Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway

Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway

www.foxnews.com

14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling reverses a 2007 decision by a federal district judge that said the crosses communicate a secular message about deaths and were not a public endorsement of religion. It's the latest in a recent rash of mixed-bag rulings on the public use of crosses.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So We cant have crosses up to memorialize fallen troopers , but we can have the president come out and say that its ok to build Mosques at ground zero, because its constitutional right?

Sure these crosses were on public lands but the funds were raised by private people and consent was given by the troopers families.....

Im more of a spiritual person mind you, im not a bible thumper and i dont subscribe that any ONE religion is right.....

However given how things have gone the last few years, its starting to make me think that with everything going on AGAINST the Christian faith, and the concessions made FOR the Muslim faith.........is this......

Maybe the war isnt against the Muslim faith........maybe its against the CHRISTIAN faith.......

No pledge in schools, no under god, no Merry Christmas signs because it has Christ in it.....no optional prayer in school (however we have to make special allowances for muslim people)

Flame on if you must!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Star and flag........of course the Christian bashers/muslim enablers will be here any moment. I agree with you completey, seems to be at least political correctness taken to the extreme....or just good old fashioned hate. What a damn shame.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


The same constitution that allows freedom also states there is to be freedom FROM religion

...cant have crosses up to memorialize fallen troopers , but we can have the president come out and say that its ok to build Mosques at ground zero

He promoted the right to have a place of worship regardless of faith. A cross is more an advertisement than anything, therefore, it's unconstitutional.

And to add, I'm against any religion, as, in my opinion, it's all nonsense. However, this is about freedom, and as long as people are discriminating against this community center based on the fact that they are foreign / different, I, like many others, will argue in favour of their freedom and rights.

I really wonder if this has anything to do with the prominence of the Mormon religion in Utah...the Mormons are against the use of a cross as a symbol and they do have much influence in that state...very curious...

reply to post by MemoryShock


I don't know anything about the so called Mormon religion. I thought they were Christians?

reply to post by Whyhi


Wrong, the constitution does not give the people freedom FROM religion, it gives you freedom OF religion.

Period dot dot

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion 12/15/1791- 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.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]

reply to post by MemoryShock


actually I live in Boise lots of Mormons here, and have many friends who are Mormons that live and own businesses in Salt Lake, the cross to them really isnt of any issue, infact i know a few that keep a cross with them because even tho they see Christ a little differently , its a reminder of their faith to them......sounds odd, but I guess it works for them!

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the courts as guaranteeing that:

- individuals have freedom of religious expression;
- the government and its agencies will not:

- recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other;
- promote religion above secularism.
- promote secularism above religion.

Courts at various levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the posting of isolated religious texts and symbols in any public buildings is unconstitutional. The reason given by the courts is that governments and public schools must remain neutral on religion. i.e. when the government or a school advocate (or appears to advocate)

There is freedom FROM religion on public land, sorry if I was being unclear.

reply to post by Whyhi


True, however this is PUBLIC land and not in any school or government agency!

Once again, reaffirming my belief that there is a war on religion here in the US.

Being that it IS PUBLIC land, then it should be decided by THOSE who pay the taxes on it, if they wish to erect crosses in honor of those who died, with THEIR consent then they should be able to!

Mind you if you read, the people who brought this whole thing to a head, appear to not even be from Utah......which I find interesting......

I agree on some of the mosque posts that there is indeed bigotry........apparently its not as one sided as they would like to believe.

IF this is the case then why arent crosses in cemeteries on public land taken down?

[edit on 18-8-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Whyhi

 

True, however this is PUBLIC land and not in any school or government agency!

Once again, reaffirming my belief that there is a war on religion here in the US.

Being that it IS PUBLIC land, then it should be decided by THOSE who pay the taxes on it, if they wish to erect crosses in honor of those who died, with THEIR consent then they should be able to!

Mind you if you read, the people who brought this whole thing to a head, appear to not even be from Utah......which I find interesting......

