Top Story
Zakaria: A More Disciplined America
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
US game designer blasts into space with DNA cargo
 
 
expand

Utah’s Cross Controversy

The Utah Highway Patrol Association is faced with a lawsuit over placing by the side of the road crosses honoring state troopers killed in the line of duty.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 17, 2007 | Updated: 3:11  p.m. ET Nov 17, 2007

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: mchave35 @ 07/13/2008 7:13:35 PM

    Comment: This isn't about faith, this is about people that obviously have too much time on there hands, and even though they probobly hate it when anyone tries to preach to them, and make them beleive in something they do not beleive in , they are willing to do just that. Going to the point of legal action. This is a FREE country. If you do not want to see the crosses as a religeous article, then don't....and if you do, do. Incorporate self observance, and quit trying to decide for the general public. God, or not, no one has the right to tell anyone what to think, do, or feel. If you do not like it, don't pay attention, the World does not revole around you. Get a life!

  • Posted By: Joyfl @ 12/21/2007 6:35:35 PM

    Comment: My Son is a Police Officer and I applaud Utah for this act !!!

    Wake up people, if you used as much energy trying to protest our government's lack of help with the fuel situation, you'd actually be doing something........

  • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:17:19 PM

    Comment: I'm writing a critical thinking paper and i would like to ask
    certain questions, that you may or may not answer.......

    1. Is the image of a cross, to an atheist,
    more specifically... the members in "American Atheists", like...

    images of swastikas to the Jewish or Jewish Americans, or,

    burning crosses or dangling nooses are to Black Americans?

    Does that symbol, to an atheist, signify evil to them?

    2. If it turned out the trooper was possibly an Atheist himself,
    what kind of 12-foot symbol would he think, ought to be placed there?
    How do you erect a hole, 12 feet high, in the air?

    Once, I saw a cartoon of Secret Squirrel, in where one of his
    gimmicks was the secret hole, that he pulled outta his trenchcoat,
    whenever he wanted something to fall and disappear into
    'ab-so-lute-ly NOTHING!' Maybe we can ask the Nicktoons network
    for some insight.....

  • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:14:33 PM

    Comment: test.

    • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:20:27 PM

      Comment: 3. Think about the following scenario......

      If time-travel were possible today, and you could travel back into time
      to change the course of human history....would atheists use that technology
      in an attempt to save Jesus from dying on that cross, preventing Christianity?
      Would they kidnap or kill Judas, preventing him from betraying Jesus to the
      Romans and the Sahnedrin?
      In order to insure that the argument, that there is no God, has a
      better chance of acceptance, as 'fact' among all who would otherwise wish to
      believe, would atheists consider this kind of action, to achieve supremacy
      for their belief system? Or would attempts such as these, if possible and
      proven successful, eliminate the first atheists from existence...causing a
      dire time paradox?

      • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:43:05 PM

        Comment: 4. Or, what about THIS

        What would the symbol of Christianity be today if,

        Cesar Tiberius, then ruler of the Roman Empire, got such a ka-knock on the noggin,
        decided in his infinite Emperor's wisdom, to send word to Pontius Pilate,
        then prefect ruler of then-Judea...that killing notorious would-be revolutionaries,
        state's enemies, and other nefarious criminals, on CROSS-SHAPED Crucifixes, was,
        by order of the Emporer, hereby forbidden!

        Pontius Pilate receives this word from his Emperor. And being the good and dutiful
        servant of the Senate and the Emperor of Rome, orders his soldiers under his command that
        crucifixions on CROSS-SHAPED crucifixes is forbidden, and relates to his men that if
        they commit such a grave offense, while carrying out the will of the state,
        they'll get chopped up and fed to the lions at the Colliseum.

        So....the soldiers, obeying their prefect, take exceptional care to build their crucifixes
        for their condemned as ANY OTHER SHAPE EXECPT CROSS-SHAPED, fearing the punishment of the
        prefect if they violated the order.

        • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:48:14 PM

          Comment: Now folks, with THAT in mind...what results if Jesus was put to death by....

          crucifixion on a T-shaped battlement, like they did to Spartacus and many others,
          all down the Apian way....

          _ry _o imagine wri_ing if the A_heis_' effor_s were succesful. _hey would have _o figh_ over how _o
          comfor_ably spell _hier iden_i_ies, as well as _he agnos_ics, who would probably be really
          _icked off a_ _hem. As well as mostly everyone else, including Noah Webs_er, au_hor of the Dic_ionary.....

          Imagine if the crucifix was Y-shaped, or I-shaped, or even A-shaped, or H-shaped???

          Imagine if they just nailed poor Jesus to a large oak tree, or any tree, for that matter?
          Would the government re-forestation services and the National Park System
          be targeted by atheists as promoting religion with their growing of trees??

          • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:53:35 PM

            Comment: Imagine if electricity was used back then....

            Would we non-atheists be praying wearing the metal skull-caps, or knife switches, from electric chairs?
            Would brine solutions, used to soak the shaved heads of the condemned for better current flow,
            be removed from high-school chemistry classes as religious artifacts and expressions of worship?

            What if jesus was hurled from a catapult to his demise?

            Forgive them father, they know not what they
            DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo.....................?

            • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/13/2007 8:43:56 AM

              Comment:
              Or... What happened if they decide to BEHEAD poor Jesus, like they did John the Baptist? Would we all be praying to Guillotines or Axes?

            • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 5:59:10 PM

              Comment: What if the romans decided to shape the crucifiux into a star-of-david, or even a
              jewish menorah? With candles lit each hour he hung there, even?

              What would happen if they decided to HANG jesus,
              would we be praying to dangling Nooses? God help the Jena Six!

              or depictions of trap-doors, leading to hungry alligators?

              Imagine Homer Simpson's Boss, Evil Mr. Burns, about to respond to Homer's
              asking for a raise, by sending him down to his hungry alligators....

