Crosses aren't religious - Christmas trees are.Does anyone else find
that a little wacky?
I personally like the fact that a group decided that the crosses, which are
designed to remember those who have died in the line of service, are too
offensive because they are crosses. This is in a state where the major religion
feels that a cross is not a good representation of their faith and does not have
them on their church's.And the group that wants these removed hasn't
offered a better way of remembering those killed. I guess in their opinion,
people shouldn't have to be reminded that people die trying to protect them.All the problems in this country, and the government can
"firmly" stand behind this one. Pathetic.
A country in which the minority can rule the majority.... /sigh. What's
happened to America?
Shameful.The Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."I'm not a student of law, but I have some comments:1) People often forget the second clause of this statement.2)
State Agencies are not Congress.3) The exegesis of the first amendment is
to forbid the establishment of a state religion, not to censor religion from the
"A country in which the minority can rule the majority.... /sigh. What's
happened to America?" Yes Arynen,Why should we let
"those" people sit up front on the bus?OrUse the same
bathroom or drinking fountain?Majority rule. Go to the back.What HAS happened to America?
I think it's a slap in the face that the UHPA has to ask for permission from the
state agency to go onto state lands to take down the memorials the state is
requesting them to take down.
Maybe we should go remove all the crosses engraved on the tombstones in
Arlington National Cemetery. Or maybe we should go through all the public
graveyards and remove any tombstone in the form of a cross. People
need to relax. As long as the family is okay with the memorial we should let it
Another step closer to iniquity. I hope good people step up and give
permission to erect memorials on their private land adjacent to these locations.
This is an absolute joke! I do not see how building a memorial to falled HP is
a violation of seperation of church and state. Those of you who are offended by
this really need to grow up. I seriously can't believe they had to remove these
If I remember correctly the State of Utah was establsihed by people who wanted
religious freedom? LDS Pioneers came to this great State and wanted those who
came to have just that..religious freedom and now even it looks like that has be
done away with because of politics..how sad :(
Bravo! Keep up the good work of separation. It is the right and just thing to
Since UDOT and Facilities Management deal with private citizens it seems like
these two agencies would attempt to work with the Association and let the
Association work with private citizens to put the crosses on their land, just on
the other side of the fence. I noticed the crosses north of
Panguitch and I believe the Association did a good job of painting over the logo
and is appropriate for the court's order, except if it is on public land, people
against people seem to still be pushing it.We are divorcing our
people and country from the One we Trust.
They should not have put them up in the first place and then there wouldn't have
been a problem.
wah waah waaaaah!!
Its truly amazing that with all the problems there are that could be helped by
some attention and focus, that there are those that keep wanting to focus on
"crosses on state property violate the separation of church and
state."These folks would surely blow a gasket at a place I
visited recently--Crosses as far as the eye could see on FEDERAL land-a federal
military cemetery. Leave the poor UHP alone and let them honor their
The highway patrol is the agency with guns and political support from the
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof! There is no mandate to
keep church and state separate. This is the most misconstrued tenent of the US
I personally don't like memorials on roadways, crosses or not. This is a
sensitive subject for many and I don't mean to sound uncaring at all. I just
think that there are better ways to remember our loved ones than to place a
"marker" where they died. From a logistcs point of view, people die
every day and we can't possibly put a marker every place they die so why are
some places of death worthy of a marker and others not? I guess I don't
understand the need to memorialize the place of death. If it's to remember them,
isn't that what a cemetary is for? I would much rather go to a quiet cemetery to
grieve for a loved one than sit on the side of a busy road or have too look at
it every time I drive by. If it's to honor them I'd rather see a tree planted or
something positive. A young man from our neighborhood died in an accident at the
entrance to the neighborhood. It was tragic. I didn't even know him and I cried
for his family. They placed a cross (with a Star of David painted on it because
he was Jewish) at the site immediately and people placed flowers, notes, etc.
for several weeks. I understand that and have no problem with a temporary
memorial to help in the grieving process. However, after a while they put up a
more permanent cross and a larged framed picture of him that they also put solar
lights on so it can be seen at night and they decorate the memorial for each
holiday. I am extremely sorry for their loss and for the terrible grieving they
obviously feel. However, I would like to drive into the neighborhood without a
constant reminder of death, just because that happened to be the location were
he died. Perhaps people could build memorial gardens in their backyards or
something where they can spend time to think of them privately. For everyone
else, life has to go on with hope and optimism and not the constant reminder of
sadness and tragedy.
