PDA

View Full Version : Utah highway patrol crosses violate US Constitution



Phoenix
21st August 2010, 05:29 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7954386/Utah-highway-patrol-crosses-violate-US-Constitution.html


Utah highway patrol crosses violate US Constitution
Fourteen crosses erected along roads in memory of fallen highway patrol officers in Utah have been declared in violation of the US Constitution.

By Nick Allen, Los Angeles
Published: 5:36PM BST 19 Aug 2010

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01699/utah_1699942c.jpg

Fellow officers began erecting the 12-foot high, white crosses along state highways in Utah in 1998

The crosses were found to be in breach of the First Amendment, which enshrines the separation of church and state, and the ruling could have implications for roadside memorials all over the United States.

Fellow officers began erecting the 12-foot high, white crosses along state highways in Utah in 1998. They were paid for with privately raised money but most stand on publicly owned land.

Each one carries a picture of a deceased trooper along with their rank and badge number, and the insignia of the state highway patrol which is a beehive.

In a 38-page ruling, which followed a five-year legal wrangle, the US Court of Appeals said passing drivers would conclude the state was endorsing Christianity, and that Christians could expect preferential treatment from the Utah Highway Patrol.

The case was brought by American Atheists, a Texas-based group, and in response the state of Utah had argued that crosses were a non-religious, and universally understood, symbol of death.

It said 11 of the 14 deceased troopers were Mormons, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not use the cross as a religious symbol.

However, in its ruling the Court of Appeals said: “Unlike Christmas, which has been widely embraced as a secular holiday, there is no evidence in this case that the cross has been widely embraced by non-Christians as a secular symbol of death.” The state of Utah may appeal to the US Supreme Court.

In April the US Supreme Court heard a similar constitutional case involving the Mojave Cross, a 7ft high white cross erected as a war memorial on land operated by the National Parks Service in California. The court was divided 5-4 but allowed the cross to stand.

Phoenix
21st August 2010, 05:32 PM
In a 38-page ruling, which followed a five-year legal wrangle, the US Court of Appeals said passing drivers would conclude the state was endorsing Christianity, and that Christians could expect preferential treatment from the Utah Highway Patrol.


http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/17112009/2314192/DCEV101_wa.jpg

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/28102008/1746964/WAS84_wa.jpg

http://www.ccun.org/images/2008/July/29%20p/Jewish%20obama%2023jul8.jpg

Gaillo
21st August 2010, 05:48 PM
I'm an atheist, and as such I generally fall into the secular side of these kinds of arguments...
However, I look at this case and I think to myself "WTF? How fvcking retarded can it get? Nobody is being harmed here, from what I can see it's just bitching for the sake of bitching... followed by expensive and intrusive tyrannical legal action.

Retarded - simply retarded.

vacuum
21st August 2010, 07:08 PM
If they do it in their off hours with their own money, this is a no brainer. How dumb can a court be?

EE_
21st August 2010, 07:22 PM
The vote to leave them there...they make some people smile while driving, that there is one less revenue collector in the world.

Book
21st August 2010, 07:40 PM
http://www.chp.ca.gov/images/badge2.gif

At least the CHP badge isn't the Zionist six-point Star Of David (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=525&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=6+point+badge&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) like most cops today...lol.

:oo-->

Libertytree
21st August 2010, 08:08 PM
While I do believe in separation in church and state that's not my whole objection in this case.

For many years we've all seen crosses and small to large memorials on roadsides from coast to coast, I didn't like them then and I don't like them now. Most of them wind up being temporary and fade away unless they're kept up and a few are plainly made to last for quite awhile but mostly they all look trashy. Here's the deal IMO, thousands of people die every year in vehicle accidents, do we really want to turn the road sides into memorial after memorial after memorial? After enough time passed that's all we would ever see, hell, what are we gonna do next, start burying them there too?

Another caveat is that a cops life is no more valuable than anyone elses and therefor should not be given any special consideration over and above JQ Publics'.

Glass
21st August 2010, 08:22 PM
Roadside memorials s#!t me to there and back. People build a shrine on the road side because they imolate their loved ones remains instead of burying them. This means there is no physical burial place they can mark as the resting place of their loved ones. This is what a cemetary is for, so instead they place the memorials on the roadside instead of the burial place.

I don't care if they wiped themselves out while driving drunk. Get it out of my face. I do care if 79 year old Maria got wiped out trying to cross a major double lane dual carriageway with people going 20 over the limit, but chances are she will have been buried properly.

oh and having said that, we have a park called Kings Park in Perth. There are several roads that wind their way through this park. Along these roadways are rows and rows of White gum trees, each one has a small plaque a few inches wide that commemorates a fallen soldier from WW1 and WW2. At least if someone is going to do this road side thing, perhaps they can commemorate with a tree planting in their loved ones honour and a small plaque.

RJB
21st August 2010, 08:36 PM
I was a volunteer firefighter along an interstate highway. I usually was at the scene of most of those accidents and each one of those markers would bring back an image. No point in clinging to bad memories.

I never liked the idea of memorial anyway. The dead are gone. It's time to move on...

Saul Mine
21st August 2010, 08:39 PM
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the court rules that the cross is a common symbol of death, then there is no requirement to remove them. If the court rules that the cross is strictly a religious emblem, then the court has no authority to order their removal!

Libertytree
21st August 2010, 08:49 PM
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the court rules that the cross is a common symbol of death, then there is no requirement to remove them. If the court rules that the cross is strictly a religious emblem, then the court has no authority to order their removal!


Then does that mean that there's also an open season on their removal as well?