Roadside cross memorials unconstitutional?

[addicted_to_WDW]

And just to clarify: I'm not completely against memorials. I was specifically speaking about excessively large ones like these. A smaller one would have still served the purpose of serving as a reminder and a place to mourn.

I have a problem with "excessively large," and the fact that they are on the side of the road. I don't think anyone zipping by at 55 mph is using the 13 crosses as a place to mourn.

My county has a park with a memorial dedicated to people who have died in the line of duty. I'm cool with that.

I think this is beyond harsh and ignorant.

Ok?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Hmm to me the empty tomb is the message of hope.

Sure, it is definitely hopeful as it was the site of the resurrection. But the unique thing about the cross is that it shows how, with Jesus, a symbol of suffering was turned into a symbol of hope. So for all of us who "bear our own crosses" in life, we can see the hope admist the suffering.

 

[NYBlue1]

I think this is beyond harsh and ignorant. First, nobody is purposing that they be canonized. Second, as others have said, they are not paid to die. I don't know anybody who is in any career. While their lives aren't worth more than anyone elses, I think the reason that we pay so much attention is that they died while protecting us. In some cases, they die apprehending criminals so that we won't get hurt. I think that's extremely honourable and I'm sorry that you have a problem with saying "thank you" for that.

Thank you Im glad somebody finds it harsh.

 

[talulabelle]

I think everyone knew from the start this was legally questionable - which is why the Highway Patrol made the strange (and insulting) claim that crosses are secular.

Meanwhile - there will always be tough calls, as long as folks on both side of the issue keep pushing things as far as they can.

I don't think it is a tough call. The Constitution states "separation of Church and State" not "Christians can no longer practice their religion or find comfort from their own religious symbols in public because public should be a secular place" We are suposed to be free to have our own religion, and I feel that telling those families that they can't have a cross as a memorial for their loved one, whether it is funded by their former employer (the state) or not is keeping them from being able to practice their religion. Church and state not being separated would be if the state was just putting up religious signs for no other reason than promoting a specific religion. They are not promoting any religion, if one of those officers was Jewish, surely, there would have been a Star of David put up.

 

[salmoneous]

I'm having trouble understanding the athiests point of view? They are saying it's unconstitutional for a religion to envoke it's freedom of religion? Because that's all that the crosses are. A group of people who want to express religion in the form of a memorial. Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny them that right?

First of all, keep in mind that it's not just atheists who are in favor of keeping church and state separate. Many of us Christians don't want the government favoring one form of religion over another either.

Second, the issue isn't a religion evoking their views. It's the government giving one groups of people permission to spread their message that the government it isn't giving to other groups.

What a group does on their own is very much protected by the Constitution. But when the involves the government, it gets tricky. Is this an inappropriate favoring of one religious by the government? Is this - to use the absurd arguement of the Highway Patrol Association - a totally secular display? Or is this permissible behavior? I don't know - we'll see what the courts say.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

First of all, keep in mind that it's not just atheists who are in favor of keeping church and state separate. Many of us Christians don't want the government favoring one form of religion over another either.

Second, the issue isn't a religion evoking their views. It's the government giving one groups of people permission to spread their message that the government it isn't giving to other groups.

What a group does on their own is very much protected by the Constitution. But when the involves the government, it gets tricky.

First, I must have misunderstood the case. I thought it was a group of athiests who were being this forward to the courts? I know there are Christians who believe in the seperation of government and religion but I didn't think that was the issue in the OP.

Second, this is a non-government group that is acting on its own. That's why I see it as freedom of religion. I would also argue that putting up a cross is not necessarily evangelism. I don't wear my cross to convert other people. I wear it to have the symbol of my faith with me whereever I go. I really don't think that the people who are trying to honour these fallen troopers are putting up crosses to get more people in the pews on Sunday morning. I think the crosses are a memorial.

 

[salmoneous]

They are not promoting any religion, if one of those officers was Jewish, surely, there would have been a Star of David put up.

Actually, they wouldn't have. They are claiming the cross isn't a religious icon.

 

[Chuck S]

Second, this is a non-government group that is acting on its own.

Not exactly true, since they are using, with permission, government land and government insignia.

If they were truly acting on their own, placing the memorial on their property, not public land, and not using a state insignia, then there would be no issue at all.

 

[Chuck S]

First of all, keep in mind that it's not just atheists who are in favor of keeping church and state separate. Many of us Christians don't want the government favoring one form of religion over another either.

Exactly. The atheists may be bringing the lawsuit, but that doesn't mean that Christians necessarily disagree with the suit. It is a separation of church and state lawsuit, and many religious people believe in that separation, too.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So, we aren't allowed to have an opinion? We should all just shut our mouths and let the courts decide while we all obediently shake our heads in agreement? Not this girl. My opinions, my beliefs don't always align to what the courts decide. They don't always get things right, at least I don't think they do and I know that many others think that also.