I agree on some of the mosque posts that there is indeed bigotry........apparently its not as one sided as they would like to believe.

IF this is the case then why arent crosses in cemeteries on public land taken down?

[edit on 18-8-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]

That its on public land (owned by the Gov.) is the problem. The public is not all Christian. This should come as not suprise to anyone as any symbol of any relgion on public land that is challenged loses. That being said, maybe they could transfer the land to a private trust and thus the Gov is not then promoting and religious symbol.

Maybe if they paid for the land the crosses were one it would be more equivalent to the Islamic community center. The roads are public.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask


So We cant have crosses up to memorialize fallen troopers , but we can have the president come out and say that its ok to build Mosques at ground zero, because its constitutional right?

HUGE difference.

The (proposed) mosque was to be built on private property.

The crosses are on public property.


I don't believe the crosses need to go. However, the argument could be made that they are a violation of the Constitution if they are state-sponsored on public land, and are determined to convey a preference for a particular religion.

Originally posted by Whyhi
The same constitution that allows freedom also states there is to be freedom FROM religion

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.

I don't see the word "from" anywhere in that paragraph. If you can infer that as the intent of the framers, then I shall infer it to also "state" that I have a freedom "from" your speech, a freedom "from" the press, a freedom "from" people assembling on a public street, upon which I wish to travel, freely.

Secondly, I believe it is absurdity for the court to equate the placement of a cross, by a private citizen, to "Congress" establishing religion.

And to add, I'm against any religion, as, in my opinion, it's all nonsense. However, this is about freedom, and as long as people are discriminating against this community center based on the fact that they are foreign / different, I, like many others, will argue in favour of their freedom and rights.

How do you choose for who's rights you are in favor of arguing?

reply to post by WTFover

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

Courts at various levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the posting of isolated religious texts and symbols in any public buildings is unconstitutional. The reason given by the courts is that governments and public schools must remain neutral on religion. i.e. when the government or a school advocate (or appears to advocate)

The government is to remain completely neutral and nonreligious. Considering it's public land, the crosses are unconstitutional

How do you choose for who's rights you are in favor of arguing?

My personal preferences and views on the matter are irrelevant. It violates the constitution.

So, if the prohibition of crosses or other religious symbols along the unused portions of public right of ways is acceptable, can we assume those who support it would, likewise, be in favor of prohibiting the display of religious symbols on vehicles traveling upon the actual roadways?

Also, how would those who support the ban on crosses, respond to the State's removal of an anti-Christian sign or symbol? Say someone constructed a cross surrounded by a large red circle and a red slash through the cross? Would that be an acceptable form of "freedom of expression"?

reply to post by WTFover


Car would be private property.

Anti-religious "things" would also not be allowed on public property...same as the crosses are not.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

True, however this is PUBLIC land and not in any school or government agency!

Public land = Government land, I'm not sure how you misinterpreted me.

It's already decided by the constitution.

IF this is the case then why arent crosses in cemeteries on public land taken down?

That's a bit different have massive 3-4 meter high crosses on the side of a road.

I don't have a problem with this and I'll tell you why. This is one of the few times the court got it right.

If the men behind the crosses had erected memorials for all highway deaths instead of making a special class by using just fallen troopers, and not used a State Seal of Utah; there would be no problem.

What these guys did instead was make a public pronouncement of a religion based on actions of State employees, while said employees were representing the State. This is a huge no no.

Put up the crosses marking all deaths, forget the State Seal. The biography of each victim, could be placed by the cross.

Originally posted by Whyhi
has generally been interpreted to

God, I hate that phrase.

In other words "The framers of the Constitution, writing in plain and simple language, were not intelligent enough to know what they were writing. Additionally, the People are not intelligent enough to understand the plain and simple language of the Constitution, so We the uber intelligent lawyers will determine the meaning of the simple words, as we see fit, requiring several pages of legal babble and mumbo-jumbo to explain a single word. All the while ignoring the long established definitions of the very words We permit Ourselves to interpret"

Those who truly support the Constitution, should loudly denounce such behavior as elitism.