posted
news An atheist group is trying to force the Utah Highway Patrol to remove crosses that memorialize fallen officers from the side of the road. Things like this irritate me. The seperation of church and state is good but I really don't think it requires the total absence of religion from public life. It simply requires the absence of a state sponsored religion. I guess I would have a problem with the crosses if they one were erected for a Muslim or Jewish officer but if the state put up a Star of David or an appropriate Muslim symbol I wouldn't have any problem with it. It seems that everyone wants to restrict the public display of faith but everyone is allowed to be very public about their total lack of faith or morals, which in my opinion, is a religion itself.
posted
While I think this is a silly lawsuit, you've got to acknowledge the subtext of the scary "force Christianity on others" attitudes of some of the people involved. For example, from your article:
quote:Dave Tabish, a self-proclaimed God-fearing American, said the lawsuit was the final straw for his call to action. "If we take God's law out of our society, what's it going to become?" he asked. Tabish, who owns a Salt Lake City-based insurance agency, said the suit is just another example of the vocal minority pushing their agenda down the throats of the silent majority. "We've taken God out of the schools, out of our council meetings and taken the Ten Commandments out of government," Tabish said. "It's time we stand up and put God back in our country."
posted
I haven't been able to confirm that other symbols are available for non-Christian officers. That and figuring out who decides for each officer are the only constitutional objections to the plan I can think of. And both are easily overcome - just let the the next of kin - whoever has say about funeral arrangements - make the decision, and make sure different markers are available.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do agree that some people are promoting the opposite but that is what you usually get in the news stories. I would guess that 90% of the population have no problem with the crosses, 5% have a major beef with it, and the last 5% believe we should be pasting the Ten Commandments to every public building. I hope the court allows the middle ground to stand.
posted
I would strongly disagree with your assesment of the percentages there. There are far more people trying to put Christianity in any place they can get it (witness the Christian Coalition, the largest Christian advocacy group in America, for example) then there are trying to remove all traces of religion. If you're like a large section of the population, I'd venture to guess that you wouldn't have gotten any where near as worked up about this if these were symbols of other religions. In fact, in Utah, I would not be at all suprised that if the UHP did erect large, visible Jewish or Muslim monuments, there was a movement of people protesting them.
---
Ultimately, the main problem I see with lawsuits like this are not that they are brought (because theoretically that's how the system is supposed to work) but that they are so expensive.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is important to note that the LDS church doesn't even use the cross as a symbol so the protests against the lawsuit don't really have anything to do with protecting a symbol we use but simply because it seems petty. In fact the LDS church uses the Star of David more than it uses the cross. eg Salt Lake Temple
I wonder how the same organization feels about the display of crosses in Arlington. I may be wrong but I believe that Arlington cemetary plots remain property of the government unlike most cemetary plots that are purchased. I may be wrong on this though
To flesh out the article a little, here's what the AA organization is saying:
quote: "The presence of the Latin crosses on government owned property with the Utah Highway Patrol logo prominently displayed thereon has the primary effect to advance religion, and conveys or attempts to convey the message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred," wrote Barnard. "The reaction of the average receiver of the government communication or average observer of the government action is that of endorsement of religion and particularly of Christianity..."
Jeff Nigbur, a spokesman for the Highway Patrol, told the Deseret Morning News that the cross symbol was selected "because it is the international sign of peace, and it has no religious significance in it." He also maintained that "a large number" of crosses were placed on private property adjacent to public roads.
Barnard described that claim as "less than honest," adding that the Latin cross is a symbol of the Christian religion.
"I don't think there is any question that troopers should be honored. They have given the ultimate sacrifice," said Mr. Barnard. "But they can be honored in a way that doesn't emphasize religion."
As for the property issue, Barnard provided the media and the court with details on the locations of the Christian memorials along with photographs.
Mike Rivers said that the goal of the American Atheists lawsuit was not to stop the honoring of fallen troopers but rather Utah's blatant promotion of sectarian religion.
"We feel the department of transportation, by allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association to pick a religious symbol is unfair. We think that it should be totally secular with no religious theme."
I think the AA is somewhat in the wrong on this one, but families should be the determining factor in what religious symbols, if any, are put up. Public land should be open to private citizens equally.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sergant, Maybe you missed it, but I've already pointed out something contained in the very article you linked that disagrees with your claim that the protests are about it being petty and not about "protecting" religion.
And, I don't know, your bit about how people don't have faith or morals seesm to suggest the same is true for you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read an article somewhere, awhile back, that noted that those types of memorial crosses on roadsides are a distraction and can cause accidents in of themselves.
Or something. I could very well be misremembering. Bob'll probably know about that, bein' a traffic safety guy and all.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I guess I did misspeak on that fact. I should have said my opposition to the lawsuit is that it is petty and not catagorize the protests of others. I don't have as big a problem with lawsuits trying to remove the Ten Commandment monuments from public buildings but I distinguish this from those displays because this is a memorial to individuals who I suspect where in fact christians and their families support the displays. Once again, if an athiest officer died and his family wanted to put up some non-religious symbol to memorialize him I think that would be great.
On another note, the discussion about the UHP symbol being used with the cross is kind of funny to me. The UHP symbol includes a beehive which some would take as a symbol of the LDS faith. I'm suprised no one is objecting to the use of that symbol
quote:Utah's blatant promotion of sectarian religion.
Yes, except for the minor fact that Utah's religious majority is Mormon, and the cross is not even used by the LDS church as a religious symbol. You would think that if the LDS controlled government were to blatanly promote their 'sectarian religion,' they would at least have the sense to promote their own 'sect.' To argue that it's just a way to slip religion into the lives of secular humanists is disingenious.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah...claiming that a Christian religion isn't going to regard putting the universal sign for Christianity in large monuments along highways as not promoting their religion seems kind of disingenous to me. That's kind of like saying, if they had signs that said "Utah is Christian country.", it wouldn't be regarded as promoting their religion because it doesn't specifically say "Utah is Mormon country."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't tell if you are just being a bit stubborn, or if you are really unaware of the nature of the relationship between traditional Protestant Christianity and the LDS church.
We don't use the cross as a symbol. You will probably not see it on churches, magazines, literature, buildings, jewelry or any other official Mormon items. I've never even met a member that used it privately. Just because you may not make the distinction doesn't mean that its not very real to others.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I've seen crosses on the side of the road (in several states) I never once thought anything religious except sorrow that someone had passed on. So my question is, does the cross always symbolize christianity? I know traditionally it does. It seems to me that it's been somewhat diluted in that regard to the general public, as a monument in death, I mean.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I yeah, actually everytime I see a cross for a tombstone, the first thing I think of is Metallica's Master of Puppets album. Twisted, I know.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Around here, they have signs with the officer's name and date of death posted on the road instead.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
