Roadside cross memorials unconstitutional?

[nuttylawprofessor]

Why does the memorial have to be a cross?

Why not an obelisk? Or badge-shaped sign? A tree or other planting?

 

[Heidict]

There was a huge discussion about these roadside memorials on local talk radio this past summer. The main problems of them, by those opposed, had nothing to do with there being crosses. They were concerned about: 1) the memorials are a distraction to those driving, 2) persons visiting the site are endangering themselves by being so close to the side of the rodes, and 3) that's what gravesites are for.

I tend to agree with these reasons, but if the memorial sites are allowed, I have no problem with crosses.

If that is the case then why did the article state this:

[The New Jersey-based American Atheists filed suit in 2005, arguing that the crosses symbolize Christianity and break state and federal laws against roadside memorials.

The atheists support putting up memorials for fallen heroes, but oppose using a religious symbol to do so,

The use of those crosses constitutes and endorses Christianity,"

American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment

Now we all know how the news can be and I'm sure that they can be a distraction for some drivers and that there are others who stop in an unsafe area, but from the sound of it, all they are complaining about is the "Christianity" of the cross and how it offends THEM.

They sound like a bunch of babies who expect everyone to bend over backwards to accomodate them. If they don't like the crosses, then don't look. It's as simple as that. Why should they waste the time and money of the court?

This country has swung to far into the PC area and things are just getting ridiculous now.

 

[sha_lyn]

Just because the article is about the Atheist group, doesn't meant that other groups or individuals haven't raised other concerns.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

If that is the case then why did the article state this:







Now we all know how the news can be and I'm sure that they can be a distraction for some drivers and that there are others who stop in an unsafe area, but from the sound of it, all they are complaining about is the "Christianity" of the cross and how it offends THEM.

They sound like a bunch of babies who expect everyone to bend over backwards to accomodate them. If they don't like the crosses, then don't look. It's as simple as that. Why should they waste the time and money of the court?

This country has swung to far into the PC area and things are just getting ridiculous now.

IMO, I think that these kinds of Constitutional questions are exactly what the courts are there for.

 

[Nikel]

If that is the case then why did the article state this:







Now we all know how the news can be and I'm sure that they can be a distraction for some drivers and that there are others who stop in an unsafe area, but from the sound of it, all they are complaining about is the "Christianity" of the cross and how it offends THEM.

They sound like a bunch of babies who expect everyone to bend over backwards to accomodate them. If they don't like the crosses, then don't look. It's as simple as that. Why should they waste the time and money of the court?

This country has swung to far into the PC area and things are just getting ridiculous now.

I really don't care either way, but how are they supposed to not look? We're talking about a series of 13 crosses that are 12 FEET tall along the side of the road. How is a driver supposed to avoid seeing that?

 

[Charade]

IMO, I think that these kinds of Constitutional questions are exactly what the courts are there for.

That's true but you'll have admit that the message about what religious symbols are acceptable for display on public or government property can be quite confusing.

Just look at Congress and the SCOTUS. Congress opens each session with a prayer. We have a National Cathedral. We have cross on headstones at Arlington. We have Mosses and the 10 commandments on the frieze at the SC building.

But we take down the 10 commandments at a courthouse in Alabama.

 

[Charade]

I really don't care either way, but how are they supposed to not look? We're talking about a series of 13 crosses that are 12 FEET tall along the side of the road. How is a driver supposed to avoid seeing that?

Right along the highway were I live is a set of 3 crosses (on private property) that are at least that tall. I hardly notice them anymore. I suspect that many regular travelers on that road don't "see" them either.

 

[tonilea]

They are driving in the course of their job, and yes, they are being paid to do that.

So a factory worker that is sucked into a large machine in a factory is paid to die too? Right? Gotcha!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That's true but you'll have admit that the message about what religious symbols are acceptable for display on public or government property can be quite confusing.

Just look at Congress and the SCOTUS. Congress opens each session with a prayer. We have a National Cathedral. We have cross on headstones at Arlington. We have Mosses and the 10 commandments on the frieze at the SC building.

But we take down the 10 commandments at a courthouse in Alabama.