Many seem to not have read the case as it proceeded, the real shame is that the
supreme court did not hear this one. This is a boarder line case but the liberal
Judges decided it. It is not the state that is doing it.But having said
that why not put up another memorial as they take down the crosses, or leave the
crosses as frame work to put a plaque up or sign over them.
The cross does not represent my religion and I am not offended. No one can be
offended without their permission, so dont give the permission! Oh I am sorry,
maybe it is because they want the suposed power. Please put your energy towards
something that will make a real difference rather than whittle down on the heart
strings of those that lost their loved ones in honor! I understand the Star of
David and the Muslim symbole can remain on public lands, thats ok!Now what
about the universal symbole of the dead. Lets choose our battles, this is only a
small insignificant one (or step) towards the great one comming. Some day the
moral majority will be pushed to far and wake up and take no more.
@ SpanishImmersed,However, the Utah Constitution strictly does
prohibit the mixing of the two. "The State shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...There shall
be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or
interfere with its functions."@ Tyler McArthur2)
Read the XIV ammendment, it places a lot of restrictions on States as it does
the National Government. 3) Often times courts consider things
beyond wording of the Constitution. They consider 1) Orignal intent 2) Modern
Day Application and 3) Actual wording. The intent was to ensure the religious
freedom of all, to practice, or not to practice. The struggle today is to find
the balance to allow people to practice without having other's freedom to not
practice (which is just as sacred) infringed.
Take them down.Case closed.
@TexasMom, I agree with you. And I can attest to the fact, from personal
experience, that some of these agencies do not have a word first with the family
to find out how the family feels about having a memorial at the location of
where the death occurred. I know that my family did not enjoy that constant
daily reminder. It think it is extremely insensitive to mark the place of death
Freedom OF religion. Not freedom from.When the minority
rules the majority that country will fold on itself. Minoritys who
want elitist powers, not just equal, but to rule.
I propose a State mandated religion. Let's go with Taoism. I propose we enforce
this with financial penalties and jail time for those who don't comply.There you go!Happy now?
This is sad.
@ Plebeius: Of the nine Judges on the US Supreme Court, 4 of them are
consistently conservative and 1 of them was considered very conservative when
nominated and, although he is often a swing vote, is still considered to be
rather conservative. You cannot realistically blame this on a non-existent
liberal court.@ ProudUtahn: Actually, no - you cannot have the Star
of David or Muslim symbols either.And if you know of a
"universal symbole of the dead" please do share - because no one else
seems to be able to name one.
I am christian. And I am offended that are resorting to FORCING our
religious symbol on persons... when they are dead.
Freedom OF religion... does not mean FAVORING one religion over any
other. This is a shameful example of trying to INJECT religion into
persons lives who never, factually, asked for it. And mars the
memory of those honored dead. Using their death as a political and
religious platform... instead of giving them the honor, they
deserve. It is abusrd for people in Utah to defend the 'just two
sticks'... when the dominat religion in Utah...dosen't even USE
crosses! Take them down... and treat people like you
don't CARE about their religion. Not the 'Christian Nation' that
some claim. While also double talking about being 'tolerant' of other faiths. But rather, treat them like, Americans.
"When the minority rules the majority that country will fold on itself.
"All these majority rules posts.Is that what you
think the laws of this country are based on?This is America where
everyone is protected by the constitution.Even those in the minority.Supreme court rulings should not take Majority wishes into
I believe that the people who objected to the crosses should have the decency to
find the money to replace these memorials with something they don't find
offensive. That would be a compassionate and caring way to show respect for
these fallen heroes. Although it always makes me sad to see one of these
'markers', they also remind me of the sacrifice good people have done for those
of us who live in this great state.
Whatever memorial is used should represent the faith of the person who it
commemorates. If there is no faith then a simple obelisk should be used. How
hard is that, really?If religious symbols on government land are
such a problem why aren't groups protesting all the crosses in Arlington?
Now lets remove the crosses from Arlington! Come heck or highwater we will kick
Christianity out of our country, who cares that it was founded by a bunch of
The problem is not the crosses take them down leave them up, what is going to
happen when this battle is done this same group will go after something else. So
whats next limiting the number of religious buildings with in a city mile?
