Utah: Cross Controversy?

Question

So I'm wondering what your views are on the whole controversy with the crosses honoring the state troopers along the side of the road.
I personally feel it is very stupid! Even if you don't believe in God or whatever your problem with it is, no one is trying to force religion on them, they are just honoring their fallen comrades. It is a great memorial to them, how do you have the right to say it is unconstitutional to honor those that died in the line of duty. It is something that is easily recognizable as a memorial, and as some one drives by it they can think of those that have died. Also I personally don't believe in the cross or use it, but I don't want to sue them.
What do you think?

It is a state trooper organization or something like that putting up the crosses. It is the atheists that are suing because they think it is unconstitutional (meaning religion and state stuff). I just saw it on the news this morning and a couple of days ago, and I was just wondering how others felt because I'm getting frustrated with how stupid it is.

It isn't distracting it is a simple tall white cross on the side of the highway.

Answer 1

The highway patrol puts them up. I think it's a great way to show support to those who gave their lives in the line of duty. I don't see anything wrong with it. It is a symbol of unselfish actions, not religion. There is one in the town where I live- in UT.- where an officer was shot by a man who had ran from the cops. There were three officers shot that day, but only the one died. The cross was put up by the other officers that were shot and his family was there. It was really emotional.

I think it's a great tribute to them, and like you, I don't use the cross as a symbol of my faith, but that doesn't mean that I look at this as wrong. What do they want us to put up? A flag? People would have problems with that too. You can't win with everyone. People just need to get off their high horse and figure out it isn't meant to be a dig on what they believe, but a symbol of unselfish love.

*EDIT***

Found the story on this. It even shows a picture of the memorials in question...

Answer 2

It is not unconstitutional unless a law is passed requiring or banning it. The other troopers want to pay their respects and honor their fallen comrades. That is probably the most recognizable memorial there is in America. I really don't see a problem with it.

I don't display the cross as a sign of my Christian beliefs, but I have no issue with those who do. If someone of another faith wants to place their religious symbol- then that is their right.

I really think that people just need to stop trying so hard to be offended.

Answer 3

Well, it is undeniable that the cross is a symbol of christianity. However the cross also simbolizes respect for the death. The problem is not really on the symbol, but in the eyes of the beholder. People who pass will see only a symbol for respect of the death, while some other people will see christian propaganda.
Near the Santa Monica pier, there is a display of 'Veterans agaisnt Wars' that has planted a memorial for the fallen american soldiers in Irak. In some places there are crosses, while some places have Islamic moons, and some places have David's star on them; making a differentiation of the fallen soldiers religious believes. Although is much more work, I believe this is better, since it pays respect to the believes of every individual.

Answer 4

I think that if the trooper in question was a Christian, then that's a perfectly valid memorial, regardless of who's paying for it; if it's the government, it's not promoting a religion, it's simply stating that "John Doe was a Christian". If the trooper were Jewish, then it should be a Star of David; Crescent for a Muslim, and so on. How many Jews or Muslims or anything besides Mormons there are in Utah I don't know, but I see no problem in including the deceased's religious preference in a memorial to him/her.

Answer 5

Well if it isn't the mormons because they are against crosses, then I am happy about that, but if its another group, I don't get it. Were I live, I see crosses were people ran into a railing and died or a car wreck killed a love one, no one has a problem with this, or a tree killed a love one when that person crashed into it and you can tell by the crosage and the cross next to it and some visible skid marks. I just don't get it.

Answer 6

How about just cutting off the horizontal part of the symbol? That way they it's just a straight up and down piece of wood. Paint the name of the trooper on it and call it good.

Geez. Don't people have better things to do with their time than to worry about a what the symbol dedicated to a state trooper looks like? Do something constructive.

Answer 7

A cross is a religious symbol(and an execution device, fitting isn't it) and as such should not be erected by a government entity, especially on publically owned land. It's a basic tenet in the constitution that government shall not endorse a religion. Why can't they honor the fallen troopers with a memorial not utilizing a religious symbol/execution device? Why does it have to involve a cross?

Answer 8

I agree, it is a good idea and respectful. However, any item on the highway that is not a normal road sign could distract drivers and cause accidents. I am a Christian and love Jesus Christ. I want the signs to be there but I can see from this point. If it not that reason particulary then I cannot agree with them on this one. There is certainly no other harm.

Answer 9

I think that as long as a government entity isn't paying for crosses (or any other religious symbol) to be placed by the road, then our constitution is upheld. There are ways to honor fallen troopers/officers without using religious symbols.

As long as a nonchristian family is not forced to have their family member honored with a Christian symbol (regardless of whether it is the government is paying for it), then inalienable human rights are upheld.

If either of the above scenarios is occurring, however, I have a problem with it.

Edit: The cross is only seen as a symbol of respect for the dead in Christian society; for instance, you won't often find a cross for fallen Israeli or Afghan soldiers. As a republic with a fully neutral policy regarding any and all religion, the state is not constitutionally permitted to allocate funds for (or otherwise support) religious symbols, regardless of whether they offer it for all. Yes, it has been permitted in the past, but that was simply because the minority voices were suppressed and not encouraged, and because the constitution was not upheld. In today's society, where we value and protect another group's civil liberty to disagree with us, we cannot allow government to favor any one, two, or three religions, regardless of how small the minorities are.

Now, if it were a union or other associate organization that was funding the crosses, the rules would change depending on how the union is organized, what authority it has, and who funds it.

If it were individual officers, families, charitable organizations, or Joe Citizen that is heading up the venture (and it is done on privately owned land with owner permission), then we all have to shut up and live with it, except those whose families and loved ones are affected.

Edit2: Upon reading the article (thanks to odd duck for posting it), I think the following points are relevant:

* The crosses are 12 feet tall and 4 1/2 feet wide (not just small, inconspicuous symbols)
* The crosses are funded by the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Department of Transportation, both government agencies funded by taxpayers
* The suit is only seeking $1 (that's right, one single dollar, split among at least three plaintiffs) of damages, but is asking for the crosses to be removed, or at least replaced by nondenominational symbols of appreciation
* The suit claims no emotional wrongdoing, persecution, insult, personal offense, or duress, but simply unconstitutional actions
* Even if the cross is an international symbol of peace, it is recognized as such only by Christian people and societies; other religious symbols (star of David and crescent moon) are used by people of other beliefs
* Changing the type of memorial used casts no undue burden on the state or the taxpayers
* No religion is disadvantaged compared to any other religion by the suit or its demands


Yes, flags or tombstones might be overkill (as is a 12-foot-tall object), but a post or stone slab with the trooper's name, the date, the state seal, and a poem of thanks might be quite appropriate. The slab or post could become legal property of the next-of-kin of the fallen trooper, who could then place whichever small religious symbol (with a limit on size) on the memorial that he/she sees fit.

Answer 10

A small cross posted along a highway, to honor anyone is fine in my book. I've seen it for many people, and I don't see how their being a cop makes it any more important.