Atheists Sue To Have Crosses Honoring State Troopers Killed In The Line Of Duty Removed

You make very good points. Being a police officers wife this really pisses me off. I suppose if they won an easy solution would be for citizens or family members fundraiser some how so that the goverment was not paying for the crosses. That way they can't claim goverment establishment of religion.

Idiots! They're ruining it for everyone! Like your point, if you don't believe, what are you afraid of. Perhaps their consciences are being pricked!

Do these people realize that these officers died protecting them?
Oh don't get me started.

What a joke. The world is really starting to become a messed up place.

Right on, y'all

I think, someone should turn around and sue these atheists. Their beliefs or lack of, is infringing upon our constitutional rights of freedom of religion, they have caused the families of these fallen heroes undue mental and emotional stress and harm.

Someone should ask these idiots, "Why their rights not to believe is more important then my right to believe?

This is getting very bad. If you don't believe fine, but you don't have the right to trump on my beliefs. If one of those troopers was an atheist and requested that one be taken down fine, otherwise they are invading on the rights of the fallen troopers.

What frickin' idiots!

I don't understand why they think they should have the right to do that. I don't care if they don't believe in God but why piss on everyone else's beliefs? Since when did the minority make the rules? The majority of Americans either believe in a God or they don't care about religious symbols. In other words ... they're tolerant.

I'm sure there are many atheists who don't care about removing all symbols of God, but like always only the radical factions make the news. It's like an encouragement to be more and more outrageous.

(Thank you, Madeline Murray O'Hare. You miserable old witch. No wonder someone murdered you and no one even missed your sorry ass!)

To play the devils advocate...no pun intended. If one of the fallen was a devil worshipper or jew or muslim would you support any religious icon that represents their religion on display at a service for all of the 13 officers?

The Christians support their way of thinking ONLY.

How is placing Crosses along a roadside considered "Congress establishing a religion"?

David police officers are state employees. So in placing the christian crosses it shows the states preference to christianity.

I think someone said in here earlier that IF one of the officers had been of a different faith and wouldn't have wanted a cross they should have the right not to have one.

Not all Christians only support their way of thinking. Again, it's the extreme minority who make the news. I would support all religious beliefs ..... unless it involves murdering those who don't believe.

I think the atheists have too much time on their hands. They have nothing better to do. The crosses should not be remove.

I'm a state employee, too. And I would hope that my personal beliefs would be more important upon my death than what a handfull of atheists want.

We were discussing this in government the other day. It seems like ALL matters of religion that get censored by the government are because of some atheist who hates seeing religion. Does the lack of religion really give them soooo much free time that they can just go around trying to piss people off?

I disagree Lori.

Placing crosses in honor of the fallen officers is simply that honoring those lost in the line of duty. It was no an act of Congress that established a religion, Christianity. It wasn't an act that said, "Christianity is the official religion of the government." That's all the 1st Amendment does. It says Congress can't make any religion compulsory and it can't forbid any religion.

The atheists are probably thinking the same thing. Why do they have to have so much Christianity shoved down their throats in the guise of honoring something.


David and again would you support a pagan icon for a state employee the same way as a christian icon or would you be outraged or feel that it is inappropriate?

Lori;

Yes

David would you support no religious icons for an atheist killed in the line of duty?

Once again I sit here amazed there are people among us that are so intolerant. As a Christian I have never been offended by any symbols of faith held closely by other beliefs. Why is it some within other (or no) beliefs are so offended by my symbol of faith?

Again, Lori; Yes.

If you really want to understand why they (American Atheists, Inc.) are protesting this, please consider the following: Putting up a cross to honor someone who has died is a decidedly Christian practice.

Neither the Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or pagans, or atheists, or the (insert name of any non-Christian religion, or non-religious groups here) erect crosses to honor the dead. Only Christians erect crosses to honor their dead.

To properly honor State Troopers who have died in the line of duty, placing giant badges (or some other symbol of the State Troopers Corps) would have been more appropriate and totally non-controversial.

Only Christians erect crosses to honor their dead.

So? A Star of David, or a Cresent, or a Golden Cow, or the 8-armed Goddess can be erected in honor if they choose.

That's just it, Bill. It's not for me, or you, or Lori, or anyone else to determine what an organization, a community decide is appropriate tributes. It's only controversial because the ACLU opted to make this case controversial.

Alot of people put up photos, or flowers, or other non-religious memorials at roadside accident scenes, and shooting scenes. I don't recall anyone suing over any of those. What's the difference?

There isn't any.

Actually I like the idea of the badge symbol. In my area there are crosses, flowers, little markers, etc. on many highway commemerating somebody killed on the particular spot. The badge symbol (or something designating the Patrol) might be much more distinctive and honoring. The issue here is not crosses; it's public property and what is Constitutional upon public property, be that the state highway or courthouse lawn.

The Highway Patrol has a tough and many times unrewarding job of necessary public service. Those who die in the line of duty should be revered. Again in my area sections of highway or bridges are named after fallen patrolmen. There CAN be appropriate tokens of public acknowledgement without religious symbolism.

True, Sam; but, that should be left up to the local jurisdiction to decide.

think the motive behind this....and this is just a guess on my part. If you look beyond Robs article.

Our country we enjoy freedom of religion...I think that is a basic.

We have the constitition that while it doesnt specifically say seperation of church and state it does say that no religion shall be given preference over any other.

So by displaying one symbol....a christian cross you are in fact favoring one religion over any other. So unless you are willing to honor every other religion and that would include things like satanic worship then it is just best to keep all religion out of something state sponsored.

I think had it been a star of david these atheists would have had the same reaction.

The Constitution states there be no law written respecting religion. Since government existence is defined by law, land assumed public is done so by law. The function of government is to legislate, enact, ajudicate and enforce law. If it is beyond the ability of government to issue law respecting religion the government has no right or ability to erect any symbolism respecting religion.

Personally I am not offended at the sight of a cross in honor of a fallen trooper but I do understand and agree with our founders intent on the Establishment Clause. The cross, despite the religious symbolism of death and resurrection is also the historical symbol and banner under which more blood has been spilled than any other icon in mankinds existence.

One might argue that the Red Star or Hitler's swastika in total numbers far out matches the Cross. Never mind the various symbols under which the competing warlords in Chinese and Mongolian history butchered untold millions in Asia, the Middle East, and eastern Europe.

David B. - I would and could take issue with these memorials IF (and only if) taxpayer money was used to erect them (it wasn't); and/or IF a cross is erected as a memorial to someone who wasn't a Christian (which I have no real clue about). Since these memorials were funded by a private association, and since no family member has come forward to point out that any specific officer memorialized was not a Christian, then I don't really have any objections to these memorials.

Just so you know, the ACLU was not mentioned in Rob's article, or in the one he linked to. American Atheists, Inc. is the only organization listed as pushing this lawsuit.

But they are on public land.

Part of the problem you could run into when it comes to this is....you put a christian symbol up fine they are all christians or no one seems to mind but what if the next fallen police officer happened to be a satanist? Would you be so supportive of an UPSIDEDOWN cross or a swastika?

This is public land. And since there is no designated religion of the United States the satanists would and should have just as much right to post their symbols on public land and as a privately funded memorial just as the christians do.

Just for the record I am not a christian or a satanist.

Lori F. - I thought of the "public lands" aspect, but I couldn't find any proof that the crosses were erected on public land. The pictures in the article linked to do not clearly show whether the crosses are on public or private land; only that they are visible from the highways.

Bill they are located next to the highway in Utah so it is public land.

right next to highways are much like tree berms...owned by the city if in town by the county or state

"We have the constitition that while it doesnt specifically say seperation of church and state it does say that no religion shall be given preference over any other."
Lori F., Nov 18, 2007, 4:07pm EST

No, Lori, it doesn't. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Period.

The individual States, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, must abide by the 1st Amendment. As long as all religions, regardless of denomination or belief system, are accorded the same treatment; AND that included no law preventing any of them from practicing their religion as they see fit, it is Constitutional. Congress (or the States) can't pick one religion and make it official (no establishing), but it can't prevent individuals or groups from expressing their religious beliefs in public.

The phrase, "seperation of church and state", refers to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 and appears nowhere in the Constitution. While it is historically interesting, is NOT found in the Constitution.

Congress

The Danbury letter was a reassurance to Virginia Baptists who were actively persecuted prior to Virginia's ratification of the Constitution. Jefferson defined the intent of founders by writing that the Baptists need not fear government interference with religion and that "wall of seperation exists between church and state." Jefferson's intent and letter has influenced subsequent court rulings supporting a vigourous seperation on all levels.

David you are nitpicking.

So I didnt remember the exact wording. The fact of the matter is this is publically owned land and putting the christian crosses up is inappropriate.

"Jefferson's intent and letter has influenced subsequent court rulings supporting a vigourous seperation on all levels."
Sam C., Nov 18, 2007, 8:33pm EST

Yes, Sam. But, my point is there is no Constitutional basis for the court rulings you cite. The fact still remains, there is nothing in the Constitution as it was ratified, or amended since, that makes it Constitutional to supress religious expression in any form. To use Jefferson's words in that way is to do a great injustice to the man, because the comfort he was trying to pass on to the Baptists, is exactly contrary to what has occured in the patter part of the 20th century and up until today.

Lori:

Nitpicking? How so?