Telling all religions to be quiet and go sit in the corner. So what will be
next? Everyone knows that this will not be the end of take, take, take everyone
can be offended about something. I am offended because so many people think I
want to listen to their music while sitting at a red light with my radio on and
windows closed. Do I have the right to force them to turn it down or put a stop
to it? Enough is enough
Honor the fallen with a memorial at the State Capitol.Religious
freedom means you can worship without government interference, it doesn't mean
that you get to put your icons hither and yon.I agree fully, with
Texasmom on this one.
@Texas Mom-you took the words right out of my mouth! People die every day, in
different circumstances and places. Maybe the appropriate place to grieve is at
the final resting place of the deceased, or a private memorial garden on one's
private property. So, why not have a marker (whether it's crosses,
tombstones, plaques, etc.) where everyone breathed their last? The landscape
would be cluttered with them! Plaques in hospital rooms, stores, a spot in a
parking lot,stores, churches, anywhere, etc. So, far me, it's not a matter
of separation of church and state-just the practicality and appropriateness of
where to memorialize a loved one.
How about selling a small piece of land to the family or friends of the fallen
officer, thereby making it private property. Then they can erect a symbol if
they want to. And it's not public land.
I guess this means the 10th circuit court has accepted that anything in the form
of a cross IS a religious symbol? I've never thought that the form was used
any more than an efficient way to put someone's name on a placard and secure it
in place to the ground. The fact that the early Romans also found that an
efficient way to secure a crucifixion victim to the ground as well is not lost
on me. What's interesting to me is that the 10th circuit court has accepted
that because a religion has chosen to use that particular form in its worship
that it somehow assigns religious meaning to the form to those not of that
religious faith. The only meaning that really is ascribed therewith to
non-believers should simply remain a healthy respect for someone else's
religious observance. I simply object to the 10th circuit court forcing me to
accept the form of the cross as a public religious symbol. It is not, it is
only religious to those who are believers of that faith.
i guess qw hve to go to the punch bowl, Normandy and all other cemetaries and
remove crosses. I say we occupy raveyards and this crosses and let these
miserable libs TRY and take them down.
I have been to Arlington and other military cemetaries around the world and the
Court system in the United States needs to get a life beside throwing aspersions
on the dedicated people who have put their life on the line and protected our
nation, states and local communities over the past 100 years as public servants.
We need a realignment of our system that our forefathers wanted to see go
forward for hundreds of year and not put under as has happened in not very many
I'm an atheist, and I don't mind if highway patrol officers have their religious
symbols to commemorate their memorials on public land It really doesn't bother
me; I don't think my religious rights are being taken away. They died in the
line of service, and deserve some kind of respect. However, considering this is
Utah, I'd venture to say that some or almost all of them are LDS, and a cross is
just not a good representation of their faith. Though if their family approves
of the cross to be used for their memorial, then I seen no problem.
Let's get the story straight about Arlington National Cemetary!1. It
is a CEMETARY....not some government land by a highway. People aren't forced to
see them like they are on a highway.2. The graves in Arlington are
marked with white headstones, rounded at the top. Crosses are "not the
standard there. The stone itself can be engraved with a small cross or other
accepted emblem 3. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently
offers 39 authorized faith emblems for placement on markers to represent the
deceased's faith. The ACLU did sue over Arlington cemetery so they would allow
Wiccan veterans to have pentacles on their headstones. Theyre in favor of
religious symbols on headstones, as long as we treat all religions equally.4. The government will provide at no cost to the estate of the deceased
an upright, white marble headstone or white niche cover. The order for the
headstone or niche cover will include the appropriate inscription and choice of
faith emblems.5. Cross or no cross, even if it is federal land,
Arlington Cemetary is something more private and special. It isn't by a public
highway.Get your facts straight people!
The court has gone way too far. The first amendment religion clause was
designed to allow freedom of religion. The "separation" that has been
added by the courts comes from an overly broad interpretation of the principle
that no one church should be favored above others. If the deceased or their
loved ones acting in their stead choose to use a cross as a memorial, it should
be no one else's concern - unless for some strange reason all memorials of any
type are banned. Banning memorials that have a religious connection and
allowing those that do not have a religious significance is ironically a
violation of the freedom that the court claims to be protecting.
There is an old saying that we have a choice to desire good or to desire
iniquity. My thought is that if this nation keeps turning toward the desire for
iniquity that one day the people of the nation shall have the reward of
Texasmom is correct. Keep the memorials in the cemetaries where they belong.
