Quantcast
Utah

Judges rule against Utah highway crosses for fallen troopers

Utah's attorney general strongly disagrees with appeals court

Comments

Return To Article
  • the truth
    Aug. 23, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    RE: Joggle | 1:08 a.m

    Here it is again so you can understand it:

    Do you want a constitution that is the foundaton and rock our country is built on,

    or sand that can be molded by who ever is in charge?


    THe words of the Constitution have very definite meaning,

    and the only PROPER Way to change the constitution is by admendment process.

    Which far left and the progressives, have been by passing and for over a centrury now, by judicial fiat,

    by claiming they have some right to change the meaning and interpretation all they want.

    based on what? a calender?

    or some elitist attitude that they know better?

    that is a very insidious doctrine.

    that ONLY leads deprivation of freedom, liberty and rights

    and to tyranny.


    And YOU advocate tyranny over any religion, religions group, or any public or outward expression of relgion.

    While congress can NOT make law "RESPECTING..."

    and NO LAW was made here,


    no limitations are in the federal constitution for states,

    by making any ruling here they ARE "repecting..." and infringing on free speech as well.


    to be continued...

  • the truth
    Aug. 23, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    RE: Joggle | 1:08 a.m.

    continued...


    it should be thrown back to the states and the feds should remain nuetral.

    and the decision based on whatever the state constitution says regarding relegion.


    and I believe there is no law that prohibits religious speeech by citizens or private groups on public property,

    ALL PEOPLE and GROUPS have equal access to public property.

    see 14th admendment.

    otherwise you must not allow any person or group access.



    Historically there MCUH religion in governemnt and the public aquare,

    from the congressional press publishig religious materials,

    to public monies being used to help build churches,

    to bible study in schools,

    9 of the 13 states even had official state relgions.


    The constitution limits congress from giving prefrerential treatment to or discrminating against, a church, or specific church, religious groups etc, "an establisment of religion",


    the nothing in there about "endorsing" religion in general,

    and "christianlity" is general it is NOT a specific establshment.

    gain, states, people, communities, schools are limited,

    It's just that congess shall NOT make a law,

    WHAT is the law that congress made?


    if congress made law against crosses isn't that a violation of the 1st admendment, "respecting"?


  • Kameron
    Aug. 22, 2010 4:08 p.m.

    My father is one of the names on the cross outside of Duchesne. He died in a UHP copter while searching for a lost little girl. I wish he were still around. I appreciate that the state of Utah put up a marker by which he could be remembered for his sacrifice. It was erected for friends, neighbors, family, well-wishers and even for those that fight against my fathers' own beliefs and those that fight against God. There is enough out there to worry about rather than fight within our country and state.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 22, 2010 10:59 a.m.

    @Peaceful Warrior

    The concepts of majority rule and minority rights are the keystone of our free governmental system. We vote for our representatives and the one with the most votes goes onto act for the majority; the majority being the collective people who voted for the representative. That representative speaks on behalf of the majority who voted him in and votes in such a way as to embody the will of that majority...true? Yes!

    What about those who are not in the majority? While the minority is not being indirectly represented by the politician like the majority, the minority still retains their basic rights and expects the majority to show consideration for those rights as well. The minority also knows that while they may not be in the majority at this time they will not always be in the minority on every issue. The minority accepts that in order for our government to work competently the will of the people, in the case the majority, must be fulfilled. It makes certain that while the majority may have the obvious power the will of the minority will also be considered especially as it pertains in the Bill of Rights.

  • Anti Bush-Obama
    Aug. 22, 2010 7:21 a.m.

    Re: dbrown.

    The founding fathers were not atheists they were deists. Big difference.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 22, 2010 1:08 a.m.

    @the truth

    Excuse me....but your post is so structurely butchered that I can't understand fully what your talking about.

    I can only say that I'm against deprivation of freedom, liberty and rights and against tyranny of the majority over the minority....but I've already address that. Maybe you missed it!

  • cindyacre
    Aug. 21, 2010 9:39 p.m.

    I belong to a Church that does not use the cross as a symbol, but when I see them along a road indicating that, sadly, someone has died there, I feel sadness in my heart, "wow, what a tragedy." Those crosses also remind me to drive a little safer.

    When I see a cross, on a road or as a pendant, I think of it as a reflection of that persons devotion to a Being whose life they want to emulate - to be a better person, to be a better neighbor, to be a better citizen. What could possibly be wrong with that kind of motivation in life? I still don't see the problem with crosses, their motivation and symbolism, and why they should offend anyone, knowing what kind of Person they symbolize.

    No one is telling those to don't believe religiously that they are less than the dust of the earth, or anything like that. The freedom of having those crosses along the road reflects freedom of reflection, remembrance, and personal loss. That one feels offense at such a symbol I think is personal, at best. Sorry, I don't think that offense is ever intended.

  • the truth
    Aug. 21, 2010 6:48 p.m.

    RE: Joggle | 2:36 p.m.


    Do you want a constion that is foundaton and rock our country is built on,

    or sand that is andcan be molded by who ever is in charge?


    THe word s of Contion have rvery defineite meqaning,

    and only PROPER Way to change the constitution is by admendment process.

    Whic far left and th4e progressives, have been by passing and for over a centrury now,

    by claiming they some right to change the meaning and interpretation all they want.

    based on what? a calender?

    or some elltistis attirude that they know better?

    that is a very insidious doctrine.

    that ONLY leads deprivation of freedom, liberty and rights

    and to tyranny.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 21, 2010 2:36 p.m.

    @Chuckyboy

    I have explained it, but apparently you choose to ignore what I've said. I really don't care either way whether there are crosses there or not, but I do understand why the atheists are against it.

    The exact meaning of the Constitution is constantly evolving. The Constitution may be a concrete social contract, but the application of that contract is dependent on the specific issues at hand, the context of the questions being asked, the ideological trends in both society and among justices of the Supreme Court, and how the constitutional question relates to prior Court decisions. What this often means that common, everyday practices are, periodically challenged by someone else, claming that the behavior violates the Constitution. Symbols given preferential treatment violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which has generally been interpreted to prohibit (1)the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or (2) the preference of one religion over another. The second interpretation is what the atheists are using for their objection. Their argument has merit whether the state purposely meant to show preference or not. It could be perceived as such. They have a right to object whether right or wrong!

  • @Charles
    Aug. 21, 2010 1:14 p.m.

    @jingle: I haven't misrepresented your position at all.

    Sadly I have to keep repeating myself because as you clearly point out, you can't argue with what the 1st Amendment states.

    Congress hasn't enacted legislation establishing a national religion. States haven't done that either.

    Your arguments for the removal of the crosses or whatever they are is not founded on COTUS. hence you are making strawman arguments.

    You haven't explained how have the crosses establishes a religion. You haven't explained how it forces anyone to believe in a particular religion.

    You have failed on all counts to demonstrate how having the crosses erected where they are is contrary to COTUS.

    What's sad is that you think you've made some point when clearly you haven't proven anything. I don't have to defend strawman arguments since they aren't founded in COTUS.

    As soon as you make a point that the crosses are in violation of COTUS and how they are, then we might start having a discussion.

    Maybe you should go read COTUS first. It might help you get educated.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 21, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    @PW: There can be no morality without an absolute of what is right and what is wrong. Man can't come up with these absolutes. We can see through history of man how the philosophies of man change to whatever they deem fit for that day and age.

    Noah's time was so morally bankrupt that they were wiped off the face of the earth. Sodom and Gomorrah as well. Rome. Jerusalem. etc etc.

    The atheist believes that man is the center of the universe and holds all wisdom and knowledge -- hence the constantly changing "morals" and "values". That's the arrogance of the atheist and the downfall of the atheist.

    An atheist can have no moral absolutes without the recognition of a higher authority on which all absolutes are based. That higher authority is God.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 21, 2010 12:58 p.m.

    @atheist: I had to laugh a little when you claimed that the history of philosophy and science is older than religion. Religion, in other words God, has always existed. It was never created nor can it be as it is eternal.

    In all your posturing you still are unable to show the foundation for which atheists get their morals. Morals are based on the concept of right verses wrong. In order for their to be right and wrong there must be absolutes. In order for their to be absolutes there must be a higher order of life that makes this determination of absolutes. That is God.

    There are no morals without God. There is no right and wrong without God and opposition which is Satan.

    For your enlightenment, God gave Adam and Eve the entire gospel of Jesus Christ from the beginning of human life on earth. They knew the entire plan and taught it to their children. That plan has been documented in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

    Feel free to read them and get educated.

    Atheists have no morals without God. Plain and simple.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 21, 2010 12:50 p.m.

    @Sutton: what ideas have become irrelevant and how has society moved on from Christianity? You do realize that over 85% of American's identify themselves as Christians, right?

    As long as the person does the moral thing it makes no difference, does it?

    You need to dig deeper Sutton...

  • Joggle
    Aug. 21, 2010 12:35 p.m.

    @Chuckyboy

    You are totally misinterpreting what I've said and twisting it. At no point have I said that there is any piece of legislation that Congress has passed that established a national religion...they haven't. I would be against that. Should religious rights supercede secular rights though? At no point have I said that "separation of church and state" is specifically mentioned in the COTUS, however you have ignored what I did say about it. Read it again and maybe you'll see I've already addressed that issue. I have never claimed any state has passed legislation to create a state religion either? Obviously, you choose to just base your argument on my personal conduct, character, etc., instead of legitimate and relevant arguments concerning the issue. You just keep repeating the same things which are no defense at all for what is suppose to be an opposing opinion.

    Keep up the good work with your lack of defense in your opinion.

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 21, 2010 12:30 p.m.

    Jazzman72 | 11:39 a.m I don't get it. I'm not the biggest believer in god. I do believe in taking time out to consider what I have to be thankful about, like our loving lord not blessing me with cancer to test my faith. I've even escaped being a Biblical Job entertaining god.

    I like Christmas. You don't have to believe in living snowman to like the story of Frosty. You don't need to believe virgins have babies to find the lack of compassion shown toward Marry and Joesph to be believable. I don't believe in the resurrection. I do believe if a god did return to earth people would mock him and then murder him.

    I digress. I like Christmas carols and fudge filled with California grown walnuts.

    I have done some great picture of churches and crosses. I especially love the old white wooden churches with bell towers and cathedrals.

    I grew up in Utah where temples have porthole like windows. I love the play of light within cathedrals as light pours through stained glass.

    How quick Christians are to negatively judge others.

  • The Atheist
    Aug. 21, 2010 11:50 a.m.

    Peaceful Warrior,

    Your response to Charles was well-stated.

    Your response to Re:Joggle was a bit off, however, as it is obvious that the majority OF THE PEOPLE did NOT ratify the Constitution at all. Only the very small minority of citizens of the original colonies/states who were elected as representatives actually ratified the Constitution.

    Indeed, it was a subject of much debate at the time how to justify the fact that the authority of government rested in "the people" (the majority?) and yet only a room-full of citizens were entering into a contract/compact that not only was binding on all those citizens of the "United States of America" at the time, but would continue to be binding on their posterity into the future! ("...to ourselves and our posterity...").

    So I think Joggle is correct, and hopefully you will go back and study more about the history of our country and be "shocked" yourself.

  • Jazzman72
    Aug. 21, 2010 11:39 a.m.

    I guess they shouldn't put up Thanksgiving and Christmas decorations in public schools, and they shouldn't put up Christmas lights in government buildings or on city streets. Those are all clearly Christian symbols.

  • Peaceful Warrior
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:44 a.m.

    Re:@Charles

    "The only ignorance shown is by you in claiming that atheists have a moral foundation that doesn't come from God. So please, detail it for us all.... "

    Morality is properly defined as a concern with the distinction between what is right and wrong and how to behave.

