U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Utah highway crosses case


Return To Article
  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    Paul in MD wrote:

    "I don't believe that either of those principles, nor the positions and letters of the Framers, advocate the removal of any mention of religion from the public square."

    We are not talking about a transitory "mentioning" of religion. We are talking about an apparently permanent association of the official symbols of a State agency and a religion (Christianity) on public property.

    "Everyone has some belief system,"

    We are not talking about generic belief systems. Nobody can make an argument that the Founders were trying to build a wall of separation between Government and "any sort of belief system". They pinpointed religious belief systems for a reason.

    "Banning all religious (or near-religious) symbols from the public square essentially establishes the belief in no religion, what many of us consider Atheism. Why is that not considered just as unconstitutional as putting up a nativity in front of city hall?"

    Again, absence of belief in god cannot be twisted into a belief. That someone is an atheist simply means she has no belief in a god. You can infer nothing more about that person or their other beliefs.

    Please, just respect PUBLIC property. We are citizens, too.

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    Nov. 4, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    Should the state dictate religion, either by establishing a state-sponsored religion or by dictating doctrine to any churches? Of course not.

    Should churches be able to dictate to government what laws to create or how to adjudicate? Of course not.

    However, I don't believe that either of those principles, nor the positions and letters of the Framers, advocate the removal of any mention of religion from the public square. Everyone has some belief system, whether it be in a particular faith, a general non-denominational personal belief system, or an adamant belief that there is no deity. No matter how much we may want to, we can't remove the influence those beliefs have on our own actions and judgments.

    Can't we find a way to civilly and equitably let people express themselves in the public square without resorting to lawsuits and venom?

    Banning all religious (or near-religious) symbols from the public square essentially establishes the belief in no religion, what many of us consider Atheism. Why is that not considered just as unconstitutional as putting up a nativity in front of city hall?

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 2, 2011 3:51 p.m.

    owlmaster2 wrote:

    "The separation of church and state has nothing to do with keeping religion out of government. It was meant to keep the nation from having a declared national religion."

    Not so. The Bill of Rights (including the 1st Amendment) originally applied only to the Federal Government, but the 14th Amendment extended the BOR to all the States in the Union. Moreover, as the quotes I have already provided demonstrate, both Jefferson and Madison openly and repeatedly explained the 1st Amendment as creating a "separation of Church and State" - a prohibition against religious influence in Federal and State Governments AND government influence in religions.

    "In fact our country is based on majority rule."

    No it is not. That is NOT found anywhere in the Constitution. Rather, this country is based on the rule of law, representation in the making of law, and the protection of inalienable rights (the BOR) in the interpretation of law.

    Apparently my "little knowledge...about our country" far exceeds your own.

    "Don't threaten a cultural war. You'd lose."

    Not likely. I've cleaned your clock in this argument, and nonbelievers have the Constitution and BOR on our side in any culture war.

    Bring it.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Nov. 2, 2011 8:13 a.m.

    Virgil: Just so you know the beehive is a symbol of industry not mormonism.

  • Munk Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:42 p.m.

    I wonder if these so called atheists are offended by the rows of white crosses, stars of David and other symbols that adorn our military cemeteries.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:03 p.m.

    @ The Atheist... The separation of church and state has nothing to do with keeping religion out of government. It was meant to keep the nation from having a declared national religion.

    Quite frankly I find your attitude a bit over the edge with the little knowledge you have about our country. I'm probably one of the most liberal people posting here and trust me, I know the history and the intent of the signers of the Constitution through study and examination of facts.

    You as an Atheist have no more rights than I do as a Jew or as a Christian. In fact our country is based on majority rule. I'm personally non-religious but to me those crosses represent an honor to the officers that have fallen. They in NO WAY in my thinking represent a religion or religious belief.

    Don't threaten a cultural war. You'd lose. As a Liberal Democrat, I would be one that would be defending OUR rights. Mine and yours. One of the problems we have in this nation is one party control.. Don't make it worse by misinterpretation of facts.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 6:28 p.m.


    You are completely out of your league on this point. Better to stop digging any deeper while you still have the chance.

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 4:24 p.m.


    If we are to live in a truly free and just republic we must remove the sanctity of religion as being outside the realm of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause. The separation of Church and State are inherently necessary in order to best represent peoples of all different creeds, races, and ethnicities. Anything less is disingenuous to the tenants this country was founded on and is harmful to the progression of our country as a Great Nation. The next time someone advocates against removing religious symbols on public lands, they need to be reminded in order to represent everyone to the best of the Constitution, we must have a neutral government in the matters of religiosity. We cannot hold up one group over another whether it be Christians, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, theists, or scientologists if we are to live in a free society. Regardless of religiosity or lack thereof, by supporting religion in a government capacity is the antithesis of what a free republic is founded on because it raises up one group of Americans over another by legitimizing their claims on morality and way of life.

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 3:45 p.m.


    Your unsupported arguments fails to address and ignores many key points. Support your assertions with facts!

    A whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America which includes people of ALL beliefs both religious and non-religious because afterall we are all citizens. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable to most religious people. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

    Also..."It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - James Madison. Federalist Paper 51

    Further evidence of the Founder's position on the state and religion can be found in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he supported them in the position that a wall of separation should exist between church and state.

    The framers had discussed inclusion of religion within the Constitution, but it was voted_down.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 3:37 p.m.

    als Atheist | 2:49 p.m. Nov. 1, 2011
    Provo, UT

    To Joggle its a good thing that you have two accounts since there is a 4 comment limit.

