Atheists attack memorial to fallen officers

I agree with you. These things are getting totally out of hand. I am not particulary religious but I just can't see the issue with erecting a cross as a memorial for someone who is a Christian.

I certainly can see a point on the side of the atheists. However, the fallen officers being memorialized were, I'm assuming, Christians. So, what better way is there to memorialize them than with a Christian symbol.

State land is public land and everyone has a right to some use of it. If it were a group of atheists being memorialized then the symbol would likely be different.

I think these types of law suites should never even make it to court. They are a waste of taxpayers time and money, which has "In God We Trust" written on it. The founding fathers of this country were Christians. It's as simple as that. If you can't handle the fact that our founding principles were developed by religious people and beliefs then move.

Absolutely and totally ridiculous, mysteryman. Although I strongly believe in separation of church and state, I find this to be more publicity than belief.

Believe it or not, I agree. There are so many important issues concerning the separation of church and state...........and this one was not one of them. I think that by making a brouhaha about this, the group is actually marginalizing the folks who believe in church/state separation.

For Pete's sake, if the memorialized were Christian, a cross on the marker is certainly appropriate.

ATHEISTS IN COURT TO REMOVE CHRISTIAN HIGHWAY MEMORIALS
I get very tired of these types of disputes. They are silly and achieve nothing but to increase the conflict. I wish all the parties would concentrate on issues that really matter and adversely effect people's lives.

BBB

THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) CROSS BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD -- ATHEISTS IN COURT TO REMOVE CHRISTIAN HIGHWAY MEMORIALS
Web Posted: December 5, 2005

A merican Atheists went to federal court this week to stop the Utah
Highway Patrol and the Utah Department of Transportation from erecting
large metal Christian crosses on state property that honor state troopers killed in the line of duty.

The petition, filed by constitutional attorney Brian Barnard of the Utah Legal Clinic also seeks immediate removal of existing memorial crosses in six known locations, including a Utah Highway Patrol facility.

"The crosses are intentionally erected by the (Utah Highway Patrol) Association in prominent places visible to the general public," notes the court affidavit. "They are visible to motorists using the adjacent roads and highways owned by the State of Utah... Each cross was erected on real property owned and/or controlled by the State of Utah..."

Joining in the action are three members of American Atheists: Stephen Clark; Utah State Director Michael D. Rivers; and veteran First Amendment activist Richard Andrews.

The suit seeks $1 in damages, and a ruling from the U.S. District Court that the use of the Utah Highway Patrol logo on the crosses and their presence on government property is illegal. Mr. Barnard argues the practices violate the First Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, and a similar provision in the Utah State Constitution.

Defendants include representatives the State Highway Patrol, Utah Department of Transportation and the Department of Administrative Services.

Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists said that the suit is the first of many that will be filed seeking the removal of other Christian crosses and memorials on public highway right-of-ways in other states.

"It's a growing problem across the country," Johnson told reporters. "We end up with these little Christian shrines everywhere."

Mike Rivers, Utah State Director for American Atheists said that by permitting the crosses on public property, "The state is giving the impression that government is endorsing religion."

"We know that religionists are going to scream about this lawsuit and claim it's an example of discrimination," he added. "But the government has no business promoting one religion over another, or religion in general."

Ironically, the state Transportation Department has a specific regulation prohibiting the placement of religious symbols and shrines on or adjacent to any public highway. It is also state policy to remove the illegal memorials. Citizens may place wildflowers along a road, however, get involved in the Adapt-A-Highway program, or sponsor a "memorial sign" with a secular safety message like "Drowsy Driving Kills."

The several Christian crosses referred to in the Atheist lawsuit were erected by the Utah Highway Patrol Association beginning in the early 1990s. The group is a private, nonprofit organization with the goal of "supporting Utah State Highway Patrol Officers and acknowledging these troopers' service to the people of the State of Utah." It has also been granted the use of the official Utah Highway Patrol logo, which is placed conspicuously on the 12-foot-high crosses erected near the location where troopers died in the line of duty. All of those locations are public property.

That's the constitutional problem according to Mr. Barnard who has filed dozens of First Amendment cases over the years, including legal challenges to public displays of the Ten Commandments.

"The presence of the Latin crosses on government owned property with the Utah Highway Patrol logo prominently displayed thereon has the primary effect to advance religion, and conveys or attempts to convey the message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred," wrote Barnard. "The reaction of the average receiver of the government communication or average observer of the government action is that of endorsement of religion and particularly of Christianity..."

Jeff Nigbur, a spokesman for the Highway Patrol, told the Deseret Morning News that the cross symbol was selected "because it is the international sign of peace, and it has no religious significance in it." He also maintained that "a large number" of crosses were placed on private property adjacent to public roads.

Barnard described that claim as "less than honest," adding that the Latin cross is a symbol of the Christian religion.

"I don't think there is any question that troopers should be honored. They have given the ultimate sacrifice," said Mr. Barnard.

"But they can be honored in a way that doesn't emphasize religion."

As for the property issue, Barnard provided the media and the court with details on the locations of the Christian memorials along with photographs.

Mike Rivers said that the goal of the American Atheists lawsuit was not to stop the honoring of fallen troopers but rather Utah's blatant promotion of sectarian religion.

"We feel the department of transportation, by allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association to pick a religious symbol is unfair. We think that it should be totally secular with no religious theme."

The claim that the crosses were "nonreligious" didn't sit well with one "self-proclaimed God-fearing American" who talked to the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper, and supports the religious monuments.

David Tabish told the newspaper that the American Atheists suit was just another example of creeping secularization.

"We've taken God out of the schools, out of city council meetings and taken the Ten Commandments out of government," Tabish complained.

"It's time we stand up and put God back in our country."

He added that he will be organizing a public march to support the Christian cross memorials, and will picket the federal courthouse when proceedings begin.

BBB,
you dont say which side you agree with.
Also,should we remove all the crosses from all national cemeteries?
AFter all,they are funded by the govt,on govt land,and maintained by the govt.

I don't see this as such a clear cut issue. While I do think it over reaches common sense it also remarks on the display of a christian symbol on public property. How different, in intent, is this from displaying the ten commandments in a courthouse? A 12 foot high marker on the immediate right-of-way is pushing the limits of obtrusiveness. Does the state of Utah allow any other such "memorial" on public right-of-way? But, like i said above, common sense is not found here.

Mysteryman


Why do you care what my viewpoint is beyond what I already posted? Are you looking for a fight?

BBB

Re: Mysteryman


Nope,just looking for opinions.
What makes these crosses any different then those erected at Arlington National cemetary,or any other national cemetary?

Now don't be cross, BBB.

Apparently the atheists are seeking $1 in damages/ removal from public property of the crosses and a legal finding re US and Utah constitutional questions. That seems reasonable to me.

Again,how are these crosses different from those at national cemeteries?

What piques my curiosity is what would have happened if one or more of the fallen troopers were Jewish, or Muslim, agnostic or atheist? Would Utah have erected a Star of David, a crescent, or even a question mark?

Then again, I think that the probability of any other religion but Christian being represented in Utah law enforcement would probably be nil.

Mysteryman
Mysteryman, did you read my post re how the crosses on the highway violate Utah state regulations? The suit's goal is to force Utah to follow it's own regulations.

Your question is not logical. Cemeteries are devoted to one purpose, burying the dead. Cemeteries, especially military Cemeteries, contain grave markers indicating the symbols and religion of the dead on each grave. An atheist's grave would not contain such symbols. A highway is not a cemetery. It's only a road leading to possible accidental internment in a cemetery.

Perhaps if you educated yourself re both sides of a controversy instead of only the side you support, you would not look so silly on A2K.

BBB

I'm guessing that many of the troopers were Mormon. Do Mormons use the cross in their churches? (I don't know the answer to this--it's an honest question...)

It is not, in my mind, insignicant that this is happening in Utah a theocratic state.