              "Don't tell those atheists, Homer, but you have to sanctified first, by my elders of the congregation...
              down.......
              there......"


              God forbid, Jesus to be crucified on a SWASTIKA-shaped crucifix?

              • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 6:01:55 PM

                Comment: Or even off the top tip of a red crescent....or ANY color crescent? What would the poor atheist do
                when certain phases of the moom show up? Who would they sue then? God?!
                According to the Atheists, He doesn't exist!
                Then What?! Sue the Government for not blocking out the sky at the proper moments, allowing offending
                displays to be seen in public airspace?!

                What happens if a comet hit the moon at the right spot, causing a CHRISTIAN CROSS-SHAPED CRACK in the moon?!

                What in the name of _________ are the Atheists gonna do THEN ?!?!?!

                • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/13/2007 8:58:29 AM

                  Comment:
                  When in fact, throughout all the history of the prophets of the Bible, ranging from Daniel, to Amos, to Ezekiel, to Isaiah, to all the others that came many years BEFORE the birth of Jesus...correctly predicted (or Foretold, if you like...) How the Son of God would be born, where he would be born, how he would live, what his ministry would be, and even, the how-when-where-what-and why of the final days of his life, leading to his execution.

                  Many Many prophets, so remote from each other through time and space, all foretold the Who and What of Jesus....they called him Immanuel, i think...meaning "God with us"

                  And if all those prophets, all those men, vastly remote and apart from each other, saw the same thing....and then many many many years later Jesus came to fulfill all those prophecies.....ALL OF THEM....then how are the Atheists going to prove to any of us that there is no God?

                  Perhaps it is God they have to thank for their existence and ability to deny his.

                  But before they can thank him, they have to acknowledge he exists, first.

  • Posted By: skier842 @ 12/03/2007 9:41:33 PM

    Comment: The crosses as a memorial to fallen troopers? Then how come you can???t even read their names unless you pulled over. Let???s really honor the fallen troopers by having a bridge named after them like other states do and get away from the religious connotation. Or make the beehive the same size as the cross that way you can read their names, but that???s not what proponents want to portray. Take a look at the cross in the Echo Rest area. You can see it a half mile away on a hill top but you can???t see that its a memorial till you pull into the rest area and climb the hill, so much for a memorial for the trooper. If a fallen trooper was a Jew or a Muslin would they put up their symbol to them and how long would the so called religious allow it to stand. If grandma dies at home do you plant a cross in the front lawn or if grandpa died in the hospital do they put a cross in the front lawn of the hospital, NO so why put one on the highway? Do accident victims deserve any greater recognition then others? Stick the cross in the cemetery where they belong.

    • Posted By: Augie BenDoggie @ 12/11/2007 6:35:04 PM

      Comment: Utah build bridges in memoriam for fallen troopers? Sure...all they gotta do get killed next to a river, that is...if Utah had enough rivers...

      So what happens if the poor trooper gets shot dead in the line of duty in salt lake city, inside a bar selling three-two beer?! People would have to pay membership dues to get in and see the memorial of WHAT?

  • Posted By: Seini Toa @ 11/30/2007 3:54:41 PM

    Comment: It wasn't the fact the state was using crosses for the dead troopers; it was the fact that other wreaths, crosses, and markers placed on areas of deaths were discarded as trash and removed by state workers. The public only wanted the same rights to show a memorial for their dead loved ones as the Utah State Highway Patrol was doing. Is is amazing the issue became an "aethiest" issue when in fact it was grieving families offended by thier memorials being removed as trash, but no one in the state was removing the crosses for the troopers. This has everything to do with equal rights. I think the crosses are a fantastic way of honoring the people that put thier lives on the line for us; however, it should also be okay for a husband, wife, father, mother, or children to place a small memorial alongside the road where thier loved one was killed without it being thrown away as trash. The question is: why is it okay for the troopers, but not others killed on the highways to show thier loss and grief and a form of remembrance?

  • Posted By: bradley37 @ 11/29/2007 5:23:22 PM

    Comment: My condolences to the families who lost loved ones. My family prays for each of you constantly. May God bless your family with comfort. My family prays for the Athiest just as much as well as the leaders of this country. You all weigh heavy on our hearts

  • Posted By: skier8809 @ 11/29/2007 1:36:51 PM

    Comment: The Constitution states that there shall be a strict separation between church and state. It does not require that the state adopt an anti-religiious approach to all things. As wee were founded as a judeo-christian society, certain symbols of that ethic have become non-religious symbols, such as the cross signifying honor to the deceased. This opposition from this fringe group, and they are an extreme fringe group, is not based on separation of church and state, but rather an absolute anti-religious bias. The court should sumararily dismiss the case as without merit and award damages to the state for a frivilous lawsuit. The attorney representing the group should be disbarred for violation of his/her bar oath.

  • Posted By: mfritzen @ 11/29/2007 8:45:15 AM

    Comment: The cross has everything to do with Jesus Christ. Believers in Christ should stop hiding Him. Athiests are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in. "One day every knee will bow and tongue confess He is Lord." On this day, how will we answer to Him? On this day all people will know that they were born precious unto the Lord.

  • Posted By: 1pov @ 11/27/2007 1:35:17 PM

    Comment: Ms Taylor:
    A stick lying perpendicular on top of another stick is not in and of itself religious.
    Seperation of church and state is not in the Constitution.

  • Posted By: 1pov @ 11/27/2007 1:30:44 PM

    Comment: The verticle stick is needed to hold the horizontal stick up. Are these names supposed to float?
    The cross in of itself is not religious. What will be next, Arlington Cemetary? Will a few people be allowed to desecrate the graves of many war heros?
    Why are the many catering to the few who take offence where none is given?