So, until we become a communist state I will continue to express my opinion on these types of issues, regardless of what the courts decide.

Now, I'm not real big on politics, but I thought judges were appointed and not elected? Or is it some are and some aren't? Dang, I don't recall. HELP!!!

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion and no one said you shouldn't have the right to express it. However, we are a nation of laws and a constitutional democracy, which means that the rights of every American is protected, regardless of the size of their majority. Being a nation of laws, if your opinion is one that conflicts with my opinion, then the courts need to get involved. Surely you don't suggest that shouting matches, fist fights and raw emotions should decide who's opinion should be the law of the land...

And for the record, my beliefs don't align with the courts decide every time either, but in civilized society, we still have to follow their rulings or face the punishment that comes with breaking the law.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Not exactly true, since they are using, with permission, government land and government insignia.

If they were truly acting on their own, placing the memorial on their property, not public land, and not using a state insignia, then there would be no issue at all.

I think that you are misunderstanding the seperation of church and state. This does not mean that never shall the two meet. It means that there can be no religious groups controlling the state. I really don't see in this case how Christianity is exerting control over the state.

For those of you who agree with what I call this ridiculous law suit, let me give you a scenario. In Canada, our national radio station is called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It does not have advertisement and instead receives funding from the government. Are you trying to say that if this station decides to talk about religion or cover religious stories that this somehow violates the Constitution? That this threatens the seperation of church and state? For me, the situation with the crosses is akin to that. Just curious what you think.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I think that you are misunderstanding the seperation of church and state. This does not mean that never shall the two meet. It means that there can be no religious groups controlling the state. I really don't see in this case how Christianity is exerting control over the state.

For those of you who agree with what I call this ridiculous law suit, let me give you a scenario. In Canada, our national radio station is called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It does not have advertisement and instead receives funding from the government. Are you trying to say that if this station decides to talk about religion or cover religious stories that this somehow violates the Constitution? That this threatens the seperation of church and state? For me, the situation with the crosses is akin to that. Just curious what you think.

The bolded statement does not capture the American separation of church and state given how the courts have interpreted the first amendment in the past 50 years or so. Your statement seems to imply that as long as there is no theocracy or religious groups aren't making laws, then there is no violation. That is not at all the case. The courts have unequivocally declared school prayer unconstitutional and have put limits on the kinds of religious decoration which are permitted on government property in recognition of religious holidays. If all that the separation of church and state meant was that a particular religion can't control the government, then I don't see how either of those things would violate it.

I have doubts that the crosses will be found as a violation of the 1st amendment, but I don't think it is as absurd as people are making it out to be given prior supreme court decisions (especially the Christmas ones). I also think that if the state-funded broadcasting network begins having proselytizing programming, then yes that seems like a clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Perhaps if completely equal time were given to all (and I mean all--pagans, atheists, agnostics, devil worshippers, etc.--then it wouldn't be a violation. If the programs aren't promoting a particular religion but are just discussing religion, then it is not a violation. (This is the distinction that currently holds in American public schools. You can teach a class on the bible in which you treat it as literature, but you cannot teach a class in which you treat it as the word of God.)

It might be that the strength of the separation between church and state is somewhat unique to the U.S. I know that in many European countries, for instance, religious schools are often funded by the government. For some countries this was the solution to historical conflict over religion--make the protestants and the catholics get along by giving them their own churches, schools, media, etc; that way they have nothing to fight over because they don't ever have to see each other. The U.S. has taken the opposition strategy--make all the religious groups get along by keeping a sharp distinction between church and state.

 

[Charade]

The bolded statement does not capture the American separation of church and state given how the courts have interpreted the first amendment in the past 50 years or so. Your statement seems to imply that as long as there is no theocracy or religious groups aren't making laws, then there is no violation. That is not at all the case. The courts have unequivocally declared school prayer unconstitutional and have put limits on the kinds of religious decoration which are permitted on government property in recognition of religious holidays. If all that the separation of church and state meant was that a particular religion can't control the government, then I don't see how either of those things would violate it.

I have doubts that the crosses will be found as a violation of the 1st amendment, but I don't think it is as absurd as people are making it out to be given prior supreme court decisions (especially the Christmas ones). I also think that if the state-funded broadcasting network begins having proselytizing programming, then yes that seems like a clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Perhaps if completely equal time were given to all (and I mean all--pagans, atheists, agnostics, devil worshipers, etc.--then it wouldn't be a violation. If the programs aren't promoting a particular religion but are just discussing religion, then it is not a violation. (This is the distinction that currently holds in American public schools. You can teach a class on the bible in which you treat it as literature, but you cannot teach a class in which you treat it as the word of God.)

It might be that the strength of the separation between church and state is somewhat unique to the U.S. I know that in many European countries, for instance, religious schools are often funded by the government. For some countries this was the solution to historical conflict over religion--make the protestants and the catholics get along by giving them their own churches, schools, media, etc; that way they have nothing to fight over because they don't ever have to see each other. The U.S. has taken the opposition strategy--make all the religious groups get along by keeping a sharp distinction between church and state.

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.

I'd like to know how the court interprets voluntary school prayer unconstitutional given that no law was created making it a legal requirement.

They did it with the "Lemon" test.

 

[NYBlue1]

May God Bless, all those fallen troopers and their families on this thanksgiving, may they truly find peace and comfort with each other on a day where they are missing a family member taken before their time, protecting you and I.

For those that dont believe in God

May the families find comfort and peace with each other on a day where they are missing a family member taken before their time, Protecting you and I

 

[Charade]

May God Bless, all those fallen troopers and their families on this thanksgiving, may they truly find peace and comfort with each other on a day where they are missing a family member taken before their time, protecting you and I.

For those that dont believe in God

May the families find comfort and peace with each other on a day where they are missing a family member taken before their time, Protecting you and I

Nicely put.

 

[NYBlue1]

Nicely put.

Thanks!

Just wanted to make sure we didnt lose the most important part of all of this, especially on thanksgiving!

 

[salmoneous]

In Canada, our national radio station is called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It does not have advertisement and instead receives funding from the government. Are you trying to say that if this station decides to talk about religion or cover religious stories that this somehow violates the Constitution? That this threatens the seperation of church and state? For me, the situation with the crosses is akin to that. Just curious what you think.

You misunderstand how separation of church and state works in the US. The most common court interpretation is that the government should not favor one religion over another. (There is still dispute over whether that includes the promotion of religion-in-general over no-religion).

To use your example, there is no problem with government institutions talking about religion. If there were a US equivalent of the CBC it could certainly talk about religion and cover religions stories. What it couldn't do it promote one religion over another. So it couldn't decide to just have stories and discussion of Catholicism and ignore Protestants and Jews.

So it's problematic for the government to give special permission for a group to put on one religious symbol alongside the road while denying other groups permission to put up their religions symbols. The Utah Highway Patrol knows this, which is why they are making the insulting claim that crosses are secular symbols, not religious.

 

[salmoneous]

I'd like to know how the court interprets voluntary school prayer unconstitutional given that no law was created making it a legal requirement.

Short answer - the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is held to extend the protections in the Bill of Rights to all parts of the government.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Your statement seems to imply that as long as there is no theocracy or religious groups aren't making laws, then there is no violation. That is not at all the case.

I think it's funny that in America so much emphasis is put on the seperation of "church and state" yet it seems to be the only country where televangelists support political candidates, Easter parties happen in the White House, Christmas trees are put up on government property, the President envokes the name of God and the fighting of evil to justify war against a specific non-Christian religion, etc. For some reason, all of these things are tolerated but little unharmful passive things like raising some crosses to honour some dead troppers with the blessing of their family becomes a big deal.

There is not a total seperation of religion and politics in any country and certainly not in America. As I've said, I don't think that any one religious group should be running a country or forcing views on other people. That doesn't mean though that it's oppressive every time that religion and politics are part of the same discussion. And those who believe this, I think, are missing the intention of the demand of a seperation of "church and state" that was originally intended in the Constitution. So, if the courts have set a precedent built on misinterpretation, maybe they want to go back and re-evaluate this part of the Constitution.

For the record, I do think that school prayer in a government-funded public school is a violation of children's (and families') rights. To me, that is the government dictating religion because they are forcing someone to do something that they might not be comfortable with, without even asking them first. I can't believe this is still an issue in the US. Most countries figured this out 50-60 years ago.

It might be that the strength of the separation between church and state is somewhat unique to the U.S. {snip} The U.S. has taken the opposition strategy--make all the religious groups get along by keeping a sharp distinction between church and state.

I think this is a hilarious approach. (And as I've stated above, one that is clearly not working.) Make all the religious groups get along by not talking about religion. Not only hilarious but it's sad too. Why can't American embrace the multiculturalism that it has by really upholding freedom of religion? I live in perhaps the most multicultural country in the world and we don't waste our time ensuring that our government never speaks of religion. Instead we spend our time embracing and celebrating all of those cultures and religions. That's what I want to fight for - not to make religion a private hush-hush affair.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

So it's problematic for the government to give special permission for a group to put on one religious symbol alongside the road while denying other groups permission to put up their religions symbols. The Utah Highway Patrol knows this, which is why they are making the insulting claim that crosses are secular symbols, not religious.

Definitely I would agree that this scenario you give would be unconstitutional but it's simply not the case. What other religious groups are being denied the use of their symbols in the same way that the crosses are being used on the Utah Highway?