Roadside cross memorials unconstitutional?

[Laugh O. Grams]

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?

If they want to plant them on public funded roads, than yes, that's exactly what the courts are for. What's so wrong with letting the courts, who are elected and paid to make these decisions, decide what's constitutionally protected instead of the court of public opinion?

 

[NYBlue1]

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.

Thanks for leting us all know whats sufficient

 

[daisax]

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?

Have we gotten so out of control as a society that we have to permit the use of public resources for EVERYTHING that a particular group thinks is a cool idea?

If it's a good idea, leave the government (and that includes public land) out of it -- and enjoy.

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?

Ironic, isn't it, that the same can be said about your side of this argument?

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

Thanks for leting us all know whats sufficient

You are very welcome!

 

[Nikel]

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?

You read a whole lot that wasn't there from what I said. Let me quote myself for a sec, "I really don't care either way,...." But thanks anyway for the misguided lecture.

 

[Heidict]

Ironic, isn't it, that the same can be said about your side of this argument?

Actually, I have thick skin and a sense of humor. In todays world you need both to not go crazy with some of the stupid stuff that is going on.

 

[Heidict]

You read a whole lot that wasn't there from what I said. Let me quote myself for a sec, "I really don't care either way,...." But thanks anyway for the misguided lecture.

Belive it or not, I expressed my feelings. Just because they don't agree with yours, does not make it a "misguided lecture:.



Your original questions was, let me quote, "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?".

Why does it matter how big they are? Why does it matter if they are crosses or stars or triangles? Why do we have to bend over backwards over every little thing that someone finds the slightest bit offensive.

Oh, and how they avoid seeing it...........keep their eyes on the road, not on whats the side of them.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

First, I don't agree with this lawsuit. However I do have some thoughts on crosses and road side memorials.

As far as the cross symbol goes...I am a Christian and of course I understand its significance, but would we glorify a rock or a knife if that is how Jesus died? My grandfather had crosses all over his home when I was growing up. It creeped me out. Maybe that has to do with my feelings on the subject...

Roadside memorials are a distraction. In Florida some of them were getting so elaborate that the State decided that if you want a roadside memorial you will pay them for a generic sign. The money goes toward some fund.

 

[Heidict]

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 ............ If these same crosses were on private property, and didn't contain the official highway patrol logo, there woundn't be a problem.

First the logo. You don't believe that you can have the "offical highway patrol logo" and a cross, or anything relating to any type of religion I assume, together? Why? If a police officer was slain and the family decided to honor them and used a a religious symbol while doing so that it is wrong? Why is that a problem? That in no way implies that the state or federal goverment is supporting any type of religion.

and are located on state property, thus could be considered sanctioned by the state.

The property is a different part of the arguement for me. However, I don't see it as the state or federal goverment supporting a religion. Is EVERYTHING that is put on a piece of state or federal land something that is supported by the state and federal goverment?

We have a grade school in town. There is a church that meets there on Sundays for service. They use the class rooms. Since it's a federally funded school, is the federal goverment supporting the church or the religion?

 

[Nikel]

Belive it or not, I expressed my feelings. Just because they don't agree with yours, does not make it a "misguided lecture:.



Your original questions was, let me quote, "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?".

Why does it matter how big they are? Why does it matter if they are crosses or stars or triangles? Why do we have to bend over backwards over every little thing that someone finds the slightest bit offensive.

Oh, and how they avoid seeing it...........keep their eyes on the road, not on whats the side of them.

I was saying that since you bothered quoting me to reply directly to me. You seem to think I have a problem with them. I don't recall ever saying I did. I don't know about you, but I have peripheral vision. That means I'd see them even if my eyes were on the road. That's all I'm saying. I never said take 'em down. I never said they're a distraction. I merely stated that IMO it would be difficult to see them. Which would still be true if they were triangles or stars or pentagons or whatever geometrical shape floats your boat. And that is why I said it was a misguided lecture. You made very incorrect assumptions about my stance. I'm not the person that your comments would have been best directed at.

 

[Heidict]

If they want to plant them on public funded roads, than yes, that's exactly what the courts are for. What's so wrong with letting the courts, who are elected and paid to make these decisions, decide what's constitutionally protected instead of the court of public opinion?

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!!!

 

[Heidict]

I was saying that since you bothered quoting me to reply directly to me. You seem to think I have a problem with them. I don't recall ever saying I did. I don't know about you, but I have peripheral vision. That means I'd see them even if my eyes were on the road. That's all I'm saying. I never said take 'em down. I never said they're a distraction. I merely stated that IMO it would be difficult to see them. Which would still be true if they were triangles or stars or pentagons or whatever geometrical shape floats your boat. And that is why I said it was a misguided lecture. You made very incorrect assumptions about my stance. I'm not the person that you're comments would have been best directed at.

Then I apologize. Apparently I missinterperated your posts on this thread.

Oh, and I like hearts.

The distraction part of the arguement is right. Billboards are a good example of that. I know I have caught myself reading at or staring at a billboard and having to cut back to look at the road. They are dangerous and have probably been the cause of numerous accidents. However, the article didn't mention this as the reason for them wanting them removed. It just kept jumping on the "religion" aspect of it.

 

[salmoneous]

We have a grade school in town. There is a church that meets there on Sundays for service. They use the class rooms. Since it's a federally funded school, is the federal goverment supporting the church or the religion?

It depends. Is the school available for any group that wants to use it?

If the school is available to all citizens, and the group using it happens to be a church, that's probably OK. But if the government is picking and choosing which groups get to use the school, then it gets tricky. If they allow, say, a Catholic group to use it, but deny access to Protestants, that's a problem.

When it comes to the highway, can anybody put up a memorial, or the government giving special permission to one particular group?

 

[Nikel]

Then I apologize. Apparently I missinterperated your posts on this thread.

Oh, and I like hearts.

The distraction part of the arguement is right. Billboards are a good example of that. I know I have caught myself reading at or staring at a billboard and having to cut back to look at the road. They are dangerous and have probably been the cause of numerous accidents. However, the article didn't mention this as the reason for them wanting them removed. It just kept jumping on the "religion" aspect of it.

The religion part doesn't bother me. Well let me qualify that - if all the officers were Chrisitans and their families agreed with the memorial, I don't have a problem with it. Otherwise I do think it can be a distraction (man those billboards that rotate bug the crap out of me, I find myself compelled to watch them.) I also think big memorials like that are a waste of resources that could be better spent helping those still alive, and I think they're a bit egotistical. But on the religious aspect, I really don't care.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I think this is an interesting thread. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with them. 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?

I don't care for roadside memorials either normally. I find it odd to memorialize the place where someone died tragically rather than a place where they lived happily or where their body is laid to rest. I personlly would want to forget the place of their death and the horror surrounding it. (Although I do not begrudge people if it brings them some peace or happiness).

I know that you might not get it but I do. This is not an abnormal response. I was in a major automobile accident in June and I can tell you that I don't think I will ever forget about the place where it happened or the horror surrounding it. Everytime I drive by that place, I look to find the exact spot where it happened. You might find this morbid but I find it helpful. I think it's even less likely that one would forget if their loved one was killed in such an accident. One of my best friends was in a horrific accident a couple of years ago that almost killed him. Everytime I drive by that place, I also look to find the exact spot where it happened. For some, I think that spot signifies the last place where their loved one was alive on this earth.

Sorry, but while I respect LEOs, I don't believe that they deserve to be canonized for doing what they are paid to do.

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.

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

Yes, but that's not what the OP is about.

As far as the cross symbol goes...I am a Christian and of course I understand its significance, but would we glorify a rock or a knife if that is how Jesus died? My grandfather had crosses all over his home when I was growing up. It creeped me out.

I think you attribute a different meaning to a cross than I do. I don't see an empty cross as a murder weapon. I see it as a symbol of hope, symbolizing Jesus' resurrection and our promise of eternal life. So, when someone uses a cross on a grave or as a memorial, I see it as a sign that the people who laid it there believe this person is still alive with God.

I also think big memorials like that are a waste of resources that could be better spent helping those still alive, and I think they're a bit egotistical. But on the religious aspect, I really don't care.