  • Posted By: bubba1939 @ 11/26/2007 11:19:31 PM

    Comment: maybe the american people need to wake up look at how many freedoms they are losing this is one that the people need to decide once and for all, put it on the national ballot let the people vote it up or down and you are right there is no constitional separation of church and state but there a bunch of illiterate idiots that think they sound important using the terminology. lets have a vote

  • Posted By: andso @ 11/26/2007 2:01:59 PM

    Comment:
    Ms Taylor needs to read the Constitution, there is NO seperation of church and state. There is one about the government establishing a STATE RELIGION, it would help if people knew what they were talking about. Reading that particular document might help.


    Posted By: bethitaylor @ 11/25/2007 10:33:36 PM
    Comment: A cross is a cross. Placing it on public property violates the constitutional separation of church and state. This isn't about offending Christians or athiests. It's about upholding the rule of law. They should come down.

    Beth Taylor

  • Posted By: ariberry @ 11/25/2007 11:12:20 PM

    Comment: Yes a cross is a cross, maybe some associate it with religion but there are so many out there who just associate it with a memorial. Being from Texas I can promise you that there are at leasts hundreds of crosses on the roads around here commemorating where someone has died in a car accident or was kidnapped, etc. One of those is not even 3 miles from my home for a 19 year old killed by the side of the highway this last summer. The argument is stupid and ridiculous. Let this Texas based group come and fight that battle here in their home state, they'll lose really quick, which must be why they went for another state. As long as there is no religius quotes (like the 10 commandments) there is no proof that it is about a religious aspect at all. To take offense for something that is so small is just bs. They would be better off trying to fight for gay marriages which centers more around the religous belief that being gay is a sin than to fight this battle. At least it is here in Texas.....

    Alicia

  • Posted By: bethitaylor @ 11/25/2007 10:33:36 PM

    Comment: A cross is a cross. Placing it on public property violates the constitutional separation of church and state. This isn't about offending Christians or athiests. It's about upholding the rule of law. They should come down.

    Beth Taylor

  • Posted By: Nadine LaFrance @ 11/25/2007 3:16:34 PM

    Comment: Let the crosses stand! Lawssuits are a waste of money. Why not give they money for those who can not afford to lay to rest their dead.

  • Posted By: Nadine LaFrance @ 11/25/2007 3:06:25 PM

    Comment: Let the crosses stand.

  • Posted By: topcat @ 11/24/2007 6:11:44 AM

    Comment: You know what I find funny? The fact the so many people are more than willing in this case to stand up and basically say that the cross means nothing. The repeatably say ??? oh it 's not religious at all. At least have the courage of your (supposed) convictions.

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/24/2007 12:06:02 PM

      Comment: What amazes me is the number of respondents, apparently opposed the display of the cross for any reason, who either voice concern that Christians will be offended by the apparent demeaning of the cross by the judge or who don???t have the strength of conviction to resist the characterization by the judge that the cross is secular, in this context, rather than religious. In the first instance, why on earth would any reasonable person believe that those oppose the display of the cross in this instance give a hoot in hell about what Christians think about anything? In this discussion, any concern voiced about whether Christians might be offended is hollow hypocrisy at its very worst. With regard to whether the display of the cross can be secular in some contexts and religious in others is something many Christians have no problem with. After all, the bible is widely understood to be a religious symbol and a book at the same time. Bread and wine are also widely understood in both contexts, even when they are closely linked together. There is no contradiction whatsoever for many Christians with the concept that something religious can also be secular and vice versa. After all, whether one believes in the divinity of Christ or not, he was a real person. In that sense, he is a secular entity even if he is not divine. The black and white reasoning of parties on both sides does not necessarily represent the reality of the situation.

  • Posted By: Trish T @ 11/23/2007 6:35:33 AM

    Comment: I want to take the time to thank the majority of atheists represented here for validating our own Christian or other theistic beliefs by adamant pursuit of having them removed so it is fair to their beliefs. Thank you again for the validation, God Bless You all and may God provide the same graces to you that you have for others.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/23/2007 10:13:05 AM

      Comment: It never ceases to amaze me how little, self-professed Christians seem to be able to show of the grace that they claim is such an integral part of their religious experience.

  • Posted By: amboman1325 @ 11/22/2007 12:43:47 AM

    Comment: As A former Utah resident of 27 years, I think that crosses put in place for fallen UHP officers killed in the line of duty, or any law inforcement officers is just cause. There are many states who put crosses up on highways to remember people who were killed on the highway, including law inforcement. America wake up. Worry about things that are going on overseas. Problems that are eventually going to catch up with you.

  • Posted By: kansas1946 @ 11/21/2007 11:46:23 PM

    Comment: As an atheist, I am disturbed by this action. I think that this is a totally harmless practice, and to cause a fuss about it only inflames hatred towards atheists and dilutes the power of arguement over issues that really impact peoples lives. Just like Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians, Atheists Inc. does not speak for me, at least in this case. I think these kind of actions are counter-productive and harmful to meaningful debate.

  • Posted By: petemoss @ 11/21/2007 10:17:37 AM

    Comment: There are other states that post crosses along roads where someone has died. Let these people and the Utah State Troopers remember their lost loved ones as they wish. If you athiests don't like it, look at the other side of the road when you drive by. We don't push our ways on you.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/21/2007 10:43:06 AM

      Comment: "If you athiests (sic) don't like it, look at the other side of the road when you drive by. We don't push our ways on you." Pardon me, but but erecting giant crosses on the roadside it could be argued that we most certainly are pushing "our" ways on "them".

      I'm not sure who 'we' and 'them' are. My guess is 'we' are Christians, and 'they' are atheists, but I'm not really sure. Neither am i sure where that leaves people who fit into neither category.