    A person has an ability to form an entire moral code without a belief in any God or Gods. While some atheists may have one moral code others may have a different moral code.

    The most basic moral code is to not harm others so they won't harm you and to let others live as they see fit so they will let you live your life as you see fit. Additional philosophical constructs exists that allow a person to have an entire moral code and not believe in a God or Gods.

    Morality ultimately comes down to what we believe to be right or wrong which helps us differentiate between actions.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:43 a.m.

    @jingle: You clearly don't understand what a strawman argument is....

    What key points have you made? None that I can see.

    Can you please show any piece of legislation that Congress has passed that established a national religion?

    Can you show where it say "separation of church and state" in the COTUS?

    Can you even show where a state has passed legislation to create a state religion?

    The fact of the matter is this ruling is a joke, just like your posts.

    Maybe you should read the entire 1st Amendment so you clearly can understand what is in it. Then you won't need to make your strawman arguments any further.

    It's pathetic the ignorance that citizens have today about COTUS and how SCOTUS has trampled all over it.

    Key points? Your post last night to me actually confirmed what I was saying all along and you don't even realize it.

    Atta boy!

  • The Atheist
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    It was this "atheistic ethics" as it was being worked out by the "Enlightenment" thinkers that informed the Founders. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was an admirer of the thinking of John Locke. John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government" were explicit, deliberate, and line-by-line rebuttals of Sir Robert Filmer's "The Divine Right of Kings". You could say Locke was "anti-religion" in arguing for what principles of morality/ethics underpin the "right to rule".

    Borrowing directly from Locke (some call it plagiarizing) in writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was effectively and deliberately incorporating not only SECULAR, and NON-theistic principles into his political philosophy, he was incorporating ANTI-religious arguments and a NON-theistic morality as the basis for the authority of government.

    That is why the Founders were very clear that that "authority" to rule does NOT come from religion, faith, or god whatsoever. Instead, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

    How obviously "secular" and "non-theistic" (shall we call it "atheistic"?) could they have been?

    God was surgically removed from politics by the Founders. Don't let the cancer take hold again.

  • Peaceful Warrior
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:31 a.m.

    Re:Joggle

    "Decisions made by a religious majority would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's or minority interest that the individual or minority would be actively oppressed is tyranny by the majority....and that is wrong."

    This may come as a shock to you but the interests of a majority must ultimately prevail even when we don't agree with it. You seem to falsely think the Constitution is a separate thing from the will of the majority but it is not. It was a majority and its representatives that ratified the Constitution and its a majority which can abolish it. It only has authority over us because the majority chooses to have it be a governing document.

    "The majority often gets to rule, but majority rule isn't always right....so the equal protection clause comes into play to protect minorities."

    The majority always rules even if its ruling comes in the form of its Constitution. It can allow that ruling to stand or it can amend or even abolish the Constitution if it deems it necessary to protect its interests.

    This is basic political philosophy. There is always a sovereign authority.

  • Sutton
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:31 a.m.


    "But please, do explain on what foundation do atheists base their morals and values -- namely the ones that don't come from God."

    _________

    Ask yourself this, who is the more moral, someone who does the right thing simply because they know it to be right, or someone who does it because they believe their god wants it and will punish them if they don't?

    Doing things out of fear of retribution or promise of payback isn't morality, it is cowardice and avarice.










    "Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right."

  • The Atheist
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:27 a.m.

    The history of philosophy (and science) is the story of how the foundations of "atheist ethics" have been worked out over thousands of years. That history extends back farther than religion, and will continue after reason brings "an end to all religions".

    The religion-makers (e.g., Paul/Saul & Peter, Mohammet, and various authors of various cultures) are the ones who borrowed "morals" from the secular platitudes, stories, and principles created by the "non-theists".

    The original "secular" thinkers invented "time" by looking to the stars and creating an ingenious pre-scientific understanding of the "cosmos" that could be transmitted orally through stories.

    The measured regularity, patterns, and order of the cosmos and the stories in which they were captured gave meaning to human existence and inspired social order. These pre-myths included pre-religious notions of justice, mercy, resurrection, redemption, and morality.

    The general principles of human "morality" and ethics from these proto-myths were captured much later in what are now ancient Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and other "mythologies".

    These were the foundations of religions and "the gods" - who were simply invented characters used to describe astronomical (and astrological) events, endowed with anthropomorphic characteristics.

  • Sutton
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:24 a.m.

    "...Because the full frontal assault in the world today is on Christianity..."
    ______________


    Some people cannot accept that their ideas have become irrelevant, that society moved on and is no longer interested in them, or find them as useful as they once were.

    People, also, cannot handle others (especially a minority) fighting back, or defending themselves.

    People sometimes interpret society's moving on, or fighting for their rights, as persecution because they lose the special position they once had, and they lose the power that came with that special position...

  • Jazzman72
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:18 a.m.

    Welcome to the United States of America, where the minority rules. You can't do anything in this age of PC for the fear of offending somebody.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 21, 2010 10:11 a.m.

    @Chuckyboy

    You provide no logical argument worth responding to and what little argument you do present is a classic definition of the "strawman argument" since you disregard most key points made by me and instead presents virtually no defense for your argument other weak an baseless statements.

  • Vanka
    Aug. 21, 2010 9:59 a.m.

    Joggle,

    Well said, Amen, and kudos for your 10:36 p.m. response to Chuckee.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 21, 2010 9:48 a.m.

    @Jingle: your first paragraph in your response to me is the admission and recognition that SCOTUS has gone astray from what COTUS actually says.

    Thanks for finally admitting that you are wrong and that SCOTUS has trampled on COTUS and we, the people.

    Your last paragraph is a straw man argument. You really need to take a critical thinking and logic class sometime soon.

    I'd also suggest that you really study up on US History, SCOTUS and COTUS before you come in here spouting off weak arguments.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 21, 2010 8:49 a.m.

    Decisions made by a religious majority would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's or minority interest that the individual or minority would be actively oppressed is tyranny by the majority....and that is wrong. The majority often gets to rule, but majority rule isn't always right....so the equal protection clause comes into play to protect minorities.

  • Jazzman72
    Aug. 21, 2010 6:45 a.m.

    Welcome to the United States of America, where the minority rules. You can't do anything in this age of PC for the fear of offending somebody.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 10:36 p.m.

    @Chuckee

    I understand that religion was a part of everyday life and in government at one time. I know the history. It doesn't mean that government has a right to support a certain religion according to the Constitution though.

    That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use.

    Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 20, 2010 10:01 p.m.

    @jingle: then you better go scrub the 10 commandments posted in the SCOTUS building and many other court rooms.

    Do you scrub In God we Trust off all your money too?

    better stop the prayers offered in the belly of Congress before each session begins.

    btw, where are the words separation of church and state found in the COTUS?

    You really need to take a remedial US History class to learn about how religion was a part of every day life and in government until a few nutjobs on SCOTUS started the war on God.

    It's a free land! Get educated!

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 9:58 p.m.

    @Chucky

    So you think godless people are dysfunctional, immoral, and valueless people! Support that statement with evidence that they are such and I will be happy to give you my rebuttal!

    By the way...I'm NOT an atheist!

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 9:49 p.m.

    And while I note the comments about Arlington Cemetary being comparable to crosses along a public highway, you must remember that Arlington Cemetary is a place where our fallen soldiers go to rest and they should be given the right, just like every one of us, to be buried in any way they choose. A cross is perfectly appropriate for fallen police on their graves as well. Cross or no cross, even if it is federal land, Arlington Cemetary and other cemetaries are something more private and special than crosses on a public highway.

    Fact is, if the religious symbols displayed alone, is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. The fact that the crosses were created by a private organization does not eliminate the apparent endorsement by the government of the display by permitting it on public lands. By permitting the display of the crosses in this particular physical setting, the government sends a message that it supports and promotes the Christian God whether intentional or not. For secularists, it sounds like a poor rationalization to say that the presence of secular symbols with public religious symbols permits the government to pay for the public display.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 20, 2010 9:21 p.m.

    @1Observer: agreed!

  • @Charles
    Aug. 20, 2010 9:02 p.m.

    @Jingle: I'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue regarding the foundation of morals and values.

    But please, do explain on what foundation do atheists base their morals and values -- namely the ones that don't come from God.

    And again, you make silly arguments about believers. You do know what a straw man argument is, don't you? You do know what a non-sequitur is too, right?

    Your post to me is full of them.

    Your whining about not being respected is funny. Why? Because the full frontal assault in the world today is on Christianity.

    Do yourself a favor and get educated on the issues instead of whining about poor you.

    You could take a lesson from SE Cupp and her critical thinking in her book Losing our Religion.

    The only ignorance shown is by you in claiming that atheists have a moral foundation that doesn't come from God. So please, detail it for us all....

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 8:31 p.m.

    Just to clarify....I, PERSONALLY could care less about those crosses being on PRIVATE property. The intention is good. Both sides have ligitimate points. However, I do see the bigger picture and why atheists fight this kind of battle. The bias and ignorance thrown at atheists is wrong. I see religious domination and influence that permeates society in this country...yet we have religious people screaming persecution and predicting doom based on religious dogma that society will fall apart without religious belief when history tells us religious society is responsible for some very atrocious events. Nobody will ever take your religion away from you, but the thing atheists, agnostics, humanists and others object to is: although Christians may profess to be doing a good deed by sharing their religion with others, in reality it's very often the case that they are simply not treating non-believers with the respect and consideration they deserve as a different belief. Misconceptions abound! Non-believers don't proselytize or promote their beliefs for the most part, however they do speak up on religion's wish to be a dominant force in law so much as to oppress a minority.

  • 1Observer
    Aug. 20, 2010 7:14 p.m.

    Re: Charlie91342

    In the early days of this country, people were jailed for taking the Lord's name in vain. Yes, this was post-Constitution. Admittiedly quite drastic by today's standards. The Constitution is about tolerance and respect for other belief's, obviously something you have not mastered. It was never intended to sanitize society from any religion. All you would have to do is go back to the organic writings of the drafters to learn this for yourself. As for the crosses, I really don't care one way or the other. I simply believe the court got it wrong. There are crosses and other religious symbols throughout this country on public land. Who cares? It doesn't make me believe one way or the other. If you are so threatened by the image of a religious symbol on public property then you should re-examine the strength of your own allegiance to your convictions.

  • zoar63
    Aug. 20, 2010 7:04 p.m.

    common_sense | 3:14 p.m. Aug. 19, 2010
    The fact of the matter is, the cross is a well known religious symbol. To argue otherwise is silly and surely everyone knows that. I do not want to see any individual religious symbols on public land; whether they be Islamic, Satanist, Scientologist, Buddhist or Christian. I mean, would you guys be comfortable seeing a cross, right next to the upside down pentagram (the symbol of satanism). Well, im sure some of you probably would be comfortable seeing that. What I am trying to do, is to get people to use a different perspective; how would you feel if you saw symbols of religions that were completely opposite to what you believed sitting on land that your taxes pay for?

    --------------

    I guess you have never been to Normandy France then, There are thousands of crosses, (not markers) which mark the graves of fallen soldiers. It is the largest American Cemetery from WW2. Maybe the courts should rule those unconstitutional also. Your taxes pay for its upkeep by the Federal Government. What is the difference between that and crosses honoring fallen policeman?

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 6:52 p.m.

    @Charles

    Since you more than likely have never studied atheism even to just learn about it I will regard your statements as based on ignorance.

    Religion and gods are NOT needed in order to have values. Religious believers who see morality exclusively in terms of their god and religion are as unable to recognize this. The simplest explanation for morality or values in human society is the fact that human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function...even atheists do. As social animals, we can no more exist without morality than we can without a heart. To say an atheist/non-believer etc. has no basis for morality is a fallacy.