Nobody I know has a problem with crosses, or stars of david, or pentagrams on
tombstones in Arlington or any other cemetary. That is what those spots are
dedicated for: the final resting places and memorials to those who have died.Just don't associate a religious symbol with an official government
agency, much less a law enforcment agency, on public property along highways and
byways. Even if nobody intends for it to be an establishment of religion, it at
least gives the appearance of one.The Supreme Court has decided. Now
respect the laws of the land and take the crosses down! If you need help, let me
This is not about the fact that people were offended that they were crosses.
This is not an attack on religion, and wanting to remove all forms of religion
from existing. The fact is that PUBLIC money was used to fund these crosses.
How would the majority of citizens in Utah feel if we were paying to fund
projects that were completely against the LDS faith. They would not approve of
their tax dollars going to fund something like that. If these crosses are
paid for with PRIVATE money, and placed on PRIVATE land, then there would be no
My father is on the name of one of those crosses. I have testified in court for
them. It's ridiculous in so many ways. The farmer next to my father's memorial
is willing to put it on his land but that is not good enough for some because
people that wanted to read it would have to stop on public lands to park. It
just so happens that there is a state memorial right there regarding church
pioneers. Oh well. It appears my mom will soon have a giant cross in her garage.
I think the UHP shold start ticketing every state vehicle that commmits the
slightest infraction of the law and check all all drivers for alcohol.
TexasMom is right, we saw a whole cemetary lit up by solar lights down in
Louisiana last month. Families gather graveside to mourn almost nightly wih
lawn chairs and coolers.
One of you liberals please explain to me why you support the Atheist mother and
son who would put a skeleton dressed as Santa Cluas on a cross in Virginia but
decry this display that honors fallen troopers. Both were done on state
property, both were displays of religious (or non-religious) right. You
wait for the opportunity to pounce on displays of faith but support those that
would tear them down. It all seems a bit hypocritical to me. But it's all in the
name of the constitution, right?
@ als Atheist Bull the problem is the appearance of religion but the way
around it is calling for separation of church and state. Again I state what next
will we lose. @three11stuAs far as public money is concerned I will
donate money to keep the monuments where they are
'One of you liberals please explain to me why you support the Atheist mother and
son who would put a skeleton dressed as Santa Cluas on a cross in Virginia but
decry this display that honors fallen troopers.' - trumpman23 | 1:12 p.m. Dec.
14, 2011 Two points: 1) Santa Claus is NOT part of of
the mythos surrounding the Birth of Christ. As such he is not 'offending' the
'Christianity' of Christmas, because he was never PART of the 'Christ' in
Christmas. And yet, christians see no issue with it. 2)
If you are going to claim that the 'Cross' in your description is an insult to
any Judeo-Christian faith... than you JUST admited that these
crosses FAVOR one religion, over others. Which, is denied in our
Constitution. Freedom OF faith... does not mean
FAVORING, one. Good day to you.
KamUteDid your father believe in the law? Did he believe that the
justice system works for the best for ALL Americans? Do you believe in honoring
and sustaining the law?The supreme court agreed with the decision of
the circut court. This is the law of the land. Why not have something
different commemorate your fathers sacrifice? Why does it HAVE TO BE a cross?
Cut off the tops. Make it a "T" and be happy. Since
those who are fighting for these memorials seem to ONLY want crosses, it seems
to me that they are more interested in winning over the atheists than in
recognizing the troopers. Why?
Just paint 10% of the telephone poles white and dedicate them to the ACLU. If
we did it to all of them then people may not get it.
I would like to see a vote - by the people of this state on this issue.
Overwhelmingly the crosses would stay. I would like to see a list - of all those
who ruled to remove the crosses. Who are these people and perhaps it's time that
they stop hiding behind their justice robes and makes their names known so we
can vote them out of office!!!
patriotALL of the supreme court justices voted to agree with the
circuit court except one - Justice Thomas. Yes, it was 8-1.SCJ are
not elected by the people per our constitution. They have a lifetime
appointment.Do you believe in our constitution? Do you abide by the
virdicts of the courts and the laws of our land - or only those that you agree
with? You call yourself a patriot. Are you?