  • Posted By: petemoss @ 11/21/2007 10:14:54 AM

    Comment: THERE ARE OTHER STATES THAT POST CROSSES ALONG SIDE ROADWAYS WHERE SOMEONE HAS DIED. THESE ARE PAID FOR BY FAMILY MEMBERS WHO WANT TO REMEMBER THEIR LOVED ONES. I HOPE THE UTAH STATE TROOPER ASSOCIATION PREVAILS IN THIS.

  • Posted By: RachelleAHCA @ 11/21/2007 2:53:25 AM

    Comment: Firstly, this is not a debate of religion and who is right and wrong within their beliefs. A cross, although alternately a symbol of Christianity, is also the common form of a roadside marking in remembrance for loved ones that have passed away. To dispute the issue of placing a cross on the side of the road is a waste of time. This is an honoring symbol for those that have passed, not a religious statement. The intent of the crosses had nothing to do with the lawsuit that is now being held against them and the association responsible. There are multiple reasons why this dispute is ridiculous, to say the least.
    First, the crosses have been around and on public land for many years. In order to place these giant white crosses on public land, it must be approved by the state. The state did, in fact approve these crosses, knowing that these were symbols of honor, not religion. Secondly, of the families associated with those passed away, 11 of 14 are people of the Mormon faith, a faith that is clearly not symbolized by a cross. Yet the families recognized the cross as a symbol of honor. Thirdly, if the intent behind these crosses is not religious, why act like your freedom of religion is being attacked? And, if you are not a believer in Christianity, why give a hoot about these crosses?
    In agreement with:
    Posted By: Mythosdude @ 11/20/2007 3:53:23 PM

    Comment: Who in the world are these people who think that they are better than everyone else? Where do these people come from that want to take away something that isn't there to take? Who, by God, do these people think that they are that they can think that they are better than God? For as long as we have more than one human being on this planet there will be a difference in opinion. Having a cross on the side of the road to pay respects to a fallen officer of the law? Have you ever lost anyone??? Christianity is for each of us to have a relationship with God. If you don't believe in God, fine! But don't think that you can take God away from me just becasue you are too blind to see truth!

  • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 9:49:32 PM

    Comment: Well it seems that the judge decided the crosses are secular in nature. Hopefully that will calm the ire of some of the more divisive Christians that have commented here. Of course AA's announced intention to appeal is probably going to herald the return of outraged religious invective.

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/23/2007 4:44:28 PM

      Comment: And herald the return of outraged atheist invective.

  • Posted By: t9900 @ 11/20/2007 8:30:25 PM

    Comment: Sorry about the double post. Newsweek needs to get its posting comments fixed out.

  • Posted By: t9900 @ 11/20/2007 8:21:45 PM

    Comment: What disrespect to the fallen troopers and thier familys. No one was trying to endurse religion, yet you athiests can't even honor someone who deserves it becuase must have it your way. I don't see Christians get offended if they see a fallen trooper's memorial marked with the Statr of David on public land and I don't see muslim or jew get offended to see a memorial cross on public land. The only people who get offended are athiests. If you think this stuff is illegal then you might as well throw the constitution out becuase there have been crosses on public land and strong government/religious ties for the past 250 years. No one got offended back then and I'm not going to sit back and let some self-centered athiests ruin what are country stands for because they get "offended". I get offended, and so to millions of others, by your anti-religious posts and comments, but you don't see them sueing you. Jeeze, you can't even pray in public or honor fallen cops/soldiers without getting sued by jerks like you guys or the ACLU anymore. Seroisly athiesism is no better than any religion. Athiests still have different beliefs and views which means they still have extremists. Plus two of the three worlds largest murders were athiests. Moa and Stalin (I'm not sure about Hitler). So if your saying any religion is bad becuase of extremists within that religion then athiesim must be the most evil thing on Earth.
    Either athiests like the dumb ones posting anti-religion comments here are brainwashed communists or are just plain hypocrytes. Niether is better.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 9:52:48 PM

      Comment: "Brainwashed communists or hypocrites"? Know thine opponent. Most atheists a very smart, well reasoned, knowledgeable individuals that know a great deal more about religion than does the average Christian. They fit in neither of your categories. Underestimate them at your intellectual peril.

      • Posted By: t9900 @ 11/21/2007 8:37:19 AM

        Comment: And so are most Christians, Jews, and Muslims. "knowledgeable individuals that know a great deal more about religion than does the average Christian.". And your proof is besides you hate torwards Chritians? I suggest you know about your oppenent because I'm pretty show most Christians know more about thier religion than most athiests.
        I love how you people only read what you think is wrong and nothing around it. If you read what I said you would know that I was refering to the athiests here on the boards, that shoot nothing but hate against religion and illogical logic. Please actaully read what your responding too.

        • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/21/2007 2:56:51 PM

          Comment: t99oo. Firstly it would help a lot if you bothered to proof read or spell check your comments. Second. I do not hate Christians. Third, my evidence is there nonsense, vitriol and invective that is spouted in such debates usually comes from the theists (just my observation, reinforced incidentally by your own contributions). Fourth, well your remaining points are so confused that they make little sense.

          • Posted By: t9900 @ 11/22/2007 4:43:03 PM

            Comment: Ah, the old 'you an't spell argument'. What a pathetic little person you are. Do you really have nothing else but made up evidence and attacking my spelling.

            • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/22/2007 9:14:03 PM

              Comment: Ad hominem etc.

