Deseret News | Judge OKs crosses as trooper memorials

Reader comments
Judge OKs crosses as trooper memorials

Camille | 5:53 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I'm glad the judge ruled that it's OK for the crosses to remain. I don't understand why anyone would want to hurt a family of a fallen UHP officer by wanting to take those crosses away. That's just plain crazy. And these crosses are in memory of those fallen UTAH officers and if a judge in UTAH said it's OK, leave DENVER courts out of it!!

kip | 6:22 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

this is a great win for utah's finest....these 12 foot crosses are a great reminder of the sacrifice of not only these troopers lives but the family they left behind. keep up the great work UHP!

tired of stupid lawsuits | 6:32 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Can't You American Athesists Find something better to do with your time then set and argue about a cross??? There so much more in this life than to fight over a cross. Fight for kids who are going hungry or for the homeless. Help them!!! Put your money where it can be helpful instead of wasting it over something that is so small.

I see nothing wrong with a cross on side of road remebering someone who has put his or her life in danger to help yours. These officers life are on the line every single day they don't know what they are going be hit with that day. When one dies in the line duty they should be respected and remember.

Apparently you don't know what it like when you wake up in morning and send your loved one to work when they work as officer or firefighter and wonder if they will make it home to you that night or morning depending on shift they work.

Great Job UHP hope you win the case again if they go futher. You do a great job and I thank you!!

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:51 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

American Atheists attorney Brian Barnard called Sam's ruling troubling in that the judge held that the cross as a symbol is as secular as the Christmas tree. Barnard said.
It all depends on context.

Ever meet a joyous and happy athiest?

bill | 7:52 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Hooray for sanity. The judge made the right ruling. I can't speak for others but my thoughts go to that trooper who lost his life on duty when I see those crosses and not my religion. If he had ruled for the opposite view, every military cemetary across the country would be out of compliance because they all have crosses on the military graves. Why is taxpayer money being wasted on such inane arguments? Do we all have to act like athesists in order for them ever to be happy? Can we sue the athesists when eventually there are no symbols of religion in view for forcing their religion on us??

Annoyed | 8:10 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

These attacks are getting worse. I am all for the separation of church and state... but this is where the obnoxiousness of all this is obvious. Here we have an organization trying to show respect for those who have fallen serving their community and those fighting against these crosses can't be tolerant of this respect. There are plenty of places to fight their battle, but they chose to fight their battle over the dead bodies of those that were protecting their communities. The lack of tact is as obnoxious as the degree of separation that is sought. They wont be happy until ANY display of religion is eradicated.

Moessers | 8:30 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I'm an agnostic slash atheist, but I think for this lawsuit to be brought forth was ludicrous from the get go. It's the secular progressives trying to push forward their silly agenda. I hope the crosses continue to stay. People need to lighten the heck up.

H | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I think the judge ruled in favor of common sense and understanding. Many of the troopers were probably Mormon and in the Mormon faith the cross itself doesn't have the same meaning as the rest of the Christian world. So if the trooper's families are okay then why should we be so offended. I love being preached to about being open and the "preachers of diversity" are the most closed of any group.

Robert | 8:43 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I agree. The 10th Circuit Court of Apeals has not been favorable toward decisions made by Utah Judges as of late. Why can't people take no for an answer. I personally am not offended by the markers for fallen UHP officers. I'm sorry some are, however, those who are need to respect the wishes of other people and not push their beliefs as a position the government should take.

Ken Baguley | 8:53 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Goooood Sam! I personally want to thank the good judge. If a family of a fallen trooper of the Jewish faith wants to put a Star of David or a Menora with their name on it... More power to them...and the same goes for all faiths. This is America for one and for all.

Rob | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Yes, you heard it right, American Atheists. A federal judge has instructed you to go grind your ax elsewhere. And btw, your crusade against grieving families of fallen officers is disgusting.

Atheist | 9:21 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I'M a happy atheist, anonymous. Nevertheless I'm pleased with the ruling. Try making smaller generalizations. :)

Bob | 10:06 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I have no problem with crosses along the hiway but why do people need to glorify an event that is both unfortunate and unpleasant.

