, and I, object to a giant Christian symbol being chosen as the marker itself. On public land.

there's not a violation. Genius. It doesn't matter if it's "different" in any other manner.

Really, you should stick to your cosmic beef. You are over your head with matters subject to something other than subjective belief.

but neither is the distinction between free speech and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

The right to privacy isn't in the Constitution, either. Yet the court has surmised that it guarantees one anyway. At least for now.

Did you turn into a right-wing strict constitutional literalist, Inland?

... give you points for crying.

Er, trying.

Assuming you were initially addressing me at all. Seemed to veer a bit, there.

Mine is a form of repression. Ergo, I must seek your permission for posting.

Thanks for the approval. Kumbaya, y'all.

Oh yeah? Well you have a cosmic (perhaps comic?) beef! So there!

:rofl:

*yawn* ;-)

Nyah nyah!

The kumbaya, self reinforcing moment of the true believers. It always ends this way. Seeyas.

Okay! :hi:

Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5502038#5504276

follow the link.

Arlington does not have crosses. They offer emblems for gravestones. There is even an atheist one. Stop with this stupid straw man argument.

again. Is this even a real group or some front? I wonder since they choose to fight such a battle.

Sure, Christians are in the majority today, but that might not necessarily be the case forever. Defending the wall now will keep it there for Christians should the day come when they're in the minority.

It's sad to see the kind of flak atheists take for defending the separation of church and state, especially since it will benefit us all, atheists AND believers.

This isn't a violation of it. Period.

May I ask what court you preside in, judge?

I think the huge crosses might be objectionable. In my Solomon-like wisdom (snort) I would go with a ceremonial generic shape with the choses religion engraved, along with any scripture, whatever.

I mean there's such a thing as rubbing the public's face in it.

everybody likes pie.

Behold pumpkinus rex, the tyrant king of pie! With its regal crust, majestic filling and complete control of the armed forces it rules the court of earthly pies, where its every mad whim is law and its enemies are quickly decrusted and thrown to hungry gluttons. Many have challenged its pastrular supremacy but their crumbs lie scattered among the dusty tins of history.
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/

i love the koolaid guy. he used to freak me out.

They are their own worst enemy.

Their brand of atheism looks enough like a religion of its own that they have made themselves vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy.

We have freedom OF religion in this country, not the right to not have to see other peoples' expression of their religion.

you are completely forgetting (quite to your advantage, if I may add) the establishment clause, which is the basis for this lawsuit. If they were suing under the free exercise clause, I would agree that this is stupid. Am I using too many big words for you. If you are going to start spouting bullshit about the constitution, you might actually want to know what you are talking about. Christ, it's like debating a freeper.

As an atheist myself, I shudder every time someone else does something so stupid and quite frankly, disgusting, as this. Troopers are allowed to have their own religious beliefs. If a trooper dies in the line of duty, I see absolutely no problem with their memorial being a cross. It is not a government endorsement of religion, but a government recognition of a citizen who died defending what they believe in. If the troopers have no objection to it, I don't see what the problem is. It would be one thing if a jewish trooper who died couldn't get a star of david on a stick memorial, but as that does not seem to be the problem there is no issue. The government may recognize someone for who they were, including their religion, without necessarily endorsing that persons religion itself.
Craptastic actions like this just make atheists look bad.

There are extremists of all political persuasions.

These people are no better than the radical clerics of the right.

even though I'm an atheist too. Sometimes I think the ones who go after stuff like this are actually working with the fundies because in the end they are the ones helped by this kind of thing. x(

"If we take God's law out of our society, what's it going to become?" <Tabish> asked.
Tabish, who owns a Salt Lake City-based insurance agency, said the suit is just another example of the vocal minority pushing their agenda down the throats of the silent majority.
"We've taken God out of the schools, out of our council meetings and taken the Ten Commandments out of government," Tabish said. "It's time we stand up and put God back in our country."

