Utah’s Cross Controversy

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

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

    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

      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

        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

          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

          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: DisIpull @ 11/19/2007 4:04:27 PM

    But can that be done with religious expression? This country has not said that others do not have the freedom to express their own religion. We have simply recognized Christianity as the focal religion of our nation. It is just like Islam. I understand if I go to the Middle East this is the predominant religion. I go and respect that. I do not say they are stepping on my rights as a Christian.

    • Posted By: Jden @ 11/20/2007 2:57:25 PM

      Just curious, are you aware that Islam emerged from Christianity? The Prophet Mohammed ~is~ in the Christian bible: Islam is a relatively young religion.

      And remember, more people have died through religious wars than any other wars!

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/19/2007 5:07:23 PM

      DisIpull: I'm interested in this comment "We have simply recognized Christianity as the focal religion of our nation." I assume you are referring to the USA? In which case who are you referring to as "We"? And what do you mean by "focal religion"? I think this encapsulates the whole argument. We (the govt, as in the people's representatives) are constitutionally bound to NOT "recognize Christianity as the focal religion of our nation". Certainly Christianity is the religion of the majority, certainly it has huge cultural and historical influence, but whatever else it might be it is NOT the (official) religion of the USA. This is a major difference between the USA and many Middle East countries, where a religion IS the (official) religion of the country and as such has greater rights than any other religion. If you go to such a Middle East country, any religious rights you have will be trumped by the rights afforded to the (official) recognized religion.

  • Posted By: mrmastiff @ 11/17/2007 4:28:03 PM

    The families, the law enforcement organization and the state of Utah are protected under the Constitution of the United States Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression to place any markers they wish to use as a memorial. If anyone finds this offensive then they have the ability to not look at the memorial.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:53:42 PM

      Not if it's considered a govt endorsement of religion.

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

    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

      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

    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

      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: MrMajek @ 11/20/2007 12:46:18 PM

    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

      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: Jden @ 11/20/2007 2:17:32 PM

        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


          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: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 2:19:24 PM

        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: Shadrach @ 11/20/2007 11:51:30 AM

    The Declaration of Independence says:"We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That statement refers directly to God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. This isn't rocket science, folks! The Athiests have an agenda too. And we all know who they are representing.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 1:20:31 PM

      Who? Please do tell. Remember that atheists do not believe in the reality of gods and godesses.

      • Posted By: Jden @ 11/20/2007 2:39:16 PM

        Shadrach, the term used was and is Creator. It means creator, not absolutely the Christian God.

        I object to the insinuation that atheists are Satanists. An atheist does not follow Satan: a Satanist follows Satan! I have friends from many groups, ranging from Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians to Wiccans and atheists. Please, don't assume that because someone doesn't follow your religious belief that they ~must~ be a follower of Satan!!!!!!

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

    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

      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

    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

      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: DELAGGELREG @ 11/20/2007 11:17:59 AM

    I am an atheist, a Jewish atheist at that... and I have to say that this is HORRIBLE!!! These fallen heroes deserve something to honor them and whether it be a Star of David or a Christian Cross, WHO CARES!!! This is about honoring the memory of people who protect and serve... I could understand if the family did not want a cross, choosing something else to honor their trooper's memory... but that is the family's decision not the publics.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 11:45:51 AM

      If it's on public land then how is it not the decision (and responsibility) of the public?

      • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 12:16:18 PM

        This "public land" issue is crap. Private citizens display religious symbols on public (government owned) property all the time. I lived in SLC for eight years and while riding the bus (a public, government owned conveyance) observed daily people reading and writing in their Books of Mormon. Not being a Mormon, this was very distasteful to me as I interpreted it to be very much "in my face". Time solved my problem as I came to understand that any molestation I might sense was entirely self-inflicted.

        • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 1:19:13 PM

          Are you seriously equating reading a book in a public with erecting a permanent monument?

          • Posted By: misterharban @ 11/20/2007 1:39:34 PM

            Put yourself in the context of essentially being surrounded by people engaged in the activity. Replace the people reading the book with people fondling crosses and maybe you will understand.

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

            At the time I interpreted it as having the books shoved in my face -- not so dissimilar from the argument made by many opponents of these crosses. I equate the two because reading, while ostensibly a consumptive activity, can also be a form of expression when performed overtly in public. One would have to be supremely naive to believe that some of the readers were as interested in publically displaying their faith as they wer in the contents of a book that they had read many times over. It took me some significant time to come to terms with the concept that my taking offense at the act -- even to the extent that the readers may have had proselyting as a part of their motive -- was a reflection of my intellectual and moral weakness. Sure it was an immature impulse, but no more so than hotel patrons who are so offended by Gideon bibles that the routinelely stuff them in the toilet.

