Utah highway patrol crosses violate US Constitution
[Montana has 100's of crosses along the road where traffic fatalities have occurred.]
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
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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7...
Total nonsense
the constitution is pretty clear. "...Congress shall make no law ..." So clearly it only means the US Congress can't make a law concerning religion, either for or against. They must be silent.
States and people can do as they wish about religion, even on federal property.
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
That that mean that the executive or judiciary branches can...
make law about religion?
Only if
Only if the constitution grants the executive and judicial branches ability to make law.... Which it does not.
Is there something about how much land the federal gov. can
own in the constitution? Was the Louisiana purchase constitutional?
Simple solution. Sell All the god blessed public land including roads, parks, rivers, lakes, and reserves. Just think No Highway Statis pigs could die on a private road. They would have no business patrolling and there for not even exist. The state would then have no right to rule on what artwork was display on the side of the road. the Road owner would set the rules
THE END
A couple things.
First, if anybody is wondering why the general population hates what atheists do, this OP is an excellent example. From the general appearance, what the public sees is a never-ending set of lawsuits designed to squash any form of religion off the face of the nation, but especially that "nasty" Christianity.
Looking for enemies?
You're doing a great recruiting job.
Second, I don't like seeing that stuff on the roads. It's very common around here.
Would I sue to have them removed?
No, because I'm not an asshole who can't let people do anything at all without a freakin' lawsuit.
Some people just have nothing
Some people just have nothing better to do.
I am sick of the highway crosses at all.
I do not know why the roadways became impromptu memorial sites, but I do not think it is a fitting way to remember the dead, or to decorate public roadways.
My father dropped dead on an escalator in Cincinnati Music Hall - what a lovely way to go... The building is incredible, his wife at his side, and he was "going up." I want a little rubber cross that I can erect on the stair where he died, that will fold down at the top and spring back up at the bottom. I mean, I know it is not my building and that no one but my family would know who or why it was there, but he died and it was sad and I want it...
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
Does this mean the crosses over the graves
of the dead buried at Arlington Cemetery must be removed?
No
Military cemeteries are public in the sense that they are paid for by the public in trade for service. However, the individual plots are essentially leased to the families. They can put any symbol on the grave they wish - Arlington and others have many standard rounded stones as well, and some atheist ones, Jewish, etc...
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
I live in Utah...
and let me tell you...the people here do not understand the concept of separation of church and state. The LDS church controls everything that goes on here. if you want to see what it is like to live in a place controlled by a particular faith, just come visit. let me tell you, it sucks. so if there is a choice between a specific religious philosophy influencing government or no religious philosophy influencing government...i choose the latter.
it all seems ok...it's just a cross! but what if people want to start displaying things on public land that you don't like or don't want to see?
I think the Federal Court of Appeals got this one right.
www.ilovegenerationx.com
Posts Organized By Day
Seperation
Separation of church and State is a federal issue, under the constitution a state can be as religious as it wants.
No... a state cannot infringe
No... a state cannot infringe on natural, individual rights. These rights supercede both federal and state laws. They are not bestowed by governments at any level. A state cannot endorse religion any more than it can suppress free speech. It is the role of the federal courts to overrule them when they do.
Sure it can
States did it in the before, after, and during the adoption of the constitution. Interesting that both Jefferson and Madison issued proclamations of prayer while Governor but refused to do the same while president.
A state can violate the USA constitution because it is not subject to it unless it states otherwise. Very few powers are granted tot he Federal government. A state can infringe on the second amendment but the feds cant. Just like states were able to have slavery until an amendment was passed that changed it.
2nd amendment
I think you're wrong about the 2nd amendment. It states: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
UNQUALIFIED, the right is NOT to be infringed.
Compare this to 1st amendment on religion "congress shall make no law". This specifies congress. No such specification is made with regard to the right to bear arms.
What I draw from that is: Nobody can infringe right to bear arms. Congress cannot infringe religious freedom (but states are not mentioned).
Constitution says otherwise
Here is the text of the relevant portion of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Tell me where in there you find a freedom FROM religion? If the public land on which the crosses have been erected is owned by the state of Utah (or even if it's Federally owned), I don't see how you have any leg to stand on with that argument.
Needless to say I think the courts got this one wrong.
Seperation
Separation of church and State is a federal issue, under the constitution a state can be as religious as it wants.
What about
seperation of Atheisum and State ? Who says the State's natural state, is Atheistic ?
I don't remember hearing
I don't remember hearing about any atheist symbols being placed on public land... so what's your point?
That's a nonsequitur
The only way to have a free society of equal citizens (as the founders and the American Enlightenment concluded) is for the government to be secular. Otherwise you have a theocracy, or an oligarchy, or a monarchy, or fascism, etc....
Anything else places the religious or personal preferences of the majority of individuals in government in a position of superiority (tyranny of the majority). So, yes, in the ideals of the founders and Thomas Paine, Jefferson, etc... it should be a demand that the state is nuetral and secular. Neutral and secular are not synonymous with "atheism", which is a person without a god belief. A "state", or government, not being a person, can't have a belief or lack thereof.
Trust me, it is not atheists you need to fear. It is the Neocon born-again megachurchers that supported Bush and McCain you need to worry about.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
actually, I fear none of you,
actually, I fear none of you, and all of you.
it's not religion that's the problem.
it's people.
and this is complex topic.
I'd say that the most important aspect of this to focus on is these two things:
1) the constitution is dead. it can only be violated so many times before one realizes that it's only purpose now is to serve the federal government. they trot it out when it's convenient, and step on it when it's not.
2) states rights. just like no child left behind means no child gets ahead, we have to start letting states decide for themselves. if this means taking steps backwards for some of them, so be it. if it means people will have to move, so be it. This is the only route possible forward, if states aren't allowed to stretch their sovereignty then we'll all go down together.
1) The constitution is not
1) The constitution is not dead. It is beaten, tattered and torn, but certainly not dead. If it were, none of us would be on this site. When "they" use it for the wrong reasons, we must fight; when they use it for the right reasons, well, they should.
2) No state's rights trump the Constitution. I regard your "steps backwards" as meaning unconstitutional. The ends do not justify the means...ever.
Columbus, Ohio
the Constitution was lost....
Death of a Republic
To those digging in the bone piles of history, it becomes clearer every day that the Republic that was the united States of America, died at the hands of A. Lincoln, who seized power - without any lawful, constitutional authority whatsoever - and set forces in motion that drove the South into a war it did not want, and could not win.
In the eruption that followed, on the killing grounds of Antietam, Vicksburg, Missionary Ridge, and Gettysburg, the lifeblood of patriots flowed out onto the earth and into the crevices of revisionist history. Long before the flag of truce was raised, the Republic had already died, not with a bang, but ignominiously, in a whisper, no one heard amidst the raging winds of war.
When the Southern states walked out of Congress in March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. The only votes Congress could lawfully take, under parliamentary law, were those to set the time to re-convene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to re- convene at a later time.
Instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a), literally, `without day,' "An adjournment sine die -- that is, without day, -- closes the session, and if there is no provision for convening the assembly again, of course the adjournment dissolves the assembly.
Thus, when Congress adjourned sine die it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body. The only lawful, constitutional power who could declare war, was no longer lawful, or in session.
Congress did not reconvene until days later when it was re-convened under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief by Executive Order, and sat unlawfully under the direct pleasure of A. Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief of the military.
To this very day, Congress still exists by the military authority of the Commander- in-Chief, and not as a lawful Constitutional body. More evidence for this is in any set of U.S. Titles and Codes. In the Index of Titles in Volume One, one finds either;
The UNITED STATES - The New Roman Empire
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8611789/The-United-StatesThe-New-R...
So well put. Kudos.
So well put. Kudos.
Columbus, Ohio