    I can't imagine that you have any basis on which to base your judgement. Afterall, many god-fearing people have been or are immoral or lack values.

    But the real question is this: are Christian beliefs more likely than atheist beliefs to produce people who perform heinous actions or immoral acts? Certainly atheists have never shown this to be the case, but some religious people ignorantly continue to believe it is the case.

    Ignorance is alive and well in Utah.

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 20, 2010 6:42 p.m.


    "Endowed by their Creator" should be put in context with the time. Darwin hadn't published Origin of a species yet and genes were unknown. They had only words in the existing language they could use.

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 6:20 p.m.

    @cindyacre

    "Endowed by their Creator" in the Declcaration of Independence does NOT name any specific creator and certainly no specific god or religion. My definition of "creator" can be different than yours. The Constitution is what our government is based anyway.

    Lack of any religious words in the Constitution does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, but does indicate they wanted to separate church from state.

    Decisions made by a religious majority would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's or minority interest that the individual would be actively oppressed is tyranny of the majority. Examples's are: Same-Sex Civil Marriage, homosexual discrimination, mandated school prayer, faith-based initiatives, Faith-Based Sex-Education, religion-based social services and more.

    Of course, most laws in our country are far from "confining" or "tyranny". Religious commandments and covenents similiar to secular law does not mean law is based on religion, but rather it makes sense as universal law. It doesn't take religion to point out that murder is wrong....for example! Those laws are not even what I'm talking about when I mention tyranny per my explanation above.

  • the truth
    Aug. 20, 2010 6:02 p.m.

    RE: charlie91342 | 10:48 a.m.

    We are NOT talking going back to the past we are talking what does words in 1st admendment mean,

    perhaps you join us in taht coversation,


    more history

    during the time of the founding father's:


    9 of the 13 colonies had an official state religion,


    States gave monies to help churches to be built.



    Theoir intentions and th application of 1st admendment during thoer lifetie was quite clear.



    those arguing agianst religion use words and phrases not found in the constitution,

    AND they ignore how it was applied and originally interpreted and understood.


    And by the way, your believing that everything in the past was evil and terrible, is just not so, that is VERY SIMPLISTIC thinking, and very superficial in understanding.



  • The Atheist
    Aug. 20, 2010 5:30 p.m.

    To all the "anti-Atheists",

    Let me speak your language:

    "But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Matt. 8:22

    "Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:60

  • @Charles
    Aug. 20, 2010 5:27 p.m.

    @Jingle: Goodness comes from God and no one else. Outside of that, your straw man argument is baseless.

    Why do people like you enjoy putting words in other's mouths?

    As for atheists being good, since they don't have a basis for their values and morals (except for stealing them from God while in the same breath denying Him), I'd say they can't be good.

  • cindyacre
    Aug. 20, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    Many of the founding fathers were not members of organized religions of their day, but to call their religions persuasion atheist is wrong - in their writings they all talked of God, and approved of the Declaration of Independence that states that our rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are from our common Creator.

    I don't understand what religious tyranny you speak of - does anyone come to your home and threaten to kill you if you don't belong to their religion? Does anyone bullly, force or coerce you to think the way or dress the way that they do? That, to me, is tyranny.

    There are laws in our country - to help to keep us all safe and bring fairness (in principle and practice) to life, but they are far from "confining" or "tyranny". It is through obedience to law that we are free - from the tyranny of lawlessness. So it is in most religions - to live according to commandments and covenants is a personal choice. That freedom of choice should not be offensive to anyone, for we ALL have that freedom. So, what is the problem?

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 3:19 p.m.

    @Charles

    Perhaps you should consider NOT wearing YOUR faith on your neighbor’s sleeve! It is a biased misconception by the religious that doubters, skeptics, non-believers etc. are somehow less or not as good because of their non-belief. Goodness doesn't come from religious belief since religious people have no patent on goodness. It comes from being a good person. Whether you believe or not is irrelevent.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 20, 2010 3:06 p.m.

    My Dear Dear Stalwart Sentinel: I will tell you from the outset that I love you, no matter your political persuasions.

    However, you have failed to show where Congress passed a law that has established a religion. Are you able to do that? If not, then it is you who is unable to actually read and understand the 1st Amendment.

    Unlike you, I don't bow down to precedent by any court, specifically when SCOTUS ignores what the Constitution actually says. There are many examples of SCOTUS completely ignoring the very words of the COTUS.

    You can do your own research to find out the state religions of the 13 states. It's a free land! Get educated!

  • Joggle
    Aug. 20, 2010 2:39 p.m.

    Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive its powers from "We, the People" and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies, and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to tyranny was to entangle church and state. That is why they adopted a secular constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary.

    Atheists/agnostics etc. are stepping up to fight against religious tyranny, for there are surely those fighting as hard as they can on theocracy’s behalf to establish religious dominance. Conservative Christians are in battle mode over their perceived right to force their religion on all Americans. Attempts to portray themselves as the victims only makes sense in that they are weakening. Fortunately, atheists/agnostics etc. are putting up resistance to religious tyranny just like the religious did when they sought religious freedom. Rather than fight for control, we stand up for freedom. For all the Christians who wear their faith on their neighbor’s sleeve, there are also those who truly embody the noble spirit of fairness.

  • Pagan
    Aug. 20, 2010 11:23 a.m.

    'Would anyone who is against the "mosque" and for the "crosses" be willing to explain to me why a mosque on private property is wrong but a cross on public property is okay?' - Sorry Charlie! | 10:23 a.m.

    The Mosque is on private property.

    The Cross is on public property.

    I agree charlie, many do not seem to understand the difference.

    If you want to build a Mosque on your property, you have a constitutionally protected right to do so.

    As, the cross's are on very much PUBLIC property, they must represent all, or at the very least NOT one group of Americans.

    As not all Americans believe in the religious symbol of a cross.

    Regardless of the flavor of religion (Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Buddist, etc) answering to the public you must make adherence to ALL denominations...

    or, at the very least, something that does not favor any.

    A shield would be acceptable.

    A cross is for those who only believe Jesus died on a cross.

    And does not represent the diveristy if America that makes us strong.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 20, 2010 10:48 a.m.

    re - Sorry Charlie! | 10:11 a.m

    "Actually, the pentagram predates Christ by about 3000 years. Like many symbols, holidays, and rituals it was co-opted by early Christians as a way to ease the transition from heathen or pagan religions into Christianity."

    everything in christianity predates Jesus. Most of the stories in the bible (adam and eve, noah's ark, water to wine, most of the miracles) were all created and written on stone around 2500BC by the hunter/gatherers who worshipped multiple gods. The bible merely consolidated them into one book and changed the names. December 25th has been a religious holiday since 2000BC...

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 20, 2010 10:42 a.m.

    re - the truth | 6:12 p.m

    "MOst what you have uttered in nonsense and drivel"

    thanks! now can you be more specific?

    "During the time of the Founding fathers, when they were still alive and running things, there was religion in school, the congressional press publish religious materials, they hosted church and chruch meetings in government buildings, there was prayer,
    they had official ecclesiastical positions, government building had religons symbols and artwork through out them, and they often invoked God and religion in speeches"

    that was 1776. Blacks were slaves. women couldn't vote. and people were probably still being burned at the stake for being witches. the word evolution may not have even been invented yet. I'm not sure if they even knew the earth was round. so I don't get your point.

    Back then, everyone except a few people believed in God. There were very few other religions. Now there are thousands.

    why are you still stuck in the 16th century?

    "if you say that was the wish of the founding fathers, that is an absolute bald-faced lie"

    founding fathers would understand present day circumstances and get rid of the crosses on the hiway

  • Sorry Charlie!
    Aug. 20, 2010 10:23 a.m.

    Okay - wait - I am really confused here.

    We have several stories this week on a proposed building in NYC being built by Muslims which may or may not be a mosque and the general consensus is that, even though it is private property and the Muslims have a right to build there, it is insensitive for them to do so and they should just voluntarily buy other property some where else to build their building.

    Then, we have this story about crosses being erected on public property and, even though the majority of Americans consider the cross to be a religious symbol and Constitutionally these crosses should not be put up by the state on public property, many of those who are arguing that the Muslims are being insensitive also think that those who are offended by the crosses should be less sensitive and get over it.

    Does anybody else see a contradiction between these two positions? Would anyone who is against the "mosque" and for the "crosses" be willing to explain to me why a mosque on private property is wrong but a cross on public property is okay?

  • Sorry Charlie!
    Aug. 20, 2010 10:11 a.m.

    @ TKO78: Actually, the pentagram predates Christ by about 3000 years. Like many symbols, holidays, and rituals it was co-opted by early Christians as a way to ease the transition from heathen or pagan religions into Christianity.

  • TKO78
    Aug. 20, 2010 8:31 a.m.

    re- Charlie91342 2:46 p.m.

    "it is a christian memorial. on public land. and it's not even a "marker" it's a monument."

    "answer me this. If it were a huge pentagram instead of a cross would you still be ok with it?"

    Actually, the origin of the pentagram is also Christian in nature. The 5 points of the star represent the 5 wounds of Christ. Over time the symbol has adopted other meanings but it once was a "Christian" symbol as well.





  • dbrown1447
    Aug. 20, 2010 5:56 a.m.

    Let's get something straight up front. We are Atheists, not Athiests.

    We are all around you. We serve as firefighters, police officers, nurses, surgeons, doctors and teachers. All we ask is that this great nation follow the Constitution, a document where god and Jesus are mentioned zero times. A large segment of our founding fathers were atheists and/or nonchristians, and wouldn't be caught dead inside a Christian church. Jefferson. Washinton. Adams. Paine. Madison. Franklin. Allen.

  • 1happycamper
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:19 p.m.

    geez! I don't see where a CROSS is hurting anyone. Good grief folks--get a life and LEAVE IT ALONE! life goes on.....

  • wrz
    Aug. 19, 2010 7:24 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    "I will defend Islam with the same fervor as I defend Mormons, or Catholics, or Jews, or Wiccans."

    Would you defend Islam if it insisted in installing Shariah Law in, say, your home town... and insisted that your wife and your daughters wore the burka or else.

    Don't laugh, I predict England will have Shariah is just a few decades. I have English friends who see it coming. There are some enclaves of dominant Muslims in this country who are contemplating the same thing.

    "If you feel the Constitution is divinely inspired, put you money where your mouth is -- and defend it."

    It is divinely inspired. But the founding fathers had no idea that America would have to deal with other religions besides benign Christianity. That part they got wrong.

  • Sutton
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:33 p.m.

    "what if the officers were gay, and the huge monuments were two men kissing! how would that go over?"


    __________________


    It would be ok, because two Gay men kissing does not represent Homosexuality!!!(Like Crosses don't represent Christianity)

    ;-)

  • Pawtucket
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:25 p.m.

    In California, sections of roadways are dedicated to fallen officers with appropriate signage. More information, less controversy.

  • the truth
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:12 p.m.

    RE: charlie91342

    MOst what you have uttered in nonsense and drivel

    and full faced hate toward religous speech and public expession,


    The founding father had MUCH involvement of religion on the public square,

    During the time of the Founding fathers, when they were still alive and running things,


    there was religion in school,


    the congressional press publish religious materials,


    they hosted church and chruch meetings in government buildings,


    there was prayer,

    they had official ecclesiastical positions,

    government building had religons symbols and artwork through out them,


    and they often invoked God and religion in speeches and talk,




    The intentions of the founding fathers was quite clear.


