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

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'.


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.


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.

A Conservative

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.


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!

Still Jim

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.


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.

Mike Richards

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!


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?


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???

John Adams

This is the result of a fascist mentality.

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


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.


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!


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.


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!"

Last Stand


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.

Not So Good

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.


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.


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.


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.

to comment

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