I agree and am just as confused as you are. I know what I think it should be, and you know what you think it should be, but it's time for the Consitutional courts to lock down the law and enforce it across the board.

 

[tonilea]

I really don't care either way, but how are they supposed to not look? We're talking about a series of 13 crosses that are 12 FEET tall along the side of the road. How is a driver supposed to avoid seeing that?

The same way people don't "see" stop signs, speed limit signs and the signs that tell you your exit is coming up?

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

So a factory worker that is sucked into a large machine in a factory is paid to die too? Right? Gotcha!

That's a pretty big stretch, eh?

What I'm saying, and I'll state this clearly, is that no one life is worth more than any other one life, regardless of the profession of the person who dies. When you start putting up 12 foot crosses for the cop who died in an accident, then why not put up a 12 foot cross for every other person who dies in an accident too? Then, each road will be nothing but a series of memorials to the people who met their fate there. Isn't the death toll in accidents 50,000 a year or something like that?

There's no point to memorials on the sides of roads. There's already a national law enforcement memorial in DC and every year new names are added. Most other major cities also have memorials. They are sufficient.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

The National Cathedral is not a federally-funded entity. It's a private church.

 

[Nikel]

The same way people don't "see" stop signs, speed limit signs and the signs that tell you your exit is coming up?

Alrighty. But what about responsible drivers that pay attention?

 

[tonilea]

That's a pretty big stretch, eh?

What I'm saying, and I'll state this clearly, is that no one life is worth more than any other one life, regardless of the profession of the person who dies. When you start putting up 12 foot crosses for the cop who died in an accident, then why not put up a 12 foot cross for every other person who dies in an accident too? Then, each road will be nothing but a series of memorials to the people who met their fate there. Isn't the death toll in accidents 50,000 a year or something like that?

There's no point to memorials on the sides of roads. There's already a national law enforcement memorial in DC and every year new names are added. Most other major cities also have memorials. They are sufficient.

Why is it such a stretch? Around here LEOs certainly don't get paid much, if any, more than factory workers.

Because, that is their work place, their "office". State troopers spend the vast majority of their time on the highways.

A deputy here died helping a stranded motorist. A memorial was placed near the scene of his death.

 

[daisax]

Frankly, as a Christian I find the idea of a road lined with crosses a bit too reminiscent of the whole roman crucifixion thing. It would creep me out.

What happened to naming bridges and traffic circles after fallen officers?

I can't comprehend fetishizing the place where somebody died, with a religious symbol or candles and teddy bears.

 

[tonilea]

Alrighty. But what about responsible drivers that pay attention?

True, but from the photographs in the article, these aren't right up on they road like a highway sign. Think billboards placed off the highway, if the crosses are such a distraction, then certainly billboards are even worse.

 

[salmoneous]

That's true but you'll have admit that the message about what religious symbols are acceptable for display on public or government property can be quite confusing.

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.

 

[Heidict]

I really don't care either way, but how are they supposed to not look? We're talking about a series of 13 crosses that are 12 FEET tall along the side of the road. How is a driver supposed to avoid seeing that?

But have we gotten so out of control as a society that we have to ban EVERYTHING that a particular group finds the least bit offensive? Seriously, if that's the case we are in for some serious trouble. People these days like to moan and groan and complain about anything. It's a ME ME ME society and nobody else matters.

We are raising a bunch of self centered idiots with thin skin. Guess what, live isn't fair sometimes and we don't always get our way. Maybe if these people were taught that their view and their beliefs weren't the most important thing out there and that thier are others who feel differently, and that it's okay, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we seem to be getting ourselves into all the time. KWIM?

 

[Heidict]

IMO, I think that these kinds of Constitutional questions are exactly what the courts are there for.

That a PRIVATE organization, funded by PRIVATE money to honor dead cops can't use crosses in their memorials? Really, that's what the courts are for?

 

[Chuck S]

That a PRIVATE organization, funded by PRIVATE money to honor dead cops can't use crosses in their memorials? Really, that's what the courts are for?

I don't think the problem is that the memorials are privately funded. I think the problem is that they have religious symbolism and contain official state logos and are located on state property, thus could be considered sanctioned by the state. If these same crosses were on private property, and didn't contain the official highway patrol logo, there woundn't be a problem.