    There is no separation church and state, NO hostilty towards religion in the public square,



    To say no money is to be spent for any religous purposes,

    and the government and the public square must be devoid of any thing religous,

    is just plain wrong

    and if you say that was the wish of the founding fathers,

    that is an absolute bald-faced lie.


    which REAL and ACTUAL history belies.



  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:05 p.m.

    re - Breeze | 4:57 p.m

    "If it was just a badge looking little sign that would not say anything to anyone about the reason it's there."

    and yet when you drive by these crosses, they look like just big crosses - the "memorial" part that indicated what they are for is very small. so they don't indicate to the passer-by that they are for a fallen officer - they simply say "hi - I represent christianity".

    if you really wanted to put up something so people would know it was a memorial to a fallen officer, you would have put up a sign saying "dedicated to fallen officer "xyz" for his dedication and service. We love you".

    now that I can appreciate.

  • realitycheck247
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:00 p.m.

    I just have to ask, if for no other reason than to get the point across -

    if the fallen officers were gay, and their families wanted their memorials to be two men kissing, would you be ok with big statues of men kissing on your freeway?

    think about it.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 5:58 p.m.

    re - Breeze | 4:57 p.m

    "They cannot be something different than a cross. If it was just a badge looking little sign that would not say anything to anyone about the reason it's there. People passing by wouldn't know that it was an officer who gave his/her life for us! Seeing the cross communicates that fact to us and a sense of reverence and appreciation, for that person it is representing, comes over us."


    I have asked this numerous times and not seem a post answer it yet, so I'll ask again.

    if the officers' religion was devil worship, and the memorials were upside-down pentagrams or some other devil symbol, would all you Utah christians be ok with that? Big huge devil symbols along your freeway!

    if your answer is that it would bother you, then you have answered your own question of why these crosses are a problem. because all you are saying is that it's ok if they represent your religion but not if they represent a religion you don't like.

    what if the officers were gay, and the huge monuments were two men kissing! how would that go over?

  • Pawtucket
    Aug. 19, 2010 5:27 p.m.

    Does anyone appreciate the irony of all the Christians railing against this court decision, about the exclusion of Christian symbols on PUBLIC property, while simultaneously ranting about government’s failure to exclude an Islamic mosque on PRIVATE property?

    The majority of Americans are Christians, but that does not mean that America is a Christian county. It is fundamental that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

  • Breeze
    Aug. 19, 2010 4:57 p.m.

    They cannot be something different than a cross. If it was just a badge looking little sign that would not say anything to anyone about the reason it's there. People passing by wouldn't know that it was an officer who gave his/her life for us! Seeing the cross communicates that fact to us and a sense of reverence and appreciation, for that person it is representing, comes over us.

    I wish I knew what I could do to be the voice on the opposition. To be as loud as the athiests. Big deal. Give me a break. Just because I don't believe in the Jewish Religion, I can still respect them and their symbols and not have a problem. It's consideration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 4:56 p.m.

    re - Last Stand | 4:05 p.m

    "Do these monuments really reflect a religious endorsement by our government?"

    yes. if I was driving through Utah and I saw a bunch of huge crosses I would think I was in a christian state.

    why did you make them so big?

  • Joggle
    Aug. 19, 2010 4:24 p.m.

    Here's how majority rule and minority rights works for those who don't quite get it!

    Without majority rule the framers believed that our country would be subjected to a tyrannical government but they also recognized that they needed to protect the minority. First, majority rule is the concept that policies will be determined by what the majority of the people decides. While this majority of the people decide for everyone there have been laws set forth in the Constitution that protect the basic rights of minorities regardless of race, gender, religious affiliation or sexual preference. Secondly, minority rights are the basic rights attributed to certain minority groups to ensure that they attain equality and have a voice in political decisions even when the majority wins over them. These two are related to each other in that the framers designed our government to restrict or impede the majority from hindering or taking away the rights of the minority. These two have a distinct relationship in our government even though they seem opposite of each other, because even though the majority has a higher voice in our society the minority cannot have their rights taken away from them.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 4:16 p.m.

    re - common_sense | 3:14 p.m

    thank you for providing some common sense. your name fits you.

    I'm not atheist, christian, wiccan, nor a devil worshipper.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 4:11 p.m.

    re - stillwater | 3:07 p.m

    "Consider keeping the crosses in the ground. Place a really nice large "Seal of the State of Utah" right across where the members of the cross come together. You get the best of both worlds. You cover the supposed objectional cross, but the cross now becomes the supporting timbers to hold up the seal."

    why not put new posts on the sides of the cross-member and a plaque with the officer's name so we can read it and feel for his family's loss? plus it would stand up to the wind better. or is it just your way of camoflauging your religious symbol?

  • Last Stand
    Aug. 19, 2010 4:05 p.m.

    The problem is, in this country, we are concerned too mucy about offending the slightest minority that it's got to the point of ridiculous. Do these monuments really reflect a religious endorsement by our government? Or are a vocal minority being placated by these activist judges because for some reason they find religion threatening?

  • common_sense
    Aug. 19, 2010 3:14 p.m.

    The fact of the matter is, the cross is a well known religious symbol. To argue otherwise is silly and surely everyone knows that. I do not want to see any individual religious symbols on public land; whether they be Islamic, Satanist, Scientologist, Buddhist or Christian. I mean, would you guys be comfortable seeing a cross, right next to the upside down pentagram (the symbol of satanism). Well, im sure some of you probably would be comfortable seeing that. What I am trying to do, is to get people to use a different perspective; how would you feel if you saw symbols of religions that were completely opposite to what you believed sitting on land that your taxes pay for?

  • stillwater
    Aug. 19, 2010 3:07 p.m.

    I cannot believe what is happening in this country! Minorities seem to rule.

    Consider keeping the crosses in the ground. Place a really nice large "Seal of the State of Utah" right across where the members of the cross come together. You get the best of both worlds. You cover the supposed objectional cross, but the cross now becomes the supporting timbers to hold up the seal.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 3:04 p.m.

    re - Willie | 2:13 p.m

    "Did they all swear on the Bible before their opening statements????"

    no they didn't. only christians do that. just like crosses.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 3:03 p.m.

    re -- MADRYBEG | 1:29 p.m

    "I guess there should not be churches either because athiests are offended?"

    churches are on private property. the atheists didn't have to pay for part of it. but they did have to pay for part of the hiway.

    "The cross is a memorial of a fallen trooper, not a church!"

    then why did you use crosses? why not a pentagram?

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 3:01 p.m.

    re - wrz | 1:00 p.m

    "Jesus is in us and we in him."

    spoken like a true christian. no wonder you like the crosses.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 3:00 p.m.

    re - wrz | 1:00 p.m
    ""If Jesus died, HOW did he die? He was crucified."
    No, no. He gave up his life freely. It was not taken... He said: "No man taketh it from me, but I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John 10:18"


    dude... come on... how do you even say that with a straight face? a bunch of people nailed him to a cross and left him for days up there, or so the story goes.

    are you saying the story isn't true? or that he could have escaped from his captors?

    sure he didn't put up a fight but that's a far cry from giving it up freely.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:56 p.m.

    re - TKO78 | 12:56 p.m

    "I am surprised at the close-mindedness of all those who have turned this into a religious battle (once again) rather than recognize it for what it truly is which is a tribute to those who have sacrifed their lives for our safety."

    how can you possibly not know that a cross is a religious symbol? seriously? you think it is benign? has no meaning?

    if a cross has no meaning then why was it used? there are millions of different shapes to choose from - why pick a cross? I can tell you - it's because most people in America are christians and crosses mean something special to them. so a cross as a memorial makes sense.

    all I can say is that if the police dept had been made up of mostly devil worshippers, and pentagrams or devil symbols were used for these monuments, all of you would be freaking out right now. and you know why? because putting a huge religious symbol along the hiway implies the state "approves" of that religion. so a huge pentagram would imply Utah is a devil and witchcraft state. y'all would go nuts!

  • Thomas Jefferson
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:50 p.m.

    @ willie:

    No, but dont let that stop you from looking foolish.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:48 p.m.

    re - JustJerry | 12:46 p.m

    "Isn't it really all about a certain people trying to kick God out of America? May God have mercy on America and hedge her from harm"

    hate to sound like a broken record, but... who's God are you talking about? yours or mine? because they are NOT the same.

  • Not So Good
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:47 p.m.

    Re: Pagan and charlie91342

    Why not just try being a litte less sensitive? I mean, does a symbol, no matter what it might represent, really bother you that much? I doubt it. We see right through your hollow statements to find your real agenda to eliminate all religion. What other points are on your immediate agenda? Let me guess: eliminate tax credit for all churches; force churches to recognize any type of marriage; sieze private property of churches; etc, etc, etc. until all traces of religion are wiped clean. I still can't help but wonder why you're so threatened by religion, especially in a country that does not force you in ANY way to believe one way or another...

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:47 p.m.

    "Did they all swear on the Bible before their opening statements????"

    There's no requirement to swear on a Bible. You can affirm.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:46 p.m.

    re - TKO78 | 12:56 p.m

    "It is a memorial, not a religious marker for Christians....are you annoyed at every memorial you see regardless of its shape?"

    it is a christian memorial. on public land. and it's not even a "marker" it's a monument.

    answer me this. If it were a huge pentagram instead of a cross would you still be ok with it?

    and if it was just a small cross that would be one thing. but they are huge. why can't you be more like Montana? I know you like huge temples, but does everything have to be huge?

    and reply to the pentagram question pls.

  • Willie
    Aug. 19, 2010 2:13 p.m.

    Did they all swear on the Bible before their opening statements????

  • Pagan
    Aug. 19, 2010 1:50 p.m.

    'The cross is a memorial of a fallen trooper, not a church!' - MADRYBEG | 1:29 p.m.

    Then they should use a symbol of the trooper.

    Not a church.

  • MADRYBEG
    Aug. 19, 2010 1:29 p.m.

    I guess there should not be churches either because athiests are offended? The cross is a memorial of a fallen trooper, not a church! I am sick at my stomach at this ruling. IT is unconstitional.

  • wrz
    Aug. 19, 2010 1:00 p.m.

    @Pagan

    "Cherry pick much?"

    Only when they ripen.

    "If Jesus died, HOW did he die? He was crucified."

    No, no. He gave up his life freely. It was not taken... He said: "No man taketh it from me, but I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John 10:18

    "While I have the deepest sympathy for them, they are not Jesus."

    Jesus is in us and we in him.

    "And while sacrifices were made, they were not crucified."

    The crosses are not there to indicate any kind of crucifixion or religion. They are there to remind that officers died on those spots in the line of duty... And that all who drive Utah roads should be reminded to give extra thought to safe driving.

    "We are not supposed to put one religion over another, and yet we have example, after example of people trying to do just that."

    How could a devise used to prop up my grape vines have any relation to religion?

    "As for the tomb, still a far cry from the Easter bunny."

    Are you saying there was a bunny in the tomb? You're sick.

  • TKO78
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:56 p.m.

    re: charlie91342

    It is a memorial, not a religious marker for Christians....are you annoyed at every memorial you see regardless of its shape?

    I am surprised at the close-mindedness of all those who have turned this into a religious battle (once again) rather than recognize it for what it truly is which is a tribute to those who have sacrifed their lives for our safety.

  • JustJerry
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:46 p.m.

    Isn't it really all about a certain people trying to kick God out of America? May God have mercy on America and hedge her from harm.

  • Pawtucket
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    As has been noted a least once in earlier posts, there are no crosses on the graves at Arlington National Cemetery, just plain headstones with a small space for display of a symbol of the veteran's choice, which can be a cross, a Star of David, a crescent, or an atom, among other things. Crosses and the occasional Star of David are used to mark the graves at US cemeteries in Europe.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:35 p.m.

    re -- Bucky | 10:51 a.m

    "How can one be Athiest? The definition means "without God(s)", but in order to believe that there is no God, one would have had to met a God to believe that he or one does not exist."

    on the other hand, common sense says that to believe in a God one must have met one.

    when did you meet God? (and I'm not an atheist but your post amused me)

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:33 p.m.

