Thanks, Atheists!

[Portland Ute]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1016&sid=178...ighway-crosses

[NorthwestUteFan]

'Sell' the ten square feet of land around each cross to the UHP or families of the deceased troopers for $1 for a 99 year lease. Problem solved.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

And how chickenshit is this SC. So many contradictory rulings on this subject and they can't be bothered.

[woot]

And how chickenshit is this SC. So many contradictory rulings on this subject and they can't be bothered.

I agree that it'd be nice to see this kind of thing finally get ironed out, but the scotus only hears a tiny percentage of the cases appealed to their level (like 5% or less? I don't remember), so it's hard to fault them too much for refusing to hear any particular case.

[Moliere]

I wonder if American cemeteries don't qualify as federal property:

[beefytee]

Removal of these crosses is baffling to me.

They might have had any kind of case if the major religion of the state didn't discourage/lack the use of crosses in religious activity. That pretty much tells me that these crosses have become more of a cultural symbol and though not completely void of religious symbolism, certainly falls short of endorsing it.

[woot]

Removal of these crosses is baffling to me.

They might have had any kind of case if the major religion of the state didn't discourage/lack the use of crosses in religious activity. That pretty much tells me that these crosses have become more of a cultural symbol and though not completely void of religious symbolism, certainly falls short of endorsing it.

I think this would be a good argument. I don't remember when I figured it out, but it was embarrassingly late in life that I realized crosses weren't just a generic way of identifying a grave.

I tend to be strictly against the use of public land or money for religious promotion, but this is one case where the line seems especially blurry.

[Moliere]

Removal of these crosses is baffling to me.

They might have had any kind of case if the major religion of the state didn't discourage/lack the use of crosses in religious activity. That pretty much tells me that these crosses have become more of a cultural symbol and though not completely void of religious symbolism, certainly falls short of endorsing it.

I'm actually wondering how we got to this point with the whole separation of church and state. If the officers were Christian than I see no issue with using crosses to memorialize them. If they were Jewish than I see no issue with using the Star of David. Muslims could use the moon and star. If they were atheists then you could use an picture of Chris Hitchens.

But seriously, a memorial with a religious symbol of that person's faith is not an endorsement of religion.

[Commando]

I don't think a cross necessarily represents my religion, either, but I don't consider it a "government endorsement" of any particular religion-- especially on a memorial marker. I guess everyone else has to capitulate to whatever monument the atheists decide is appropriate, because nobody else seems to give a shit whether it's a cross, star of David, the Angel Moroni, or a reclining Buddha. :igiveup:

[myboynoah]

I wonder if American cemeteries don't qualify as federal property:

One cross at a time.

[UtahDan]

Here is the 10th Circuit decision that SCOTUS has declined to review:

http://www.iml.org/files/pages/5544/08-4061.pdf

Let me see if I can thumbnail mean of the reasoning:

The Court in Lemon established three general tests to determine whether a state has violated the principles protected by the Establishment Clause: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

...


3. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Establish a Violation of the Purpose Prong
of the Lemon Test

...

4. UHPA’s Memorial Crosses Violate the Effect Prong of the
Lemon/Endorsement Test (the second part of the test above)

...

Context can determine the permissibility of displays of religious symbols
on public property...

...


This case involves memorials using a Latin cross, which “is unequivocally a symbol of the Christian faith.” Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1022. In light of that, there is little doubt that Utah would violate the Establishment Clause if it allowed a private group to place a permanent unadorned twelve-foot cross on public property without any contextual or historical elements that served to secularize the message conveyed by such a display. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098, 1100-01 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that a lighted thirty-five-foot stand-alone cross could not be displayed in a state park); see also County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 599 (using the display of a cross in a central location in a government building on Easter asthe prototypical example of a display that would convey government “endorsement of Christianity”); Buono, 371 F.3d at 544-45 (holding that an eightfoot cross intended as a war memorial and located on land owned by the national government violated the Establishment Clause); cf. Trunk v. City of San Diego, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1202 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (holding that a cross that had become a long-standing landmark of the city and was only one part of a larger war memorial could be maintained on federal land). Thus, these displays of “the preeminent symbol of Christianity,” Buono, 371 F.3d at 545 (citation and quotation omitted), can only be allowed if their context or history avoid the conveyance of a message of governmental endorsement of religion.

Here, we conclude that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity. The memorials use the preeminent symbol of Christianity, and they do so standing alone (as opposed to it being part of some sort of display involving other symbols). That cross conspicuously bears the imprimatur of a state entity, the UHP, and is found primarily on public land.

The fact that the cross includes biographical information about the fallen trooper does not diminish the governmental message endorsing Christianity. This is especially true because a motorist driving by one of the memorial crosses at 55-plus miles per hour may not notice, and certainly would not focus on, the biographical information. The motorist, however, is bound to notice the preeminent symbol of Christianity and the UHP insignia, linking the State to that religious sign.

Moreover, the fact that all of 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 the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP—both in their hiring practices and, more generally, in the treatment that people may expect to receive on Utah’s highways. The reasonable observer’s fear of unequal treatment would likely be compounded by the fact that these memorials carry the same symbol that appears on UHP patrol vehicles. See Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bernalillo County, 781 F.2d 777, 778, 782 (10th Cir. 1985) (holding that a city’s seal “bearing, among other things, a latin cross and the Spanish motto, ‘CON ESTA VENCEMOS’ [‘With This We Conquer’],” violated the Establishment Clause in part because “[a] person approached by officers leaving a patrol car emblazoned with this seal could reasonably assume that the officers were Christian police. . . . A follower of any non-Christian religion might well question the officers’ ability to provide even-handed treatment. A citizen with no strong religious conviction might conclude that secular benefit could be obtained by becoming a Christian.”). And the significant size of the cross would only heighten this concern.

I can't put it all here, but the opinion addresses a lot of the Defendant's arguments as well. I think it is a close call, but if I imagine myself driving through almost entirely Muslim Michigan (in a distant future) and I see large Muslim symbols all along the road emblazoned with that seal of that state...it makes it easier to empathize with fear behind this reasoning.

[SeattleUte]

Here's the irony: Mormons of all people, who abhor the cross, and graven images, ought to appreciate the policy and reasoning supporting the 10th Circuit's decision. No one is saying those officers shouldn't be honored. What if they were honored with an Angel Moroni statue, would that be okay? Can't somebody think of a more original and belief neutral way to do it than a cross?

[UtahDan]

By the way, it is about time you thanked us for something. Still waiting on the light bulb, the double helix, etc.

[SeattleUte]

I wonder if American cemeteries don't qualify as federal property:

It's not the same thing. I'm sure they couldn't impose the cross on the families. The graves belong to the fallen and their families. It's their choice. See the Star of David in the foreground?

[il Padrino Ute]

It's not the same thing. I'm sure they couldn't impose the cross on the families. The graves belong to the fallen and their families. It's their choice. See the Star of David in the foreground?

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...99&postcount=2