Rest in P.C.
Posted on December 3, 2005
…as in political correctness. Atheists are now targeting memorial crosses in Utah, which commerate the deaths of Utah Highway Patrol Troopers. The assault on Christian symbols continues, even if it means upsetting the families of the troopers and showing that they do not care about the commemoration of sacrifice.
A lawsuit filed by the American Atheists in U.S. District Court on Thursday seeks to remove steel crosses that dot roadways throughout Utah and memorialize Utah Highway Patrol troopers who have died in the line of duty.
The suit has drawn harsh reaction from family members of the fallen troopers and promises to be the source of an emotional battle.
The crosses, which stand about 12 feet high and bear the trooper’s name and the UHP insignia, were erected starting in 1998 and serve as a memorial for 14 troopers who have died since 1931. About nine of the crosses are on public land and all of them are placed near the spot where the troopers lost their lives.
Plaintiffs Stephen Clark, Michael Rivers and Richard Andrews in conjunction with the American Atheists Inc. also seek to have the UHP symbol removed from the crosses.
“The presence of the UHP logo on a poignant religious symbol is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. It is government endorsement of religion,” said Rivers, Utah director for American Atheists. SOURCE
First off, I could make this a long debate but I’ll be blunt. Even if this endorsement, the First Amendment protects against establishment. But even without that being said, this isn’t endorsement of religion, this is remembrance of life. What other symbol can touch as many hearts and show people that a sacrifice has been made? No other symbol. The cross has stood for a long time as a symbol of commemoration of life, and I think that this shouldn’t change that. The symbol is meant to honor these fallen men, not convert people to Christianity. I would rather have honor and respect for these lives, than follow the laws set forth by the P.C. Police.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
21 Responses to “Rest in P.C.”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
There are two considerations:
are the crosses privately funded? If so, no problem.
Are they state funded? If so, are the families allowed to designate the memorial style of their choice, be it a religious symbol or secular one? If so, no problem.
If and only if they are using public funds without choice to promote religious symbols would it violate the First Amendment.
Probably, the ACLU should blow this out its !@#$
Oh, and for the record, I’m an agnostic.
Yes, I’m horribly offended by seeing memorial crosses. Help, help, I’m being represssed, etc, etc
Yawn.
Sicque Philosophy For A Sicque World …
ACLU didn’t file this one… American Atheists have filed it.
Basically, same difference in this case!
Well, first of all, the cross is exclusive the christianity. When I see a cross, I certainly don’t think of a dead person. I think of the church.
The 12′ steel crosses located on government owned property were paid for by the Utah Highway Patrol Association.
I think this is a valid lawsuit. I personally don’t mind memorials, but try something other than a cross.
How would you feel if a 12′ steel ACLU symbol were erected on government owned land?
Sounds like the State of Utah is supporting an establishment of religion to me. Why do they have to be crosses? Why not simple markers?
Since when does establish and endorse mean the same thing. The webster I have gives a completely different meaning. The constitution says establish, it does not say the government cannot endorse a religion. Who care if it is the ACLU or some Athiest filing the lawsuit they are both extremely immoral organizations.
First of all people, the ACLU is not involved in this case. No-one’s civil liberties are being violated. Second, as an atheist myself, I really don’t care if state money is paying for crosses as long as the families want them. There really are more important issues.
I’m curious, though, whether they would put up a star of David if a Jewish trooper died. That seems unlikely because apparently Jews make up only 0.2% of Utah’s population.
Happy Holidays!
All the crosses in a veterans cemetery are paid for by the federal government. The ACLU tried to get them taken down but they still stand. I would like to see the war when someone physically tried to take them down.
Whoa to the Athiests. If the police officer was a Christian then it is appropriate for a cross to be placed as a part of the memorial, subject to the approval of the family.
If you really want to even the playing field get the names of the offended athiests and vehicle description and plate number, where they live and work and submit the info to local police officers with a brief explanation of what the bozos are doing. Then tell the police officer to do a little dance on the bozos. The police officer will understand.
Love it.
Comment to Richard Jauch. A court made the ACLU name a defendent in Nebraska who was an athiest and was trying to take away the religious rights of people there. It worked.
Maybe when an athiest gets killed in the line of duty we should put up a three pronge pitch fork to symbolize the devil, then they would not have any complaint.,
Cassandra…
“How would you feel if a 12? steel ACLU symbol were erected on government owned land?”