    Many people write many things to many organizations and a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association is inconsequential.
    Last time I checked the Danbury baptists were not part of the legislative branch of government, and have no power whatsoever.

    "Madison publically declared: "the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.""

    Exactly so the government having a misguided opinion on crosses on the highway would be a violation of that statement and more importantly the constitution.

    Nice Try Tho.

    Once again freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

    This is your education.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 2:49 p.m.


    By whom has separation of Church and State been "debunked"? Surely not by you.

    Some, like you, say that because that specific phrase is not in the Constitution it is not valid.

    Did you know that the prohibition of Slavery is not in the Constitution?

    And the right of women to vote is not in the Constitution?

    The "separation of church and state" is the distance that should exist in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

    The term is derived from Thomas Jefferson's phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

    Jefferson wrote: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people [the 1st Amendment] thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

    Madison also spoke of the 1st Amendment as a "total separation of the church from the state," and "the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States."

    Madison publically declared: "the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

    I debunk your debunking. Educate yourself.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 2:03 p.m.

    The Atheist | 9:10 a.m. Nov. 1, 2011
    Provo, UT
    If you religious fanatics want a cultural war, we will definitely give you one. We will fight to preserve the original "Separation of Church and State" intended by our Founding Fathers when they wrote and commented on the 1st Amendment.

    Actually no where does it say seperation of church and state. That mythical argument has been debunked.

    This is your education.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    Joggle | 5:57 p.m. Oct. 31, 2011
    Clearfield, UT

    Can we count you among the "haters"?

    No you may not, as I would not mind if you put up a memorial to honor someone who served our country. Be it buddha,Gahandi or a woodchuck.

    This country was founded on a belief in morality and a healthy respect for God, and his commandments.

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

    It is and the founding fathers intended it to be freedom OF religion, never has been, never will be freedom From Religion. There is no statment or intent of being protected from religion.
    You do not have a Right to be protected from being offended.

    This is your education.

  • Allen#1 West Valley, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 12:57 p.m.

    Please Mr. Shurtleff: Do NOT waste taxpayer money fighting the decision to ban crosses on highways. The Atheists have won.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    Whether or not a cross offends an atheist is a moot point. The real point of the lawsuit is the "establishment of religion". American Atheists defends civil rights for Atheists, Freethinkers and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church-mosque-temple and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy. Ask yourselves this: Should atheists and other non-Christians suffer a religious tradition not their own being imposed upon them through the power of the state? Is it wrong for atheists and non-Christians to ask for fair and equal treatment under the law? No one religious sect should be given a government mandated monopoly to use their idols, icons and graven images as representative of the memory of loss or to infer that only their symbol represents our human family.

    Only a religion in the majority would think that no one of a different religion would be offended by being represented by the majority religions symbols. I wonder if the Christian defenders of the Utah crosses would mind an Om symbol being placed at their memorial in New Delhi or the Koran being used to reference their sacrifice at their memorial in Tehran.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    UtahBruin | 11:19 a.m.

    We would all like to live our lives lives freely and independently. But in order to have everybody free and independent, there has to be some forgoing of freedom and independence. One of those concessions we grant to our fellow citizens is to not commercialize the government. It is the law.

    According to our society and our government, there is a proper place for dead people. Its called a cemetery.

    To my knowledge I have never been harmed by a cross or any other religious practice. However I often feel harmed by the overbearing volume of advertising in just about every other part of my life. If you open the door to religious advertising on public property, you have no excuse for the exclusion of commercial advertising.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 12:00 p.m.

    The crosses could be replaced with other monuments or moved to private land so why are so many of you making such a big deal out of it when it can be done a different way. Those troopers can be honored, but let's just do it in way that doesn't violate the Constitution. Erecting divisive religious icons that violate the very constitution the fallen troopers had sworn to uphold is not the way to honor those troopers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the citizens of their state. Religion has a history of tearing down the beliefs of each other as well as non-believers. Why should atheists just shut up and mind their own business when religion rarely does. The attitude that the cross is not a Christian symbol is wrong because it's so obvious that it is. When religion gets enshrined into government policy -- like teaching religious beliefs in public school science classes, or funding religious organizations with tax money, or opening government meetings with prayers, or displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, or promoting one religion over another in a public school....it is a theocracy. Atheists and others have a right to prevent a theocracy!

  • Morgan Duel Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    Remind me to risk my life the next time someone is hurt on the highway, and wait till it happens.

  • Let's be real Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 11:39 a.m.

    Ask one of the businesses nearby if they will house the honor sign. I also like the "T" bit above by Lane Myer. How about a little "t" for little trooper. Fits for me. I wish I lived closer, they could put it in my front yard!

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    @speed66 - I am not trying to have it both ways. I am saying both sides just need to shut up about it. This would, could and probably does include me also. By erecting a cross, yes I would agree it is a believers symbol. But who does it offend? Obviously not atheist because they don't believe it in the first place. It doesn't offend a believer, because they simply look at it as a monument only, not a way of preaching or forcing gospel. It is simply what was chosen by Shurtliff or anyone else. Does it matter? Really? Would it matter if it was a wood box? Disagree with it if you will...This is atheist forcing thier opinions? Nobody has changed anything except for trying to get rid of religion. I am sorry but this is what our country was built on. It all started way back when. Scientist past, present and future will still try to say things were different. Science is theory in this matter, niether side can proove anything, so if it is both ways. Again, you go your way, I will go mine. Why is your principal more important than mine?