Where in the Constitution does it say a Cross is inapproriate and can't be erected on public ground?

It is nothing more than a lie to suggest that in America religion has been suppressed. The free exercise of religion has been paramount. The reason that religious expression is not appropriate on federal property is because there is no establishment of religion in this country. It's not a difficult concept, David. You want a theocracy in this country and I'm sorry but we are a republic with all of the great concepts and laws that are enshrined in our constitution. Luckily, we live in a country where everyone can practice religion as they see fit. But, no - that's not good enough for you.

"It's not a difficult concept, David. You want a theocracy in this country and I'm sorry but we are a republic with all of the great concepts and laws that are enshrined in our constitution."

That's the lie, Joe. I don't want a theocracy. That's hyperbole on your part. As far as religious expression in the public arena., that IS one of the venerable concepts enshrined in the Constitution.

As to the Crosses in question in this article, they aren't located on "federal property". So, you're wrong on that count as well.

OK - David - just where are they located? The fact is that you do advocate for a theocracy. You have made these comments throughout the time I've read you on Gather. What is so difficult? Religions have thrived in this country because of the First Amendment not in spite of it. The few places where religious expression is prohibited are not restrictive at all.

David fine leave the crosses but how many christians do you think would be outraged if a satanist wanted to do the same thing.

All the atheists are trying to do is to get the US government to accept that no religion or someone who chooses to have no religion both have merit.

I dont agree with anything the satanic religions preach even more than I do the christians...so based on your principles a satanist has just as much right to put up their upside down cross or a picture of that Anton leader guy.

What the atheist are saying is maybe no religion in this case is better than having to deal with the back lash.

BTW all heated emotion aside the atheists group arent against the memorial to these officers they are just against putting a religious icon on land that belongs to all americans. Even those that dont believe in any god.

"The fact is that you do advocate for a theocracy."
Joe T., Nov 18, 2007, 10:28pm EST

Prove it Joe. Cite the article, date and time of the comment ... any comment, where I've advocated a theocracy. Good luck, you won;t find any. Again, you are putting forward an untruth without supporting evidence.

"Religions have thrived in this country because of the First Amendment not in spite of it. The few places where religious expression is prohibited are not restrictive at all."

That is exactly my point, Joe. The government has no authority to prohibit religious expression. Any prohibition of such expression is in direct violation of the First Amendment! "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is very clear, Joe. Clear and in contradiction to your statement. You're talking in circles my friend.

Lori, I understand what you saying. I understand what the atheists are arguing. I can only say again, permitting the erection of crosses as a monument alongside a roadway does not constitute establishing a religion. The fact that the crosses are there does not obligate anyone to practice a particular religion.

The atheists don't have a constitutional right to not be exposed to something they disagree with; which when you boil it down to brass tacks, is what they're arguing.

There are a few places where religious expression is not appropriate. It is you, David, who is talking in circles. But, then again, isn't that your point. To keep a circular argument going so that you don't have to admit what you truly believe.

Public ground is public and the public can do what it pleases David? And if the government is restricted from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" then the government may in no way restrict the demostration of any religion at any place and any time public or private property? Or do locales have juristicion? Say the new agers of N California wish to decorate highways with Buddist symbolism or the Catholics of Maine wish to line the road with purple and candles during Lent?

You do understand that we ALL pay for these public grounds and it is insanity to allow the most volitale of human endeavors, religion, to have unfetterd sway on public ground. You are right, it nowhere states in the Constitution that religion is forbid on public ground. But it is certainly in the intent, expericance and history of the founders to walk a very strict line which is what the courts have done. Jefferson used to favor a quote from Voltaire that the "last king be strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

I think they should only have the right to sue if their grave is involved or there are instructions from some saying they are athiest or whatever. Too many athiests think they speak for all, and they can only speak for one.

I stand here to dissagree.

On THREE points

First, any monies spent from general tax revenues is a violation of my right to NOT contribute to the forwarding of mythological and illogical beliefs. ( life everlasting, walked on water, healing touch - ridiculous ! )

Second, the track record of the christian sect is not good when it comes to " leaving dissenters alone " . Once you allow these crosses, or forced prayer time in schools, or the federal allowance to use religious groups to do public works, the slope is just too slippery.

Next it could be " christians only " food stamps, or Christian discounts on taxes, food or fuel . ANY PUBLIC leeway given to them, even though I agree that fallen officers need and deserve honor, ( MY father is a retired deputy sheriff and served well and with honor ) is a restriction on my own religious freedom to be UNbotherd, UNtainted and UN pressured by those same institutions.

What those officer's family and friends and even fellow officers CHOOSE to do on their own, on private land with private funds and in a private manner, is more than fine. JUST don't involve any of the whole of our nation.