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

    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

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

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

    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: dobserver @ 11/20/2007 3:03:42 AM

    I think that the ideea of a cross ia a great one, based on the fact that this nation was built on christian beliefs!
    As far as what atheists are demanding, I think is ridiculous and ill fated!
    Look what atheists did in Eastern Europe for some many years: confusion and destruction, millions of lives lost to a wrong cause!
    Do they want to bring the same destruction to this land? In the name of "freedom of speach" or church separation from the state? Only because they do not believe in anything else than themselvs?
    How about those gave their lives to save the others? Don't they deserve some respect?
    I think they do! There is a God who will reward everybody!

    • Posted By: labradora @ 11/20/2007 12:27:34 PM

      The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by a group of men who considered themselves Deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson in particular despised organized religion. Deists believe in a God or Creator, but they do not belive in Christianity. I suggest you do a little research.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 9:16:56 AM

      The USA was built on a host of beliefs. A melting pot if you will. American Atheists are not demanding anything more than a judicial ruling. Why do you think it ridiculous and ill-fated to ask for a legal ruling? I thought that's what civilized people did in civilized societies.

      You are confusing atheism with totalitarianism. A common mistake. Atheist is simply the absence of any theistic belief.

      Again, asking for a judicial ruling is a far cry from bringing destruction to the land. All AA is asking for is that the law of the land by fairly applied. It seems to me that that is the opposite of what you hysterically claim.

      I wonder which god you refer to that will reward everybody? Will this god also reward the atheists who you apparently despise?

  • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/19/2007 3:15:42 PM

    misterharban - I do not profess to be qualified to pass judgement on the legality of the Utah crosses. It is precisely for this reason that I am interested in the judge's ruling, and his arguments.

    As for my opinion, I assume you are referring to the marker assigned to each individual grave? My personal opinion is that the deceased should be able to have whatever they wish as a personal grave marking. But my personal opinion may or may not have any relation to the applicable law.

    I also note that if my loved one were a Jainist or a Zoroastor, the military would currently not allow me to use symbols of these religions as a memorial in a national military cemetery. Both the religions listed have an active following, and both are older than Christianity. My opinion is that it is wrong for the military (govt) to favor some religions over others (or none at all). Much better, although not very practical in this situation, is for the govt to stay out of religion altogether.

    FYI permissible symbols are as follows: Aaronic Order Church, Atheist, Bahai Nine-Pointed Star, Buddhist (Wheel of Righteousness), Christian , Christian and Missionary Alliance, Christian Church, Christian Reformed Church, Christian Scientist (Cross and Crown), Church of World Messianity (Izunome), Community of Christ, Eckankar, Episcopal Cross, Greek Cross, Hindu , Humanist Emblem of Spirit , Izumo Taishakyo Mission of Hawaii, Judaism (Star of David), Konko-Kyo Faith, Lutheran Cross, Mormon (Angel Moroni), Muslim (Crescent and Star), Muslim (Islamic Five-Pointed Star), Native American Church of America, Presbyterian Church (USA), Presbyterian Cross, Russian Orthodox Cross, Seicho-No-Ie, Serbian Orthodox Cross, Sikh (Khanda), Soka Gakkai International (USA), Sufism Reoriented, Tenrikyo Church, Unitarian Church (Flaming Chalice), United Church of Christ, United Church of Religious Science, United Methodist Church, United Moravian Church, Wicca (Pentacle)

    • Posted By: DisIpull @ 11/19/2007 3:44:57 PM

      heathenz - Your comment is well informed and it takes a very neutral position. I would like to hear what you think is the reason the cross is used so universally versus any other religious symbols? And what does it truly symbolize to you?

      • Posted By: wctiggsoh @ 11/20/2007 12:22:09 PM

        So if 11 of the 14 were Mormons then would the Athiests be whining if they erected Angel Moroni instead of a cross? Why does a cross only signify religion anyway? Any of those symbols listed above could be fought by any Athiest or other religion as against their pathetic gov't laws, this entire discussion is pathetic, how is it that those who are not opposed to the crosses are simply making a statement but those ignorant enough to be offended by it because they think it is a constitutional issue are getting huffy? Time to grow up, if you don't like something stop looking at it!!! Don't you have better things to do? Not to say this isn't interesting, it is, but it's also very childish whatever happened to FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY oh that's right your so called democratic form of gov't under the direction of gustapo bush took all that away.