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 11:19 a.m.

    Ultra Bob,

    If Walmart, McDonalds, a contruction worker and any other commercial group want to find a way to memorialize their fallen. If this is something THEY WANT to do, then by all means go ahead and do it. As for your comment of "Why do some people want to destroy the notion of equal justice before the law and make American into a religious nation?" Who is trying to turn America in a religious nation? Nobody, we are just living our lives freely and independantly. Who is it that is trying to destroy the notion of equal justice? The Athiest here trying to overpower what someone "WANTS". In this case shouldn't it be the families decision if a memorial is erected. And from what I can tell, it sure appears that is the way it is done. Please don't come on here and act like you are getting attacked. Your not. The equal justice is being thrown out by the atheist majority here. Just like in my previous notes. Can we not just live our own lives and quit worrying so much about what someone else does. It's crazy.

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    @UtahBruin - you are trying to have it both ways. If Atheists try to enforce the law (you called it "scapegoating")then they are trying to run "roughshod" over everyone else. But when you put up crosses on public lands then you are only minding your own business. What you do in your home, your church and in your private life is not the same as what is done on public lands.

    Asserting that Atheists are tying to "force their opinions" and that religion never does that is untrue. Religion is imposed on people all the time - from religions trying to dictate public policy, blue laws that have been imposed for centuries, systematically "adjusting" history and science text books and on and on.

    I don't want to speak for Atheists but the suit was fairly clear and the arguments were equally clear. It is unlawful for government to endorse a religion and erecting Christian symbols on public lands crosses that line. While that may seem minor it is important to set precedent. I would never allow government to stifle your speech...no matter how much I disagreed with what you were saying. The principle is what is important.

  • Mr. Snyder Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:45 a.m.

    The American Atheists are offended by the cross (which I think is childish). Why does Mark Shurtliff think the only way to honor a fallen officer is to put his name on a cross? It's not that hard of a problem to solve. Solution: get rid of Mark Shurtliff and replace him with someone who can see beyond the cross. How about putting the officers name on cemetery headstone. Maybe a large sandstone monolith. Maybe even the car he was driving. Retire it, make it a museum piece, and attach the officers name to it. Just don't put the officers name on a cross.

  • newintown WOODS CROSS, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:35 a.m.

    The thing I find so rediculous and illogical here is the idea that a cross or the lack thereof in any way "forces" anyone to believe or not to believe. Whether by the government or the private citizen, the viewing of a cross does not coerce the adherence to or defiance of anyone's devotion.

    Perhaps when non believers, whatever that means, erect a symbol of their non belief, I will be able to be offended that I have been coerced to drop my beliefs in favor of theirs.

    It would be ludicrous to think that putting up a cross to memoralized a fallen hero is a violation of the establishment clause, if it were just an observation, but this agenda of the American Atheists is no passive observation. Though they will never admit it, theirs is a concerted agenda to remove religious belief from all American life. They will never admit that their effort to shout down the believer is as "unconstitutional" as thier perceived offense at any mention of religion. Their "non-religion" is every bit as much an expression of religion as any other, and they voraciously expect their "religion" to be "established" by the government.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    Why do some people want to destroy the notion of equal justice before the law and make American into a religious nation? Why should a fallen highway patrol officer who dies while doing his job, be treated differently than a fallen construction worker killed while doing his job?

    The reason is simple, a private organization sees an opportunity to advertise its product. If we allow religion to be advertised in the public square, should we not also allow Walmart, McDonalds, and other commercial groups to memorialize their passed on people?

    It is my opinion, that the dead should be recognized for their good, buried, periodically remembered by friends and family and then forgotten.

    I especially oppose the spending of huge amounts of taxpayer money to memorials to remember the bad and awful things that happen in life. Like 9-11, Oklahoma, war, etc. etc. etc.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:30 a.m.

    In your most recent comment, why do you reference biblical era and time when you do not believe it yourself. That would be like me trying to use Darwins theory in an argument to you. I don't beleive it, so it is not relevant for me to use to you.

    Second, you cry 1st Amendment. You talk about fore fathers, who were christians and believers by the way. The first amendment allows people the freedom to exercise our freedom of religion. This is both for and or against it. "Our freedom of religion" not freedom from religion. Is it not great that we live in a country where we are free to choose our religion. You an athiest, me a believer in the Mormon faith.

    Why not just go live your life as a successful whatever you are....Doctor, Lawyer, Car Salesman, whatever. You do what makes you happy, and I will do what makes me happy. We can still be friends, I will still disagree with things you do and you the same for me. But what kind of person would I be if all I did was try to tear you down. Like you are doing.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:28 a.m.

    I think there's a very simple way to beat this absurd lawsuit - simply give a choice to the families of the fallen troopers what kind of memorial they want, according to the same reasonable standards used at national cemeteries. If they want a cross, it's a cross; if they want a Star of David, it's a star; if they want a crescent or a simple obelisk, OK...within the bounds of reasonable expense and good taste.

    The Atheists' lawsuit was contesting the State's claim that the crosses were not being used as religious symbols, but as universally recognized symbols of death. That's obvious to any reasonable observer, which is what makes their lawsuit all the more outrageous.

    Fine - call them "religious monuments" as the Atheists want, but apply the already-established rules used in cemeteries. If they don't like it, then they can sue again from their apparently bottomless well of legal funds.

    I just find it terribly ironic that atheists can force an entire nation to abandon roadside crosses and student-led prayers at football games because a single atheist was mildly offended, but if the rest of us are offended by their actions...it doesn't matter.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:02 a.m.

    This is so stupid. One person commented that they (athiest) are "Yet we are discriminated against, demonized, vilified, and persecuted in a variety of ways." Are you kidding me? That comment is ignorant, you are not!!!! You are an athiest, I consider myself a believer and a christian. What is so hard about you doing your thing and me doing mine? What has a believer taken away from you...Um nothing! Yet you seek to destroy something as simple as a monument to honor a fallen trooper. If the troopers are athiest, sure honor them in another way, if they are a believer does it really bother you that much that a cross is erected in their behalf. Seperating church and state is a scapegoat and you know it. This is your way of running "roughshod" over everyone else and forcing your opinions. You live your life, I will live mine, I stay out of your business, you stay our of mine. Don't cry church and state, it doesn't happen. I do not see any belief other than your own trying to dictate anything. And if you don't like it, pass on it. I will do the same.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    Some people on these boards claim that this court ruling (which was not politically partisan among the Supreme Court justices, by the way) is a sign of society's corruption.

    I beg to differ. The scriptures are consistently critical of external, public displays of religiosity that are presented for the audience of man. The Book of Mormon in particular gives very clear examples of what signals a corrupt society: a breakdown of civility, mistreatment of the poor, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, and mistreatment of unbelievers by members of the Church.

    When Christ comes, I am quite confident that what will disappoint him will be our greed, dishonesty, lack of self-discipline, and unkindness toward each other. I think he will be shocked and ashamed of how little progress we've made in helping the poor and the downtrodden. I think he'll wonder why we couldn't figure out how to get along with each other.

    I seriously doubt that His main complaint will be that there aren't enough crosses along I-15.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    I simply do not understand why Mormons in Utah are the ones fighting this battle, when we don't even use the cross as a religious symbol. Further evidence that here in Utah, conservatives consider themselves politically partisan soldiers in the culture wars first and Mormons second. (See also: immigration.

    I don't see how keeping these crosses off of our shared state lands infringes on anyone's religious freedom. My religious identity is defined by the covenants I have made, my behavior towards my family and my neighbors, my worship in the chapel or temple with my co-congregants, and my privately-expressed religious devotions. My religious identity is NOT dependent on public religious displays, especially displays that make other people uncomfortable.

    If the removal of a cross from public land makes you feel less spiritual, you practice a form of spirituality that I simply don't relate to.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    Why don't they just put a marker of the symbol of whatever the religious belief of the deceased officer was? Seems that would solve the problem, since now it's not something determined by the state. I can understand that a Jewish family might not want a big ol' white cross in memorial of their loved one. Although I'm not sure what you'd use for an atheist...

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:49 a.m.

    Snowman, I will have to disagree with you. And yes, I have personal experience with this. I do not want to remember the location where my father was taken. I doubt that many close family members want a memorial in place along a road side as a symbol of honoring their loved one who was murdered. That simply is not a memory that immediate family members usually want -- it is a memory that the community seems to want.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    The crosses do not symbolize religion. It is a symbol of death and a way to honor those officers.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    Candide: You would think differently if one of those officers was a member of your family. How sad that they wont let families and friends honor the fallen officers.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    "Brian Barnard, the Salt Lake attorney for American Atheists, called it the correct decision. The special permission granted to put up the crosses and use of the UHP logo improperly gave the appearance that Utah was endorsing Christianity, he said."

    Really ... anyone with half a brain knows what religion the State of Utah endorses. These crosses really don't make a difference in Utah. The allocation of resources by the Utah State Attorney General's office never ceases to amaze me.

    Nov. 1, 2011 9:17 a.m.

    It is interesting to note that, at our founding and at the time the constitution was adopted, various states had their own established state churches. It appears that the intention of the first amendment was that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEROF. The states were another matter and it appears clear to me that the intent was to leave such decisions up to the states.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    If you religious fanatics want a cultural war, we will definitely give you one. We will fight to preserve the original "Separation of Church and State" intended by our Founding Fathers when they wrote and commented on the 1st Amendment. We will fight to cease and reverse the encroachment of religion into government and public life. We are also citizens of this nation, and we have the right NOT to have our taxes applied to supporting YOUR religious zealotry and insidious domination of political and legal processes.

    The fact that you persist in disregarding the perspectives of your fellow citizens, and insist on shoving your beliefs beyond the bounds of your Churches, dedicated cemetaries, and designated, appropriate places for the expressions of religious belief, demonstrates that you do not respect beliefs other than your own.

    Such intolerance is deplorable coming from people who claim to follow Jesus, who first articulated the separation of Church and State when he said, "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's".

    Nov. 1, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    Mark Towner "UHP badge has no religious connection, and it would still honor the fallen officers."

    Until somebody realizes that the Beehive is an old Mormon religious symbol...

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    We are tired of being bullied by people such as Randy Forbes of Virginia.

    Rep Randy Forbes of Virginia is a hyper-conservative-religious fanatic who has, among other things, sponsored legislation to: 
    - officially designate the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation (making non-Jews and non-Christians second-class citizens)
    - officially declare that "the Holy Bible is Gods Word" (forget all the self-contradictory nonsense, genocide, racism, sexism, etc. in the book. And forget the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, and all other "words of god").