AND lastly,

IF blacks and jews don't believe in the same " racial supremacy " of the Nazi's then WHY would they fear having 13 swastikas around their town? ? ?
The crosses represent oppression and force of acknowledgement of the other beliefs' validity.

EVEN your line " . . . . That will be between them and god when the time comes . . . " illustrates what I am saying.

IF their is no god to an atheist, then that " time " will never come, unless the atheist, ( OR as I prefer to be called " Logical Realist " ) accepts that you are right and they are wrong.

You shouldn't preach lack of offense and then offend in the process.

HEY David, and you all, I just thought of something.
MY OWN religion demands that no other religious symbols or representations be funded or maintained with my support, so I am going to have to stop paying taxes in any municipality or community that allows YOUR freedom to overshadow my own.

Hows that ? ? ?

OH and btw studies here in Iowa have shown that ANY decorations of the highways ( religious or not ) jeopardize traffic safety as drivers take notice of them at the cost of watching the road .

BTW, my family also contains firemen and at memorial day they place plaques at graves of fallen firemen that are of the firemam's four legged shield.

I quite like the idea of badges or eagles with the scales of justice of something else DUTY related for these fine men and honorable servants, JUST not religion on my dime or at the cost of my right to my own freedom to avoid them.

As an Atheist myself, even I wish American Atheists would choose their battles a little more....circumspectly. This isn't an issue that makes me lose any sleep at all.

This is one of those things where they are trying to push their beliefs on others. If they win I will be very surprised. Let alone this being disrespectful to those fallen officers.

Dan you left out crucifying a frog as art.

Some atheists (from up close and personal experience) feel a need to prove something...just like some religious extremists do. Anyone with that kind of motivation lacks balance and judgment.

Douglas Eden-

"so I am going to have to stop paying taxes in any municipality or community that allows YOUR freedom to overshadow my own."

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

If you go to Washington, D.C., you'll find a large percentage of our national monuments have Judeo-Christian references--do they want to tear those down as well? Probably so, but the public outcry would be so drastic they won't try it.

I think this in infringement on the religious rights of the troopers and their families and a very sad thing to do publicly to them. The Constitution has no basis for this, which is why I'm so against "legislation from the bench," which is what allows stuff like this to go through without any legal reason behind it.

There is a lawsuit brewing here to have all roadside cross and memorials removed, not because of the religious connotations but because they present a distraction to motorists. Traffic studies showed an increased incidence of rear-end collisions at certain intersections where there were traffic-death crosses.

Oh for crying out loud!!! Someone needs to take the ACLU and hang them up by their big toe!! As for Athiests, well, it doesn't matter if they don't believe, it DOESN'T change the fact that God DOES exist!! As for the crosses, it's not so much the fact that it's used as a religious symbol; but that it's symbol of honor! And I see NOTHING wrong with that!
Those Officers DESERVE to be honored!!

sometimes people do the stupidist things. i think they do it just to antogonize people.

The Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law regarding the estabilishment of religion. State governments could theoretically declare a state religion and it wouldn't violate the amendment at all. Mandatory prayer and Bible reading in a public school would not violate the amendment. It is strictly limited to the actions of a federal Congress. These problems are created by activist judges who set precidents that can later be exploited.

ding dong

Wouldn't a shield (badge) have been more appropriate. There's a small unit patch on the cross ... but it seems a badge would transmit the message more efficiently to motorists whizzing by at 70 MPH. A cross could be for anyone.

Agree that the atheists are often "over the top," but their response would be that the pervasiveness of religious influences in what is supposed to be a secular government is exactly the point. I think they'd be better off attacking the real religious contamination of our government, but they do have a point.



To Brook D. - Sections 3 and 4 of the Utah state constitution (Emphasis in CAPS mine):

Sec. 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Sec. 4. [Religious liberty.] The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions. NO PUBLIC MONEY OR PROPERTY SHALL BE APPROPRIATED FOR OR APPLIED TO ANY RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. EXERCISE OR INSTRUCTION, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment. No property qualification shall be required of any person to vote, or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution.

On the one hand, since a private group put the crosses up, and not the state, the atheist group really doesn't seem to have an argument here. On the other hand, since the spokesperson for the group which put up the crosses stated that they were simply meant to commemorate the sacrifice of the highway patrol officers, what's the objection to choosing a less controversial symbol? Why not badges, or small signs with the patrolmen's photos, or (my preference) trees planted in their memory? Why does it have to be an overtly Christian symbol?

If the state prohibits other groups form erecting "highway memorials" they should be taken down regardless of what they are. Some highways and roads have become littered with personal memorials that have been abandoned. Some states have made laws against them or allow them for a limited time with a permit and then they must be taken down.