@Pagan (a.k.a.: King of the strawmen): When did I claim dominance of
faith? I simply pointed out that the SAME symbol was used by two disparate
groups as a vehicle for free speech. The liberal side applauds the denegration
of that symbol and praises it as a justifiable and accurate representation of
the commercialization of Christmas but are just as offended at the thought of
using that same symbol to honor someone. I remind you that these two acts were
done with the states' blessing.Quit trying to play strawman by changing
The discussion reminds me of when we lived in Illinois. An individual was
driving from Indiana to St. Louis and got on the wrong road and came through our
city. The city had a water fountain that was probably 30-40 feet across and
during the winter they covered the fountain with plywood to protect the
fountain. For years, at Christmas time, they put a stable scene on top of the
plywood. The individual from Indiana filed a lawsuit against the city and won
the suit. I believe a lot of people other than the individual from
Indiana are lost as we have seen this type of lawsuit become more in fashion
I am still waiting for anyone to show me just where in the Constitution are the
words, "Separation of Church and State." Please...somebody...maybe
one of these atheists who are so horridly offended by any religious symbol or
@ HCB63Utah Constitution, Article I Section 4"There
shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State
or interfere with its functions." In all fairness not the
words "Seperation" but "No union" means the same. And it is
the Utah Constitution, since it is a Utah matter, it is equally applicable.
@trumpman23I consider myself a liberal, and I in no way applaud the
example you illustrated. I in no way speak for anyone but myself, but I would
think most any sensible person of any group (conservative, liberal, athesit,
theist) would find what they did offensive, which is probably why they did it,
the shock value.To be honest, I don't really see what being a
liberal or conservative has to do with my religious values.
@Darrel:My intention was not political so please accept apologies if that
was miscommunicated. Rather than politically liberal I could say socially
liberal (or would progessive be more accurate?) in order to clear that up. In all honesty, though, doesn't one gain their sense of morals from their
religious/non-religious leanings? Thank you for keeping my rants on track.
I have read all of article and the comments. I find most of the latter rather
interesting in what is missing. My thoughts... why hasn't the State of Utah
considered doing what many other states have done? That is, name bridges or
stretches of highways or major intersections as memorials to these UHP
individuals? My wife and I travel at least 15,000 miles each year across this
great land in our minivan. When I see a sign designating a stretch of highway or
bridge or something similar my thoughts, usually lasting for the duration of
travel on that piece of road or structure, is of the individual, his/her
sacrifice, and perhaps a spouse and/or family he/she may have left behind. Isn't
that the purpose of the symbol -- the individual and the life given in the
service to his state and/or nation? It would be easy to find such memorials in
or near the individual's home town -- where he/she may be best remembered. Sure
beats something at the place of death. Just a thought on a quiet,
reflective afternoon down South.
No 2.The Utah Highway Patrol Association has erected the
12-foot-tall, white crosses to memorialize troopers killed in the line of duty,
is a lie.The actual reason for the 12-foot-tall religious symbol
cross was to promote and impose religion upon the American people. The trooper whos name is on the monument neither wants or needs this kind of
monument, and probably was not deserving of the honor. Highway patrol officers
are paid public employees doing a necessary job for business and society. It is
wrong to heap upon them phony and largely untrue attributes. All
public employees are deserving of our respect and appreciation for their
services. Not just those who wear uniforms that identify themselves as mainly
What are they going to do next? Ask that all the crosses be removed from
national cemeteries??? This is so wrong on every level. IT has everything to do
with the respect of a patrolman fallen in the line of duty. I don't care what
the symbol is... a Cross, a Star of David, a Hammer or a Dolmen, Monolith,...
etc etc. It is about the respect that I mentioned. For all of you
that my comments offend.. I step on your sensibilities. Step..Stomp.. Step
People favor pushing christianity on America sure appear to come across as
spoiled children when court rulings don't go in their favor. Very interesting.
Should read: People who favor
The UHPA should just keep the locations but replace the crosses with the
instrument that led to the demise of these wonderful servant's lives.We can line our highways with large replicas of guns, knives, clubs, getaway
cars, etc. Such a memorial we would have to honor these fine men and women and
nobody would be offended!
It's sad enough that this is even an issue; what's sadder still is the fact that
three different state agencies are involved with having the crosses removed.
What a waste.
Munk wrote:"For all of you that my comments offend.. I step on
your sensibilities. Step..Stomp.. Step"Throw your two-step,
stomping tantrum until you are blue in the face.The law is on our
side.I bet that just grates on you, doesn't it?Oh, well.