They're using the fact that the government endorses crosses to argue that Christianity has a privileged place under the law. Unconstitutional uses of religion, even if DUers don't think they're a big deal, only enable those who want to tear down the wall between church and state.

It's no less silly for a Christian to say, "look, the memorials include christian symbols, ergo the State of Utah is endorsing christianity as a state religion." It's a stretch no matter who says it for whatever reason they say it.

That's why it's not unconstitutional.

and ask these Utah Christians what they'd think then.

I'm sure both you and the fundies will argue that the crosses are something other than what they are, as part of your ongoing cosmic beef with each other, and try to drag the rest of us into it.

Pleased to see that nobody at DU is taking the bait. Good for them.

just so you can display your trademark disdain for "both sides."

except you and the fundies going on with your culture war. By the way, don't give me the "both sides" bit: all the normal people don't take a side in your cosmic beef with the fundies over your personal beliefs.

This is a huge red herring and it's an embarrassment.

Fact is, there's nothing to fight about. It's a memorial, and religion doesn't really matter.

Request any symbol you like. Report on the results.

Perhaps your cutesy poo sig?

Um, I mean, undetectable.

but I just don't see what some idiot insurance agency owner's opinion of these memorials has to do with the actual government's purpose in placing these memorials. There are alway quacks like him who apply all sorts of meaning to every action, but it doesn't actually make it so. I'd rather let the crosses stand, as they memorialize a police officers death, and take my chances that it is not actually a covert government attempt to ram religion down my thought.
:shrug:

Can't they think of something better to protest?? Something? Anything? Left-wing kooks?

I've got enough nightmares of my own. :(

Thought they were referring to the tasteful 12" crosses placed where a loved one was killed, not 12 foot monstrosities for the police. I retract my comment.

I'd like to see you face to face in court with the real victims..the families of the slain police officers.

Do you even have a point?

does the Utah Highway Patrol only hire xians?

a memorial plaque would be much better - but not 12' high.

I commend the Utah american atheists.

Why not a sign? Dedicate a stretch of road to the fallen trooper, and erect a giant sign. Seems like that would honor their memory just fine. Why does it *have* to be a 12-foot cross?

I thought they were talking about the type of cross they put up here in PA. Families usually put up a small white cross at the side of the road when a loved one dies in an accident. At times you will see flowers put there also. But a twelve foot cross to me, seems at bit much and intrusive.

A memorial would be more sensible and less offensive, while commemorating the officers.

As an agnostic, I really don't mind people showing representations of their faiths, but again, a twelve foot cross is like them pushing it in your face.

that say:

"Death! Grief! Sorrow! Loss! Have a nice day!"

Thanks, but I've had enough death, grief, sorrow and loss in my life. I don't need to have it shoved in my face every morning on the drive to work. These constant reminders serve no constructive purpose at all.

I would say that is a constructive purpose.

I am extra careful with my driving, as I figure the stretch of road might be dangerous (perhaps a blind roadway entering the highway, or maybe a place where deer cross). In MO, which is not known to be a blue state, they name portions of state highways in memory of fallen troopers. To my mind, this makes a more fitting memorial, because all the motorists see the name of the fallen trooper. Twelve foot high crosses seem to be a bit much, and could possibly be a distraction for motorists, and maybe even a driving hazard if they are placed in areas where drivers should be paying extra attention to the road.

Seriously, this is one of the easiest-spun things ever. They're taking on Christians and families of deceased police officers at the same time.

Morons.

its a memorial for the fallen. Leave them alone.

weighing in for the "stupid and alienating" view.

The point of seperating church and state is to prevent any one belief from creating an oppressive atmosphere for other- or un-believers. Crosses erected to memorialise the Christian dead do not oppress.

The crosses are not state sanctioned evangelism. Their purpose is to honor the deceased, not spread the word. Where the dead are concerned, the main focus of the loved ones they leave behind is certainly not religious indoctrination or advertisement. Rather, they generally have a sincere desire to honor the deceased in a way they think as fit. It is the fulfillment of a private contract.

That the state should flex a little in the case of the families of troopers who died (presumably many on duty) doesn't seem like promotion of religious creed of any kind. Rather, its a basic human kindness, the kind you want a good government to keep in its collective memory, not turn away from.

If a government is equally willing to flex similarly for all creeds, religious and irreligious, so that each can honor their dead equally (even on tiny allotments of public space) that's a good thing. Better, I think, than the alternative. Arguing over the dead is something I think will provoke bitter and unecessary division in a society.

are traffic hazards as well. Why do we have to clutter up the landscape with stuff needing constant maintenance (or else it ends up looking like crap)? Why not plant a native tree instead?

This is how the left gets a bad name. We need to stop with this stupid shit. We need to deal with real and important issue. Wasting time and resources on petty shit that only pisses the average American off is WRONG!

This is antagonizing and just plain stupid and alienating. It would be as stupid as my subject line. Let these athiests (they certainly don't speak for all) come up with their own symbol to honor their dead. Frankly, when I see a symbol on the road for anyone who has died it reminds me of how fragile life is and it give me a moment to actually think of others, which I think is a good liberal thing to do.

You hit the nail on the head.

... for trying to honor the separation of church and state.

"Choose your battles we are told," when in fact what is meant is "shut up and take it."

Yeah, let's just wait until the religionists volunteer to quit plastering their god-graffiti all over the place.

Any day now.

:eyes:




(edit spelling)

There aren't any separation issues.

Nobody is going to cheer an ill-founded lawsuit based on an unwillingness to "take it", whatever that means at the moment.

You're going to have to find another forum to fight the culture wars.

... doesn't make it so. Government, tax dollars, religious icons -- certainly the case can be made that there is a constitutional aspect.

And I'll fight the "culture wars" anywhere and anytime I see fit, thank you. I'm sure not going to wait for permission from the religion-besotted before I advocate for my views.

And no, you won't fight the culture wars any way you see fit. Not when it involves frivolous court actions. You see, lawsuits involve government and tax dollars, and you declaring a church-state issue does not make it so.

"I'm rubber, you're glue" ??

Please. As if I need your permission. :rofl:

That's what you call rubber and glue.

You declare you don't need anyone's permission to voice an opinion, but get angry when I voice mine.

My pronouncment of no church state issues doesn't make it so, but your opposite conclusion must be honored with a tip of the cap.

You assert that use of goverment and taxes makes it your business, but my assertion that lawsuits also use goverment and taxes...

Well, you get the picture. You've got self righteous indignation out the ass, but still, no church state issue.

Try some law and some political philosophy instead of attitude and you'll see there's no there there. It's just bile and culture war masquerading as a consitutional issue. You'll have to find another place for your culture war.

... what battles I may and may not fight.



Please try to read more carefully, particularly when it's your own words.

Edited to add: You mightspare us the anal fascination, as well:



Really, what a nasty tone you bring.

I'll tell you and anyone else I please that you won't fight your culture wars with frivolous lawsuits. You won't be allowed, and that's the way it should be.

And you and the fundies will feel really strongly about using the courts and my tax dollars as a forum for your culture wars instead of a place of law, and the self righteous "you can't tell ME that we won't have a jury verdict on the existence of Santa!" will stink up the judicial process as well as the political.

You can go fight your cosmic beef. Just don't pretend that you get to drag the courts and constitution into it.

... in a court of law.

This should be a fascinating dissertation.

Guess you forgot the part where the consitution wasn't violated.

And for your reading pleasure, here's how you would be punished. Of course, if you feel differently, then feel free to ask to be a named plaintiff in the suit in Utah. I hope you get smacked for a million bucks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions


(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,—
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(B) On Court’s Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.
(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).
(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court’s initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. Subdivisions (a) through (c) of this rule do not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to the provisions of Rules 26 through 37.

Seems you've appointed yourself "executioner" of sorts, too, since you're meting out punishment.

Must be nice to wield such power.

Or to imagine so.

:rofl:

Everyone gets to have an opinion as long as it's yours.

You don't need anyone's permission, but I have to be a judge.

My declarations don't make it so, but yours do.

All you have is self righteous indignation and a desire to have your culture war. I'll stick to the law. Anytime you want to discuss that, instead of re-declaring your perogatives to do and say what you will, you'll figure out just how frivolous the lawsuit is.

Until then, we'll just have to agree on your right to be wrong as long as you don't burden anyone else with a lawsuit.

Keep on imagining there's a double-standard at work here, when you're the one expressly forbidding me from bringing a case. And handing out punishmnet while you're at it.

:crazy:

I'm expressly forbidding you from bringing a case, "help, help, I'm being repressed, please post my picture with the men at the Woolworth's counter!"

And still nothing about the law.

Not to mention mine. A more careful reading of my reference to the "right to seek redress in court" might suggest "something" about the law.

Covering yourself in glory today, eh?

exactly what is not supported. Yes, it's something about the law. It's an unwarranted presumption.

Gotta go. Regardless of what little glory there is in knocking the likes of you and Trotsky around, the posts in this thread are running about twenty to one against the lawsuit, and for mostly the right reasons, and I would hate to see it locked because you guys need to have your self righteous, kumbaya moment.

This thread should be allowed to stay up for all to see.

You actually seem to believe you're "knocking people around" with brilliant ripostes and rapier-sharp logic.

And then you finish up with "all the other kids think you're wrong, too!"

:rofl:

... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's what the consitution says. See http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

I am not a judge but I cannot see how giving the families of fallen state troopers the right to choose what memorial they want violates this.

start this fight? What's next going after the Memeorial Crosses at Arlington? Or in Normandy?

Somewhere (oh no endorsement of afterlife!) Sun-Tzu is perplexed by the failure to choose a winning strategy...

their loved one's loss, that should be okay, as long as other forms of grave markers are available for non Christian families. I personally would like a little statue of Sartre for my marker.

Instead of scattering little faux-gravesites all over the place.

tombstones lining the highway. There could be crosses, fairies, gremlins, spaghetti, thunder clouds, Viking gods, inverted crosses, etc. Might be fun.

:toast:

but I don't think people will be saying "Ramen" when they see a huge lasagna marker beside the highway <sigh>

with the ten commandments and have it lit up during the dark hours.

Shouldn't it be a little bigger? And with beautiful music and psychedelic lighting with a free hit of acid, for anyone over 65 years old. Nothing over 300 mic., mind you, we don't want to cause an outrage.

Nothing like being with a trooper in heaven these days, 'eh?

a deep megaphone voice of God played over a Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds song as backdrop. I'd probably have a religious "experience" right there!

:toast:

The gate to heaven would be through Utah. 'Ya think Joseph Smith and Bring 'em Young would be awfully proud? I do! Of course a toll charge would have to be implemented for all roads that had a cross. Business is business ya know?

Is it like a blond bald man?

Actually, I was being facetious with my choice of adjectives!

:toast:

In this climate, my first impression is that we should pick our battles better. In spirit, the crosses bother me no more than "in God we Trust" on our currency, and if the family members want this cross on their loved one's memorial, I have no problem with the religious symbolism. Cross's on public land commemorating dead police officers feels pretty inoccuous to me, again, if the family wants that.

But that does bring me to my big problem with these crosses. More of concern than alienating the minority public, aren't they somewhat alienating to the police officers who don't happen to be christian? Why is this the only symbol being erected to the police officers? Are their families being asked whether they would like a star of david or or something more beholden to their particular beliefs? This may be a moot point in Utah. I'm not sure how many police officers in that state aren't christian, but there must be some. It seems like a lack of respect for the officers who serve their communities, if they don't take such differences into account.

And if they asked the family what symbol they would like, wouldn't that circumvent any statute saying that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion? It isn't mandating crosses at that point, while families may still pick them.

...and I respect the group for fighting this in court. There needs to be rules defined for separation of church and state... If the court comes back and says this is ok on the side of the road, then another group will undoubtedly come by with a handful of 12 foot tall signs advertising their own "religion" whatever that may be...

What's to stop someone from making one of those signs be an advertisement? Wow, state funded advertising.. I'm in! Why buy an expensive billboard spot when you can have someone die on the side of the public road and get a free 12 foot advertisement for whatever religion they decide to be.

The fact is, there are rules in place that should better define this. Just because crosses are a well known symbol doesn't make them any less an advertisement.

...how do the wishes of the dead supercede the wishes of the living? Does death allow someone to rub their religion in our faces? (not saying this is such, but just making a point) If so, then shouldn't any suicide bomber be allowed to stand a 12 foot tall religious symbol on the land where they blew something up?

I understand that these are fallen officers, but at the same time, what makes them or their religion have more rights than the rest of us?

I figure I'm the most liberal SOB in DU. But I'm going to try and be fucking pragmatic and look for a way to WIN given ALL that is at stake. Disassemble the progressive circular firing squad NOW!!!

I think we need more info

I was picturing those handmade wood crosses and other ARTISTIC expressions you see along the highway...

Read the article.

The article does not make it clear whether these particular crosses are meant to be PERMANENT memorials erected on public land. If they are... I think the atheists might have a case. ... in that state $ would be indeed be used for maintaining the site (carrying costs for holding the land, possibly landscaping etc.?)

Just being Devil's (heheheh) advocate here....

Spontaneous artistic expressions of grief/loss should not be curtailed (first amendment and all that) but state endorsement of religion? Well, it'll be interesting to see how the case plays out... where is the line to be drawn?

...if these are non-permanent, then it's a lot more understandable. If these are set up by the families, I could grant the short term (maybe 6 - 18 months?) use of public land. From the sounds of it these are meant to be permanent though...

"..were erected starting in 1998 and serve as a memorial for 14 troopers who have died since 1931"

restriction would be appropriate, like say 2 cm.

.... I believe in separation of church and state.

As long as, if the family requested it, the state would erect an alternate symbol to the cross - then I have no problem with this.

It seems to be that we have much more weighty and less easily defended issues of C/S separation than this.

These troopers died protecting them. Making a mountain out of molehill. Leave the crosses alone.

wonderfully warm inside your little cocoon there!

Leave the crosses alone? How about when your religion is the minority and the guvment is pushing the new majority religion in your face? You going to be so easy-going then?

Is there any cheaper (or dumber) way of getting publicity for their cause than over dead troopers' bodies? Intellectually they might have a point worth discussing. But I'd be surprised if this wasn't linked to some fundraising effort. Make a splash, make the news, then send out a letter asking for "support."

Righties have been doing this for years. No reason why lefties can't be just as cynical and manipulative.

The liberals are trying to criminalize memorials! It's a war against the dead, I tell you!

Shit, let's not fight to make sure that the establishment clause isn't violated because, if we do, O'Reilly might make a stink about it. Thank you for pointing that out, I wouldn't want him to get pissed off--it happens so rarely.

ignore them. forever.

as nuts as the religious right. And by the way who the hell has the time to start this crap. There are many many many worse things in the world right now than to take down memorials for fallen officers.

GODDAMN, this is the dumbest argument i have ever, EVER had the misfortune to stumble upon!

Turn on Limbaugh sometime. Or Fox.

This is not dumb, this is defending our constitution.

http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=70134



Small memorial crosses don't bother me (too much), but 12-foot high ones are ridiculous.

This is what I find most interesting in regards to this story, since it pertains to Utah Highway Patrol and Utah is ~70% LDS (Mormon).

:shrug:

:eyes: These atheists can sometimes be as fanatical as the religious wackos they oppose.

violent torture. That should reassure the rest of the world.

They chose a sort of coffin shaped sign. Grim, but effective, and it avoids the religious issue.

12 foot high crosses?

That's a bit large. However, messing with the memory of the dead will not help thier cause.

Dumb like post.

discussion has ceased being productive