Comments about ‘Judges rule against Utah highway crosses for fallen troopers’

Return to article »

Utah's attorney general strongly disagrees with appeals court

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 18 2010 12:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits

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.

New Mexico

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?


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.


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.


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


@ 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?


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.


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!


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!!!

Sorry Charlie!

@ 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.

Sorry Charlie!

@ Clarissa: Like you and this ruling?


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.


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


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.

the truth

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?


"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?


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


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.


"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!


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.


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.


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.


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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments