Apparently a Federal appeals court just ruled that the roadside crosses erected to memorialize fallen troopers by the Utah Highway Patrol are unconstitutional and have to go.
Okay, I'm on record as thinking that roadside memorials are a little tacky, especially when they get all crusted with faded, dirty plastic flowers and mouldering teddy bears. And when blown up to twice the height of a grown man they cross the line into gauche, but unconstitutional?
Look, in a graveyard or on the side of the road, when I see a cross I don't think "Christianity", I think "dead guy". Unless there's a headstone with a Star of David or a crescent nearby to remind me, its cultural meaning pretty much swamps its religious one in that context. Granted, there are probably a million better things on which to spend money stolen from taxpayers at 1040-point right now, but this is small potatoes on the list of things to stress over. (And if the group bringing the suit is so worried about public religious symbols in Utah, why aren't they saying anything about the beehive on the troopers' shoulder patches? Or are they a little thick?)
We've got a president involving himself in New York City zoning spats and American Atheists are worried about government-funded future roadside Santeria shrines? Way to win friends and influence people, there, sport.
They are thick AND anti Christian. But twelve feet high, I can't argue with this one.
ReplyDeleteThe size seemed to bother the court more than the cross as a cross.
Someone has been erecting huge crosses in my neck of the woods for Drunk Driving fatalities. Does that mean I can get those torn down as well?
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteWere I you, I'd strike while the iron was hot. ;)
Wait a minute! "The Utah Highway Patrol Association in 1998 began erecting the monuments...."
ReplyDeleteSince when does the Utah Highway Patrol Association become "the gooberment"?
In the state where I currently hang my hat, they name bridges and overpasses after fallen State Troopers. Regular folks can purchase a state-manufactured road marker - white circle on black square background, with name & other limited data about the deceased, or risk having the home-made one removed the next time the grass-cutting crew has nothing better to do.
But the State Trooper Assn being ruled a part of "the gooberment"? Yeah, I'm still trying to puzzle out that one.
stay safe.
Most of the crosses were one public land.
ReplyDelete"And if the group bringing the suit is so worried about public religious symbols in Utah, why aren't they saying anything about the beehive on the troopers' shoulder patches?"
ReplyDeleteAccording to the story, it's a Texas-based group, so they may not be familiar with that symbol's ties to the LDS. I had to look it up myself, since I had never heard of a beehive as a religious symbol until you mentioned it here.
Y'know, speaking as a godforsaken deviated prevert atheist, I'd be satisfied if the Utah Troopers just said they were prepared to put up an alternative symbol appropriate to the fallen trooper if one of them ever happens not to be a Christian.
ReplyDeleteGovernments can't endorse a religion, but that doesn't mean they have to pretend their employees aren't religious on their own time.
TexDot has a heck of a time mowing around roadside memorials. There didn't used to be any, now there is one every couple of miles. They have been judged to be illegal but they persist. Every now and then there is a ruckus when one disappears during mowing due to the heathen, godless heavy hand of TexDot Illegal aliens running the roadside mowing tractors.
ReplyDeleteI blame George Bush.
Look, in a graveyard or on the side of the road, when I see a cross I don't think "Christianity", I think "dead guy". Unless there's a headstone with a Star of David or a crescent nearby to remind me, its cultural meaning pretty much swamps its religious one in that context.
ReplyDeleteBeg to differ on that point.
The cultural meaning is the religious one. Europe and Latin America has thousands of such crosses, normally not as big (but sometimes bigger), in use as roadside shrines--not memorial shrines, but places to pray to the Christian god and His saints. When I see a cross, I know that the Christian religion is involved. You will notice that non-Christians don't put up crosses, ever. And if I saw one put up or sponsored by a government entity, or one on public land with the consent of the government, I would think of it as a government establishment of the Christian religion, and not being a Christian, not be pleased.
Whether I would sue is a totally different matter.
Here in Florida, the matter is handled in the way Skidmark reports about his locale. Which is why I'm constantly driving down streets named after people of whom I've never heard. Unless they are former legislators and county commission people who have since beeen convicted of graft and corruption, which has happened more than once.