    • Posted By: DisIpull @ 11/19/2007 3:41:12 PM

      heathenz - Your comments are clearly impressive and well informed. You appear to be well educated and well scripted on the foundations of the US as well as the many different religious affiliations. But if I may ask a question....Why do you believe that the US favors the cross rather than the symbol of any of these other religions you have listed?

      • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/19/2007 4:57:01 PM

        DisIpull, thank you for the compliment. I try to be rational, but sometimes it is hard to keep emotion from clouding the issues. I think the answer to your question concerning the US favoring of crosses is very simple. The majority of the US population is culturally Christian and seldom see any religious symbol other than the Christian cross - especially as a memorial symbol. I doubt that it even occurs to many people that a memorial cross denotes the memorial in question as being Christian. I am quite confident that many culturally isolated Christian Americans would be surprised not to see crosses at a Muslim funeral for example. Such is the deeply ingrained symbology, that the the religious meaning associated with a cross is invisible to many people outside of a church or similar place of worship.

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

    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.

  • Posted By: carman @ 11/20/2007 12:02:31 PM

    If the athiests do not have an agenda than why would a group from Texas bother with this in Utah?

  • Posted By: ecobuvax @ 11/20/2007 11:09:35 AM

    privated funded memorials for public employees on public land, great idea. atheists fear their non-existing-God, so they are unhappy and contenscious. if there is no God why get yor knickers in a bunch? the constitution prohibits the government, congress from choosing a religion for us. but you weiners want to tell people what to think. twisting the publics arm using the courts and occasional judges who share your truly irrational opinion.a private fund placing cross shaped memorials makes sense. would a bill board be better? and the land is public land not under the protection or control atheists. the cross was a Roman mode of execution. you want to read religion into that be my guest. in fact the more the atheists blather on the more laughable the mind set pecomes. private funds recognizing public employees on public land by a logically designed signpost is a great idea. they could have used the cresent moon but where would they write the names and particulars? now atheists, go away to your noGod meetings and argue and plot against your imaginary foe. give us peek every so often for a good laugh.

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 11:44:37 AM

      I assume you are not a fan of constructive debate. Atheists do not believe in gods, godesses or other magical creatures, why on Earth would they fear these same phantasms? They are "getting their knickers in a bunch" because there is an apparent violation of constitutional law. The civilized method of deciding if the apparent is actually real is to take the issue to a court of law. This is all that has been done. What exactly is your objection to this? Do you think that the law should only apply when it favors your position?

      It's opinions like you express here that make some people believe that the Atheists' foe is perhaps not so imaginary. Way to go slick.

  • Posted By: Mean1 @ 11/19/2007 10:35:44 PM

    If anybody wanted to fight the separation of church and state in Utah they have a lot more to pick form than some crosses on the roadside. How about the fact the Mormon kids get out of school to go to a church class and get school credit for it.

    • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 11:02:56 AM

      All the better to increase their ignorance further!

      • Posted By: ichooselife @ 11/20/2007 11:37:55 AM

        it's considered "release time" not school credit, it's given the same merit as "work" release, please get your facts straight before commenting

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/19/2007 11:34:00 PM

      Public school? Doesn't seem right to me.

  • Posted By: cdd90125 @ 11/20/2007 10:59:33 AM

    OK so what is next? do we go to Arlington and remove the crosses from all the soldgers graves it is public land. Come on people get a life!

    • Posted By: heathenz @ 11/20/2007 11:35:48 AM

      No. What is next is to obtain a ruling in this case and then see how that may or may not apply to other situations.

  • Posted By: cdd90125 @ 11/20/2007 11:01:36 AM

    What is next, do we go to Arlington and remove the crosses from the soldgers graves?? After all it is public land also. Come on people GET A LIFE

    • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/20/2007 11:18:46 AM

      Many soldiers have done that themselves in their wills, as have many Jewish families, Wiccan Families, Muslim families, Buddhist families, Shinto families, and Confucian Families to name a few. Or are you of the belief that only Christians have sacrificed for this nation? In fact it was first populated by Christians fleeing the persecution of other Christians who wanted to force the belief of the majority on the minority. Sad truth is we haven't learned a damn thing in over several hundred years. Religion in the home is fine, but when you put religion in the public square you get the holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials and Darfur. Please spare us the self righteous nonsense, some of us can't help but see the blood on your altars because in fact some of our ancestors where forced to shed it by people like you.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse