Utah’s Cross Controversy

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

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

    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

      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: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 9:49:32 PM

    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

      And herald the return of outraged atheist invective.

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

    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

      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: t9900 @ 11/20/2007 8:21:45 PM

    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

      "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

        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

          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

            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: amboman1325 @ 11/22/2007 12:43:47 AM

    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

    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: bike4paul @ 11/20/2007 2:53:52 PM

    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

      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

        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

        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

          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

            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

            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: raidy8 @ 11/20/2007 1:53:08 PM

    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

      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

        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

          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: petemoss @ 11/21/2007 10:17:37 AM

    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

      "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

    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

    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: t9900 @ 11/20/2007 8:21:39 PM

    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

      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: t9900 @ 11/20/2007 8:30:25 PM

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

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

    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: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:28:16 PM

      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

        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

          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

            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

              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

                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

                  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

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

      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

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

    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

    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

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

  • Posted By: BobCu @ 11/18/2007 1:46:28 AM

    gigemaggs83, I'm not the one who supports letting a government put 12 foot high crosses on public property next to a highway for everyone to see their government supports Christianity. I respect our constitution. It's the Christians who don't respect our wall of separation, who even deny our wall of separation, who are the thugs, the bullies who are trying to make this country a Christian theocracy. This should never have happened. If Christians weren't so immoral, this idea would never have been suggested. There are many alternatives to the major symbol of the idiotic Christian religion. But the Christian thugs decided here's an opportunity to shove their stupid religion into everyone else's face. Christians are the most immoral people in human history. Why can't they keep their insanity in their monuments to stupidity they call churches?

    • Posted By: Jden @ 11/20/2007 3:48:09 PM

      Hmmm... Let's see here... Historically, the cross has been around WAY LONGER than the Christian religion! The cross IS NOT a strictly Christian symbol: the CRUCIFIX, a cross with Jesus nailed to it, is the symbol of Christianity, from my understanding.

      These crosses symbolize the deaths of these individulas, the grief of their families and friends. I have to admit the SIZE is a bit extreme, but it sounds like more people are objecting to the fact that they are crosses. I have to ask, would it be easier if they used a T-shape instead of a cross? Logically, a simple pole doesn't have enough space to state their names and such...

    • Posted By: gigemaggs83 @ 11/18/2007 1:56:16 AM

      Have you read this article? The government is NOT putting ANYTHING on the side of the highway! A private organization (like the ones protected by the 1st and 9th amendments) are putting them up. At least be minimally informed before you start calling people names.

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

    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

      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

        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: cjpei @ 11/20/2007 3:14:35 PM

    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: nashvillegal @ 11/20/2007 10:31:30 AM

    What difference could it possibly make what shape the memorial is? You take offense because it's a cross. If you don't believe in God, why would you even care? Your offense of a symbol that already makes no difference to you makes no sense.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 11:34:28 AM

      Because it allegedly puts the govt in the position of promoting religion which is antithetical to constitutional law. I fail to see what is so hard to understand.

      • Posted By: devilkat @ 11/20/2007 3:03:23 PM

        How could it be the government who is promoting religion when the crosses were put up by a private organization? I'm an atheist as well, and I think you are taking this a little far. The families and friends of the deceased officers wanted to memorialize them...what's the problem with that? If not a cross, what would you have them put up? Just because you are afraid of it, doesn't mean all atheists are, and its people like you that keep the animosity between atheists and other religious groups alive.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse