ridiculous, a group of jackasses sues to remove crosses from troopers death sites

[California Girl]

I know. Everyone is Utah is a Christian?

With 75% of the population of Utah being members of the Church of LDS, I'd say chances are all the fallen Troopers were Christian, and I'd suspect it they were not, the would have elected the appropriate symbol of their faith, or just a sign in they were non-religious.

Latter-day Saint Demographics/LDS Statistics/ Mormon statistics Listed under "Other Utah Statistics"

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

 

[Immanuel]

With 75% of the population of Utah being members of the Church of LDS, I'd say chances are all the fallen Troopers were Christian, and I'd suspect it they were not, the would have elected the appropriate symbol of their faith, or just a sign in they were non-religious.

Latter-day Saint Demographics/LDS Statistics/ Mormon statistics Listed under "Other Utah Statistics"

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

While I agree with you for the most part, there is no way to know that the families or even the officers who sacrificed their lives for us would have wanted a cross.

Personally, I have no problem with the cross and I would want one myself, however, I see no problem with deciding upon a simple plague provided by the state rather than a cross.

Immie

 

[JScott]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

Headstones are more expensive than crosses. That's the simple answer. Require them to be headstones, and where does the money come from? Ya wanna bet they just go away? Yep, no memorial at all, that's what's gonna happen.....

Those who are against the crosses don't care if they are put up by private or public funds, they will still rip them down, as our family found out personally.

Do I sound bitter? Only because I am...my brother, our family deserved better.

Headstones on the highway dont have to be made of stone. Most crosses are made of wood now.

 

[geauxtohell]

With 75% of the population of Utah being members of the Church of LDS, I'd say chances are all the fallen Troopers were Christian, and I'd suspect it they were not, the would have elected the appropriate symbol of their faith, or just a sign in they were non-religious.

Latter-day Saint Demographics/LDS Statistics/ Mormon statistics Listed under "Other Utah Statistics"

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

Like I said, move the memorial to private land and it's a non-issue.

We are a nation of laws.

 

[Againsheila]

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

Like I said, move the memorial to private land and it's a non-issue.

We are a nation of laws.

My brother's cross was on private land, it didn't make a difference. These people are like rabid dogs...they want to wipe out anything they think is a sign of Christianity.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

Like I said, move the memorial to private land and it's a non-issue.

We are a nation of laws.

My brother's cross was on private land, it didn't make a difference. These people are like rabid dogs...they want to wipe out anything they think is a sign of Christianity.

I don't want to delve too deeply into your personal tragedy, but who exactly removed your brother's cross and what was the reason behind it?

 

[Againsheila]

Like I said, move the memorial to private land and it's a non-issue.

We are a nation of laws.

My brother's cross was on private land, it didn't make a difference. These people are like rabid dogs...they want to wipe out anything they think is a sign of Christianity.

I don't want to delve too deeply into your personal tragedy, but who exactly removed your brother's cross and what was the reason behind it?

Considering the way it was trashed, hatred was behind it...we never found out who.....

It was on private property, we had the permission of the owners of the property...we set up a small memorial with a cross, his picture and a few personal items....it wasn't just torn up, it was trashed, as were the personal items and his picture.

I've heard to many atheists talking about ripping up crosses on the side of the road to believe it was anybody other than atheists....

 

[geauxtohell]

My brother's cross was on private land, it didn't make a difference. These people are like rabid dogs...they want to wipe out anything they think is a sign of Christianity.

I don't want to delve too deeply into your personal tragedy, but who exactly removed your brother's cross and what was the reason behind it?

Considering the way it was trashed, hatred was behind it...we never found out who.....

It was on private property, we had the permission of the owners of the property...we set up a small memorial with a cross, his picture and a few personal items....it wasn't just torn up, it was trashed, as were the personal items and his picture.

I've heard to many atheists talking about ripping up crosses on the side of the road to believe it was anybody other than atheists....

C'mon, Sheila.

This is a completely separate issue. Someone vandalized your brother's memorial. THAT's a crime. It's much different then the state removing crosses due to the establishment clause.

In fact, if you had caught them, the state would prosecute them.

I am sorry someone inflicted additional emotional distress on your family, but that's a completely different situation than this one.

 

[Charles_Main]

Federal appeals court says highways' crosses are unconstitutional - CNN.com

fucking ridiculous. a complete waste of our judicial system's time. I hope the family of the troopers killed sues if/when the crosses are actually removed.

If the crosses were on private land, this would be a non-issue. As it stands, I doubt any counter lawsuit would gain any traction.

I respect the desire to honor fallen state troopers, however it is a little ignorant to assume they were all Christians or even religious. Do we specifically know that these troopers would want a memorial to them to be an expression of religion? Why not choose a badge?

Look at it another way: have you ever seen the cemeteries of the fallen American Soldiers on Normandy Beach?

Allowing crosses on state land to memorialize Fallen Troops does not Establish a State Religion. That is the flaw in the left constant attacks on anything Christian on state or Federal land. Our founders wanted to make sure the Government could not establish a state religion, they had NO problem with Any Religions symbolology on State of Federal land. As evidenced by references to god in our founding documents, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the supreme court.

This is why some of us on the right, even if we are not religious, Believe the Left hates Christianity. Because they have wrapped the meaning of the establishment clause to mean you can not have any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

Did anyone ever insist that a Jewish soldier had to be buried under a cross headstone? Would you want to be buried under a Star of David (assuming you are a Christian)?

Instead of counter-suing (which is a loser case), a rational solution is for someone to donate private land along the highway and move the memorial.

Instead of going into histrionics over the matter, why not start a fund and organization to buy the land and do such a thing?

The families of the Slain Cops wanted Crosses, but the left cares nothing about their freedom of Religion.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't want to delve too deeply into your personal tragedy, but who exactly removed your brother's cross and what was the reason behind it?

Considering the way it was trashed, hatred was behind it...we never found out who.....

It was on private property, we had the permission of the owners of the property...we set up a small memorial with a cross, his picture and a few personal items....it wasn't just torn up, it was trashed, as were the personal items and his picture.

I've heard to many atheists talking about ripping up crosses on the side of the road to believe it was anybody other than atheists....

C'mon, Sheila.

This is a completely separate issue. Someone vandalized your brother's memorial. THAT's a crime. It's much different then the state removing crosses due to the establishment clause.

In fact, if you had caught them, the state would prosecute them.

I am sorry someone inflicted additional emotional distress on your family, but that's a completely different situation than this one.

The people suing to remove the crosses have the same hate as those that trashed my brother's memorial, to anything even remotely Christian. Otherwise, it wouldn't mean anything to them.

 

[bodecea]

Federal appeals court says highways' crosses are unconstitutional - CNN.com

fucking ridiculous. a complete waste of our judicial system's time. I hope the family of the troopers killed sues if/when the crosses are actually removed.

I agree. Ridiculous....I find these roadside memorials quite touching and a part of Americana.

 

[bodecea]

With 75% of the population of Utah being members of the Church of LDS, I'd say chances are all the fallen Troopers were Christian, and I'd suspect it they were not, the would have elected the appropriate symbol of their faith, or just a sign in they were non-religious.

Latter-day Saint Demographics/LDS Statistics/ Mormon statistics Listed under "Other Utah Statistics"

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

Just come out and say you hate Christianity, we'll all respect you more.

Sooo....someone who want's no governmental endorsement of religion on public land "hates Christianity"? Is that the argument you've been reduced to?

 

[ConHog]

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

Just come out and say you hate Christianity, we'll all respect you more.

Sooo....someone who want's no governmental endorsement of religion on public land "hates Christianity"? Is that the argument you've been reduced to?

Actually, my argument about this subject is that some of yall just don't understand the first amendment. It doesn't mean that crosses can't be placed on public land, it simply means that the government cant say ONLY crosses may be placed on public land . Meaning if a Muslim soldier wanted whatever honorary they use placed on his grave the family could do it, on public land.

 

[WillowTree]

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

Like I said, move the memorial to private land and it's a non-issue.

We are a nation of laws.

bullshit, we let millions enter the country illegally then call each other racists when it is objected to. "we are a nation of laws" is a convenient clap trap bullshit convenient argument lefties use sometimes.

 

[Againsheila]

Just come out and say you hate Christianity, we'll all respect you more.

Sooo....someone who want's no governmental endorsement of religion on public land "hates Christianity"? Is that the argument you've been reduced to?

Actually, my argument about this subject is that some of yall just don't understand the first amendment. It doesn't mean that crosses can't be placed on public land, it simply means that the government cant say ONLY crosses may be placed on public land . Meaning if a Muslim soldier wanted whatever honorary they use placed on his grave the family could do it, on public land.

I would have no objections to that...but then they think I hate Muslims too....

 

[California Girl]

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that their families - the ones who want to keep the crosses - probably knew what they would want a damned sight better than some anonymous poster.

Personally, I fail to see the harm in the crosses - or any other marker. The land may be public but the dead were private people who gave their lives in service of their community. I'd say that we should cut their families some slack and stop suing over stupid shit that means nothing to anyone except those whose loved ones have died.

While I agree with you for the most part, there is no way to know that the families or even the officers who sacrificed their lives for us would have wanted a cross.

Personally, I have no problem with the cross and I would want one myself, however, I see no problem with deciding upon a simple plague provided by the state rather than a cross.

Immie

Why is there no way to know? Here's a novel idea.... fucking ask. I know, I know.... It's a radical idea to allow others to decide for themselves, when we all know so much more than ordinary Americans about what is best, legal, or just plain 'right'.

For God's sake, why can we not all just mind our own fucking business about whether there are or are not some markers on the side of the road, and what shape those markers happen to be. Who are they harming. What, exactly, is the damage to anyone by a fucking marker on the side of a fucking road.

People who opine about crap that is nothing to do with them can, occasionally, make fucking ijiots of themselves.

 

[Charles_Main]

But we aren't playing odds here and we don't know what the fallen troopers would have elected.

Furthermore, it misses the real point, this is a tacit endorsement of religion on public land. People can piss and moan about it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

As I said, if this were on private land or if the symbols were secular, it would be a non-issue.

Just come out and say you hate Christianity, we'll all respect you more.

Sooo....someone who want's no governmental endorsement of religion on public land "hates Christianity"? Is that the argument you've been reduced to?

Um basically yeah, Because they are Twisting the Constitution and being petty. The constitution Never intended to Ban any religious symbols on any state or Federal Land.

For gods sake they mentioned God in the Declearation and the Constitution. The 10 Commandments hangs on the wall in the US supreme court.

because our founders understood it is ok for you to have symbolism of religion on State and Federal Land. The only thing they intended to insure was that nobody's right to freely practice any religion they wanted would ever be abridged, and that the States and Fed could not establish an official State Religion.

The flaw in your arguments is that allowing locals to put up crosses to memorize the death of officers on State land is not establishing a state religion, and it does not infringe on anyone's right to freedom of Religion.

So yes to me it seems the Far left whoa are the one who drive the attacks on anything remotely Christian in any public place, at least hold some animosity for Christianity and religion in General.

 

[daveman]

I'm with Avorysuds on this one. Why does it have to be crosses? And that question is coming from a Christian.

I'm certain we can come up with some kind of a memorial symbol for this that does not require a religious symbol. If the trooper is Christian then his personal headstone can be of whatever manner his family chooses, but it is not required by the roadside.

And for that matter, if the family wants a cross at the roadside along with the state memorial then let the family arrange the additional memorial.

Immie

Piss off. Anyone who sacrificed a family member in service to this country should get any memorial service they wish paid for in full by the government.

Piss on yourself, my friend. The families do not pay for those crosses on the side of the road.

No one has even claimed that families have requested the crosses.

These crosses are placed there by the state with or without the request of the families and my point in regards to that is that in one way or another we should recognize the service and sacrifices these men and women have given for their fellow countrymen. By all means, we should recognize them, if crosses are offensive then find something non-religious to honor these fallen heroes.

Immie

The crosses are paid for by the UHPA, a private association, and are place with the families' permission.

First erected in 1998, monuments were paid for with private funds and erected only with the permission of the troopers' families.​

 

[geauxtohell]

Federal appeals court says highways' crosses are unconstitutional - CNN.com

fucking ridiculous. a complete waste of our judicial system's time. I hope the family of the troopers killed sues if/when the crosses are actually removed.

If the crosses were on private land, this would be a non-issue. As it stands, I doubt any counter lawsuit would gain any traction.

I respect the desire to honor fallen state troopers, however it is a little ignorant to assume they were all Christians or even religious. Do we specifically know that these troopers would want a memorial to them to be an expression of religion? Why not choose a badge?

Look at it another way: have you ever seen the cemeteries of the fallen American Soldiers on Normandy Beach?

Allowing crosses on state land to memorialize Fallen Troops does not Establish a State Religion. That is the flaw in the left constant attacks on anything Christian on state or Federal land. Our founders wanted to make sure the Government could not establish a state religion, they had NO problem with Any Religions symbolology on State of Federal land. As evidenced by references to god in our founding documents, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the supreme court.

This is why some of us on the right, even if we are not religious, Believe the Left hates Christianity. Because they have wrapped the meaning of the establishment clause to mean you can not have any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

Did anyone ever insist that a Jewish soldier had to be buried under a cross headstone? Would you want to be buried under a Star of David (assuming you are a Christian)?

Instead of counter-suing (which is a loser case), a rational solution is for someone to donate private land along the highway and move the memorial.

Instead of going into histrionics over the matter, why not start a fund and organization to buy the land and do such a thing?

The families of the Slain Cops wanted Crosses, but the left cares nothing about their freedom of Religion.

That's ironic.

No one is impeding anyone's right to religion here. As I said, if this memorial wasn't on public land, it would be a non-issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

Considering the way it was trashed, hatred was behind it...we never found out who.....

It was on private property, we had the permission of the owners of the property...we set up a small memorial with a cross, his picture and a few personal items....it wasn't just torn up, it was trashed, as were the personal items and his picture.

I've heard to many atheists talking about ripping up crosses on the side of the road to believe it was anybody other than atheists....

C'mon, Sheila.

This is a completely separate issue. Someone vandalized your brother's memorial. THAT's a crime. It's much different then the state removing crosses due to the establishment clause.

In fact, if you had caught them, the state would prosecute them.

I am sorry someone inflicted additional emotional distress on your family, but that's a completely different situation than this one.

The people suing to remove the crosses have the same hate as those that trashed my brother's memorial, to anything even remotely Christian. Otherwise, it wouldn't mean anything to them.

Maybe and maybe not. I am really less concerned with the motives behind either side and more concerned with the legalities of the issue.

It's a pretty cut and dry issue.