Comments about ‘Judges hear suit on crosses’

Is this really a debate? What does the cross represent, other than the obvious archetype it has been for over 2,000 years?

I wish the UHP would on its own choose another symbol. I think the crosses are in bad taste, I'd like to see a monument similar to the Washington monument, similar in size or a little shorter than those crosses.

atheist fundamentaism is worse than religous fundmentalism - freedom of religion is not freedom from religion

How are "crosses" a religious symbol? Just because some religions (excluding Mormons, Jews and Muslims) use them doesn't make them religious. The fact that this is in Utah where the majority is mostly Mormon strongly indicates that the crosses aren't religious symbols especially considering that those defending their use are probably those who don't believe that they should be used to represent the living Christ.

"Appeals Court Judge David M. Ebel told attorneys defending the crosses that Utah's declaration that the crosses are not religious doesn't necessarily make it so."

Please explain to us why the majority Mormon Utah would put up religious symbols that they don't even put on their buildings? Tell us Dave? It's obvious that you are ignorant otherwise you would understand that simply because Christ died on them doesn't mean they are religious.

You have to prove that Utah is trying to endorse a specific religion or religious practice but if you have any brain you would understand they wouldn't promote a religious practice that isn't accepted by the majority of Mormons including the officers who died (most of whom would be Mormon).

Because LDS members don't use a symbol in their faith that makes it a non-secular symbol? So government in Utah is defined by LDS belief? (non-sarcastic)

What would you say the symbol means? I think if you asked someone what person or act it represents, or meaning the cross has, the answer would be religious in nature.

But if your answer would have been "a non-secular symbol of death" then sure put them up.

But please give an example of secular use of the cross in the context of death.

Lets face reality, here. The criminals don't want any acknowlegement or honor paid to the law enforcement officers. The brave men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty. It has nothing to do with the crosses! Anything that honors Law Enforcement, will not be acceptable. If you were placing a statue of a terrorist or criminal, you would be welcome to put up anything you wanted and of any size you choose. No, this is for the bravest and best of society. My tax dollars go for that road, as well as theirs. What gives them, more rights than we have? It is simply. Discrimination and intolerance of other opinions, than yours. WE should have the right to honor these fine people, any way we choose, not some bigots idea of dishonor! Oh, Thats right, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Christain and people who respect law Enforcement!

fighting this, Brian Barnard, is the same one that just lost the case against Pleasant Groves' Ten Commandments monument.

I guess he really despises anything that even looks religious. If he loses this one too, do you think he will go away?

So what if crosses are religious symbols? Their use to mark the locations where law enforcement lost their lives does NOT constitute an establishment of religion and it is well past time when the courts need to put an end to the charade and sophistry of anti-religious groups.

When it comes to a State establishing a religion, it is clearly unConstitutional. The intent of the 1st amendment was to prohibit the practice. Anybody can argue the meaning of the cross all they want, but the entire world believes it to be a Christian symbol. The fact the the State of Utah puts them up makes it a state sponsored religious symbol. Keep the crosses in graveyards, not at the side of the road.

To: Dear Richard,

So now you are saying to the family of those police officers that you decide where they can honor their fallen loved ones? You have no right to do so.

You and the morons who agree with you who believe:
"you can have crosses where we allow you to have them since you decide how we will honor our loved ones and and fallen officers because it is you who decides the meaning of the Constitution. I;m sorry to have to point this out to you but we will not keep them in the cemeteries or let you tell us where we can have crosses. You don't own us, and our loved and these officers gave their lives for your damn right to insult us and order us around so shut your damn mouths.

You say "the intent of the 1st amendment is to "do as I want it to do" but I say that it isn't the intent of the first amendment and you can argue that honoring killed police officer is a religious practice all you want but intelligent people know it isn't. End of damn discussion voter.

So What,

"So what if crosses are religious symbols? Their use to mark the locations where law enforcement lost their lives does NOT constitute an establishment of religion and it is well past time when the courts need to put an end to the charade and sophistry of anti-religious groups."

It is a way to honor those officers who gave their lives in the line of duty and those who protest the use of these crosses slap them in the face because they didn't agree with them. Those officers who died who don't agree with Brian Barnard are now resting in peace knowing that they gave their lives so he could sue and say "your death means nothing to me and the only way you will be honored is the way I decide since your opinion means nothing and your death is exactly what I wanted so you will not be able to vote to stop me from bringing shame to your memory." The family of one of these officers should beat the living daylights out of this man for his insult to their killed loved one who he is murdering again with his lawsuit.

To dear Richard. I am glad that you can discern what the forefathers intended with the first amendment right. Should we tear down the Supreme Court building because it shows Moses with the ten commandments ingraved above the court? Or maybe we could tear down the washington monument because the cornerstone contains a bible and is facing east where the sun rises and the Lord will return from. Our forefathers were believers in God and it is sad how far from that belief we have tragicly gone off of. There is still hope for America and it's people but not without the religious beliefs that made this country so GREAT.

to Dear Richard:

I would suggest you read a detailed biography on Thomas Jefferson, who wrote one of the first, if not the first religious freedom statute in America. He was so proud of that statute that it was one of three accomplishments he had listed on his tombstone. He wrote his statute because the Commonwealth of Virginia was persecuting the Baptists and not allowing them to practice their religion, as the Church of England was the official state church in the commonwealth at the time.

Jefferson had significant influence on the first amendment, and the establishment clause was patterned after his Virginia statute. Those of you who argue the establishment clause was intended to prevent public expressions of religion are denying history and the intent of the founders it was intended to allow the free expression of religion. But the attempts at revisionist history allow Barnard to make more money.

Has the world really come to this...that we cannot put a cross on the side of the road to mark a fallen officer?!! So SAD! Is not the majority of this country Christian? Our polical elections are won by majority vote. The fact that this is being fought in court is WRONG!

To me the 1St amendment states you can not be denided your choice of religion not inforce your belief on everyone, (Atheists do just that) Nor can a state force you to follow one religion. So i ask people this, What is the worse between being forced to pratice one religion, or no religion. atheists to me a religion that doesn't believe people should display anybodys choice Im a christian but im not offended by a star of david or any other symbol of religion nor do i feel any symbol on public land a indorcement of any religion.

whenever I see a cross in the movies or in print it seems that the letters R.I.P. are are on the cross. what religeous conotation does this have? I always assumed this was something from friends or family members that stated you have worked hard while here and we love your wonderful example of that principle so now go Rest "your body" In Peace. Now you judges, if you want to assume all this means reference to God, just you remember that one day you will be meeting Him. "If he exists?" Good Luck!!

Even if the crosses represent religion to some, does it rise to the level of the state endorsing or sponsoring a specific sect over another - obviously not. As such the lawsuit will loose: either in the liberal Denver court or ultimately in the US Supreme Court (which usually has a little more sanity).

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech - even (gasp) religious speech.
A concept the "tolerant" class cannot seem to grasp.

> we cannot put a cross on the side of the road
> to mark a fallen officer?

Of course you can put up a cross. The family can put up a cross. Or a Star of David, or a Crescent, or Angel Moroni, or Buddha, or a Pentacle.

But the government can't. Nor can quasi-governmental associations.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE!!! It is a very sad day when we cannot honer the man and women who have put their lives on the line for us,IT sad that the courts can make this kind of decision.This should be the decision of the families or doesn`t that count.