Utah’s Cross Controversy

The decision of what type of memorial and where it should be permitted to be placed should fall solely with the families of the fallen officers. The rights of Atheists lie only in manipulating escape of consequences and creating turmoil in our society to accomplish that. Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jewish, yes, even the Atheists have the right to freedom of speech per our country's foundation. This gives them the right to express their displeasure and us the right to express our beliefs as well. This country was founded on Christianity long before the Atheists made their unpleasant debut and my firm belief is that if they are so ademant about what they believe, over and above what this country was founded on, they should leave to a part of the world more accepting of their beliefs as we have no room for them here. Additionally, maybe the way to solve this particular dilemma is to have the "public" property leased to the families of the fallen officers at a rate of $1 for a ten or twenty year period which leaves our Atheist critics no further room to complain. God Bless the Officers and Their Families.....

This should be a decision left to the families of the fallen officers and have no relevance to ANY denomination much less those who do not live in the state nor believe in anything except the excuse to have no consequences. We Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and (Atheists unfortunately) ALL have the right to freedom of speech per our constitution and include the where and design of the placement of memorials.

C'mon guys. The cross is many things. Most of the time. stuck in the ground, reasonable people understand it as a sign of respect for the departed. The atheist argument here, taken to its logical conclusion, would require the removal of every cross from every military cemetery in the country. While I'm sure that some atheist somewhere has already initiated an action like this, I can't imagine any court (outside of the 9th circuit) making a favorable ruling on this.

The First Amendment, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was a superfluous restraint on federal power-- intended to keep Congress within its enumerated powers of Article I Section 8. i.e., the Bill of Rights only applies against the fed, not the states. See Barron v. Baltimore (1833), and notice that all restraints on state power in the Constitution begin with "No State shall..." In the early 20th Century, the Supreme Court created the "incorporation doctrine" which arbitrarily applies selective portions of the bill of rights against the states. It'll take too long to explain all the ramifications of this, but just know that ALL FEDERAL LAWS AND COURT DECISIONS BASED ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE TOTALLY ARBITRARY. These decisions have no basis in the Constitution whatsoever. It's fine if you hate Christians (that's been going on for centuries) or if you hate religion in general, but just know that the cherished doctrine of the "Separation of Church and State" was made up by federal judges in the mid-20th Century. The court hijacked the words of Thomas Jefferson, the greatest champion of federalism and local self-government. Jefferson used those words in the context of the federal government, not when referencing the state governments. Just know that every time the federal courts hear these "first amendment" cases (or any case based on the bill of rights in relation to state laws), they're usurping powers reserved to the states, and they're violating the "free exercise clause" of the first amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If you want it to be illegal to have crosses on the sides of highways (on "public" land), then outlaw it, but don't hijack the Constitution to suit your political goals.

The crux of this nonsense lies in the "incorporation doctrine," which the Supreme Court created out of thin air in the early 20th century, applying the federal bill of rights against the states. The bill of rights was a superfluous restraint on federal power-- basically meant, in the words of its preamble, "to prevent misconstruction or abuse" of federal power, by keeping Congress (and the fed as a whole) confined to its limited, enumerated powers-- i.e., those listed in Article I Section 8. If Congress got any crazy ideas and tried to establish a national church, to abridge the free exercise of religion, first you would say that that specific power was never "delegated" (in the words of the 10th Amendment) to the federal government, then you'd say that the First Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from passing such a law. But even if the First Amendment didn't exist, the 9th Amendment says that the list of rights protected from FEDERAL interference is incomplete. i.e., the rights of the people cannot be listed in their entirety, but the powers of the FEDERAL government can be listed in their entirety. Then the 10th Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, under their own constitutions, or to the people of the states.

So what does that mean here? When federal courts hear these "First Amendment- Religion- Separation of Church and State" cases, they're actually usurping powers reserved to the states, and they're violating the "free exercise clause" of the First Amendment by interfering with the free exercise of religion. This may shock some, but the Constitution has been dead for decades... definitely since the New Deal, but maybe even as far back as the "Civil War." Federal judges, not the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land. Too bad they're so hostile towards religion... but that's the price we pay for living in a society where people would rather watch American Idol than learn about history or the Constitution.

Aside from all the pro and con arguments about whether the cross is a religious symbol, and whether or not a private organization has the right to erect such structures on public or private land, there is the question of law in the State of Utah. I am under the impression that the structures are reported to violate a number of Utah laws regarding "displays" and "structures" along the public roads. So they either comply with the existing laws for such structures or they do not. If they do not, then they should be removed OR changed so that they comply with that law. The question of whether they are religious symbols or not is a moot point.

sorry if i offend, but for people who claim to be open-minded; there is so much hatred in their comments. I can understand why people may not like it, but geez it is not that big of a deal. I am not religious by any means, but I really don't care if people want to put crosses to honor the dead. Big woop. I think people are taking the constitute too far and try and make it freedom from religion. People say that christians force their beliefs on others, (and they often do) but many atheists are doing the same darn thing, but they just dont want to admit it.

"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" That is the text of the firt amendment to the U S constitution. How EXACTLY do these crosses violate those words.?

"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" That is the text of the first amendment. How exactly do these crosses violate those words?

wh.

Whatever happened to respect? Respect of each other and their opinions? Respect of human life and property? They are gone! Many of us are forced to adhere to the secular progressive attitudes that are becoming prevalant in our society.
If you don't like something you see, then turn your head. If you don't like something on T.V., then turn the channel. And if you don't like spinach, then don't eat it. But for goodness sake, don't keep trying to force your notions of what is right and wrong on the rest of us. Do you plan on taking all the crosses out of all the cemeteries in the country?
People have been using crosses as a sign of a death for many, many years, and for any organazation to demand their removal is ludacris if not disrepectful. Why don't you take up a better cause, like the mistreatment of the children in our country?

USNA Is that your response to anyone that doesn't agree with you? You should never assume what someone knows or doesn't know. Simply stating that someone is uninformed is fine, there is no need to call anyone an idiot.

The state of Utha did not put up the crosses, a private orginization did. A true Christian does respect others and thier faiths unlike most. Several of you scream about the 1st amendment, does this mean that all the Ccrosses and other religious symbols at Arlington. Some speak of Christians pushing thier faith down others throats. What about the atheists pushing thier belives down everyones throats.

Oh Please! Why don't you thank your lucky stars you live in a great county that allows you to chose or not chose a religion to believe in and thank the law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for your sorry ass! If you don't like looking at the crosses, its a free country, drive on another road!

never mind my comment at 3:26 am it is now posted with the comment it was responding to!