    - officially declare religion a prerequisite for freedom and reject "the notion that the laws and Constitution of the United States require the exclusion of God from matters of government" (You can't be "free" unless you believe?)
    - prevent the IRS from assisting the federal government in an "invasion into the health care lives of American citizens" (So fanatic religious parents can use prayer and superstition on their kids instead of getting proper medical care?)

    - officially declare that religion forms "the inseparable foundation for Americas representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures" (A religious test.)

    Religious fanatics are spitting in the faces of a quarter or more of US citizens!

  • oldrunner Ogden, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 8:38 a.m.

    Put it up on private land and be still about it. Someones death is not a political statement. And PLEASE, don't waist any more tax payer dollars on this sort of thing. We don't have it to pay.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 8:12 a.m.

    Good _hing _his newspaper is no_ a governmen_ publica_ion. O_herwise, we'd perhaps be obliged _o aver_ our eyes from all uses of _he le_ _er "_," owing _o i_s hidden symbolism. Known as _aw or _av in Hebrew, i_ is _he las_ le_ _er of _ha_ alphabe_. "From Aleph _o _aw" means "from beginning _o end"; i_ is _he Hebrew equivalen_ of wha_ we say in English, "from A _o Z". In Greek, _he symbol "_" represen_ed _heos (God). _he _au i_self was _he mos_ likely form of cross on which Chris_ was crucified. Heaven forbid we would say one of _he _wo words of _he phrase "Alpha and Omega." A_ some poin_ will we consider our very language _o be a vehicle of offense such _ha_ use of _he le_ _er "_" in our wri_ _en communica_ions will, _oo, be an offense? Should we je_ _ison _he le_ _er "_"?

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    @ Big Hapa in Kaysville--- You are so right in your comments. I couldn't agree more....

    I support the UHP Association and what they have done to remember those that have fallen in the line of duty. I have valued seeing the crosses as I've driven around our state. It not only serves as a reminder of the valiant troopers but to me is a reminder of all that have served and still serve us to maintain our safety and freedoms.

    Thanks to all that wear that badge.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 1, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    I am not Catholic or mainstream Protestant. A cross is not a religious symbol for me. I am not in the least bothered or threatened by a religious symbol for another religion or culture.

    It is a big wide world out there and there is a lot of diversity out there and we are going to do better looking for the common ground rather than trying to focus on what divides us.

    In Saudi Arabia and in India there are groups that are similar to the ACLU and to the American Atheists. They are very sensitive to anything remotvely hinting at Christianity. They don't even like stores to sell flowers on Valentine's Day because of the "Saint" in Saint Valentine's Day.

    I think that they should just relax. A little diversity never hurt anyone.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    This ruling brings to mind a quote from President Andrew Jackson;"The Supreme Court has made its ruling now let them enforce it!"

  • PAC Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 1, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    I think people are not very nice anymore...What does it hurt? Does the cross really hurt anyone or does everyone hate life so bad that they want to hurt everyone else? I think it is a sad day in Utah and America.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    I want a question from all you "people" who are against the crosses. Just exactly how does a well known grave symbol, found in many public and military cemetaries violate your constitutional rights? Please answer for me because most of your posts are just grinding an axe because you don't like something. Quantify just how it violates your rights.

  • Richard Votaw Sandy, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 7:06 a.m.

    Where in the consitution does it say "Freedome FROM religion?"

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 7:03 a.m.

    After reading the above letters, the crosses must not symbolize christianity but a call to arms for conservatives for civil war. I doubt Jesus would want the in your face fighting words associated with religious symbols or Caesar enforcing them as an in your face display of government power.

  • byu rugby Crystal Lake, IL
    Nov. 1, 2011 6:53 a.m.

    Atheist activists have nothing better to do? The Holiday season must drive them absolutely batty!

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2011 6:20 a.m.

    We are a nation becoming ripe with iniquity.

    Each little atheist and radical religious step is making a difference in our world isn't it?

  • Wanda Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 11:21 p.m.

    It is just so sad that people are quibbling endlessly about something well-intentioned to honor fallen Highway Patrol officers. I seriously doubt that those who chose this symbol did so just to irritate athesists - get over yourself. The only people who could legitimately complain about this would be the families of officers. The silence is deafening.

  • Mark E. Towner SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 10:43 p.m.

    Has anyone suggested they use UHP shields not crosses. 12 Post with the UHP shield number of the fallen officer. That would solve everything. The UHP badge has no religious connection, and it would still honor the fallen officers.

    Maybe somebody could suggest this to somebody, make the changes and get on with life.

    Mark Towner

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 9:30 p.m.

    It's good to see all the legal scholars who think they know more knowledgeable than the Federal Court of Appeals as well as the US Supreme Court. I'm sure you had the same views of these courts when they said the Corporations are the same as people, right?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 8:36 p.m.


    You are correct about the shape of the headstones at Arlington. However, you will notice that they have crosses etched into them on many headstones. Also, there are several great, big crosses in the cemetery as well. In fact, the Kennedy's have crosses on their tombstones.

    The point is that first amendment was is being abused by atheists. It says congress shall make no law establishing religion or the free exercise thereof. There is actually nothing in the Constitution that says the words, "separation of church and state." And I would doubt that Thomas Jefferson would have objected to the individual states deciding to honor their fallen dead with a universal religious symbol like the cross.

    What a fantastic legacy the American Atheists will have.

  • Big Hapa Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    This is not separation of church and state it is separation from common decency and respect of the fallen who have sacrificed there all for the common good.

    When courage, honor , duty are sacrificed in vain and are replaced with self denial and our puny humanistic self worship we become dust and fodder for the wind.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 5:57 p.m.


    Can we count you among the "haters"?

    AGAIN....Too often....many people seem to have a flawed understanding of what freedom from religion really entails and fail to realize that freedom from religion is crucial to religious liberty in general. It is evident that a person misunderstands the concept of freedom from religion when they say that promotion of the idea is part of an effort to eliminate religion from the public square, to secularize America, or to deny religious believers a voice in politics. None of this follows from a belief that people have a right to be free from religion. Freedom from religion isn't a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, but rather that they not be endorsed by the government; it's not a demand that religious believers never voice an opinion, but rather that they not have a privileged status in public debates; it's not a demand that religious values never have any public impact, but rather that no laws be based on religious doctrines without the existence of a secular purpose and basis.

    Educate yourself, please!

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 5:29 p.m.

    To all the haters- its freedom OF religion..... Not freedom FROM religion.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 5:11 p.m.

    TR 4 President says "the classic mound tombstones often have crosses of various types and designs on them as well, so the inconsistency remains".

    The "various designs" include a Star of David and Islamic Crescent. I don't know, but presume that the family of a fallen soldier has some input as to the gravestone wording and the inclusion a religious symbol or not.

    For me, the incosistency does not remain. National cemeteries contain gravestones which are a personal marker of the individual resting below. Utah is using a cross-shaped memorial. I see a gravestone and a memorial marker as two different things.

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 5:05 p.m.

    @giantfan - Why is the absence of crosses forcing non-belief but the erection of those same crosses not forcing belief on others? You can't have it both ways.

    The real disgrace here is Shurtleff's waste of tax dollars pushing the issue this far. Of course, he does have a political career to foster...nice he could do that with our tax dollars.

    @Eliot - You've missed the point and meaning entirely. Expressing one's beliefs - however absurd or offensive - is not at risk. However, using symbols endorsing religion (which clearly a cross does) is not allowed on public lands. You'd know more want to see a monument to Atheist or Muslims as I would of Christianity.

    While I personally don't care, I think the decision is appropriate.

    Oct. 31, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    What if we Placed a Plaque directly under the Highway Patrol Emblem and cut off the cross with the name, and placed a 4 ft copper rod out the top. that takes the cross out of the game.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    To the extent that a clear majority of Americans, let alone an overwhelming majority, wants government at all levels to officially favor religion over nonbelief to the extent that more Americans still view atheism as a disqualifying characteristic in a political candidate than they do any other factor....I submit that we nonbelievers are in just as much danger of suffering open discrimination as is the gay community. Even though there have not yet been any notable physical attacks on atheists....just for being atheists....discrimination does not have to be accompanied by overt violence in order to pose a grave threat to a minority groups struggle for full equality. Is it religious believers belief that atheists should have very few rights?

    What's sad and ignorant here is the misconceptions, lies, myths, and fallacies the anti-atheists (sound familiar?) present on this forum. If they knew anything about atheism....they would know that the falsehoods they spread are nothing but rants based on ignorance.

    Speaking of persecuted minorities: Christianity used to be one. Did you fight your way to freedom of faith just so you could treat non-believers the same way people used to treat you? Shameful!

  • SS Cedar City, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    @ Jeff29,
    Even if the decision from the State Supreme court is unconstitutional? I applaud anyone who will stand up for their freedoms. This is America, we shouldn't have to be scared of what we are, or be afraid of stepping on someones toes because they do not believe the same way we do. If people were more accepting of others freedoms to worship and remember lost ones and not so easily offended we would be a little closer to what this country stands for. Instead we live in fear of not offending someone because they don't believe in God. A Governor should be aware of the beliefs of all those that he serves, but should also embody the leadership quality to stand up for what he believes to be right. Give me a Governor that posses that quality any day over the one that makes his decisions based on the loud whining of the minority.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 3:20 p.m.

    Why the hatred of atheists here?

    Nobody is being disrespectful to these officers, who paid the ultimate price while protecting the rule of law. These men deserve to be honored, and that is what a cemetery is for: to construct memorials to each of these men at a dedicated place set aside for such a purpose.

    The side of the highway is NOT the place for these memorials, especially with religious symbols paid for with public money on public property.

    You believers are under commandment from god to "care", yet you defiantly say you "don't care" what those "haters"/atheists think!


    That's all I can say. By their fruits...

    Unless you are able to walk in our shoes a few steps, you will never understand what it is like to live among religious people who take for granted that everyone believes the same as them. The hegemony of religion in Utah is particularly blind to the perspectives of others.

    And all your comments did is just confirm the perception that you don't care about other perspectives and are willing to twist or manipulate ("just turn them into T's") to have your way on the highway.


  • Scotty Boy Logan, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 3:13 p.m.

    You can talk to a Veteran of World War II or Vietnam or Korea and they will tell you there are no atheists in a Fox hole. But when they come home they forgot that they were praying for someone to save them. My questions is, just who did you pray too? The Crosses are a Memorial to the Fallen Officer, and not a Religous statement. Most of you are right, that the Minority can and does rule the Majority, until the Majority stands up and says "Enough is Enough"

  • Jeff29 Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    What we really need is a Governor who is willing to follow the decision of his State's Supreme court on an issue related to State property.

  • TR 4 President SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:56 p.m.