    Isn't there an amazing irony in calling yourself a Christian and only praying for god to bless America? This is as ironic as printing god's name on the medium of exchange used to traffic drugs and to fund the sex trade.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:31 p.m.

    re -- 1Observer | 10:29 a.m

    "The courts have zeroed in on the establishment of religion phrase but are overlooking the free exercise allowance."

    you are fee to exercise your religion any way you want, just not on land I helped pay for.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:29 p.m.

    re - ToBeConsidered | 11:48 a.m

    "Just out of curiosity, do Atheists use U.S. currency, which is loaded with religious references, or do they just use their debit cards all the time?"

    atheists aren't the only ones that think the markers should be non-religious in nature. they are simply the ones that bring it to light and do something about it. do you need examples of other religions that take the lead on things, like prop 8?

  • 3grandslams
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:22 p.m.

    Pres. Obama declared the importance of the first amendment screaming for religious freedom. If he feels a muslim mosque can be built on ground zero for that reason, surely christian crosses can be place along the highway. What gives liberal thinkers?

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:20 p.m.

    re -- TKO78 | 11:29 a.m.

    "maybe all of us who are upset by this decision should go get thousands of crosses and start lining the "public" highways for the sole purpose of annoying all those athiests who are destroying this wonderful country!"

    do you really think only athiests were annoyed seeing the crosses? I would think anyone that has a religion other than christianty would be annoyed.

    everyone else would think "what makes those christians think they are so special they can put up big crosses on a hiway I helped pay for?"

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:17 p.m.

    re -- Morgan Duel | 11:17 a.m

    "I totally disagree with the 10th Circuit Court. This Nation is one Nation under God and we are a Christian Nation."

    yes, and it's 1830, not 2010. so there is no need to debate a mosque being built near the site of 9/11 because there are no muslims. and wiccans didn't really need to petition the gov't to allow their fallen soldiers to have the wiccan symbol on their headstones because there are no wiccans.

    and tom cruise isn't really a scientologist, he's a closet christian... (although I don't think scientology is a "religion" as much as a "club" since they don't actually worship any deity)

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:06 p.m.

    re - jacobmightywon | 10:47 a.m

    ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof""

    putting big crosses along the hiway on gov't owned land establishes christianity as the state religion. so it is "the gov't establishing a state religion".

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:03 p.m.

    Put the crosses on private land and it becomes a non-issue. why is that so hard to understand?

    most hiways just have a certain width of public land and then it is land owned by someone. Just move the crosses back to the private land.

    of course the private land owner might not be a christian and may not want a big cross on his/her land, but since it looks like everyone in Utah is a christian, it probably wouldn't be an issue.

  • Silence Dogood1
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:59 a.m.

    Move the cross bar down and make it a 'plus' sign.
    Surely no one can sue over a 'plus' sign

  • BubbaHuey
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:56 a.m.

    The cross was accepted a a religious symbol YEARS after Jesus's crucifixion.

    The cross was used as a form of capital punishment and it did not end with him.

    Also note, that the LDS church has said nothing on the matter. The church does reconginze Jusus as a devine, but recognizes the resurrected person, not the mode of death.

    The cross in various forms were used in religions in years BC.

    Yes, I an not totally in favor of crosses.
    The markers perhaps should vary based upon the preference of the families of the fallen and a variety be available for choice.

    Please note that Arlington National Cemetary does have headstones bearing crosses.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:48 a.m.

    re - @Charles | 5:56 p.m

    "I'm sorry, but can Brian Barnard or any atheist please show me the piece of legislation from Congress that has established a national religion?"

    by putting crosses along the hiway it says that the state is a christian state.

    "Crosses stay. Atheists and Barnard can go jump in a lake."

    would you say the same thing it they were Wiccan symbols?

    "God Bless America!"

    who's God? yours or mine?

  • ToBeConsidered
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:48 a.m.

    I agree with previous posts, I've never thought of the memorial markers as being religious symbols. I always felt sad that someone died at that spot.

    Just out of curiosity, do Atheists use U.S. currency, which is loaded with religious references, or do they just use their debit cards all the time?

  • Pagan
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:43 a.m.

    'No. He was put in a tomb.' - wrz | 10:52 a.m.

    Cherry pick much?

    If jesus died, HOW did he die?

    He was crucified.

    On a cross.

    Not the highway patrol.

    While I have the deepest sympathy for them, they are not jesus.

    And while sacrafices were made, they were not crucified.

    We are not supposed to put one religion over another, and yet we have example, after example of people trying to do just that.

    Watch 'The Passion of Christ' if you don't believe me Wrz.

    As for the tomb, still a far cry from the easter bunny.

  • charlie91342
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:41 a.m.

    re - sg | 1:09 p.m
    "amazing that a group from tx had enough sway of the courts for something in another state"

    kind of brings the whole utah mormons vs california prop 8 thing to mind, huh.



    re - John Charity Spring | 1:16 p.m
    "The courts have been railing so hard against that principle that they now attack even non-religious symbols such as these markers."

    they ARE NOT non-religious symbols. A cross is a symbol of christianity. everyone in the world (except you) knows that.

    "It is time to return to the intent of the Founding Fathers by realizing that the Constitution forbids the government, including the courts, from attacking religion."

    I thought you said they aren't religious symbols? if they aren't religious symbols, how is this "attacking religion"?



    re - Durfee | 1:22 p.m
    "What a ridiculous ruling. Should we go rip all of the crosses out of the Arlington National Cemetery?"

    only cristians have crosses in arlington. other religions get their own symbol. even wiccans get their own symbol on their headstone.



    re - KM | 3:04 p.m
    "they disparrage our Christian roots"

    "our" roots aren't christian.

  • Last Stand
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:36 a.m.

    Re: wrz @ 10:59

    Actually the Supreme Court has already determined that the due process clause of the 14th amendment applies the first amendment to States, as well as local governments. That being said, I strongly disagree with this court's interpretation that placing these monuments is somehow an endorsement of any religion by the state.

  • Not Asleep
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:33 a.m.

    All the military graveyards across the world constitute precedence, don't they? The cross as mentioned has been a symbol of death for centuries. The cross, in the instances of these memorials, does not, on its face, embody a religious symbol. I think they are straining at gnats with this one.

  • TKO78
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:29 a.m.

    This ruling is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Since the officers cannot be honored for their selfless sacrifice in this manner anymore, then maybe all of us who are upset by this decision should go get thousands of crosses and start lining the "public" highways for the sole purpose of annoying all those athiests who are destroying this wonderful country!

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:25 a.m.

    What does a cross near a highway have to do with your rights to religion? It effects you beliefs or your church? That's unbelievable. What if these were Islamic symbols. We would have conservative Christians protesting them and bombing them.

  • Morgan Duel
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:17 a.m.

    I totally disagree with the 10th Circuit Court. This Nation is one Nation under God and we are a Christian Nation. We were founded by Christians. The men who fought to earn our freedom so long ago were Christian. Had they been Islamic, or Hindu or Buddhist I doubt this would be a Nation of Freedom, otherwise Iraq, Iran, and China would all be free now.

    The 10th Circuit has committed blasphemy in their ruling.

  • dumblond
    Aug. 19, 2010 11:17 a.m.

    wrz | 10:59 a.m. Aug. 19, 2010--"The US Constitution states that 'CONGRESS shall make no law respecting establishment of religion...'

    It does not say that states cannot do it.

    I hesitate posting this observation in case Muslims happen to be reading this thread."

    Laughing, laughing, laughing . . .

    I gotta go do something productive, the paranoia and foolishness has officially reached the top, and threatens to overflow!! I don't want to get any on ME, it could be Contageous!!!

  • wrz
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:59 a.m.

    The US Constitution states that 'CONGRESS shall make no law respecting establishment of religion...'

    It does not say that states cannot do it.

    I hesitate posting this observation in case Muslims happen to be reading this thread.

  • wrz
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:52 a.m.

    @Pagan

    "Oh! Is THAT what they did to Jesus?"

    No. He was put in a tomb. Maybe we should ban all tombs. Would make just as much sense as banning a piece of material with a dead officer's name scribed across it.

  • Bucky
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:51 a.m.

    I have one question. How can one be Athiest? The definition means "without God(s)", but in order to believe that there is no God, one would have had to met a God to believe that he or one does not exist.

  • jacobmightywon
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:47 a.m.

    The founding fathers never intended to restrict religious worship or religious expression to private venues. Their object was to prevent the government from interfering with religious worship and from making mandates restricting it. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Atheists' claims that America was founded to exclude religion are completely groundless. Free exercise is free exercise. Denying the free exercise of Christian worship is exactly the kind of oppression America is against. America exists because the God of Israel responded to our pleas for deliverance from such oppression.

  • What the . . . ?
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:39 a.m.

    Mike Richards | 8:24 a.m. Aug. 19, 2010--"When the judiciary serves itself and tries to be popular, we get this kind of ruling."

    Indeed, Mike. This is a popular ruling. You've read all these posts, right? Lol.

    If each poster on this board (or the state of Texas, or Utah, or?) had an "In" or "Out" vote on these judges right now, they'd be "Out". Wouldn't you agree?

    Makes your post seem kind of silly and irrational.

    The reason for lifetime appointments? To remain above politics and popularity contests in order to conduct the business of protecting the rights of (all)our citizenry. Even if, it seems at times, it is from themselves and their short-sightedness and ignorance.



  • 1Observer
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    The courts have zeroed in on the establishment of religion phrase but are overlooking the free exercise allowance. Poor ruling but to be expected in our increasingly godless society. Is it any wonder that we see increasing trouble in our society and on the horizon as we continue to push any reference to a morality-based creed from our public discourse. Rarely does a people remain good and moral without some tie to Diety to encourage them to self regulate. The more we push God from our lives the more selfish and ego-centric we will become. The end result will be little different from a pack a ravenous animals. May God have mercy on us!

  • mosbyjim
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:27 a.m.

    Sticks and Stones. Why do some people have such thin skin?

  • LuVePacifica
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:21 a.m.

    interesting comments
    residents of salt lake

  • Pagan
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:15 a.m.

    'wrz | 9:35 a.m. Aug. 19, 2010
    These are not religious crosses. The cross piece part of the cross is needed so that the name can be read across not up and down.'


    Oh! Is THAT what they did to Jesus?

  • Fred Vader
    Aug. 19, 2010 10:13 a.m.

    "Utah Trooper Crosses are Religious Symbols and violate the US Constitution, and they must come down" says the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals from their federal court house which displays the "non-religious" ten commandments!?

  • Last Stand
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:56 a.m.

    Pagan,

    I'm a conservative and I'm not asking that the constitution be changed. I'm demanding that the constitution be interpreted CORRECTLY, which in this case it cleary is not.

  • wrz
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:51 a.m.

    @shamrock

    "...I agree with the federal court that a cross is a deeply religious symbol."

    It might be a symbol that some Christians use but I use a cross to tie up my grape vines.

    The Highway Patrol uses it to inscribe the names of fallen officers. Nothing more and nothing less. Most if not all officers who died on Utah highways are Mormons who do not recognize or use the cross at all.

    As some have already pointed out, Arlington Cemetery is filled with crosses. I wonder if the defense cited this situation in its arguments?

  • voluntaryist
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:51 a.m.

    When i die, I want a big hand with the middle finger up for everyone to see. Oh, and bury me on the steps of the capitol.

  • dumblond
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:48 a.m.

    Wow!! We have some Constitutional scholars on this board!

    the truth | 5:52 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010;
    @Charles | 5:56 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010;
    dumprake | 6:01 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010

    You should be commended for your in-depth analysis of the Constitution, your superlative critical thinking skills, and, in dumprakes case, obvious qualifications as a Supreme Coart nominee.

    Hello, Obama? Are you listening?

    Well, you would surely have MY vote!

    Uh-oh!!

    Gotta go . . . Here come the underwear police!!



  • MMM
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:46 a.m.

    It is too bad that people who don't believe in anything won't let others honor those who serve our state and keep us safe.

  • wrz
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:35 a.m.

    These are not religious crosses. The cross piece part of the cross is needed so that the name can be read across not up and down.

  • CB
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:28 a.m.

    We really need to thank these people for sparing us the angst of these odious markers. Unfortunately they mingle among us and we don't know whom to thank. Perhaps if they wore a big A in the middle of their foreheads it would be easier to identify them. After all they should be really proud of their victory over these memorials.

  • Not So Good
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:22 a.m.

    I drive by this memorial twice every day, to and from work. I've probably passed it some 3000 times in the last 8 years. Never once has it crossed my mind that it was some sort of religious endorsement by the state. The idea that certain people would be unduly influenced or would supposedly feel discriminated against because of these memorials is utterly ridiculous.

  • Last Stand
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:16 a.m.

    patriotandmore,

    No way the atheists would ever submit to this issue being decided by the people, because they know they would lose HUGE!! We're no longer a country were majority decides. The activist judges are taking over, fueled by the liberal extremists.

  • ST
    Aug. 19, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    I guess Atheists have nothing better to do than go around opening up old wounds of the families of officers who were killed?
    That's a very civil and kind thing to do isn't it.
    Maybe they could adopt this slogan: "why spend your life beening nice when you can go around being mean!"

  • John20000
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:54 a.m.

    To all atheists: Lighten up!

    You believe you are the most supreme beings in existence and are deeply offended when viewing a government created cross memorial that represents the existence of a more supreme being than yourself. Legally, you win, but come on. Are you really that offended?

    Freedom of religion guarantees that you won't be compelled to frequent any religious worship, nor be molested by government in your free exercise of religious worship. I support this right because it protects my worship of my creator.

  • Pagan
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:51 a.m.

    Conservatives last week:
    Defend the constitution!
    Defend the constitution!


    Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional
    Immigration, unconstitutional
    Crosses on goverment property, unconstitutional

    Conservatives now:
    Change the constitution!
    Chante the constitution!

  • JBrady
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:45 a.m.

    Honoring the officers should be the only priority, not the shape. As others have mentioned, use a badge or beehive. Or maybe the court would allow the family to choose the shape, according to his religious belief.

  • John Adams
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:42 a.m.

    This is the result of a fascist mentality.

    It's time to reapply the Judiciary Act of 1802.

  • dandy
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:26 a.m.

    What about rights for officers? That ruling is insane and the people who called for it to happen need a reality check. Guess the stones with any sort of religious reference need to be replaced at Arlington since it's on federal property. Who's going to pay that cost???

  • dell
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:25 a.m.

    Is there a simpler, clearer way to say UHP officers died than with the standard grave emblems? As long as the families of officers have a choice (i.e crescent, star of David, or a big A for Atheist) so their loved one is not misrepresented, how is this a problem?

  • Mike Richards
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:24 a.m.

    When the judiciary serves itself and tries to be popular, we get this kind of ruling.

    Had any of the justices taken the time to even read the 1st Amendment, they would have realized that CONGRESS is prohibited from passing legislation pertaining to AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

    There is no "establishment clause". Congress could endorse any religion it wished all day long as long as it made "no law pertaining to AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion".

    A 7th grader, taking his first steps into grammar, learns the difference between "AN" and "THE". Apparently the justices don't even understand middle-school grammar, to say nothing about their ability to read and understand the Constitution!

  • raybies
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:19 a.m.

    I fail to understand why this ruling is at all necessary. I've seen Japanese Anime that use Crosses to symbolize death, though the fantasy world they've created are entirely devoid of any religious point of view whatsoever. Were they covertly attempting to endorse christianity? I've a friend who develops videogames and is staunchly areligious who uses the cross for graves because it is a universally understood symbol. Is he covertly attempting to endorse christianity? Hardly. Not all Christians even use the cross as a religious symbol--so even the Christains disregard this idea. Were they posting a crucifix with a Jesus attached to the cross, I might agree with the ruling, but this is absurd. WHy is it even a lawsuit? Are we really a nation so critical of each other that we can't engage in our own free ability to interpret our environments without taking offense. IMO, there should be as many religious symbols in the public eye as possible, and we should stop keeping score as to what religion appears more here or there.

  • Still Jim
    Aug. 19, 2010 8:04 a.m.

    Hey we have to remember the atheists formed the nation so we should be respectful to them. Oh wait...I might be wrong. It is interesting how they have forced their ideas on everyone including our children but they stand on the constitution...that is right "on the constitution" when someone differs with them. Honesty, decency and integrity have been trampled.

  • Tomphoto
    Aug. 19, 2010 7:49 a.m.

    Hello 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and all other judges who cater to the minorities of this country...you better get busy and start taking down every cross in our national cemeteries based on your bias decision on these memorials to our fallen heros. Get real...and people wonder why this country is so messed up?? Thanks judges!

  • A Conservative
    Aug. 19, 2010 7:20 a.m.

    To The Atheist:

    The significance of placing a marker on public lands reminds us of the Police Officer(s) who have died in the protection of us as citizens. There aren't very many crosses on the roads and one has to really push it to have to "put up" with those crosses rather than all the advertising we have to put up with.

    The cross is a religious symbol when used in context of a religion, but this is not done in that context. Therefore, it is not a lie as you claim.

    The ruling is not sound. The ruling actually does create a law about religion where there was no law on any religion done by the placement of crosses on the side of the road.

  • Cat
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:52 a.m.

    When there were knights and people fought with swords and one of them died, they would often drive the sword into the ground as a marker that someone died in combat. So instead of saying that they are crosses, we could say that they are symbolic swords for a warrior who died in combat. I know that I like to think of police officers as knights in shining armor.

  • patriotandmore
    Aug. 19, 2010 6:14 a.m.

    Put it on the ballot in November. I think you'll see the vast majority of citizens want the memorials to stay where they are.

  • wwookie
    Aug. 19, 2010 5:45 a.m.

    Since when does the government decide what symbols are religious and which ones aren't? Don't I have free speech? Can't I say that a cross represents a juncture or crossroads in one's life? I didn't see the words "Christianity is symbolized by these crosses" anywhere on these memorials. What a ridiculous and non-sensical decision. Only shows how weakened the American mind has become. One person interprets this to be Christian so no more crosses. Eliminate the letter x and t from the American-English Alphabet too. No more keyboards with these letters can be owned by the government. The premise is ridiculous.

    To be consistent the courts have to also respect my interpretation of what is and isn't a religious symbol. If I have a small group of people with the opinion that octogons are a religious symbol, I can eliminate all stop signs from being posted on government owned right-of-ways.

    We need justice, not the variable 'policital correctness'.

  • Pete1215
    Aug. 19, 2010 5:40 a.m.

    Are those athiests nuts? Are they trying to make people outraged? Don't they have better things to do with their time?

  • firstamendment
    Aug. 19, 2010 1:41 a.m.

    If the police who died decided before they died that they wanted a cross, then they have every right.

    There are many government run cemeteries, those who want crosses have crosses. At Arlington National Cemetery there are many crosses, and all graves get a Christmas wreath each year.

    I’m sure I shouldn’t say that with pagan around, he doesn’t want people to have religious rights, right pagan? He's opposed to rights for religious people to vote on moral issues, and all that. ; )


    And the Atheists, ACLU or someone will certainly join his cause to root religion out of our breasts……; ) just messin pagan, but we know it’s true.

  • Devan
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:16 a.m.

    1) Most of crosses are not on public land. For example my Dad's memorial near Strawberry Reservoir is on donated private land.

    2) The Atheists group has decided where they stand by attacking anything that resembles religion.

    3) This case could open up a box to remove crosses all across cemeteries. Let's see who all the vets feel about this one.

  • ClarkHippo
    Aug. 19, 2010 12:16 a.m.

    Don't all of you understand that atheism is the new state religion of America?

    Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" makes no bones about the fact he would like to see religion completely wiped out in both the U.S. and throughout the world. And there are many who agree with him, including a good number of federal and state judges.

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 18, 2010 11:35 p.m.

    It’s nice when things are simple. I’m glad to photograph crosses. I’m happy that there is no mil spec for how people view death. One man’s cross is another man’s Star of David. People want a government defined uniform death symbol?

    I’ve photographed more graves than any person I know. Yes, I have some cool crosses. I also have angels and other symbols. I’m expert in the aesthetics of burial grounds. You see very strong symbols used in death. Strong symbolism makes for strong images.

    I love the bright red used for the blood of Christ. In Germany death is orderly. Americans have a beverage can view of death. You see this as you study the graves of ghost towns and old settlements,

    If you seek to be alone, go to a veteran’s cemetery, on Memorial Day.

    Headstones are broken, the weeds and the tall grass hides the graves of paupers. Most graves have no markers. You can see the depressions of graves without gravestones. We cast of any responsibility to the dead like a beverage container thrown into a dumpster.

  • Marine
    Aug. 18, 2010 11:31 p.m.

    To: THe Atheist.

    Likewise, We want you to do the same and keep to yourself as well and stop forcing your beliefs on others. These crosses are a symbol of death. When I see them I drive a little better through the area and then I feel some respect for the fallen officer who served for my safety. I can't just put them in a grave and forget about them.

  • K
    Aug. 18, 2010 11:28 p.m.

    I am pleased that Utah legislature had no problems with the crosses. After all LDS typically shun such symbols.

    I love how a Texas group can tell the state of Utah what to do and no one bat an eye? Utah group (not exactly accurate) and California there is a different perspective. Hmm?

  • Mithrandir
    Aug. 18, 2010 11:00 p.m.

    Bizarre ruling, yes. But ultimately the issue at hand isn't religion. It is the foolish notion of "public land". If there is "public property" then everyone wants their share of the say-so. How can everyone who owns the "public land" get their say-so? Of course, they can't. Under this false notion of "public land" the atheists are just getting their fair share. After all, the religionists get Arlington, why shouldn't the atheists get the freeway?

    The only solution to issues like this is to recognize that all property should be private. Yes, even roads. Yes, even national parks. Yes, even capitol buildings leased to the government by private individuals.

    I know that's extraordinarily radical for anyone who made it through enough comments to get this far, but test it against every single public property issue and see if doesn't work: protests at General Conference, mineral exploration in barren Utah deserts, retrieval of treasure from the ocean floor, hookah bars, renting to gays, disposal of slag, Legacy highways, advertising along I-15, and on and on...

    Let's give liberty a try.

  • Moderate
    Aug. 18, 2010 10:52 p.m.

    Arlington Cemetery does not have crosses.

    They have rows of headstones, not crosses.

    Some of the headstones have crosses carved into them, some a Star of David, some have nothing.
    But the shape of the Arlington monuments is not a cross. Go to arlingtoncemetery website and check out the photo section.

    You're probably thinking of a rows of crosses in European cemeteries.

  • OnlyInUtah
    Aug. 18, 2010 10:16 p.m.

    Our present court system stinks.. I think it's time to get new judges!

  • doitanyway
    Aug. 18, 2010 10:07 p.m.

    The demise of America has been slow in coming but gaining speed on the downhill. 'Tolerance', 'freedoms', and 'rights' have been nitpicked onto their deathbeds. Frivolous litigation is becoming the norm. You want your rights but quash mine to get them. Just add this to the list of things that are degenerating our country.

    I am a Christian, don't display crosses, and never once think of religion when I see a cross on the side of the road. I think of a sad and tragic death and grieving loved ones.

    I see things all the time that are offensive, and then remind myself that those who do it have that right. I look away, avoid it if I can, and never once think of suing.

    I would love to know: Does Atheism foster negativity and complaining, or is it the other way around?

  • onceuponatime
    Aug. 18, 2010 10:06 p.m.

    If Athiests truly do not believe in God then why fight it. After all if ther is no God there is no right or wrong and we are just a bunch of chemical reactions in the brain. So get off your high horse and leave religion alone.

  • USAlover
    Aug. 18, 2010 10:04 p.m.

    Atheism is so inspiring, isn't it?

  • Gary
    Aug. 18, 2010 9:56 p.m.

    Seems times are a-changing. Simply change the crosses to something else that memorializes a dead person and it will catch on to others. It doesn't have to continue being a cross like the churches use as part of their religion. I personally have never thought of crosses being church related when it was posted to show a dead person died. But reading this article, it makes sense to me and the judge ruled correctly. It's time to change things so that the country adheres to the Constitution regarding religion. And if wondering if I am LDS? Yep I am.

  • USAlover
    Aug. 18, 2010 9:45 p.m.

    When will the President of the United States no longer be able to say "God Bless America". That certainly is an endorsement from the President of religion.

    We are done as a powerful nation. Done....

  • Be Practical
    Aug. 18, 2010 9:41 p.m.

    It is not inappropriate to honor a fallen officer by acknowledging his sacrifice to the community at some other location besides his grave. Symbols can have more than one meaning. (Unless you truly believe you can pierce my heart with your mouse pointer). While a cross is indeed a symbol of Christianity, it is also more universally recognized as a symbol of death. (What other symbol comes to mind?) If the predominate religion of this state wanted to impose its religious views on the community it would not be in the form of a cross, there are no crosses on or inside LDS churches or temples. The 10th circuit simply got this one wrong.

  • Stenar
    Aug. 18, 2010 9:01 p.m.

    GOOD! Those crosses are creepy.

  • shamrock
    Aug. 18, 2010 8:39 p.m.

    I think it's a great idea to have memorials to honor the fallen UHP troopers, but I agree with the federal court that a cross is a deeply religious symbol. It's almost Orwellian to think otherwise.

    If the cross isn't religious, then I guess the Star of David isn't either, and it's just a coincidence that the UHP chose a cross. So everyone's cool if we construct all future UHP memorials in the shape of a six-point star, right?

  • lifeOnEarth
    Aug. 18, 2010 8:32 p.m.

    life after death a belief most people believe this..
    paying respects to thier family of those kiiled

  • the cat nextdoor
    Aug. 18, 2010 8:24 p.m.

    Beautiful photograph. Probably could be displayed in a museum without any ruling against it.

  • byronbca
    Aug. 18, 2010 8:16 p.m.

    Almost every simple symbol in the world is a religious symbol to someone somewhere. People need to place things into context. When I went to Arlington Cemetery I wasn’t so naive or ignorant to think that that was a super religious place, because as an American I recognize that in graveyards crosses symbolize someone’s death, that they are grave markers. The same is true when I see a cross on the side of the road with someone’s name or picture on it.

    Anyone who sees a cross with someone’s name on it other than Jesus Christ and thinks it’s religious is flat out ignorant of American culture.

  • by george
    Aug. 18, 2010 8:13 p.m.

    Look out Arlington Cemetery! We're going to get you next!

  • byronbca
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:59 p.m.

    Congratulations Texas-based American Atheists, Inc. On your victory on becoming officially the biggest bigots in the world. Their insensitivity is remarkable.

    I’m not a religious man but getting rid of crosses that represent someone’s death on the pretense of religion is beyond ridiculous. Crosses are symbols that represent many different things, in this case they represent dead bodies not Jesus Christ.

    Are there any old cemeteries on public land? If so should we get rid of all the crosses on those? There is a difference between the separation of church and state and eliminating religion from public view. This court really missed this one.

  • ChrisNSuz
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:57 p.m.

    Wait, let me be more clear. I am a Christian and a family member of a fallen officer. The ruling was absolutely appropriate. Using any other form of memorial would be every bit as honorable, and would expend approxiamtely 2 to 3 more calories of effort. In life, these officers showed acceptance and respect to all of their fellow citizens that they endeavored to serve. Do not now dishonor their sacrifice by using them in a debate that is best argued in another manner and in another forum.

  • So Cal Ute
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:52 p.m.

    atheist beliefs do not make sense and are depressing. Try not to let your negativity ruin everyone elses day.

  • Vanka
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:48 p.m.

    The Athiest,

    Despite your calling me a "loose canon" the other day, I loved this quote:

    "We just want you to keep your superstitious hangups to yourselves and stop using public property, public money, and public office for your advertising and recruitment efforts!"

  • Stalwart Sentinel
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:40 p.m.

    To@Charles - You state "what I am saying is that anyone who interprets the 1st Amendment different from anything that it actually states, has misinterpreted it and their misinterpretation is invalid."

    In actuality, what you are saying is that you refute the Constitution. Just admit it, there is Constitutional precedence and you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with it. The fact that you do not know to include the 14th Amendment in this discussion (see Everson v Board of Education) is an indictment of willful blindness. It is truly sad when Americans such as yourself turn a blind eye to the Constitution and the SCOTUS rulings respecting it. You live in a free land, inform yourself for heaven's sake!

    Also, re: 13 original states and religion - I believe MA (maybe others) just required that people have a faith, I'm not sure it had a state sanctioned religion. Let me know what you find. On that note, you may want to look into the life of William Penn and what he was subjected to for insight into the terrible idea that is state sanctioned religion.

  • big sal
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:38 p.m.

    i always thought it was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

  • SimonSays
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:37 p.m.

    One Nation, Under GOD .... Not "One Nation Under some or other invisible, nondescript force ..." Come on people ... this is silly.

  • Led Zeppelin II
    Aug. 18, 2010 7:15 p.m.

    Freedom of religion is unconstitutional? Our politicians and judges are destroying the constitution by making freedom and the constitution unconstitutional. God bless America from this evil empire!

  • The Atheist
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:52 p.m.

    If you want to memorialize these fallen officers,feel free to place a cross on the location where they are buried. Burial plots are "private property" and you are free to express your religious faith on your private property as you wish.

    But the side of the highways and roads are public lands. Nobody is buried there. What is the significance of placing a marker at the location of a person's demise? It clutters the roadways and "forces" everyone who travels along those public roads to have to put up with those crosses. If we want to remember and pay tribute to fallen officers, we will drive to the graveyard and do it there.

    Anyone who claims the cross is not a religious symbol is violating one of the primary teachings of most religions, as well as an important principle of (atheist) ethics: Thou shalt not lie.

    This was a sound ruling. Contrary to the lies believers spread about atheists, we are NOT "anti-christian". We just want you to keep your superstitious hangups to yourselves and stop using public property, public money, and public office for your advertising and recruitment efforts!

  • sports fan
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:47 p.m.


    That Makes Sense beat me to it. the LDS church does not use crosses or have any specific symbol at all. this is a really crappy ruling.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:44 p.m.

    @whitegold: what I am saying is that anyone who interprets the 1st Amendment different from anything that it actually states, has misinterpreted it and their misinterpretation is invalid.

    I don't care about precedent when said precedent is incorrect according to what the Constitution actually says.

    Are you aware that all 13 original states actually had state religions? Seems like it's us "intellectually superior" folks of the 20th and 21st centuries that can't understand plain English.

  • RAB
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:40 p.m.

    The ruling and the lawsuit are example of how athiest extremists are tearing apart our constitution in favor of their own selfish world view. No just law whatsoever can stand up against nitpicking of such extreme proportions.

    No doubt, the state's decision to use religious symbols was not entirely respectful of those who do not believe in such things. But supporting a lawsuit against it is equally wrong. It is just as wrong for government to remove the crosses as it is for government to install them.

    Its just another example of how seperation of church and state is impossible. It will not happen until we figure out how to disect minds so we can seperate a person's religious philosophies from his non-religious ones.

  • VA Saint
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:31 p.m.

    Let's bring it before The Supreme Court!! It is NOT an endorsement of religion, rather a memorial for those who have passed before us.

  • 1happycamper
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:30 p.m.

    Crosses really disturb a true atheist. A true ATHEIST cannot handle a cross mentally or physically any way shape or form. They are taboo to ALL Atheist.

  • KM
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:20 p.m.

    not scared
    There you go again confusing repubs with conservatives. Its true that a progressive repub can nominate a leftist judge. sabe?

  • That Makes Sense
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:20 p.m.

    So as a graphic/environmental display designer I cannot ever use a vertical line crossed by a horizontal line to display text on government property? If I move the horizontal crossing bar to the top of the horizontal line then is it OK? A single vertical bar also has religious significance to some people so that is out! And most law-officer badges include a 6-pointed star which of course endorses Judaism. So crosses, circles, squares, Ts, stars, and triangles are banned.

    The majority of people who see a white cross on the side of the road think, "Someone would like to remember with reverence and gratitude someone who died here." In other parts of the world instead of crosses they use little adobe shrines, or latices strung with flowers. They all mean the same thing, someone we loved died here. They don't mean the state endorses a religion here.

    Progessives are ruining community and culture around the world. Fight on rational-thinking majority. Shun the fringes of the left and right.

    (BTW--Any bet the judges didn't understand that the predominant religion in Utah doesn't use the cross as a religious symbol?)

  • whitegold
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:19 p.m.

    The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit the preference of one religion over another. Putting the state symbol on a 12 foot tall cross does seem like a very clear preference.

  • ChrisNSuz
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:05 p.m.

    I am a Christian and I applaud this ruling. There are millions of ways of memorializing fallen heroes without using religious symbols. Chalk one up for the good guys!

  • roqson
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:02 p.m.

    Atheists do not believe in live and let live. You are the ones who are determined to ram your religion down everybody's throats. The Prop 8 ruling and this ruling both are in earnest dsires to continue to support one state religion - atheism. Look at the Prop 8 Judge's ruling: it is nothing but religious ranting, including calling heterosexualism a "sin". Crosses have long been a sign of reverence and honor to the dead. They haven't been a sign of "I'm forcing my religion down your throats" since the spanish conquistadors. At least one good thing comes out of the two stupid rulings: the atheists are finally beginning to admit that they have religion.

  • dumprake
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:01 p.m.

    Good grief, this is absurd. This is an allout, no holes barred assault on religion--especially christianity. The justices are wrong, completely wrong, they've been anti-American and anti-religion for decades. Clearly, these judges have no clue about the intent of the constitution, they should all be impeached. They are unAmerican, and illiterate about the constitution.

  • CRM
    Aug. 18, 2010 6:00 p.m.

    The 1st ammendment to the constitution is, in a circutous way, protecting the federal Government from theocratic control rather than the other way around. To do this our inspired fore-fathers inserted the 1st ammendment as a way of making certain that government was separted from religion. Rememberances of theocratic despotism within England were etched firmly in their minds. We've come to accept the notion that this grand ammendment is more about freedom of religion rather than freedom from religion. It does, however, serve both camps equally well.

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:58 p.m.

    Patriot it won't be as bad as Bush and conservatives left it. I've looked. Where did you get the names of the Judges. I suspect many were appointed by republicans like Judge Walker was.

    Why when you don't get your way, you automatically blame liberals and call them communist? explain how Obama was a socialist has he made millions on the free market selling books to willing buyers. Why don't you stop with the childish name calling and pony of one fact?

    You're darn right, I'm proud to be an American veteran. It's a shame the word "patriot" has been so devalued.

    BTW Russia is no longer a communist nation.

  • @Charles
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:56 p.m.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

    I'm sorry, but can Brian Barnard or any atheist please show me the piece of legislation from Congress that has established a national religion?

    Also, please show me where the phrase "separation of church and state" are located in the Constitution.

    It's pathetic that people can't read what the 1st Amendment actually says and live by it.

    Crosses stay. Atheists and Barnard can go jump in a lake.

    Time for Christians to stand up to the anti-Christian crowd that permeates our judicial, executive and legislative branches of government. It's also time to turn the tables on the Lame Stream Media and their anti-Christian on slot.

    I refuse to call them the Mainstream Media because they actually don't represent the mainstream of America. They represent the nutjobs on the Left and Right who want to destroy this nation.

    God Bless America!

  • the truth
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:52 p.m.


    IT is shocking how twisted intrepttations of tthe constitution is becoming main stream.

    The ACTUAL constiturion says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...


    What LAW was made here by allowing crosses?

    NONE!


    "an establishment of religion"

    is a church, organizided sect, a religious club or organization


    again what LAW did CONGRESS make respecting any of the above?

    NONE!


    What in the Constitution says that government must never recognize religion?

    NOTHING!

    In fact history shows during time of founding fathers, religion was welll interleaved and intertwined in government and schools and the public square.

    there was never any intention by th founding fathers to separate religiosity and government,

    IN fact they said for this new republic so succeed it required a religious people.


    POlITICAL CORRECTNESS, and twisted misrepresentations of what the constitution ACTUALLY says,

    IS DESTROYING our rights and freedoms.


  • L
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:51 p.m.

    A "cheap" solution might be just a small white board across the top (or the bottom) and then it wouldn't be a cross anymore. Maybe it could even say "in Memory Of" , "A Life of Service", or "died in Service."

    I do however disagree with the court that they should be prohibited.

  • Wid
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:47 p.m.

    Is Arlington National Cemetery next. Is that not thousands of crosses on government land?!

  • whitegold
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:47 p.m.

    If you want a symbol of death use a skull and cross bones, or a skeleton, or maybe a sythe. The cross is a religious symbol, the UHP is a state symbol. Putting them both together violates the First Amendment.

  • Sorry Charlie!
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:44 p.m.

    @ Clarissa: Like you and this ruling?

  • Sorry Charlie!
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:43 p.m.

    @ New Mexico: The "mosque" in New York is on private property.

    Believe it or not, there is a difference between public property and private property.

  • patriot
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:37 p.m.

    Ahhh - makes you proud to be an American. Yes sir, a communist in the White House and atheist activists in the courts. Maybe in 20 years we will be a mirror image of Russia!!!

  • FargoUT
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    I actually don't see a problem with the crosses, but if it is to memorialize, it should reflect the religion of the slain officer. To argue that the cross isn't a religious symbol does a disservice to the cross, which is extremely religious in nature.

    Maybe they should just use the cross as a support structure for something, like the UHP logo with the officer's name emblazoned on it. Then you could have a win/win!

  • Schwa
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    Conservatives claim to love the Constitution, and then promptly ignore it. I'm sorry that the Constitution of the United States of America does not always go your way. But it is the supreme law of the land.

  • Kass
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    @ Question: So, you agree with the Utah Legislature that there is nothing special about a cross, it is just another shape?

    So then why does it matter if we change it?

  • Schwa
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:33 p.m.

    If these monuments were made in the shape of a Crescent Moon y'all would be at the capital building with torches and pitchforks.

  • Clarissa
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:31 p.m.

    This whole thing is ridiculous. We use crosses at Halloween to decorate and no one thinks anything about it. What a waste of money. If the family of the slain officer objects then let it be changed. I do not wear crosses, but I know it represents a place of death. Any other marker would just not be as noticible to me. Why don't they donate their time and energy to help teaching a child to read or volunteer at a hospital. Do something worthwhile. The dumb things people get all worked up over.

  • zinnia
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:24 p.m.

    Atheists do not believe in crosses... They believe in live and let live. The cross is a Christian thing. Christians look at the cross as a place where Christ died for all mans sin. The cross is a reminder to all Christians of what Christ went through for each one of us, and in remembrance of humility as a symbol of Christ sacrifices. This all depends on how you want to look and interpret the cross. People do not wear the cross to remember torture(LAME THINKING) but wear it in remembrance for what was done for our salvation.

  • New Mexico
    Aug. 18, 2010 5:10 p.m.

    But the Muslims can build a mosque near ground zero, all in the name of religious tolerance....
    Yep, makes perfect sense. The backlash is growing to a boiling point. Where and how will this all end?

  • 2 bits
    Aug. 18, 2010 4:35 p.m.

    I may be wrong, but last time this subject came up, the UHP said they do give the family of the officer the option to use a different memorial style, just all have choosen the white cross so far.

    It's not a big deal. Don't get all worked up over it. They'll find another way to remember the fallen officers.


    IMO... political-correctness is getting a little petty now days if you ask me (I know, you didn't). But we have to learn to deal with it. It's the world we live in.

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 18, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    "This Country was founded on the principle that the public religion of the nation must be protected from government interference."

    Please cite were you or anyone has been stopped by the government from practicing your region, sending out missionaries or from purchasing or distributing religious materials.

  • Question
    Aug. 18, 2010 4:19 p.m.

    If UHP made the memorials in the shape of a triangle would it be a problem as well? They could be construed as depicting a pyramid (a religious symbol).

    Or a square? Square is often a symbol for earth (some people worship earth/nature). It also has symbolic meaning to Freemasons. And to some it represents the four caridnal directions, four seasons, four cosmic elements (sun, moon, planets, stars), the four prime elements (fire, earth, air, water). The square has spiritual symbology.

    Almost all geometric shapes can have some spiritual/religious meaning.

    Why is the cross the only shape that would inspire this type of law suit???


    Because these people are not actually A-theist. They are anti-Christian. There's a difference. They only target christian religious expression, not all religious expressions.


    If something like a minora or a star-of-david shaped object showed up on rural puplic land like this, do you think they would sue??? I don't.


  • Bubble
    Aug. 18, 2010 4:09 p.m.

    @ KM: Uh, yeah - you better re-read the story. The Utah Legislature is the one that attacked religion by declaring crosses no longer a religious symbol.

    The atheist is trying to protect your religion by maintaining the sacredness of the cross.

  • Pagan
    Aug. 18, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    'They overrule the will of the people in CA.' - KM | 3:04 p.m.


    The constitutional 14th amendment is against the will of the people?

    'They ignore the will of the people in lower manhattan...' - KM | 3:04 p.m.

    The first amendment, which protections freedom of religion is against the will of the people?

    I don't think of this as a 'Us vs. Them' idea.

    I think of it as crazy people against the constitution and the country our founding fathers built.

  • Catwoman
    Aug. 18, 2010 3:42 p.m.

    a Cross isn't religious...

    Do they honestly think we all that stupid?

  • Sutton
    Aug. 18, 2010 3:29 p.m.

    "Cross is a symbol of death? Its a symbol of Christ's sacrifice."

    _____________________



    and not every American Police officer believes in Christ...


  • KM
    Aug. 18, 2010 3:04 p.m.

    Our country has been take over by progressives. They invite terrorists here for protections of our legal systems. They overrule the will of the people in CA. They ignore the will of the people in lower manhattan. and they disparrage our Christian roots whenever possible, "this is no longer a christian nation," you know.

  • Doctor
    Aug. 18, 2010 2:48 p.m.

    Cross is a symbol of death? Its a symbol of Christ's sacrifice.

  • Pagan
    Aug. 18, 2010 2:31 p.m.

    Some may be upset about this ruling. To them I would say:

    'Federal judge dismisses Summum suit against Pleasant Grove' - By Dennis Romboy - DSNews - 06/04/10

    Line:
    'A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the city that claimed it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing a Ten Commandments monument but rejecting one showing the Salt Lake-based religious sect's beliefs. The clause in the First Amendment prohibits government from adopting a national religion.'


    With that out of the way, I fully agree with SLars.

    'SLars | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 18, 2010
    Make them in the shape of a police (UHP) badge.'

  • LuVePacifica
    Aug. 18, 2010 2:29 p.m.

    Those thoughtful
    crosses are no Bother
    In memory
    to a fallen officer on duty~

  • LuVePacifica
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:54 p.m.

    Crosses are not bothersome thiers only a few.
    Only paying a tribute to a fallen officer who has been killed on duty

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:51 p.m.

    National cemeteries solved this by letting the family of the deceased decide between crosses, stars of David and other symbols. California names highways after deceased officers. It's as clear as a mountain stream that using cross is using a symbol used by most Christian churches.

    Why do Christians from the time of forcing Jews to convert, through various inquisitions feel they have the right to shove their religion on to others?

  • Kass
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:43 p.m.

    @ sg: I am confused by your comment. You state that the cross has no religious meaning and then state that things would be different if the cops who had died were Muslim.

    If the crosses are non-religious, then what does the religion of those buried under them have to do with anything?

  • Maudine
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:25 p.m.

    @ SLars: I like the idea of making them in the shape of a badge - a great way to honor the service and sacrifice.

    @ Bearone: In most military grave yards, the symbols/shape of the headstone reflects the belief system of the individual buried in that particular grave.

    If the purpose of the marker is merely to indicate that a member of the Highway Patrol died there while on duty, there are many other symbols that can be used - such as the suggestion by SLars.

    No one is saying these spots cannot be marked, they are just saying they have to be marked by a non-religious symbol.

  • Durfee
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:22 p.m.

    What a ridiculous ruling. Should we go rip all of the crosses out of the Arlington National Cemetery? Clearly these crosses are meant to be memorials and not a push for any particular religion. So because some atheists are offended, those who would pay tribute to fallen officers don't have the right to do so in the way they see fit.

  • John Charity Spring
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:16 p.m.

    This is yet another case of judicial tyrants imposing their will on the citizens. The federal judges in this case have turned the Constitution on its head and legislated from the bench in order to reach the decision that they personally intended.

    This Country was founded on the principle that the public religion of the nation must be protected from government interference. The courts have been railing so hard against that principle that they now attack even non-religious symbols such as these markers.

    It is time to return to the intent of the Founding Fathers by realizing that the Constitution forbids the government, including the courts, from attacking religion.

  • sg
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:09 p.m.

    amazing that a group from tx had enough sway of the courts for something in another state. You know, if it really bothered them that much, then don't travel on Utah highway. The cross is a symbol of a death; it has nothing to do with religious beliefs; the 3-judge panel should be fired. They are out of touch with the will of the people and do NOT have an understanding of the separation of church and state. I bet if these cops were muslim it would be a whole different story.

  • Bearone
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:04 p.m.

    I can not believe or accept this ruling!!! This is one of the most asinine rulings to come out of this court in years!
    If those crosses had any indication that they were promoting religion, it might be different, but these 'monuments' indicate that a perosn gave his life in the service of others.
    Does this mean that those thousands of servicemen buried around the world will now have the 'crosses' taken from their resting places because some atheist group wants to make a name for themselves?
    I'm sorry, but I am very angry about this and hope that the funds can be raised for this to go to the Supreme court!

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 18, 2010 1:01 p.m.

    "A joint resolution by the Utah Legislature in 2006 declared the crosses were nonreligious symbols"

    Hmm, where did anyone get the idea that a cross was a religious symbol in the first place?

  • SLars
    Aug. 18, 2010 12:57 p.m.

    Make them in the shape of a police (UHP) badge.