Just to clarify: I don't think anyone lays a wreath in memory of someone or "plants" a cross for the dead person's benefit. It's done for the benefit of the living - to help them remember and to help them to mourn. So, I do think this helps many who are still alive.

Thanks all for the interesting thread so far.

 

[talulabelle]

I'm assuming the atheists who are against state funded crosses would be against state funded atheist emblems as well.

 

[SereneOne]

I think this is an interesting thread. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with them. 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?



I know that you might not get it but I do. This is not an abnormal response. I was in a major automobile accident in June and I can tell you that I don't think I will ever forget about the place where it happened or the horror surrounding it. Everytime I drive by that place, I look to find the exact spot where it happened. You might find this morbid but I find it helpful. I think it's even less likely that one would forget if their loved one was killed in such an accident. One of my best friends was in a horrific accident a couple of years ago that almost killed him. Everytime I drive by that place, I also look to find the exact spot where it happened. For some, I think that spot signifies the last place where their loved one was alive on this earth.



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.



Yes, but that's not what the OP is about.



I think you attribute a different meaning to a cross than I do. I don't see an empty cross as a murder weapon. I see it as a symbol of hope, symbolizing Jesus' resurrection and our promise of eternal life. So, when someone uses a cross on a grave or as a memorial, I see it as a sign that the people who laid it there believe this person is still alive with God.



Just to clarify: I don't think anyone lays a wreath in memory of someone or "plants" a cross for the dead person's benefit. It's done for the benefit of the living - to help them remember and to help them to mourn. So, I do think this helps many who are still alive.

Thanks all for the interesting thread so far.

 

[Nikel]

Just to clarify: I don't think anyone lays a wreath in memory of someone or "plants" a cross for the dead person's benefit. It's done for the benefit of the living - to help them remember and to help them to mourn. So, I do think this helps many who are still alive.

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. The money that was saved could then be used to help the families left without a wage earner financially, or that money could be used to help those injured on the job. Or many other things. I'm quite aware that it's not done for the dead person's benefit, but the excess here leaves a bad taste for me.

Does anyone know if all 13 of these officers were Christians?

 

[Chuck S]

First the logo. You don't believe that you can have the "offical highway patrol logo" and a cross, or anything relating to any type of religion I assume, together? Why? If a police officer was slain and the family decided to honor them and used a a religious symbol while doing so that it is wrong? Why is that a problem? That in no way implies that the state or federal goverment is supporting any type of religion.

Most organizations, companies and agencies only allow their logo to be used in ways that they approve or sanction...thus using the official logo implies that the State approved of its use in this manner, and thus approved the religious symbolism as well. Families would NOT be able to use the logo without approval, or else we could all copy any logo and use it however we wished. Especially if the use of this logo could be viewed by anyone driving by.

The property is a different part of the arguement for me. However, I don't see it as the state or federal goverment supporting a religion. Is EVERYTHING that is put on a piece of state or federal land something that is supported by the state and federal goverment?

Nothing is built/placed on government land without the permission and sanction of the government agency that owns the land, just as the logo can not be used without permission of the HP.

We have a grade school in town. There is a church that meets there on Sundays for service. They use the class rooms. Since it's a federally funded school, is the federal goverment supporting the church or the religion?

This comparison regarding the memorial has no merit. The memorial has no alternative use, like a building. Its sole purpose is to memorialize the officers, with religious symbols, on state right of way. It is not an auditorium, cafeteria, stage, theater, or even an emergency shelter that can be used by many groups or organizations...it is what it is, a religiously based memorial, privately funded, but placed on public lands.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I think you attribute a different meaning to a cross than I do. I don't see an empty cross as a murder weapon. I see it as a symbol of hope, symbolizing Jesus' resurrection and our promise of eternal life. So, when someone uses a cross on a grave or as a memorial, I see it as a sign that the people who laid it there believe this person is still alive with God.

Hmm to me the empty tomb is the message of hope. Can't really use that as a symbol though, I guess. I have all kinds of death issues, so I probably am not the best to comment on graveside markers and memorials. Personally, I can't stand visiting my dad's gravesite and I haven't visited there in over 10 years. He's in my heart and mind, and I know he is alive with God.