For the family of the fallen officer there is no need to remind them of that spot and there is no need to advertise the event to the rest of us. Other people who die while performing the service of their occupation don't normally get monuments marking the place of their death.

I have great respect and admiration for the people who look after our safety and welfare but I also realize that they are just human beings like the rest of us.

Plant a tree in your yard, put a cross in the cemetary, do what every you wish but give up the need to build public monuments to your personal need.

Elsie | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Hooray! It's about time we stand up for the majority. There seem to be people who have nothing better to do than to cause contention. Thanks to the courts for the great work they do!

Common Sense | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Do the American Atheists plan on suing each and every township and city in the United States for allowing all of those cross-shaped power poles to be on public land? There's a flippin' endless supply of those exclusive Christian-based structures lined along nearly all the streets along the 35-mile stretch from my home to work. The markers for the deceased public servants are dignified and have been accepted by the families. Heaven forbid (pun intended) that public funds, even those collected through taxes, be spent on something that doesn't represent each person's unique ideas or belief system. Sounds like common sense, doesn't it? Hopefully the court of appeals will uphold the ruling and not overturn the wishes of the families and UHP based on SECULAR RELIGIOUS VALUES. That's right, just because the Atheist stance is not based on theology does not legitimize their argument nor minimize their attempt to push their own values.

no surprise | 10:09 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

It's a pretty well-known fact that Mormons don't have the cross as a religious symbol. Not surprised that this would be a problem for the faithful.

Anonymous | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I'm assuming the UHP doesn't hire Jews. If you notice there are Stars of David marking the graves of Jews at Arlington National Cemetery. I guess when you see America as a Christan country your methodologies don't have to consider pesty minorities. As an veteran and a American atheist, I don't believe we shouldn't have crosses. I'm more sensitive to minority beliefs.

Kameron | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

My name is Kameron Thorne and my father is one of the fallen UHP officers on one of the crosses. The crosses with the fallen officer's name on it means different things to different people. For my family and I, it means that someone made the ultimate sacrifice while working for state of Utah. This cross is simply of symbol of their sacrifice. These officers should be remembered. Many people have written letters to my family expressing their gratitude and the cross has touched many in a positive way. I am pleased with the decision by the judge but realize that it is a temporary victory for now. My family and I appreciate those that donate their time and resources to defend this noble cause.

Brad Anderson | 10:47 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I am a VERY HAPPY American Atheist. The Cross has changed a bit in meaning anyway. Now it's how people mark graves. Much like the Christmas Tree.
I don't have a problem with them putting up a cross because it's meaning is to remember these brave men, not push a christian propoganda!

The Force | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Why do people make such big mountains out of such small mole hills?

When I see a cross or a star of David or whatever other symbol I don't believe in, I don't get all offended over it. Especially a cross on the side of the road. Crosses have historically served as grave markers, so the religious and historic values are both present.

Why do the atheists care so much about this stuff? Like the other poster said, go fight for something worthwhile.

l | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Camille,

Utah is a district in the 10th circuit, and while each state has their own district, the Court of Appeals for all districts in the 10th circuit is located in Denver. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that if this makes its way to the Supreme Court that it doesn't make sense for it to be tried in Washington, DC. Of course it does. That's where the Supreme Court is located. In this case, the Court of Appeals is located in Denver, so it will move there.

Regardless of where the court rules from, "H" has it right, that it doesn't even make sense to sue in Utah about using a cross to memorialize the dead when the majority of people in Utah do not use the cross as a religious symbol. If anything, sue for memorializing the dead with a symbol of torture and murder. That might make sense.

Anonymous | 11:48 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I'm thinking the ACLU will try to appeal this action again and again.
One thought. I am from Missouri, now living in Utah-- and my husband was a Missouri State Highway Patrolman killed in the line of duty. A one mile stretch of the highway where he was killed has been designated as a Memorial Highway to his honor and is reflected by an official state highway sign with his name. It is wonderful to travel back there and when I go down the freeway, I see that official state sign--posted on both sides of roadway. It is a tribute to him and his sacrafice.
If the ACLU continues their ridiculous efforts in opposing crosses with the Utah State Troopers name on them, then perhaps in the future--the state might consider official memorial highway signs--and get rid of ACLU efforts. I don't think this is giving in to the ACLU. But it would be a way of shutting them up. We need to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrafice.

rvalens2 | 12:21 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Those who support the crosses need to consider how they will feel when one day the family of a fallen trooper wants to put up a Wiccan symbol (witches) or a Satanic one.

Will you support their decision to do so? Or will you make the argument that it's a purely religious symbol and can't be placed.

Crosses, Menoras, Crescents and the Star of David all have strong religious meanings. While I feel the troopers deserve a memorial, this is one I believe the Appeals court in Denver will probably reverse.

And before I get a bunch of hate mail responses, I should state that I am neither for nor against the crosses. I just see where this could lead. Crosses, Menoras, Crescent symbols, and yes, even Satanic symbols dotting our highways.

MRDON | 1:34 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

This is a silly suit. I'm glad the judge rules as he did. I'm sure that as it makes its way through the courts it will ultimately be upheld.

As to other symbols to honor the beliefs of others let me suggest a tall stack of cow pies for lawyers and a big pile of nothing for atheists who proclaim to believe in nothing.

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 2:20 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

The American Atheists suggested that, instead of a cross bar, the posts could be topped with a beehive, symbol of Utah, already on the Utah Highway Patrol emblem and patch. But the beehive emblems reflect the state flag, which reflects the original name proposed by the Mormon settlers for their state, namely "Deseret" (as in Deseret Morning News), which is a term from the Book of Mormon meaning "beehive". In Utah, the beehive, the very emblem of state government, has roots in a religious text.

In contrast, the cross is NOT a religious symbol for the majority of Utahns. It is not used on or in Mormon churches or graves or scriptures, and there are no Mormon vestments or necklaces depicting crosses.

No atheist will become a Christian from seeing a roadside cross. I am offended by militant atheists as they are offended by crosses, but we don't remove atheists from public property. The only other icon of death is a skull! If we have to get rid of "crosses" on government highways, we will have to reconstruct all intersections so the roads don't meet at 90 degree angles!

Heidi | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I am relieved in this judgment. I am worried that if atheists and others like the ACLU twist the first amendment like they obviously have, we are going to end up like one of those communist countries where religion is outlawed--that would totally defeat the meaning of the first amendment. This judgment means one point in the right direction to maintain our precious freedom.

These atheists are more Christli | 7:03 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

As a Mormon I'm offended when crosses representing the death of Christ are placed alongside our State Highways. I worship a living Christ and not a dead Christ and these crosses don't convey this message. It's also troubling to see these crosses as a means for State Troopers to endorse a specific religious belief that I don't share.

It doesn't bother me to drive by a Baptist Church and see crosses displayed because I understand that those who attend that Church believe it represents their faith in Christ but I am offended when I see crosses placed on our state highways. I understand this man who happens to be employed as a Judge instead of a "bus boy" doesn't share my beliefs. I am also sure many members of my own Church don't either but it's obvious they only care about their own feelings and opinions. They don't care that they offend me and others because they will go to Church on Sunday, testify of Christ and then slap me in the face on a weekday. So I see these atheists who sued as more Christlike than other Mormons and Christians who offend me and who don't care they have.

Kameron Thorne doesn't care abou | 7:24 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Kameron Thorne, I understand that you have lost a loved one and that you believe that the crosses symbolize that someone made the ultimate sacrifice yet for many they represent something else. I also believe those who died serving should be remembered yet your uncaring attitude and your concern only for how you feel is wrong. There are many ways to remember those who have died without showing a lack of caring about others.

I suggest that you stop thinking of yourself and your feelings long enough to think about how you make other people feel. Because it seems to me that you only care about yourself, your father and your family.

