- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Atheists: Utah Trooper Crosses "Offensive & Unconstitutional"
By David Silverman
I received an email today asking why American Atheists was “attacking” the Utah Highway Patrol Memorial. The email accused American Atheists of having an “issue with honoring fallen Utah peace officers.” It wanted to know why we could not just drive past it and see it as a MONUMENT (their use of caps). The writer then went on to say that it doesn’t matter if the peace officer is Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or atheist: they are just being honored.
What is he talking about? What memorial in Utah? Here are just a few news stories from when the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Constitution:
-- Deseret News: Judges rule against Utah highway crosses for fallen troopers.
-- Christian Science Monitor: Roadside crosses for fallen Utah police unconstitutional, court rules.
-- Huffington Post: Utah Memorial Crosses Struck Down by Court of Appeals In Denver.
American Atheists does not have an issue with honoring fallen Utah State Police, Highway Patrol, or Peace Officers. One thing is for sure, roadside crosses are not the way to honor them. How can you honor a Jewish, Hindu, pagan, or atheist trooper with a Christian cross? How does that even remotely begin to honor them? Only a religion in the majority would think that no one of a different religion would be offended by being represented by the majority religion’s symbols. I wonder if the Christian defenders of the Utah crosses would mind an Ohm being placed at their memorial in New Delhi or the Koran being used to reference their sacrifice at their memorial in Tehran.
Fallen Troopers should not be “honored” with bogus religious symbols. They should be honored with an actual memorial that captures their bravery, sacrifice, and courage under fire: a monument that testifies to their tenacity and their willingness to lay down their lives in the protection of the citizens of Utah. A cross does not portray this at all and dishonors the fallen troopers by imposing the religion of the cross upon them and using their sacrifice to the citizens of Utah as a means to proselytize.
The so-called memorial (a string of crosses for each fallen officer) is offensive, but it is also unconstitutional. Not only does it dishonor their service and their sacrifice, it violates the state and federal constitutions.
This recent trend to promote the Christian cross as having “no religious meaning” is astoundingly ridiculous. To hear a judge on the United States Supreme Court say such in order to justify his position that Christianity is okay to promote, should not only irk those of us fighting on the side of the constitution, but equally irk our Christian friends. How can they not be upset at the secularization of their most prized and sacred symbol?
The idea that a string of Christian crosses is “just a memorial” is laughably ludicrous. Is anyone really so naïve to think that whoever designed and built the memorial really thought, “I will just use two random sticks. Hmm, that looks like a cross. Well, that’s okay, because I had two secular sticks in mind when I built it.” Or is someone so naïve enough to think that it was not designed with proselytizing in mind?
The Utah crosses are an affront to the men and women who serve the citizens of Utah and who have died in the line of fire. The memorial is an affront to the Utah Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
I would encourage the citizens of Utah to ask that a real memorial be built for their fallen Troopers. There are a lot of great examples out there of secular memorials that capture the essence of a Trooper and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis defending their citizens.
-- Sheriff’s Association Memorial
-- New Jersey Correctional Officer Memorial
-- Fresno County Peace Officers Memorial
-- Huntsville Police Memorial (This one was delivered a couple of weeks ago where I live in Huntsville, AL)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
To Some That Cross is all thats left.
We Honor our fallen Troopers with Bridges here in my state.
Attribution Incorrect
This blog entry was actually written by Blair Scott.
Oh and....
offensive is stupid. Who cares if you're offended? That's not against the law.
What a waste of an argument to use the word offended as if your offense is far more important than anyone else's.
The Mosque at Ground Zero = offensive, but you argued for it, no doubt. So why should anyone care about you being offended?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
zero
The Park Street mosque is on private property, not public. Big difference.
Noped. Don't lie
Offense is the comment.
Area is not.
Nice try to avoid a word you don't know the meaning of. Offense isn't legally wrong no matter who is offended. ha. god.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
offensive
Offensive on public land, with public funds. The Park51 Mosque is on private land.
It is offensive because it uses a Christian symbol to represent people who are not necessarily Christian. It is unconstitutional because it is the governments endorsement of a religious symbol on public property as part of a public memorial.... and that is the part that makes it illegal.
There is NOTHING
unconstitutional about the memorial...because that's what it is a memorial whether you like it or not. Your liking isn't a matter of constitutional like. You are basking it on feelings and dislike of religion.
If you're going to barf up the Separation of Church and state...well that's not in the constitution and that's unconstitutional.
Are you and your atheist gang going to go and remove all the crosses for the fallen heroes during WWII?
I hate crosses, but I'm smart enough to understand what they actually mean. You are not.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
public funds, public land
If the cross is on public land, and is a public memorial then its use represents an unconstitutional encroachment of the government into religion.
The difference between these crosses and the crosses placed on grave stones is that a grave stone is a private memorial, even if it is on public land (such as in Arlington). Unless the guy is buried there then the cross has no place.
So atheist whine about pety things?
Gotcha.
No. It's public memorial for WWII. Every single grave no matter the religion CROSS.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
You're way off base...
WHERE are all the graves marked with crosses, regardless of the religion of the deceased? Not here in the U.S., that's for sure. You need to study your history, boy. Your claim is pure fiction.
Of course you'd state
no where in America....so you could claim victory. Failure when it's US solider graves I'm talking about..anywhere.
http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/HU036795.html
For US soldiers. Whether in America or not...unless all Americans are Christians.
They're in France and England as well.
http://www.battlestory.org/index.php?p=1_67_USA-CEMETERIES-IN-EUROPE
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
What's your point?
Those are overseas, NOT in America. Because not everyone in America is Christian.
Those are for
American Soldiers that died and buried there.
That's the point.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
American, not Christian.
It's a sure bet that some of them weren't Christian. It's a disgraceful disrespect to their memory.
private
The land is public but the graves themselves are private... as are the gravestones, which are chosen by the families from an array of choices... and no, not every grave is marked with a cross.
There are a number of symbols that can be chosen to adorn a grave:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html
Also there are veterans from wars since the Civil War (including military actions today) that are buried there. Most marked with a simple headstone / markers (which is the one provided at no charge by the VA: http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmtype.asp ).
I'm not talking about the
families. The unnamed.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
you mean
You mean commemorating those who may or may not have been Christian with a cross? Should Jews pay to put crosses on a memorial to people who were Jewish?
Since they are "unnamed" they could be any one of the number of religions that are found within the armed forces.
Keep fooling yourself...
If the markers were "memorials" there wouldn't be an issue. But they are explicitly religious symbols, endorsing ONE religion to the exclusion of all others.
Perhaps you should stop defecating on the Constitution and all those who defend it against theocratic religious dominionism.
unconstitutional
It is unconstitutional not because it is offensive, but because it represents an endorsement of religion by the state (read the article, the court is fairly clear about that point).
Read the title of the OP... it says "Offensive & Unconstitutional"... that means that it is both offensive AND it is unconstitutional, not "Offensive, therefore Unconstitutional". Did you never learn first order logic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
I would agree that its "offensiveness" is not relevant, it is its "unconstitutionalness" that is the issue for the courts to decide. The courts ruled on the legal issue, not the offence issue.
The rest of your diatribe is the usual bit of nonsense... "Someone is critical of something Christian... therefore they hate Christianity."
Aitken bible
One of the first acts of congress was to print a bible for distribution to troops. If the first amendment was intended to work the way people claim it does, then wouldn't this act have been unconstitutional right on its face, and supported by the people who wrote the first amendment?
From what I've seen of the founding fathers quotes, the purpose of the first amendment was not to ban religion from all the public sector, but to promote the free practice of it.
In Europe, people were required to be one religion picked by the government. If it was found out that you weren't this religion you could be banned from holding offices, from owning land, be persecuted etc ad nassium.
So what do you think about the passing of this bible?
Printing a bible
Congress did not print the Bible, they past a resolution:
"Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper."
One can hardly have the free practice of religion when the government starts endorsing specific religions.,, as it does when there are bits like official prayer.
The passage of the bit endorsing the "Aitken Bible" is the usual round of politicians endorsing something that was popular, but not really doing anything on their own (the Bibles were never distributed to "the troops").
What does it say for the government to endorse a specific version of the Bible to those who use a different Bible (the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox come to mind) or those who do not use the Bible at all (Jews, Muslims, etc...)?
Do you have a degree in Reading Miscomprehension?
"Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled,... they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States."
That sounds very much like an official endorsement of the Christian Bible, by the U.S. Government.
How the fcuk can you not see that??
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
a political point
It is more of a "buy American" point, wouldn't you say?