    Well said! However, it is instructive to note that the cemetery in Normandy, as well as many other national cemeteries, both in and out of the states proper, are on land owned and under the control of the United States Federal Government. Moreover, the classic mound tombstones often have crosses of various types and designs on them as well, so the inconsistency remains: How can the Federal Government allow fallen soldiers to be honored with a cross, but a state government not be allowed to honor a fallen police officer with a cross?

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:49 p.m.

    What a bad decision! Now they'll just have to eradicate the Native American religious art off the canyon walls of public property.

  • Jeff29 Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:37 p.m.

    So can someone please explain to me why the 10th Circuit, or even the Supreme Court is making a decision regarding Utah State land. This decision is wrong on so many levels.

    If I start a religion that finds obelisks to be offensive, would the American Atheists suggestion also be deemed unconstitutional?

  • SS Cedar City, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:20 p.m.

    Interesting, I wonder what my good friends George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others would say about this today? They would talk about the GOD GIVEN rights and freedoms that we have as American Citizens. What people forget is that the rights and freedoms they posses by being a citizen of this country (such as the seperation of church and state) are based on a belief in God, no matter what that belief may be. It doesn't mean that religion should not be talked about or presented publicly, thats ridiculous and in direct opposition to the way the makers of that law led their own lives. It simply means that there will be no government mandated religion. Simple as that. For all our genius, the American people don't seem to understand our laws, history, or culture very well! This is in fact a totally ignorant view of freedom. The interests of the minority over the interests of the majority! Its a sad day!

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:14 p.m.

    "So Arlington National Cemetery has quite a few crosses. Are those next? They ARE on public land, after all"

    Actually Arlington National Cemetery uses traditional rounded-top rectangular headstones. The rows of cross-shaped headstones that you are thinking of are in Normandy, France.

  • fish8 Vernal, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    Just cut the top off of the upright pice and it becomes a T and now no one will care.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:06 p.m.

    What a poor decision by the Supreme Court to not review this case and the decision of the 10th Circuit Court is dead wrong on this case. The Establishment Clause clearly states that Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Crosses are a religious symbol just like the Star of David on a Christmas tree. Christmas is a religious holiday and Christians are allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. American Atheists Inc. goal is to remove religion from our society which violates the Constitution of the United States of America. Now if they want to see an example of an established religion look no further than South America where Catholicism is a recognized state religion.

  • Lehicoug Lehi, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:05 p.m.

    "It could move them to private land but would have to remove the UHP beehive logo, according to the 10th Circuit ruling."

    Why would they have to remove the UHP beehive logo if it were on private land?

    I'm sure there are many folks with land along I-15 or elsewhere in the state that would be happy to allow memorial crosses to be erected on their property.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:04 p.m.

    The Atheists' attorney Mr. Bernard is a long time ACLU attorney, so he deserves credit for much of the damage that has been done to our country and the elements that made it great, our values and traditions now trampled by the tyranny of the minority.

    I think that many of our Troopers, heroes all, would find it satisfactory to replace the crosses with a depiction of a hand, all fingers folded, except the middle one, symbolizing the fact the the Atheists "won" their fight.

    By the way, has Mr. Bernard or any of the Atheists ever bothered to show up at any memorial services for law enforcement officers, or contributed a dime to the scholarship funds for the kids of our troopers? Will they in the future?

    It would be nice if the Atheists put bumper stickers on their cars so everyone could "thank them" for their efforts. Oh, and better watch the speed limits and turn signals, too!

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:02 p.m.

    Another victory for those who hate. What else is new.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 2:02 p.m.

    In reply to A1994, you are absolutely wrong. The crescent of Islam would be just as wrong and just as strongly opposed. You may not be aware, but the ACLU recently sued and reached a settlement in a case in which a charter school in Minnesota was promoting Islam quite unconstitutionally. Atheists and civil libertarians seek to prevent all governmental endorsements of religion, not just those that promote Christianity. To be fair to all religions, no religion should be endorsed by a government-based entity.

  • GoodGuyGary Houston, TX
    Oct. 31, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    I do not care about religion or not, those crosses on the highway, or anything, create driving distraction, and may cause accidents, that is all I care.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 1:42 p.m.

    Just cut the tops off the crosses. It will make a large capital "T" for trooper. Saves money and can remain on public property.

    Think Mr Shurtliff. This is an easy solution.

  • Dan Ellis CLEARFIELD, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 1:37 p.m.

    These crosses ARE NOT erected at the site where the officer lost their life.

    In filing this lawsuit, American Atheists worked to uphold the US Constitution and protect the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans. You are free to choose whatever religion you like, and to practice it on your own time, with your own money, and on your own property as a private citizen - not have the government use public funds or property to promote a single religion and exclude all others.

    The officers should absolutely have a memorial erected in their honor. Because they were all working within and protecting the law, I'm sure they would agree that using a religious symbol on public land in clear violation of the law does them a disservice and turns their sacrifice into an unnecessarily divisive issue.

    It's disappointing that the Utah Attorney General chose to fight a losing battle in an effort to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. It is an indefensible position that has wasted a ton of taxpayer resources. Mark Shurtleff chose to waste those increasingly limited resources to promote his own religious ideology over the best interests of Utah's citizens.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    More proof that atheists cannot just be, they must tear down any religion at any cost. Why can't they just sit there and not believe? There's no one stopping them from not believing. They have that right and there is no legality in invading their homes, littering it with religious symbols and forcing them to church. They are perfectly allowed to be non-believers as long as they want. Why then do they feel the need to become ACTIVE and bring down all the believers? In effect forcing their religion of non-belief on the rest of us? They won't rest and won't be content until all religions are wiped from the earth. Sad really.

    Oct. 31, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    Maybe instead of using crosses, we could just put a large post with their name written on another post hanging off of it near the top. (Yes it will look exactly like a cross, but it's not a cross for you atheists) It is just a large post with their name nailed laterally near the top.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 1:27 p.m.

    How about the symbol the deceased would have chosen, religious or not? After all, we are honoring the fallen officer? Right? Athiests? Right?

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    Just goes to show that the Supreme Court doesn't have the guts to deal with some issues. The next civil war won't be the North against the South - it will be moral against immoral.

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:38 p.m.

    Religious symbols abound on public land. They are part of our heritage. The Supreme Court buidling itself is replete with religious (Judeo-Christian) imagery. As for a poll, count me amongst those who would not vote for someone who did not profess a belief in God. They would not represent me. Call that discrimination, or persecution, or vilification or whatever else your victimhood requires to be validated, it doesn't matter to me. Furthermore, the notion that religion should be excluded from the public arena is so preposterous that it hardly warrants a response. People are free to express whatever ideas they have in the public arena, whether they be religious or anti-religious it doesn't matter. We should be very leary of people who express the desire to suppress the thoughts and actions of others. So yes, we can see the lengths that people will go to keep religion out of the public arena and it doesn't sit well at all.

  • Be Practical Sandy, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:35 p.m.

    The irony about this is that a cross is not a religious symbol of the predominate religion of this state. There are no crosses in LDS churches or temples. A cross has become a universally accepted symbol of mourning and death, even in non-christian countries. What other symbol is there to denote such a sentiment? I think the courts got this one wrong.

  • Chumpley South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:25 p.m.

    Here we have the minority telling the majority what they should and should not do. If you were to build a simple memorial in rural Utah what is easier than a cross it takes 2 pieces of lumber and one hole in the ground to secure it. If you are an atheist and don't like the crosses then don't look at them.

  • runsrealfast POCATELLO, ID
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:25 p.m.

    "Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and the Utah Highway Patrol Association had requested a discretionary review of a 2010 decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that held the crosses on state property violated the separation of church and state."

    Uggg. To me this seems like a spirt of the law v's letter of the law issue. WHat if they weren't crosses? in this case do crosses really represent religion or is it representing someone has fallen?

    Utah you can do better. These men and women should be honored.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:13 p.m.

    You see to what lengths we nonbelievers must go in order to keep religion from sneaking into government and public arenas?

    Atheists are typically not joiners - we are typically radical individualists. But in order to protect our freedoms from the encroachment of religion, some atheists have found it necessary to incorporate (Atheists, Inc).

    I fully support this SCOTUS decision, but I also see Clarence Thomas' point. A thorough review of "Establishment" jurisprudence would be a good idea, considering the role religion is playing in the GOP primaries, and the divisive role religion is playing around the world. As local religious communities try to flex their muscles (in the name of "religious freedom"), they take on a mob-mentality that runs roughshod over the rights of nonreligious minorities.

    "Nonreligious minorities". Did I just type that?

    Actually, considered as a group, nonbelievers in the US would comprise the 3rd largest "religious affiliation" group! As a group, we are well over 5 times larger than Mormons or Jews. Yet we are discriminated against, demonized, vilified, and persecuted in a variety of ways.

    Don't believe me? Polls show more Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist than for a Mormon!

  • Danish American Payson, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:09 p.m.

    I say put them up anyway. Let them try and enforce it.

  • Mrs. Joe TOOELE, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    This is a terrible decision. I am so sick of people confusing freedom of religion with freedom from any sort of exposure to religion. The crosses in no way were state supported religion - they were a reflection of the religion of the killed trooper. In fact, in Utah, if it was a state sponsored monument to a particular religion, many public officials would never display a cross, due to being part of the religious majority here. Passing by a cross at the death site of a public employee in no way requires you to convert to mainstream Christianity and how it can be taken as such is beyond me.

  • Johnson72 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:04 p.m.

    Pull them down!

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    The irony is that if the religious symbols were the Crescent of Islam, nobody, including the American Atheists would say anything. They wouldn't have the guts and it wouldn't be politically correct anyway.

    So Arlington National Cemetery has quite a few crosses. Are those next? They ARE on public land, after all.

  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    Oct. 31, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    I beleive that then all crosses should be remove from public land and not just fallen Troopers who have given their life for the State. I further believe that this waste of money for the court battle needs to be limited. Next this group will want the cross remove from the rest place of fallen soliders, what next for these who hate the cross....................

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Oct. 31, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    Sounds good to me, religious symbols don't belong on public land! Lets memorialize these fallen heroes with a proper monument in one centralized location and without the divisive religious symbols.

    Oct. 31, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    Well done! It seems more and more that organized atheists are trying to remove religion from our culture, not just from our government.

    As for the "inclusivity" argument, dosen't it seem strage to allow crosses in Government cemeteries, but not allow them in this case? Also, it seems strage to me to protest the use of the cross as a symbol when it isn't even used by the majority religion here in Utah as a religious symbol.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 11:33 a.m.

    This is, unfortunately, a disturbing trend that is continuing in this country. No one is hurt in any way by these crosses, but there are those who are so unhappy in their own lives, that they have to attack others. I'm not personally hurt if these crosses don't appear on the highways, but there are those who will be. This is another sign of how our society is continuing to degenerate. It's really sad.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2011 11:27 a.m.

    Finally a good decision from the Supreme Court.