  • Posted By: t9900 @ 11/20/2007 8:21:39 PM

    Comment: What disrespect to the fallen troopers and thier familys. No one was trying to endurse religion, yet you athiests can't even honor someone who deserves it becuase must have it your way. I don't see Christians get offended if they see a fallen trooper's memorial marked with the Statr of David on public land and I don't see muslim or jew get offended to see a memorial cross on public land. The only people who get offended are athiests. If you think this stuff is illegal then you might as well throw the constitution out becuase there have been crosses on public land and strong government/religious ties for the past 250 years. No one got offended back then and I'm not going to sit back and let some self-centered athiests ruin what are country stands for because they get "offended". I get offended, and so to millions of others, by your anti-religious posts and comments, but you don't see them sueing you. Jeeze, you can't even pray in public or honor fallen cops/soldiers without getting sued by jerks like you guys or the ACLU anymore. Seroisly athiesism is no better than any religion. Athiests still have different beliefs and views which means they still have extremists. Plus two of the three worlds largest murders were athiests. Moa and Stalin (I'm not sure about Hitler). So if your saying any religion is bad becuase of extremists within that religion then athiesim must be the most evil thing on Earth.
    Either athiests like the dumb ones posting anti-religion comments here are brainwashed communists or are just plain hypocrytes. Niether is better.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 9:39:45 PM

      Comment: Well thanks for that vile little rant. The question at hand is a constitutional issue. Just what is your problem with seeking redress from the law of the land? What redress avenue would you suggest is appropriate? There's just no pleasing some people.

  • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 4:48:11 PM

    Comment: Of course I am just provoking you, it's a way to foster interesting debate and a foavored hobby of Athiests. It is obvious that both sides have both honorable men who might disagree, which is EXACTLY why the state must remain neutral. And as long as it does I am fine, but if it sways from it's obligations, it's time for a new state! As for my lineage, I have blood on my ancestoral hands as well and history rightly condems those diests who sin, but somehow offers a pass to those who sin in the name of God? If you must have a God, keep him in your heart and in your home, but out of my face and out of my kids schools. Otherwise some of us feel the issue is critical enough to fight, kill and die for.

  • Posted By: Mythosdude @ 11/20/2007 3:53:23 PM

    Comment: Who in the world are these people who think that they are better than everyone else? Where do these people come from that want to take away something that isn't there to take? Who, by God, do these people think that they are that they can think that they are better than God? For as long as we have more than one human being on this planet there will be a difference in opinion. Having a cross on the side of the road to pay respects to a fallen officer of the law? Have you ever lost anyone??? Christianity is for each of us to have a relationship with God. If you don't believe in God, fine! But don't think that you can take God away from me just becasue you are too blind to see truth!

    • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 4:15:47 PM

      Comment: Of course your correct, I should have seen it all along. Praise be to Allah, and pass the suicide belt.

  • Posted By: cjpei @ 11/20/2007 3:14:35 PM

    Comment: Please give a reference to the Prophet Mohammed being in the "Christian" bible. Are you referring to the Old Testament or the New Testament? Which book and or verses is the Prophet Mohammed found in? I am very curious!

  • Posted By: bike4paul @ 11/20/2007 2:53:52 PM

    Comment: If we all simply forgave each other and apologized, we could probably afford full size bronze statues of the fallen officers with all the money we'd save on legal fees. None of the atheists I know would intentionally seek to cause disruptive pain to families who have lost mothers and fathers in the line of duty. Their "coexist" bumper sticker means something to them. Christians I know who live their religion seek a life that is lost in the service of others while forgiving those who know not what they do. As a diverse society we must resist efforts by media conglomerates and lawyers to plant hatred in our hearts so they can profit from the contention. It's a business model that as a side effect destroys the fabric that holds together our society, our friendships, and our peace.

    • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 3:38:15 PM

      Comment: Shame the Christians you know are a rarity. All one needs to do is turn on the TV and one can see the stories of the pedophile preachers and fraudulent evangelicals. Then if one watches Sixty Minutes, one can see how the Christian, Muslim and Jewish sects are preparing to slaughter each other and take the planet with them. These people have had thousands of years to make their case heard, it is time for more rational individuals to take center stage.

      • Posted By: James.online @ 11/21/2007 6:31:28 PM

        Comment: Demuth - The stories about which you speak, shouted and obsessed upon by the very media conglomerates that bike4paul urges us to resist, are the true rarities. When was the last time the media touted love, beauty, and goodness? Look for those. They are everywhere, except perhaps on TV news programs.

      • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 3:55:48 PM

        Comment: It brings me comfort in a world where people of faith are sinful and hypocritical that you and the rest of the presumably flawless and rational atheists are able to refrain from error. Surely, people of faith today seem to be pathologically incapable of following their own advice. I'm sure we can trust you to bring us salvation on earth. Just like those rational atheists, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did. Maybe you should grow up and realize that neither peopole of faith nor people with no faith have franchises on virtue and rationality. Nor is either wholly burdened with irrationality and malice.

        • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 4:13:10 PM

          Comment: Once again correct details, incorrect inference. As mere mortals some of us expect rationality as the basis of law. Some of us condem anyone who implies salvation is something anyone or anything can bring to anyone but themselves. It is the sins of those who sell the false lies of salvation that defraud the poor, empty the coffers of government, and create a culture where weak minded individuals can be convinced that their dogma is justification for any crime commited in the name of God. If men of honor believe in God I am tolerant, but too many use your beliefs as a tool, and are left unchallenged by other believers for the harm they cause.

          • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 4:30:46 PM

            Comment: It must be satisfying for you to live in a world where all the ills can be traced to an easily identifiable group that does not include yourself.

          • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 4:28:42 PM

            Comment: As always it brings comfort to know that you and your atheist associates do not defraud the poor, empty the coffers of government and create a culture where weak minded individuals can be convinced that their dogma is justification for any crime committed. Really. (Just between you and me -- don't you know an atheist anywhere who cheats on these things just a wee little bit?) Jesus Christ! We're not talking about atheists and people of faith here. We're3 talking about just plain old human beings. Get it?

  • Posted By: devilkat @ 11/20/2007 2:39:45 PM

    Comment: I'm an atheist and I don't see what the big deal is about allowing them to keep the crosses up, or putting up new ones in the future, if the unfortunate situation arises and they need to. This is a program to honor fallen officers who were doing their jobs, not a conspiracy to convert the whole world to Catholicism. In Montana, small white crosses are put up next to the road where ever someone has died in a car accident. Its the same thing, just on a smaller scale.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:51:26 PM

      Comment: It really doesn't matter whether or not you think it's a big deal. It's a constitutional legal question, not an emotional nor a personal one.

  • Posted By: LadyBellbe @ 11/20/2007 2:38:23 PM

    Comment: Every time I see a cross on the side of the road, I see a memorial to some one that has passed. Personnally, I am tired of the intolerance in this country. You dont like something, no matter what it is or what its for, you sue. This country was based on the right to FREEDOM. That is supposed to mean that you have beliefs that others dont, and its all right you dont have to. I am an atheist myself, but this has gotten out of hand. GET OVER YOURSELVES ALREADY!

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:49:27 PM

      Comment: Freedom is not the same as anarchy. The US has law to ensure that certain freedoms are not curtailed. The US is a country with a significant legal framework that defines the extent of its citizen's freedoms. The citizenry only possesses freedoms within the legal frameworks. The law will trump any assumed freedom every time.

  • Posted By: raidy8 @ 11/20/2007 1:53:08 PM

    Comment: putting memorial crosses on public land
    This land is just that public and the govt did not put this there they allowed it to be put there. They did not knock over buildings or move anything it is a small spot of land to place a memorial marker for those who have died in the line of duty.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:46:09 PM

      Comment: If they allowed it to be placed there then they are actively involved in condoning the erection. Therefore they are potentially (pending the ruling) endorsing religion.

      • Posted By: raidy8 @ 11/20/2007 3:52:44 PM

        Comment: what if te ruling came back in the favor of keeping it there? Would you again complain that it is still wrong even though it has gone through the proper judicial committee

        You are also assuming that they are endorsing religion when in fact they could be endorsing the right to use public land just as they endorse public land use for many other things parks grazing land for cattle other historical monuments etc.

        • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/21/2007 3:04:43 PM

          Comment: I have no problem with a ruling that decides the crosses are secular symbols. I do however wonder what will happen when the cross symbol is used in a manner considered disrespectful to Christianity. Will the Christians then claim that the cross is not a secular symbol? Let's hope we never have to find out.

          As for what I am assuming, I assumed nothing of the sort. It is for the court to decide whether the extent is religious or not.. I am more than happy to abide by a well reasoned decision.

  • Posted By: Simon-Peter @ 11/20/2007 1:38:52 PM

    Comment: Why should the religion of atheism always be right? Why do they think that the whole country should run by their religion? They worship their own god called "nongod" and it looks like to me that they are very dedicated to this god of theirs, which of course is themselves. They are a religion of self worship. And I do not care if they do that, but give me a break. This helped the family to heal and they (the atheist) think they have to destroy that. They are more concerned about their own agenda (religion) then they are for the family of the dead troopers. Next thing they'll do is try to outlaw every telephone pole, because I'll tell you right now that every telephone pole reminds me of the cross where my Lord and Saviour died.
    Peter

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:44:01 PM

      Comment: From the sublime to the ridiculous. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. For the umpteeth time atheists simply do not believe that the gods of the world's religions are real. To somehow construe this to mean that atheists have their own god who is themselves is, well, bizarre.

      With all due respect to the families of the fallen troopers, how on Earth do you know what did and did not help them get over their loss (if indeed they have). Let's leave the unfounded assumptions out of it and try to check the emotive nonsense at the door too. The is a case about a potential contravention of constitutional law. The appropriate means of redress is a legal ruling. I fail to see how any reasonable person can object to this course of action.

      • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 3:15:46 PM

        Comment: Carefull, you will make to much sense and they will burn you at the stake! HA HA HA! Where are the damn lions when we need them?

  • Posted By: JoeRandom @ 11/20/2007 1:27:09 PM

    Comment: I am really confused why so many religious folks say there that the atheists are trying to make them belief as the the atheists do. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You are free to preach and teach and practice adn exangelize your religious beliefs all you want. If I do not like it or do not agree, I am free to change the channel, look the other way, or walk away. That is pretty plain and simple.

    What religious folks in this country are not permitted to do is to enlist the government to help them advance their religious beliefs. Yet from my point of view, that is exactly what is happening today. From John Ashcroft's prayer meetings in his offices to Bush's steering tax money to religious organizations through the faith based organization initiative to evangelzing by military officers to their subordinates to yes, putting memorial crosses on public land, religious believers are every day working to make over the governement in their image. That is not simply troubling, it is terrifying. I see no difference between the Christian reconstructionists that want to remake this country into a Christian theocracy and the Taliban that made Afghanistan into an Islamic theocracy.

    In summary, the issue is not about the individual practice of religion. The issue is the government acting to promite a specific religion or even religion at all. That simply is not permitted under our Constitution and its amendments.

  • Posted By: raidy8 @ 11/20/2007 1:10:16 PM

    Comment: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
    7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
    8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
    ???Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
    b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

    I thought I would try to get a definition of religion to understand the thought's of others and as I see it (my point of view) I see atheism as a religion a group of people who has a belief in something this belief is the unbelief or the non-existence of a god or higher power. It may be god, jesus christ or buddah or whatever being.
    I see this as a group of people using the judicial system to force me to believe in what they believe in athiests are part of a religion it is the practice to not believe in god so please try not to force your opinion on me and my family

    As to the case involved here Keep the crosses where they are this is to help remember the loss of someone that was serving and protecting others not to remember god.

    • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 2:50:46 PM

      Comment: Religion assumes purpose. Athiests do not believe reality needs a purpose, and accept it for what it is, reality. Therefore Athiesim is clearly not a religion.

      • Posted By: raidy8 @ 11/20/2007 4:58:47 PM

        Comment: I see a purpose here other wise we would not be having this conversation you would let reality be accepted and reality has placed memorials shaped like crosses into your life accept reality

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:28:16 PM

      Comment: Atheists do not hold a belief in gods or gods. Some atheists may claim a belief in the non-existence of gods, but that is a fairly radical stance. The term atheism literally means "A" without "THEISM" theistic belief. Your attempted characterization is common but sadly misplaced.

      Atheists in this case are merely using the legal system to define the application of law in this case, and presumably enforce that law if there has been a trangression. Desite your martyr complex no one is trying to get you to belive anything other than a respect for the law of the land.

      • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 3:13:06 PM

        Comment: Heathenz, I admire your courage but remember these people are the same ones who burn crosses and operate concentration camps so be carefull!. Let us never forget that one sect of their cult put the supposed savior of another sect of their cult to death because he questioned the churches dogma of the day! In fact the abominations of these monotheistic subcultures include atrocities far to numerous too mention here. I just accept religion as one would a virus in that once someone is infected it is rare for them to ever again be virus free. So in the interest of humanity it is best we try and save the uninfected, while merely treating the symptoms of those who are already ill so they and their affliction might go the way of all the other plauges humanity has endured.

        • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 3:35:54 PM

          Comment: My, my Billy Boy we have a really broad brush don't we? Its a crying shame it wasn't broad enough to include people like William Wilberforce, an Anglican of great conviction, who successfully lead England to end slavery in the name of his infection. If you like virus free, you would feast on Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot who killed millions and at the same time effectively rendered their countries nontheistic. I hope as a noninfectid person you are in some way distinguishable from these guys.

          • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 3:51:00 PM

            Comment: Rational point, but alas to some the end justifies the means. The abominations you speak of where true, but your theorem is flawed. These individuals (Who where often American allies) simply tried to elevate the state to the level of religion., and themselves as leaders of the state to the role of God. God is an abomination created by man, and when the state assumes the role it is inevitably an abomination as well. Perhaps both the right and the left should realize this while we still have time.

            • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 4:04:10 PM

              Comment: Oh please. What an idiot. All you are inferring is that there are good and rational atheists and that there are evil and crazy ones. Same for people of faith. Get a life.

              • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 4:29:46 PM

                Comment: Of course I already have one. Keep on believing real hard, and maybe if your a good little robot you can have Jesus leave you an Armageddon for Christmas!

                • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 5:00:47 PM

                  Comment: You have no idea what I believe or even if I believe at all. The fundamental problem with the bile that you are spewing is that you are assuming that you (and maybe you alone) are rational enough to understand the ills of the world and to assign blame to those who you will never know. Rational atheists understand that rationality alone does not trump humanity -- for better and for worse. Our humanness will always trump rationality, whether or not there is a God.

                • Posted By: raidy8 @ 11/20/2007 4:54:07 PM

                  Comment: I think the best part of this whole discussion if we look at the point in case is that you believe religion to be bad however if we look at religion and the good it does they provide for the sick and the afflicted millions of dollars are donated by these religions to hunger famine destruction to help others I see it this way If I am wrong well life just plain ends at death I live good life helped many people during my life time If you are wrong well there will be some explaining to do

  • Posted By: MrMajek @ 11/20/2007 12:46:18 PM

    Comment: Putting aside the historical reality that this country was FOUNDED as a Christian state, where ALL are supposed to be able to express their religious beliefs freely...lets look at what the actual situation. ALL of the officers have the same marking, whatever their beliefs were. Therefore, that choice of symbol belongs to those that paid for them to be erected and the state is not obligated to conform to any fairness guidelines from some those crackpots. Whether the crosses are religious in nature or not, someone claiming to be offended by them is even more offensive, and they should therefore be ignored...maybe even fined. This country has lost its way with legal system. Once upon a time knowing right from wrong was more important than what is legal.

    • Posted By: JoeRandom @ 11/20/2007 1:29:23 PM

      Comment: It is not a "historical reality that this country was founded as a Christian state". Rather it is a historical fallacy that this country was founded as a Christian state.

      • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:19:24 PM

        Comment: Further the govt is obliged to follow the laws of the land, not what cave in to whatever some crackpot group thinks is fair and reasonable.

        In a civil society it can be argues that it's more important to know what is and what is not legal than to live solely by ones own conscience.

      • Posted By: Jden @ 11/20/2007 2:17:32 PM

        Comment: A major premise of this country is that of religious FREEDOM! That means freedom to believe in any religion we so choose, be that Christianity, Buddhism, Satanism, even atheism. Yes, atheism does fall in the same category because it is a freedom ~involving~ religion. THESE CROSSES REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO DIED, not any specified religion, and should not be regarded as such!

        I think it's stupid that this "issue" has even been raised! A symbol isn't going to hurt you, and seeing a symbol isn't going to change you or your beliefs!

        • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 2:44:26 PM

          Comment:
          Then perhaps we should mount Swastikas as memorials, seeing as how symbols shouldn't offend anyone? Or perhaps we should burn the Crosses, I am sure no one would be offended by that either. These are both classic examples of where governments failed to keep religious lunatics under control and the whole world paid the price!. Thankfully, history teaches us today's Gods will be relegated to tomorrow's comic books, just as yesterdays where. Someday most of your Gods will battle the likes of Spiderman and the Hulk, and I would recommend you bet on the Hulk, cause he is a favorite of many and has beaten several Gods in the past!

  • Posted By: S_tullis @ 11/20/2007 12:36:49 PM

    Comment: I'm not an atheist, nor am I religious, but when I see a cross on the side of the road I instantly think, "That's so sad, someone lost a family member there," not, Jesus died on a cross for the sins of humanity. Only the atheists and ACLU-types think of Jesus on the cross before they think of anything else. Which is rather funny. Besides, separation of church and state doesn't mean that you can't show a religious symbol on public land, it means that the government can't tell you to worship at a certain place, at a particular time in a specific way or risk imprisonment or death or some other punishment. If seeing a cross or Star of David or some other symbol that could signify a religion makes a person suddenly feel the need to worship that particular way....well either they had already been thinking of that or they are way to easily swayed. On a final note, stop being offended by things that were not meant to offend, but were meant to memoralize and honor someone.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:13:45 PM

      Comment: Separation of church and state means that the state cannot endorse religion. The display of religious symbols on public land can be construed as an endorsement of those symbols - and by extension that religion. Endorsement of religion does not mean compulsion of religion, in this case you are just plain wrong.

      I think those offended are offended by what they perceive as a violation of the law. If that turns out to be the case I'd say it's very reasonable for them to be offended.

  • Posted By: oricon @ 11/20/2007 12:34:23 PM

    Comment: Let's see if I unerstand this: Atheists have the right to demand that we, Christians abide by their believes in whichever way argued, but us Christians cannot demand that they leave us in peace to believe as we see fit.... Thus, when we erect a cross in memory of a fallen Christian Officer , Atheists are insulted !?! If/When a Jewish, Muslim, Atheist Officer loses his/her life in the line of duty, should we Christians not honor them as well in any manner which their beliefs see fit?
    I thought we lived in America; the land of the free... What has happened to us? As one who trusts in Jesus, I can only pray for my country and for humanity.
    May God Bless Ameirca and the whole world,
    Ninni Lemus, Santa Barbara, CAZ.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 1:59:56 PM

      Comment: I think your understanding is fundamentally flawed (but I suspect you know that). Atheists request (in this case) that we all abide by the same set of laws. Atheists do not have a set of beliefs, so it's hard to see how they are requiring Christians to "abide by them". Atheists also desire to be left in peace just as do Christians. All citizens should be able to honor fallen officers, regardless of race, creed or religion. We should however do so while respecting the laws of the land which they gave their lives to uphold.

      To break the law in an effort to show respect seems to me to be a slap in the face to their memory. (Assuming these crosses do contravene existing laws).

  • Posted By: amandashaw22 @ 11/20/2007 12:11:56 PM

    Comment: It's so sad that we who call ourselves Christians don't have the same right to free speach that others have. I can't watch TV with my children or drive through the city without having to shield their eyes or ears from something I feel is offensive or inappropriate. If our country is truly fighting for free speech...let us ALL express ourselves freely. Otherwise these groups are being just as discriminative as they accuse us of being.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 1:28:52 PM

      Comment: Christians do have the same rights as any other group of citizens. What rights do you feel Christians are being denied?

  • Posted By: labradora @ 11/20/2007 12:10:29 PM

    Comment: The Declaration of Independence was written by a group of predominately Deists, not Christians as is believed by way too many people. The word Creator actually refers to "Creator". If somone chooses to refer to their creator as God, Father of Jesus Christ, go ahead, but don't infer that's what the writers meant. Do a little research. You might be surprised at what you find.

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 12:41:45 PM

      Comment: Can't help but wonder who the jackass was that inserted the term "natures God" into the Declaration. All the deists in the room must have been asleep. Can't believe that our nations founders had as much contempt for each other's beliefs as we seem to have today. Can't help but believe that the parties opposed to these crosses will not be happy until they live in a world which is utterly devoid of religious symbols outside of private residences and places of worship. Somehow, I don't think even the most fervid "deist" founders had this in mind.

      • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 1:27:34 PM

        Comment: What would be wrong with restricting religious symbols to religious places and private property? This would seem the appropriate way to use such symbols. Kind of how it seems to be framed in the law of the land.

        • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 3:00:22 PM

          Comment: Religious symbols are one form of religious expression. Religious symbols are part and parcel of how people express themselves on matters related to religion much as posters and tee-shirts are parts of how people express themselves on even broader matters. What you are advocating would be nothing less than a ban on a form of expression in all public places. This would constitute an abridgment of freedom of speech and, presumably, the right to assemble when a matter is related to anything that can be characterized as religion. It???s impossible for me to read the First Amendment and conclude that it is possible to enact a law which would have the effect of forbidding religious expression in public.

          The First Amendment
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          You seem quite comfortable hanging your hat on the concept that government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Even to the point of seeking the broadest interpretation of what might constitute establishment of religion. Alas, you seem to be willing to accept the narrowest possible interpretation of what might constitute prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Forbidding religious symbols in all public places as you have suggested would be an egregious restriction of the free exercise of religion. In its extreme, which seems to be where many are trying to take this, it would make carrying a Bible into the Supreme Court a crime. Yes it???s a book, but it is also a religious symbol. And like everything else the ACLU and others would see it as a book when they wanted to see a book and as a religious symbol when it suited their needs.

          Finally, if we are to get to the point where religious expression is allowed only in private places are we willing to understand that criticism of religion is also religious expression and similarly should be restricted to private venues? Both concepts are inane.

        • Posted By: Jden @ 11/20/2007 2:31:50 PM

          Comment: ROFLMAO

          heathenz, are you trying to say that it ~should be~ illegal for my goth daughter to wear a cross in public??? Or that the clergy should be legally required to change out of their clothes after church before going to the grocery store to buy coffee?

          America, the Land of the Free... Do us all a favor and just enjoy the freedoms that we have, because so many people worldwide DON'T have these freedoms!

  • Posted By: labradora @ 11/20/2007 12:07:36 PM

    Comment: The writers of the constitution were not Christians. They were predominately Deists. A deist believes in a creator, supreme being, or God, but also believes in reason. So the constitution does not refer to God, the father of Jesus Christ, but to the Creator.