I wasn't aware that the beehive had a religious meaning to it, not having much intercourse with Mormons outside of business hours. But I would assume that the trooper patches are not referring to Mormonism directly, but to the state nickname, Beehive State. So maybe the ACLU needs to sue Utah and force them to change to another nickname.
kishnevi,
ReplyDelete"...and not being a Christian, not be pleased."
You know, I'm not a Christian either, but somehow I just can't get worked up enough to pack my panties with sand on the issue of crosses (or stars or crescents) over dead guys.
You gonna sue Arlington Cemetery next?
So if some numbskull puts up twin lightning bolts to honor his Aryan brother killed while DWI is that protected because it's political speech?
ReplyDeleteGerry
Tam said "You gonna sue Arlington Cemetery next?" Don't give them any ideas, Tam. After the 9th. Circuit Court ruled yesterday that the Stolen Valor Act was Unconstitutional, and "What harm has been shown about lying about some medals?, this law is an abridgment of one's Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech" (paraphrased), I wouldn't put anything past those people. P.S. Since the 9th Circuit ruled its okay to lie, does that mean Blago's conviction on lying to the Federales can be overturned? Can this mean when I go to court, and am told "to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth", I can answer "Nope! 9th. Circuit said I can lie and you can't charge me with Perjury! Nyah Nyah Na Nyah Na!"
ReplyDeleteTam,
ReplyDeleteDang, you remotely stole my thunder. I was just going to ask, "So what's next Arlington?"
Bubblehead Les,
ReplyDeleteI just hope that the Stolen Valor Act case is appealed to the SCOTUS. They have ruled in the past that lying is NOT protected speech.
kishnevi dixit:
ReplyDeleteEurope and Latin America has thousands of such crosses, normally not as big (but sometimes bigger), in use as roadside shrines...
The United States is not (yet) Europe OR Latin America. Welcome: You'll find many things that are different here.
----------------
@Bubblehead:
9th. Circuit said I can lie and you can't charge me with Perjury! Nyah Nyah Na Nyah Na!
Given the Feds' "charge 'em with perjury if you can't substantiate anything else" mindset, I find your idea intriguing...
If I may consider for a moment that some of the crosses are meant to indicate a Christian meaning - I am still confused.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly Christians believe that the soul leaves the body at death, and that what remains is "remains", not a person. In that case, due reverence for public health and homage to pagan customs, we bury/burn the remains, and stow it with a marker.
So - what is with marking the place where someone died? I don't see crosses overflowing emergency rooms, I don't see crosses painted on ambulances ("Oh, I want another ambulance, you done lost too many for me to risk riding in that death wagon!"), used beds don't have notches for "lost four in this bed, so far".
After the election, lawn signs and sheets stabled to telephone poles have to come down. I don't see leaving markers after the ambulance leaves the scene.
Supposedly Christians believe that the soul leaves the body at death, and that what remains is "remains", not a person.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. Lots of modern Christians casually think that way (it's the same kind of Bugs Bunny theology that leads Bil Keane to imagine that dead relatives turn into "angels"), but traditional Christian theology takes varied and complex positions on the corporal resurrection of the dead. The idea that the dead will physically rise from their graves and be restored is a long standing Christian principle, and is part of the reason the Catholic Church discouraged cremation until recently.
And if the group bringing the suit is so worried about public religious symbols in Utah, why aren't they saying anything about the beehive on the troopers' shoulder patches?
ReplyDeleteWait.
Concur with Elmo Iscariot.
ReplyDeleteTolerance is a virtue too seldom practiced, on both sides of the religious divide.
@ elmo iscariot,
ReplyDeleteMy comments were directed solely to the shrines or markers at the scene where someone died. I didn't mean to comment about afterlife, about remains or burial. Only the political statement of religious outrage, of planting a distinctive religious symbol on a public right-of-way.
When the Ku Klux Klan made a name for themselves by planting crosses, was that a political statement or religious (the KKK was founded to oppose "papists" - the Catholic church)? Anyway, *they* were told to stop it.
Your comments on beliefs about the grave, and with regard to remains, are well taken.
1. the separation of church and state is a myth. doesn't say it.