Also recommending a specific Bible is endorsing a specific subset of Christianity (some branch of Protestantism), not Christianity as a whole.
If the Founders had wanted a Christian nation then the US Constitution would have said as much... Instead the Founders took great lengths to ensure that the US was not an explicitly Protestant nation.
Having the government endorse one specific sect of a religion is a huge "frak you" to everyone else, and runs counter to the concepts of equality and Justice for everyone within the US. Indeed it isn't the governments place to make such declarations with regards o any religion.
you didn't say anything
But pretended I need to know something I already know.
You have not pointed to how It's unconstitutional. And you can't, because It's not. Court opinion is not the constitution.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
say
I said quite a bit, which you can try and ignore...
You said that just because it was offensive does not mean it is unconstitutional... An argument that the article never makes. The article says that the crosses are offensive AND unconstitutional, not offensive THEREFORE unconstitutional.
The article gives the reasoning the court used:
"The fact that the fallen UHP troopers are memorialized with a Christian symbol conveys the message that there is some connection between the UHP and Christianity, this may lead a reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP."
You say quite a lot
that has nothing to do with the topic and hope that someone reading will give you points for pointing out the sky is blue.
The article is poorly written. Saying offensive is a pathetic word. Don't use it unless you know how. You're arguing over semantics. I'm mocking them because they have a crappy article.
And you have a crappy point.
You have not pointed out how it's unconstitutional. I'm waiting.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
poorly written or not
The article cites the courts ruling, which I posted above. It is hardly "poor writing" to quote the judgment of the case being written about.
Read the judgment... It explains that the crosses are a government endorsement of religion, which violates the first(by endorsing a given religion) and fourteenth amendments(by denying non Christians equal protection).
Judges
can be poor writers. They are not perfect, you know.
NOPE.
That doesn't point to where it violates the constitution. Judges can't speak for the constitution when the words are there for you to read. This isn't church when they had the only bible and told people what to think.
Still waiting.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
judges
The judges writing poorly doesn't mean that the person reporting what the judges are saying is writing poorly.
Judges do that all the time... it is their job to interpret the law.
I just did.
No, You didn't
and you know why?
Because no where in the constitution does it state separation of Church and state. Nowhere.
Yes....well I lumped them all together. They both write blehingly.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
limited
So you think that there should be a "Church of the USA"?
So you think
that the United States should be under the constitution you thought up instead of the ACTUAL document?
You're avoiding the point and it's so noticeable you might as well state you can't find it and admit it doesn't exist.
Limited what? Government interaction into our lives....that's something you seem to defend and want more of and yet get all up in arms when it's situations you don't like.
Either it's all or nothing. Don't be a nitpicky party player.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
thought up
Reading the Constitution it seems to me that the best way for everyone's religious freedom to be preserved is to keep the government and religion as far from each other as we can. No government endorsement (no matter how tangential) and no government restrictions (except where religious belief runs counter to the law, like not allowing men to marry under age girls).
Just because the specific phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear does not mean that the idea of keeping "Church and State" separate is not a valid Constitutional concept... Can you show where the phrase "separation of powers" or "checks and balances" appears in the Constitution? Or the term "Air Force" or "nuclear weapon"?
I support government interaction in our lives where it serves to protect the right of the citizens.
The Phrase
Separation of Church and state does not exist in the constitution at all.
You are trying to divert attention because you are using a phrase that doesn't exist. You're using a phrase that Thomas Jefferson used, but never wrote.
You support government overreaching. Which is why you want them all up in our grill with health care and anything else that democrats toss our way.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
and you'd have a point
If I was arguing that the specific phrase "separation of Church and State" was found in the Constitution... yet I'm not making such an argument. The phrase is used because that is how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison described the First amendment.
You are trying to O'donnell it up... but nobody is arguing that those exact words appear in the US Constitution.
You can also lie about me supporting "everything" that the Dems try to do because I support universal healthcare, but you won't be telling the truth.
You started this with me
and that is what I have been arguing. If that is not problem for you then admit that it's not anywhere in there and then state you ASSUME based on the wording that the idea exist even though Thomas Jefferson didn't write it nor suggest it....just thought it.
Describing it doesn't matter, the phrase doesn't exist.
I'm telling you it doesn't exist. And you are telling me it does. For a logical person---you're lying. If you're being an emotional person..you can be right.
It's a feeling that you are going on more than fact.
