Utah’s Cross Controversy

"it is wrong for the military (govt) to favor some religions over others" I agree. Your beloved Jainist's and Soroastorians (?) should be afforded the respectful symbol of their choice. Perhaps people who believe in nothing could be planted beneath a happy face.

Heathenz: I'm still curious as to how or if you would distinguish a difference -- not as a lawyer, but merely as a person who is obviously qualified to pass judgments on the legality of crosses on Utah public land. Surely you have an opinion.

misterharban: The worst kind of sophistry? I think I take that as a compliment. I am merely recognizing that fact that you are trying to draw the debate into a seemingly related emotive area where you feel you can score points. Your question was directed at the nature of my suggestion. I neither refered to nor suggested any opinion regarding any crosses other than those directly related to the case in hand. I do not know the details, nor the relevant law relating to militart cemetaries, but I do suspect that they apply quite differently to the subject of this discussion. This is the reason that I refer to your derailment as obfuscation. A reference that I maintain despite your impassioned protestations to the contrary.

I would suggest that you seek appropriate legal advice or visit a law library if you are genuinely interested in an answer to your question.

I would still like to be enlightened as to the difference between a memorial cross on Utah State (public property) land and a memorial cross in a military cemetery (also public property). Characterizing my question as obfuscation is the worst kind of sophistry.

heathenz -- are you suggesting that the crosses in our national military cemeteries are also illegal?

The cross is most definately a Christian symbol. It is probably THE symbol of Christianity whether or not it is also used by the LDS (which is a relitively minor sect of Christianity). As a memorial symbols it denotes a tie with Christianity and as such is on questionable legal grounds constitutionally if the state is involved.

Come on people. You are so ignorant. I think that people should leave the LDS church out of this as well. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes "a living Christ" and therefor does not have crosses in its buildings. If you go into a Mormon chapel, I dare you to find a cross. If people in Utah were trying to promote religious ideas, they would not be using a cross. This is clear evidence that the cross is used because it is recognized by many people as being a memorial, just as Mr. Kirby said.

Steph67, our society is more than capable of fighting more than one fight at a time. Contrary to the implication of your message, adjudicating on the constitutionality of religious symbols erected on public property does not diminish any assumed fight against poverty or global warming.

And yes, seeing a cross on the side of the road does indicate that someone died an untimely death there, but it also allegedly conveys the message that the symbol of Christianity is the approved way of recognising this. If the memorial is funded by public money (not the case here) or erected on public land (is the case here), then the message sent is that the government is also endorsing the use of the symbol of Christianity as a state sponsored memorial.

Removing or replacing the memorials need have no affect on the ability of people to retain memories of their loved ones.

Come on people this fight is insane. We need to be fighting bigger and better things like curing poverty and finding ways to get rid of poverty. This is crazy. It is common sense that if there is a cross on the side ot the road that , that means that some one 's life was short lived and that they died. People need to relize that this is a small thing and that people just need to leave the crosses alone and let those people have those memories of their loved ones.

This is crazy if these crosses are near where the side of the road is then every one usually knows that , that means some ones life was very short lived and that is just common sense. People there are more important fights to be fought. Leave the crosses alone they have been there for a while why are we trying to change it? Leave it be and fight a bigger and better fight such as poverty, or help stop global warming. Open your eyes people.

Comment: The establishment clause does not in fact say that. These few words are the entire text that refers to religion in the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Which later came to apply not just to Congress but to State and Local governments through the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The crosses are in no way an enact of a law to establish religion, nor do the in any way "preach" or "evangelize" as you say. And the removal of them, if they were the symbol of the faith of the fallen officer (which I'm not so sure they are) would actually interfere with the free exercise clause.

Personally, I do not think the crosses constitute any establishment or promotion of religion. That said, I don't understand why they are necessary at all. The officers should do not need to be recognized in this manner. No one human life is more valuable than an other human life--and that's a principle that's universal to all religions or without any religion. All of the current hype about police officers and soldiers and such is what prompted the success of fascism in Europe pre-WWII. Take them down, but not because their crosses. They needn't be recognized at all. http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/latimes/2007-08-03_latimes_heroism_rhetoric.pdf

Comment: The establishment clause does not in fact say that. These few words are the entire text that refers to religion in the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Which later came to apply not just to Congress but to State and Local governments through the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The crosses are in no way an enact of a law to establish religion, nor do the in any way "preach" or "evangelize" as you say. And the removal of them, if they were the symbol of the faith of the fallen officer (which I'm not so sure they are) would actually interfere with the free exercise clause.

Personally, I do not think the crosses constitute any establishment or promotion of religion. That said, I don't understand why they are necessary at all. The officers should do not need to be recognized in this manner. No one human life is more valuable than an other human life--and that's a principle that's universal to all religions or without any religion. All of the current hype about police officers and soldiers and such is what prompted the success of fascism in Europe pre-WWII. Take them down, but not because their crosses. They needn't be recognized at all. http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/latimes/2007-08-03_latimes_heroism_rhetoric.pdf

The cross wasn't a sign of Christianity until Jesus was supposedly hung from it. And even then, it has its roots in being a symbol of peace and protection, until the crucifix was designed to erase that meaning.

As an atheist, even I think this lawsuit is disgusting.

Bravo to heathenz. I am glad you have your history straight. It of course won't matter to the previous biggoted commentors, they have their Chritian agenda and the truth will not set them free. Thanks again.

In response to the comment by Trish T: I'm very happy that you are able to express your opinion, but saddened that it is so woefully misinformed and bigoted. The US was not founded upon Christianity. It was explicitly founded not in any way as a Christian Nation (reference the treaty of Tripoli). Many of the faounding fathers were not Christian (most were diests), indeed some of them can be argued to have been (dare we say it) Atheists. Thomas Paine in particular fits this bill. So I think you'll find that the Atheists' "unpleasant debut" to use your bigoted expression, have been in the US at least as long as your country has existed.

You express a desire to remove Atheists from your country. Who would you next expell? How many groups would you remove because they do not share your beliefs? Would you stop when only a particular schism, of your church remains? How long until the fractures render your beliefs unacceptable? Will you be willing to leave your country when others decide that you no longer believe the "right beliefs"?

Let's all remember that vilifying Atheists is not going to be productive in this discussion. The issue is one of constitutional law. Does the erection of these crosses on public land constitute an endorsement of religion? I don't know the answer, but I most certainly am glad that the question is going to be decided rationally.