If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of memorial crosses that adorn Utah's highways will be taken down.
American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion.
The families say the crosses, which bear the names and badge numbers of the troopers, were built strictly as memorials.
The New Jersey-based American Atheists filed suit in 2005, arguing that the crosses symbolize Christianity and break state and federal laws against roadside memorials.
As for me, I think the Atheists should know the difference in the death of Christ and the death of the troopers. What do you think?
I agree with their actions. Christians have had their way for too long in controlling every aspect of our society. It's about time atheists found a voice. In my opinion, the cross is symbolic of Christianity. A small roadside monument is fine. But a twelve foot cross is too much.
"There's nothing unconstitutional here because the memorials cost taxpayers nothing." - Byron Babione, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the Utah Highway Patrol Association.
Babone seems to be wrong here. I have never read a case decided by financial responsibility. In fact, the US government does foot the bill for religious symbols, thousands, tens of thousands of them. Check out any veterans' cemetery.
Babone also seems to imply that the crosses are constitutional because they are allowed under the Utah constitution. Law School 101 says that the US Constitution trumps any state constitution. So far, the Supreme Court has come down on the side of no religious signs in most cases similar to this. A factor may be the answer to this question: Would Utah allow Jewish or Islamic symbols put up in the same manner for the same purpose? Buddhist? Hindu? Wiccan? Ute? Navaho?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17024 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I agree with their actions. Christians have had their way for too long in controlling every aspect of our society.
What make you think that the fallen troops are not Atheists? The crosses are a form of memorial rather a religious symbol.
It wouldn't bother me if the Atheists howled at the moon on government property, as long as it didn't bother me. They should feel the same about Christians.
Posts: 6638 | Location: Land of Lincoln, USA | Registered: 07-04-02
If the crosses are not a religious symbol, then can they be replaced with, say, a crescent moon? How about a Satanist symbol? The crescent moon seems to be something that all of us see on a monthly basis. It doesn't have to be an Islamic symbol. Just think of it as a tribute to Nature, to the eternal cycles of the moon. Would those families accept that?
Posts: 17024 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
What make you think that the fallen troops are not Atheists? The crosses are a form of memorial rather a religious symbol.
Sorry, but no, the cross is a symbol of Christianity. If some of the fallen troops are atheists, there are more appropriate memorials, than 12 foot high steel crosses.
If the crosses are not a religious symbol, then can they be replaced with, say, a crescent moon?
Dorian, don't you know by now that someone will complain about everything that any group does. The crescent moon would irk somebody, so the crosses should stay put.
And dg, even if the crosses are a sybbol of Christianity, how is it hurting the Atheists? They just want something to b***h about.
Posts: 6638 | Location: Land of Lincoln, USA | Registered: 07-04-02
Assuming the thirteen troopers commemorated were all Christian, would the crosses be OK? The government department responsible would have to agree (maybe just as a hypothetical) to erect any kind of symbol appropriate to future memorialised troopers' particular faith or lack of faith, and then things would be the same as in veterans' cemeteries.
I honestly don't know how I'd rule were I on the Supreme Court if this came up. Of course, the supporters of the crosses would have to bring up the veterans' grave markers in order for it to be considered, I think, but even so, the side of a highway is not a cemetery. Another unknown factor may be the highway itself. If it is on an Interstate property, there may be a difference in what is allowed. I am not sure who "owns" Interstate highways.
Posts: 17024 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I don’t approve of roadside memorials, whether they be crosses or crescent moons or teddy bears or big wooden signs, because they are a distraction to drivers and the people who place them put themselves in danger placing the memorial or tending to it, they risk becoming another roadside causality. A cross does symbolize Christianity, but that is not what I disagree with. And if the fallen troops were atheists, I can’t imagine a cross would be used as part of their personal memorial. That would be disrespectful to the unbelief of that person, and to the beliefs of the others, I think.
quote:
It wouldn't bother me if the Atheists howled at the moon on government property, as long as it didn't bother me.
That’s not atheists, that’s pagans.
Posts: 4497 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Honi, I have been an atheist for at least 70 years, and I have yet to howl at my first moon. I know that you are a believer. I have been married to one for 64 years, so it doesn't offend me one iota if you have crosses, crucifixes, or any other religious symbol anywhere in the world -except where my tax dollars pay a share of the support and upkeep. The constitution forbids that - even though so many who share your beliefs keep trying to squeeze your noses under the tent. Can't you be satisfied to identify with the overwhelming majority?