We we give as much regard to your sensibilities as you expressed to ours.
re: als Atheist "The Supreme Court has decided. Now respect the laws of the
land and take the crosses down! If you need help, let me know." Actually, the Supreme Court has decided not to decide. That's a bit
different. See if you can identify who/what entity said this:
"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication
of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public
highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not
be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The
Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of
religions role in society." Yep, you guessed it, SCOTUS.
How utterly sad that people can be soooo petty about something like this.
RE: The AtheistWhat Law?Federal Congress did not put the
Court ruled that crosses are religious and on government property. Arlington
Cemetery is government and they have these crosses.Through efforts
of Argonne Unit American Womens Legion, the Argonne Cross was erected to their
memory and honor. At the juncture of the arm/stem of the cross is a carved low
relief eagle and wreath.President Coolidge approved in 1927 a
monument consisting of a bronze sword adorning a 24-foot gray granite cross.
The inscription on the cross reaffirms sentiment expressed by Prime Minister
King regarding Americans who served in the Canadian Armed Forces. Following
WWII/Korean War, similar inscriptions on faces of monument were dedicated to
Americans who served. In 1971 a more-elaborate grave site was
completed, at the request of the Kennedy family, by architect I.M. Pe. The
grave site retains the simple, white Christian cross of the earlier site. Senator Robert F. Kennedys grave is marked by a simple white wooden
cross and a marble footstone.Senator Edward M. Kennedys grave is
marked by a white wooden cross and marble footstone identical to his brother
Roberts.Arlington Granite/marble covers contain 11 lines and may
include a religious emblem
Seriously people none of the arguments that you bring up are original they where
vetted over and over again by the courts and found to be completely without
Which part of 'public land' don't you understand? You want to put up crosses,
go buy some land and put up all you want. Problem solved.
@Lane: To be patriotic is to be continually questioning the "law of the
land" and whether or not it is a true representation of the will of the
people. The great patriots who founded this nation did not blindly follow the
"law of the land"... if they did we would all still be loyal British
subjects.Don't confuse patriotism and blind loyalty... they are NOT
The proof is in the form used for the monument. If the monument was a simple
single post or a round disk on a single post, the UHPA would have no interest in
creating a monument to a dead trooper. Of even if they named a bridge after the
trooper. Their real agenda is to advertise religion, and thus they need to use
One day someone is going to boycott paper money because it has "In God We
I thank those who have died in service, but we don't need reminders on every
roadside. Thats what graveyards are for.
Ultra Bob says "The proof is in the form used for the monument. If the
monument was a simple single post or a round disk on a single post, the UHPA
would have no interest in creating a monument to a dead trooper."AND you forgot to add that there would be no interest in whining about it,
except for the form. The proof is that some people want to whine
about anything religious.Doesn't matter if its good. Doesn't
matter if its right. Doesn't matter if it is honoring someone who gave
their life--if it has any religious connotations or connections or anything that
can be made to have any connection to religion, there are those who will blindly
ignore the goodness of it, or the honor it offers, and instead blindly rail and
whine and carry on about it.
If the busybodies want to remove something "offensive" from land along
our highways, start with the countless ugly billboards......
Many people whine about others who break the law. The greatest whine, in my
opinion, comes from religious advocates1 who whine about not being able to break
Ultra Bob- What law is being broken by these crosses? None.....
Id have told the Federal Court to drop dead and left the crosses there. They
don't hurt anyone and no one even has to look at them if they don't want to.
This is the same issue as the 10 Commandments or the cross out in the California
desert, all of which have been decided all over the map. Until the Supreme
Court gets the guts to decide a case there will continue to be muddled case law
depending on where you live. Of course the Supreme Court Justice that declined
the review was Sotomeyer who is over the 10th Circuit, and we know where her
I am quite sure there is a Mormon Article of Faith that says something like:
"We believe in honoring and sustaining the law... when it suits
us."Have I misunderstood?
Maybe tiny plots of land holding the crosses could be sold to private
individuals, thus the crosses are no longer on private land, and they could
remain in place. Why forget those who have died because a small
minority misinterprets honoring the dead at the site where they died as Congress
enforcing a state religion?
Foolish Child,Nobody is saying they should be forgotten.Just remember and memorialize them in the places designated for such things:
cemeteries. In those specially designated places, you can privately purchase a
plot of land on which you can place any number of religious symbols for anyone
who wants to to see.Why make this so complicated? Just follow the
Crosses say state agency's should go.
Northern,That is the theocratic thinking we are afraid of. Thank you
for confirming our concerns are justified.