The fact is what's there not what they wished they wrote.
I said it, and you've yet to show how you don't. You continue to defend them in all the things they're wrong in.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
describe
Thomas Jefferson did write it... He clearly states that the purpose of the religion clause in the First Amendment is to keep religion and government separate.
I have not said that the phrase literally exists, but rather that the concept of Church / State separation is a valid Constitutional concept... And is well consistent with what is written in the Constitution.
Show where he said it
let me read it. You've twisted so much that you cannot be trusted.
Yes you did as did the above article. Don't use the phrase. It doesn't exist. You can't state that and the constitution in the same breath because it's a lie. You're perpetuating a lie that about a phrase created by people that hate religion to further their own agenda.
Thomas Jefferson didn't hate religion. He didn't want religion to control Government and Government to control religion. He did not state he wanted either to be devoid of the other. Meaning one can be religious and abide by that religion by doing their government job and states can have things that are religious as long as they don't force it on their own people.
You're twisting the meaning and then forcing a lie around and I laugh. It's funny watching you make anyone that had anything too do with that document roll in their grave.
It's not a valid concept.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Phrase
The phrase is found in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, written in 1802. It has since been used by the Supreme Court (Reynolds 98 U.S at 164, 1879 being one instance).
One can be religious and hold a government office, however the government cannot endorse religious practices... Which it does as soon as it grants religions special privileges (such as having prayer before meetings or erecting religious monuments on public land).
It doesn't matter if the
President of the United States uses it. Doesn't make it right.
The Supreme Court also said that people had to stand up and salute the flag or they can be kicked out of school, only to go back and reverse it realizing that trampled on first amendment rights.
Special privileges is one thing. Endorsing is another. It's not one and the same.
Having a cross as a memorial is just that having a cross as a memorial. You'd have to prove that it's endorsing. It's not.
That's like saying if you were friends with someone that's religious you're endorsing their religion via association.
Prayer before a meeting isn't endorsing anything unless they use a specific God name. Two unless they force you to pray along with them it's not doing much of anything...really. It's that over sensitive atheist thing again.
I don't think praying is necessary in public display like that. But that's just me. I could careless if they do it. It doesn't bother me. Just like it doesn't bother me that atheist constantly speak about what they don't believe in. Promoting negative never positive.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
what is Constitutional
Is the term "separation of powers" a valid term to use when describing the government established by the US Constitution? How about "equal treatment under the law"?
The cross is a Christian symbol, and using it on a monument is an endorsement of Christianity. It says that the government is explicitly honoring Christians because they are Christian. Further as a general memorial it is offensive to those non Christians who are excluded. A cross honoring all those who died in WWII is offensive because not only Christians died during WWII.
Even an official prayer before a government meeting is exclusive to specific belief sets. There is no prayer inclusive enough to encompass the entire set of possible beliefs.
There is a large difference between people praying in public and officially sanctioned prayer.
This malarkey again?
The octagon has religious meaning also.
http://www.symbolic-meanings.com/2008/05/24/symbolic-meaning-of-octagon /
Are you going to crusade against it as well? Your government overlords use it quite frequently, I'm told.
What about Scientology's "S" symbol? Should the application of the letter "S" never be funded by government to prevent the risk of it appearing that the same is endorsing Scientology as the state-approved religion?
According to your premises, the answer to the above is: "yes".
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
meaning
As we have gone over before... The cross used here is an explicitly Christian symbol. The octagon is not explicitly a religious symbol, just like how the S is not explicitly a religious symbol.
Right, just like the cross
Those shapes/symbols, and many, many others related to religion, are not explicitly religious symbols.
That has been the point.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
And an invalid point at best.
Since the courts ruled against your way of thinking, I'd say you're dead wrong to begin with, but how about this: explain how the symbol of the cross, which is believed by Christians of all walks of faith to be the representation of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, is NOT an explicitly religious symbol. Especially when used in conjunction with grave sites and memorials.
You want me to explain an "invalid point?
What purpose would that serve?
Your well is already poisoned. I'll just let your incurious self drink deeply, content in the knowledge that you have nothing to learn.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Read:
"I can't answer your question."
Whatever floats your boat, punchy.
You want a real discussion: take off the asshat. I stopped wasting my time with closed-minded buffoons.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
hahahaha
happy thanksgiving sweetheart!
Gobble gobble.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, sir.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.