I personally don’t mind memorials, but try something other than a ACLU symbol.
i will get with you sunday if i am not overwhelmed. big sermon in the morning BIG! you may like it. mine at about 9am bastard 1pm west coast. i don’t have times for the other multicasts. bastard takes care of that, sorry.
what next? arlington cementary. arlington is government owned land, is the aclu going to ask the us government to remove the crosses there? what about the fallen soldiers that rest there, that paid the ultimate sacrifice to allow members of the aclu to rant as they do.
I’m with the first commenter, who is it funded by? is it private or public money. If it is public money then crosses are illegal. Why not then choose the Islam symbol of sacrific?
if it was the islam symbol then i would think that all the christians would be offended. Thus because of hypocrisy and establishment of state religion it should not take on religious tones if the markers were publicly funded. If it was private then it’s freedom of speech and would be ok.
“The webster I have gives a completely different meaning.”
Dethanial, I find it hard to believe that you’ve ever cracked open a Webster’s. Since “athiest” is one of your favorite words, you and the other complainants here should learn to spell it.
I personally couldn’t care less whether the Utah memorials are crosses, giant pinwheels, or likenesses of Darth Vader. Given crosses’ historical record, however (Crusades, Inquisition), I disagree that they are ideal symbols of life. And face it — putting them on freeways discriminates against vampires.
This is Utah anyway. I’m surprised they don’t have huge statues of that idiot horse thief and Bible plagiarist Joe Smith wearing his giant magic sunglasses and mouthing the words from oversized platters unearthed in New York State.
I love how liberals interpret the COnstitution. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit a public-funded cross, and if it did, someone should wake Jefferson from the dead and tell him to pay back the thousands of tax-payer dollars he spent on converting Indians to Christianity. Obviously the Constitution simply prohibits making a religion actual LAW.
“someone should wake Jefferson from the dead and tell him to pay back the thousands of tax-payer dollars he spent on converting Indians to Christianity.”
I agree. What a sad waste. This is the sort of crap that would never fly today. As badly as Native Americans have been treated, force-feeding them Christian bullsh*t would be the ultimate form of dehumanizing torture.
Jefferson could not have known 230 years ago that religion would prove both increasingly destructive and increasingly passe. It used to be that religious folks could hide behind thunder, lightning, floods, and all sorts of then-unexplained phenomena when positing the existence of a Christian-style creator. Now, we know a hell of a lot about molecular genetics, the mechanisms underlying evolution, microbiology, atomic physics, geology, and more, which has made Christians fearful of — and irate at — science and scientists and forced them to hide behind groundless attacks on same. Soon enough they won’t even have these things as a shield. If we don’t blow ourselves up, in 1,000 years the entire civlized world will be rightly secular, but that’s a big “if.”
Let’s clarify something here & now:
“what next? arlington cementary. arlington is government owned land, is the aclu going to ask the us government to remove the crosses there?”
This is a lie.
You folks really need to look these things up before you weigh in on them.
Furthermore:
“someone should wake Jefferson from the dead and tell him to pay back the thousands of tax-payer dollars he spent on converting Indians to Christianity.”
Where on earth did any of you get that fact? Got link?
This is how rumors get started.
“If you really want to even the playing field get the names of the offended athiests and vehicle description and plate number, where they live and work and submit the info to local police officers with a brief explanation of what the bozos are doing. Then tell the police officer to do a little dance on the bozos. The police officer will understand.”
That’s a wonderful concept. Did I just wake up in Berlin in 1941? I’m tempted to do a little ‘dance’ on you, my friend.
The crosses, to my limited knowledge, were paid for by the UCHP.
For the record, I could care less as well. There are more important issues to address.
There is no such thing as seperation of church and state. It is not in the constitution. The 1st amendment states that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. Placing religious symbols on gov’t property is not establishing a religion, nor is it creating a law endorsing a religion
Timbo:
“There is no such thing as seperation of church and state. It is not in the constitution.”
If it’s not explicitly spelled out, it doesn’t exist?
Gee, let’s dump the Establishment Clause, then.
I believe it was Madison, who stated that government & religion would remain purer, the less they were mixed together (paraphrase).
The 1st amendment, BTW, specifically states no laws shall be made establishing or prohibiting religion.
The separation is implied, I believe.
Sorry to rain on people’s parades, but Barton is NOT someone to be listened to, or given credence.
Which is the main root of this pesky ‘myth of separation of church & state’ stems from.