This must be a truly wonderful victory for your family. You get to continue to offend others and they get to be offended by the Thorne family. It must make you feel really good inside to do fake service projects and tell members of your Church and neighbors that you love them when in truth you don't love anyone but yourself and your family and only pretend to love others so long as they support you. If you loved others you wouldn't want to continue to offend them.

mrdon | 7:33 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Some of my ancestors were disemboweled in England for refusing to forsake their faith and join the state church. Another fled France and became an indentured servant to escape certain death there. They didn't come here to avoid being offended, they came here to have the same chance as any other person of any other faith to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wanted to live in a country where they could express themselves anyway they pleased without fear of reprisal by others or by the government.

The idea that government permitting any form of expression amounts to an endorsement of that expression is profoundly ridiculous. When the city of Peoria, Illinois allowed the American Nazis to parade it was not, in any way, an endorsement. It was a part of an obligation to ensure that all similarly situated individuals and groups are afforded equal opportunities to express themselves. One of our inalienable rights.

We have lost sight of the fact that the government doesn't "permit" public expression of ideas, including religious ideas, it is obliged by our Constitution to protect and defend our right to make such expressions -- even if they offend others.

Expression is one thing, endorse | 7:56 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

mrdon, there is a big difference between permitting expression and endorsing it, or allowing it to take place on government property, and allowing for the impression to be created in the mind of people that the state supports the expression. My ancestors also endured persecution and it is because they did that I disagree with you.

I would be just as offended if the City of Preoria, Illinois were to allow the Nazi's to display the Nazi flag along city roads to honor the death of a fallen Nazi Police Officer. You have every right to express yourself in public and so does any other person but when that expression allows you to use the government and government property to offend others then the line is drawn. You are talkin about a 12 foot cross on state highways. If and when you are willing to allow a 12 foot Nazi flag along state highways get back to me.

Re: Kameron Thorne doesn't care | 8:13 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Your comment ranting on Kameron and his family was unfair. Kameron mentioned that the cross meant something different to every person. To him it stood for someone making a sacrifice to serve others. As a member of the UHP, I don't believe his family had any say on the shape of the monument. Why did you turn this around? His family has suffered greatly and is gracious to the state for putting up a monument that helps people remember. His father was on a search and rescue looking for young girl when the accident occurred. Kameron did not offend me but you offended me.

Offended? | 8:18 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

TO KAMERON THORNE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT AND THESE ATHIESTS ARE MORE CHRISTLIKE Are you serious? You are offended? Get a life. I hope that I have offended you and you have trouble sleeping. I'm offended that your offended. You are trying to push your hurt feelings on me and it makes me want to cry. I need your name and number so I can sue you.

Anonymous | 8:21 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

Expression, the thing that the City of Peoria permitted was precisely allowing the Nazis to use government property to express themselves. They displayed Nazi flags and banners on a march on city streets. I can assure you that more than a few people were deeply offended.

The last time I read the Constitution I did not find the part that said that offensive expression in public and/or on public property was excluded as one of our freedoms -- in fact I have been lead to believe that one of the protections expressly intended in the First Amendment was the right to speak our minds even if those expressions were offensive.

If it were not permissible to express oneself on public property if others would be offended, I can assure you that virtually everywhere in the country, gay pride marchers who wear costumes that bare their posteriors in public would be marched straight to the hoosgow. Further, if there was any legal way at all, the gay hating protesters at military funerals would be banned from demonstrating on adjacent streets.

I'm sorry you're offended. Many people have died for us to have the right to offend each other.

Grant A. | 8:49 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

I am a joyous and happy atheist.

It is good to meet you.

I agree with the judge. These crosses are as secular a symbol as there is. No matter what sign, image, post, or whatever is placed to mark these patrolmen's memory, it would have religious connections just because we are talking about death here. So the crosses are as good as anything else.

To the degree crosses DO have religious meaning, it is clearly the instrument by which Jesus gave his life and is, therefore, a Christian symbol. As such, Mormons who don't believe in it are hypocrites - on the one hand claiming to be Christian, but on the other hand denying the most Christian symbol in history!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.