Crosswise over trooper monuments

A Texas-based atheist group is suing the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Department of Transportation over the placement of crosses on public property that honor fallen UHP troopers.

American Atheists Inc. says placement of the crosses on public land and the use of the UHP logo on the crosses violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The organization has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking the removal of the crosses, which honor 14 troopers who have died since 1931. The group also seeks $1 in damages.

It strikes many as odd that no one has questioned the legality of the 12-foot crosses since they were first erected in 1998. However, the lawsuit poses an interesting legal question that needs to be answered by a court.

The legal issues aside, it is wholly appropriate to honor UHP troopers who died while serving the citizens of the state of Utah. The crosses are striking landmarks that speak to the extreme sacrifice that these officers made in serving and protecting all Utahns. For family members, these memorials have become nearly as important to them as their loved ones' burial sites. For motorists who happen upon the crosses during their travels, they are stirring reminders of the service rendered by law enforcement officers.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they do not take issue with honoring fallen troopers, but they consider the cross a religious symbol that endorses a particular religion. Therefore, they contend, the crosses do not belong on government property.

The Utah Highway Patrol Association maintains the cross is an international symbol of peace. If this use is unconstitutional, why is it permissible to adorn graves at military cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery with crosses?

For some family members of the fallen troopers, the crosses have become treasured memorials. One daughter told the Deseret Morning News that replacing the crosses with another symbol at this point would be akin to tampering with a gravesite. Yet, the father of another fallen trooper said he wouldn't mind another memorial as long some type of marker remained, according to published reports.

It is hoped that this issue will not be decided as a sterile constitutional debate. This lawsuit will inevitably dredge up the pain and sense of loss these families experienced when they lost their loved ones. It needs to be understood that these aren't simply monuments. They're representations of men who were sons, brothers, parents and spouses — and revered public servants.