ReplyDelete2. our fedgov is endorsing islam all over the world and sending imams on world tours like they're sammy frakking hagar. if you want to start bitch about the whole church and state thing, let's start there, not inside of a state over a roadside marker.
Jayson,
ReplyDelete"the separation of church and state is a myth. doesn't say it."
Nobody's talking about "separation of church and state", they're talking about respecting an establishment of religion.
Everyone is reading religion into it too much. It is basically just a way of telling people that someone died at that spot, and as a reminder to be careful. They are not considered as some kind of Christian thing here in Utah except by the dingbats who are complaining about them. To everyone else they are just a marker, and a cross is easier to spot as a marker than a lot of other shapes.
ReplyDeleteI don't think a cross on the side of the road establishes a religion with a state politico at the head. Like you, i just think dead guy.
ReplyDeleteI don't care about anything on the side of the road. Cause hey, didn't you bury that loved one in a graveyard- errr, memorial park? THAT'S your memorial. Not the roadside.
As for the reminder to drive carefully- i don't need it with all the asshat idiots driving around all the time, everywhere.
I'm with Tam, here in Australia we have the crosses as well. I've never seen them as a religious symbol anymore than the various other traditions our society has adopted from Christianity. I know they where originally a religious symbol, but I know they are now used to symbolise "dead guy". Another way of putting it is that a lot of Aboriginal art here in Australia is actually religious symbolism, but I don't get all upset because the Government paints it on the wall of a building because I know it's not symbolising the religion, but rather a, perhaps misguided, attempt to acknowledge the Aboriginal culture. (The various other special privileges for the Aboriginal religions are another issue of course)
ReplyDeleteOK, so a week or so back, bho had a state Ramadan dinner for a bunch of his closest supporters and their imams - funded by the US gummint (our tax dollars) featuring the US gummint President, on US gummint property.
ReplyDeleteHow is this different from a bunch of 12' crosses along a highway? One's OK and the other isn't? How?
If a twelve foot swastika, SS bolts, or hammer and sickle every so often on the roads is fine with you, then complain about this opinion. Otherwise, stop pretending that you aren't upset because it's a cross.
ReplyDeleteI can't get upset either way, but I can understand how non Christians would, and I can understand how some Judges might see their point.
And, everyone griping about some crosses by a road miles away:
Can you name everyone on your city council or county commission?
South Dakota has small state-approved markers that don't have any religious symbol (I think there is a black ribbon but I've never pulled over to check).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't have a problem with the crosses or sticks with wreaths of artificial flowers, so long as they are small and well back from the road. 12 feet tall? That's a problem no matter what symbol or lack there of there is.
LittleRed1
Yup, I woke up that morning, sniffed the air, and said "Hold on - there's just a scintilla of an iota more freedom and justice in this great land of ours now!"
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until I read about the cross thing that I knew what it was that I had sniffed. Thank you, Tenth Circuit, from protecting me from the zealous Xtianists!
And next, these people need to go to Asia, where the swastika is a common sign along roads indicating proximity to a temple. And no hairsplitting that it's a cultural symbol predating the Nazis, a hakencreuz is a hakencreuz and they all gotta go.
(wearing Columbo's raincoat)
ReplyDeleteCan ya help me out here on this one?
The Amendment states "Congress shall make on law respecting a religion, Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How did that ever get misconstrued as 'separation of church and state'?
the 'not prohibiting the free exercise thereof' is being violated every time some athiest demands removal of a crèche from state property around christmas.
I intend to sue everybody claiming 'separation of church and state' for their misdeeds.
John B,
ReplyDeleteThat's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", meaning that the feds (and by extension since the 14th Amendment, the states) can't establish a privileged state religion. If we treat that amendment as expansively as we want the 2nd treated, it prohibits organs and representatives of government from endorsing any religion, which is what they do when they put up crosses and Commandments on public land.
"Some atheist taking down creches" is related to this only if the atheist in question is a government employee acting in that capacity removing symbols from private property.
[I'm still with Tam on this one: government crosses may be unconstitutional, but they're trivially so next to the crap we let our government get away with every day, and don't affect this atheist's life one jot or tittle. Let the baby have his bottle, and put the lawsuit money into more important things than silly mottoes on money.]