Just as with fallen soldiers, fallen Troopers should be honored with a symbol of
whatever religion they adhere to. A cross for Christianity, a star for Judaism,
etc. I don't see any problem with this and anyone taking it to court is simply
abusing the system.
They will continue to abuse the system as long as they can get away with it.They fail to understand that the Constitution grants the citizens of the
United States freedom OF religion and does NOT grant anybody freedom FROM
This issue is more nuanced than it is at first glance. In this state, even
though the cross is not a distinctive symbol of religious worship for most
people (an Angel Moroni is a more distinctive symbol for Latter-day Saints),
crosses are used to memorialize people who are distinguished by their public
service (either by dying in the line of duty as police officers or by serving in
the military). Even though the use of crosses in that manner originated as a
religious symbol, its use in this state is largely divorced from that original
religious meaning.So, at what point does a religious symbol cease to
be a religious symbol? We can accept that Christmas trees are not inherently
religious even though they started out with religious meaning (even if they were
originally pagan they were enthusiastically adopted by Christians).Additionally, this case does have much broader application, such as relating
to whether a place like Las Cruces (literally "The Crosses") can have
a cross in its city logo.
Its interesting this battle is occurring in Utah. LDS don't use crosses.
Monuments and crosses along the highways and road ways is a poor idea, the same
as with bill boards. If the state wishes to honor a select group of its
citizens then it would be best to have a location approved by vote where there
can be a park or monument for all the honored in one place rather than strung
out accross the state. Then one has to ask why is one group more deserving of
honor than another group when all groups accept the consequences of their
employment with their pay check.
HOW SAD, these minority groups have been able to over power the majority of
Christian and Judaism believers with their beliefs [or lack of], with help from
our courts. Satin works through many vehicles and this is just one of
them. A Biblical sign of the times
"Its interesting this battle is occurring in Utah. LDS don't use
crosses."Also interesting is that the Mormons don't go crazy
whenever they see a cross.These atheists are just trying to find
something to be bitter and upset about, which is the typical liberal thing to
do.Let's all say a prayer for these Atheists.
As a fellow athiest, I would want a final ruling by the top court to end the
issue once and for all. Seems this group has a ruling in their favor, so they
don't want it to go any further.
miffedsportsfan | 12:46 p.m. July 26, 2011 Sandy, UT They will
continue to abuse the system as long as they can get away with it.They
fail to understand that the Constitution grants the citizens of the United
States freedom OF religion and does NOT grant anybody freedom FROM religion.--------------How can you have freedom OF religion if you
don't have freedom FROM another persons religion? Impossible.
It is always interesting to see such barn-yard legal manuvering. It seems
rather obvious that there is a fear among atheists that the US Supreme court
will overturn the 10th Circuit Courts decision.By the way, if you
can't desplay these honorary monuments, what about grave markers that are
crosses in public cemetaries?
@miffedsportsfanActually, that is where you are 100% wrong. Freedom
of and from religion are simply two sides of the same coin. If a person has no
religious belief system, such as atheists, that religious belief is just as
valid and protected as those that do have a specific religion.
These atheists are just trying to find something to be bitter and upset about,
which is the typical liberal thing to do.----------I
know quite a few atheists who are republicans and conservative. Aren't you
@ Chris B, I agree that mormons don't tend to react negatively when seeing
crosses. But I'm surprised the athesists didn't choose another jursidiction,
one in which the general public would have wanted to really right over the
Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are NOT two sides of the same coin
as the atheists are currently trying to present it. The atheists are currently
trying to rid this country of ANY public religious expression or symbolism.
That is THEIR current idea of freedom FROM religion. I think that the correct
concept of freedom FROM religion is that I cannot force you to believe in my
religion (or any religion) or force you to live according to my religion's
teachings (if I were Muslim, for example, I shouldn't be able to force you to
pray 5 times a day) - you have your own right to believe in (or to NOT believe
in) any religion. But, freedom FROM religion, does NOT mean that I cannot
express my belief in a God (or my disbelief in a God) in a public setting. It
does NOT mean that a religious organization should be prevented from displaying
their "faith" in public just because somebody MAY be offended by
seeing it because they are not of that faith. By trying to obtain freedom FROM
religion the atheists are forcing THEIR religion (or lack thereof) on ALL of us.
Cut the top off of these crosses! Make them a "T" for trooper.
Everyone happy now?
They should promote them as T for Trooper. Even a*heis*s can'* ge* offended a*
*he alphabe*. Or can *hey?
Lane Myer @1:12pm: "How can you have freedom OF religion if you don't have
freedom FROM another persons religion? Impossible."Is the mere
viewing of a cross in a public place somehow forcing religion on the offended
parties? You can absolutely have freedom of religion, while simultaneously
allowing somebody else the freedom to express his own religious beliefs in the
public square. We've been doing it - mostly - for 230+ years in this
country.Crosses aren't part of my own religious expression, nor are
stars of David or the crescent moon, or that silly Darwin fish-with-feet thing.
But I'd be embarrassed to tell others that I find their expressions offensive.
How thin-skinned are we any more?!!?"Can't we all just get
along?"- Rodney King, 20th century statesman/philosopher
The LDS Church doesn't use the cross as its symbol, but for the record, the
Angel Moroni is also not the official symbol. The LDS Church has no official
symbol--besides, in the words of President Hinckley, "the lives of our
Why is there no double standard? If Atheists want to ban Christianity dont
Christians have the right to ban Atheism also?The people who came to this
country came for religious freedom. I say the ones who want to take it away can
go to Cuba. That will solve the problem.
People only get offended if they choose to be. Atheists choose to be offended a
lot ... which says a lot about them.
ST | 2:59 p.m. July 26, 2011 Layton, UT People only get offended if
they choose to be. Atheists choose to be offended a lot ... which says a lot
about themIt looks to me as though several people on this thread are
choosing to be offended at the Atheists behavior, right?
@people claining their is no such thing as freedom from religionAs
has been explained to you many times before you have every right as a private
citizen or a private organization to express your religious freedoms in the
public square and that is not what this is about and you know it. This constant
disingenuous line of reasoning does nothing to bolster the positive image of the
religions you claim to be so important to you. As has been explained over and
over again you do not have the right to have the government elevate your
religion above all other beliefs by their endorsing it.
Whenever we hear of a news report concerning the AAI it always involves negative
messages of some sort, whether it be the cross issue, public prayer or a NYC
street sign recognizing the 911 victims. I question if this
"anti" rhetoric serves their cause of if they they would be better
served by promoting projects with a positive spin. They might try raising funds
to assist schools purchase science text books and a similar evidenced based
For those that say atheists get offended a lot, I suggest you look in the mirror
and the constant offense that those of religion have to many things.But let me ask this. The pentagram is actually a pagan symbol, not the devil
worshiping symbol that Hollywood has made it out to be. Would you allow this
symbol to be displayed if pagan were the religion of a fallen trooper?
Re mcgilm "Would you allow this symbol to be displayed if pagan
were the religion of a fallen trooper?"Yes!
So, George and Lane Myer, would it be appropriate to quit the upkeep on
Arlington? Should we turn it over to a private firm? We have all those nasty
crosses and stars of david making such a nasty mess of the of the view in public
Virginia. The mental gymnastics required for this viewpoint is astounding.
jpjazz | 3:28 p.m. July 26, 2011 Sandy, UT Whenever we hear of a
news report concerning the AAI it always involves negative messages of some
sort, whether it be the cross issue, public prayer or a NYC street sign
recognizing the 911 victims. jpjazz, is it possible that you (and
others) are casting the negative light on this because you disagree with the
position of this group? Some could argue that they are trying to protect the
Constitution. I don't see constitutional arguments as negative or positive. I
simply see them as opinions.
I don't get it. You don't have to be religious (I'm not) to understand that a
cross has cultural significance as a respectful memorial. The only thing that
should be opposed is if the family was Jewish and asked that a cross not be used
(for instance, stars of David are often used as Jewish memorials). If I die, put
up a cross.....it's a sign of love and respect.
People are always talking about how religion is under attack.It is.
But not from the atheists. The atheists say, "These are religious symbols
and should be private and not out in the world to be mocked."The religionists say, "These aren't religious symbols. There is nothing
special about a cross, or the Bible, or prayer, or the 10 Commandments, or God.
They mean nothing and should be displayed whereever and whenever and treated
however."Religion is under attack from the religionists who
declare sacred symbols mean nothing.
Why use a symbol of historically barbaric torture and punishment as a memorial?
Funny how the athiests hide behind the Constitution. As I recall, the
Constitution emerged from a group of men who regularly relied on Deity to guide
them. They prayed during the Contsitutional Convention. I guess that invalidates
the entire deal, doesn't it?Why don't we just start over and rely on
the atheistic religious belief. Their belief is that there is no God. They would
have us believe that we all climbed out of a primordial soup and it was just a
gigantic accident.Do you have any idea how statistically impossible
their supposition is? Science requires a 95% confidence level to even consider a
finding as valid. Yet, as a society, we buy into a series of cosmic accidents
that are statistically nonsense. But, we teach it in the schools and lap it up
like lemmings. We are told we must ignore the religious level of probablity,
which is 50/50. There either is a God, or there isn't. If I'm a betting man,
I'll take my chances with a 1 in 2 chance, instead of 1 in a quadrillion.
I can see the points of view in this court case are very different. I really
don't see why they don't want the Highest Court to decide? I can not believe
that a cross on the side of the road is offensive. Every state in our nation has
crosses on public buildings and on the side of the roads. Not just for fallen
officers but for those who died in accidents. If the Atheiests win will every
cross on any public place have to come down? Will the mother of the child killed
in a car accident be arrested for the memorial she puts on the roadside?
They love the courts when they think they can win...
@Coach Biff "crosses and stars of david" along with many other
religious and non religious symbols based on the solders beliefs.... again not
showing favor of one religion or no religion over all others.... maybe it would
help to read my post before lumping me in with other commentators and making the
same tired comments. it may even save you some of those "mental
gymnastics" required to keep your viewpoint in tact.
Here's an idea...Leave it up to the family of the fallen officer to decide.
Isn't that fair?
George, you're turning in circles. Displaying a cross on federal land (and
Arlington is certainly federal) is the same as displaying a cross on a Utah
highway. If it's a good enough marker to honor our war heroes, why can't it be
a suitable marker for our public servants who have fallen in the line of duty?
Why do people get so offended when individuals are simply trying to memorialize
those that have sacrificed their lives for others? I am so sick and tired of the
fact that the most powerful phrase in our country has become, "I'm
offended!". When individuals are told time and again when something
bothers you, such as a drunken fan at a game, a cursing teenager, immodest
dress, or a filthy billboard, we are told to deal with it! Yet we cannot even
recognize those that have lost their lives in the line of duty, because,
"Someone's offended!"? This is the United States of America, where we
supposedly have the right of freedom of expression and the freedom of religion,
but obviously there are only a selected few who are given those rights.
If someone believes in nature rather than God will we have to tear down
trees?Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from seing anything that
might be construed as religious, just freedom from being forced to embrace a
particular religion (or any religion).
Public lands have been set aside ("ordained") for displaying religious
symbols associated with a person's death.They are called
graveyards.The side of a roadway is not the place for such symbols.
They are not graveyards. We, atheists are perfectly content to pay our taxes for
the upkeep and maintenance of such places where you can display your religious
symbols and gather to worship your gods. By all means, display your own
religious symbols on the public lands specifically dedicated for such purposes.
All religions (or non-religions) will be treated equally in those places.But don't expect anyone else to support your attempts to promote your
religions by placing religious symbols along the side of roadways. That is not
the place for them, and your desires to do so is marketing and evangelism, not
worship or respect for the deceased.
@couch biff turn in circles? At a certain point in these conversations it
becomes obvious that some people either really do not have the ability to
comprehend the written word or are purposely trying to miss understand the
written word. So which is it Biff, do you not understand or are you purposely
trying to miss understand? I am not sure how I can be any more clear about the
fact that Arlington does not choose to only display crosses but allow many other
symbols while the Utah Highway Patrol Organization has chosen to elevate the
Christian symbol above all others.
I have such a hard time understanding why this could offend anyone. It all comes
down the desire to have more power and control. A fallen trooper who has given
his life for me, that I may live in a safer world certainly deserves to be
recognized. I think this would probably mean a great deal to his family also. I
say to these at Atheists, if you cannot stand behind these men and woman who
protect our nation--feel free to stand in front of them.
@kate1966you're right you are choosing not to understand. It is not about
recognizing or not recognizing their sacrifices it is about how those sacrifices
are being recognized. I also find it strange that yuo seem to think that none of
these troopers may happen to not be Christian and dare I say maybe even be
The signs are in the form of a cross because it is a recognized symbol of death.
They are placed at the site where Utah law enforcement officers were killed in
the line of duty, not at well-trafficked intersections where they will get
maximum exposure to the driving public. They bear the name of the officers who
so died in public service. They do not carry a message promoting any
denomination, or calling on anyone to do anything, other than remember the
service of a person who gave his life in protecting us. Only an angry,
Christianity-hating atheist would even think of these as emblems of religious
promotion rather than memorials to honor a dead public servant. Besides, they all bear the Utah beehive, an emblem of the state, but also one
that is derived from the Book of Mormon. It appears on the state flag and seal
on letterhead, etc., so it has acquired a meaning apart from its religious
origins. Even though it has religious meaning in certain contexts for Mormons,
they are not going to see it as a religious emblem in this context, just as they
do not see the cross as religious.
There is a classic design for wood doors called "Cross and Bible" with
a raised vertical bar and two raised horizontal bars, suggesting to some people
the picture of a cross above an open book. This is on doors of government
buildings and historic buildings that are owned by governments and preserved for
their historic value. But the 10th Circuit's ruling could be used as a basis to
replace all those doors on government buildings with a flat surface, just
because atheists might be irritated by a "Christian symbol". Atheists who think any display like these highway crosses is a religious
emblem are just like the people who claim to see the face of Jesus or the Vrigin
Mary in a piece of toast, a tree, a concrete wall, or some other object. They
are seeing things that are not really there, projecting their own fantasies and
claiming an intent that does not exist. God did NOT intend to put Mary's face
on a tree down on 8th South in Salt Lake, and the Highway Patrol did NOT intend
to make drivers think about Jesus out on a lonely highway where an officer was
shot on duty.
Why not put a cross on the school grounds of every school were a dead school
teacher worked. The proper place to give mounuments of recognition and honor to
the dead is in the cementeries not on the public roads. It seems many use the
dead as a way to promote their religion. Keep state and religion seperate.