Quantcast
Utah

State agencies ask Utah Highway Patrol Association to remove crosses

Comments

Return To Article
  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 13, 2011 11:26 p.m.

    Crosses aren't religious - Christmas trees are.

    Does anyone else find that a little wacky?

  • SittingReading Sandy, UT
    Dec. 13, 2011 11:32 p.m.

    I personally like the fact that a group decided that the crosses, which are designed to remember those who have died in the line of service, are too offensive because they are crosses. This is in a state where the major religion feels that a cross is not a good representation of their faith and does not have them on their church's.

    And the group that wants these removed hasn't offered a better way of remembering those killed. I guess in their opinion, people shouldn't have to be reminded that people die trying to protect them.

    All the problems in this country, and the government can "firmly" stand behind this one. Pathetic.

  • Arynen Midvale, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 12:27 a.m.

    A country in which the minority can rule the majority.... /sigh. What's happened to America?

  • Tyler McArthur South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 3:38 a.m.

    Shameful.

    The Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

    I'm not a student of law, but I have some comments:

    1) People often forget the second clause of this statement.
    2) State Agencies are not Congress.
    3) The exegesis of the first amendment is to forbid the establishment of a state religion, not to censor religion from the public sphere.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:51 a.m.

    "A country in which the minority can rule the majority.... /sigh. What's happened to America?"

    Yes Arynen,

    Why should we let "those" people sit up front on the bus?
    Or
    Use the same bathroom or drinking fountain?

    Majority rule. Go to the back.

    What HAS happened to America?

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    Dec. 14, 2011 5:54 a.m.

    I think it's a slap in the face that the UHPA has to ask for permission from the state agency to go onto state lands to take down the memorials the state is requesting them to take down.

  • MEi51 Provo, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 5:57 a.m.

    Maybe we should go remove all the crosses engraved on the tombstones in Arlington National Cemetery. Or maybe we should go through all the public graveyards and remove any tombstone in the form of a cross.

    People need to relax. As long as the family is okay with the memorial we should let it be.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:22 a.m.

    Another step closer to iniquity.

    I hope good people step up and give permission to erect memorials on their private land adjacent to these locations.

  • Old Gregg Alpine, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:23 a.m.

    This is an absolute joke! I do not see how building a memorial to falled HP is a violation of seperation of church and state. Those of you who are offended by this really need to grow up. I seriously can't believe they had to remove these memorials.

  • CP Tooele, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:24 a.m.

    If I remember correctly the State of Utah was establsihed by people who wanted religious freedom? LDS Pioneers came to this great State and wanted those who came to have just that..religious freedom and now even it looks like that has be done away with because of politics..how sad :(

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:41 a.m.

    Bravo! Keep up the good work of separation. It is the right and just thing to do.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:49 a.m.

    Since UDOT and Facilities Management deal with private citizens it seems like these two agencies would attempt to work with the Association and let the Association work with private citizens to put the crosses on their land, just on the other side of the fence.

    I noticed the crosses north of Panguitch and I believe the Association did a good job of painting over the logo and is appropriate for the court's order, except if it is on public land, people against people seem to still be pushing it.

    We are divorcing our people and country from the One we Trust.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    They should not have put them up in the first place and then there wouldn't have been a problem.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    wah waah waaaaah!!

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    Its truly amazing that with all the problems there are that could be helped by some attention and focus, that there are those that keep wanting to focus on "crosses on state property violate the separation of church and state."

    These folks would surely blow a gasket at a place I visited recently--Crosses as far as the eye could see on FEDERAL land-a federal military cemetery.

    Leave the poor UHP alone and let them honor their dead.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:38 a.m.

    The highway patrol is the agency with guns and political support from the extreme right.

  • SpanishImmersed Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    ...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!

    There is no mandate to keep church and state separate. This is the most misconstrued tenent of the US Constitution.

  • TexasMom Flower Mound, TX
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    I personally don't like memorials on roadways, crosses or not. This is a sensitive subject for many and I don't mean to sound uncaring at all. I just think that there are better ways to remember our loved ones than to place a "marker" where they died. From a logistcs point of view, people die every day and we can't possibly put a marker every place they die so why are some places of death worthy of a marker and others not? I guess I don't understand the need to memorialize the place of death. If it's to remember them, isn't that what a cemetary is for? I would much rather go to a quiet cemetery to grieve for a loved one than sit on the side of a busy road or have too look at it every time I drive by. If it's to honor them I'd rather see a tree planted or something positive. A young man from our neighborhood died in an accident at the entrance to the neighborhood. It was tragic. I didn't even know him and I cried for his family. They placed a cross (with a Star of David painted on it because he was Jewish) at the site immediately and people placed flowers, notes, etc. for several weeks. I understand that and have no problem with a temporary memorial to help in the grieving process. However, after a while they put up a more permanent cross and a larged framed picture of him that they also put solar lights on so it can be seen at night and they decorate the memorial for each holiday. I am extremely sorry for their loss and for the terrible grieving they obviously feel. However, I would like to drive into the neighborhood without a constant reminder of death, just because that happened to be the location were he died. Perhaps people could build memorial gardens in their backyards or something where they can spend time to think of them privately. For everyone else, life has to go on with hope and optimism and not the constant reminder of sadness and tragedy.

  • Plebeius Holladay, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:04 a.m.

    Many seem to not have read the case as it proceeded, the real shame is that the supreme court did not hear this one. This is a boarder line case but the liberal Judges decided it. It is not the state that is doing it.
    But having said that why not put up another memorial as they take down the crosses, or leave the crosses as frame work to put a plaque up or sign over them.

  • ProudUtahn St. George, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:07 a.m.

    The cross does not represent my religion and I am not offended. No one can be offended without their permission, so dont give the permission! Oh I am sorry, maybe it is because they want the suposed power. Please put your energy towards something that will make a real difference rather than whittle down on the heart strings of those that lost their loved ones in honor! I understand the Star of David and the Muslim symbole can remain on public lands, thats ok!
    Now what about the universal symbole of the dead. Lets choose our battles, this is only a small insignificant one (or step) towards the great one comming. Some day the moral majority will be pushed to far and wake up and take no more.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:11 a.m.

    @ SpanishImmersed,

    However, the Utah Constitution strictly does prohibit the mixing of the two. "The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

    @ Tyler McArthur

    2) Read the XIV ammendment, it places a lot of restrictions on States as it does the National Government.

    3) Often times courts consider things beyond wording of the Constitution. They consider 1) Orignal intent 2) Modern Day Application and 3) Actual wording. The intent was to ensure the religious freedom of all, to practice, or not to practice. The struggle today is to find the balance to allow people to practice without having other's freedom to not practice (which is just as sacred) infringed.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:16 a.m.

    Take them down.

    Case closed.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:23 a.m.

    @TexasMom, I agree with you. And I can attest to the fact, from personal experience, that some of these agencies do not have a word first with the family to find out how the family feels about having a memorial at the location of where the death occurred. I know that my family did not enjoy that constant daily reminder. It think it is extremely insensitive to mark the place of death like that.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    Freedom OF religion.

    Not freedom from.

    When the minority rules the majority that country will fold on itself.

    Minoritys who want elitist powers, not just equal, but to rule.

  • Old Jake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:26 a.m.

    I propose a State mandated religion. Let's go with Taoism. I propose we enforce this with financial penalties and jail time for those who don't comply.

    There you go!

    Happy now?

  • logancoug Layton, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    This is sad.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    @ Plebeius: Of the nine Judges on the US Supreme Court, 4 of them are consistently conservative and 1 of them was considered very conservative when nominated and, although he is often a swing vote, is still considered to be rather conservative. You cannot realistically blame this on a non-existent liberal court.

    @ ProudUtahn: Actually, no - you cannot have the Star of David or Muslim symbols either.

    And if you know of a "universal symbole of the dead" please do share - because no one else seems to be able to name one.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:51 a.m.

    I am christian.

    And I am offended that are resorting to FORCING our religious symbol on persons...

    when they are dead.

    Freedom OF religion...

    does not mean FAVORING one religion over any other.

    This is a shameful example of trying to INJECT religion into persons lives who never, factually, asked for it.

    And mars the memory of those honored dead.

    Using their death as a political and religious platform...

    instead of giving them the honor, they deserve.

    It is abusrd for people in Utah to defend the 'just two sticks'...

    when the dominat religion in Utah...dosen't even USE crosses!

    Take them down...

    and treat people like you don't CARE about their religion.

    Not the 'Christian Nation' that some claim. While also double talking about being 'tolerant' of other faiths.

    But rather, treat them like, Americans.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Dec. 14, 2011 8:52 a.m.

    "When the minority rules the majority that country will fold on itself. "

    All these majority rules posts.

    Is that what you think the laws of this country are based on?

    This is America where everyone is protected by the constitution.
    Even those in the minority.

    Supreme court rulings should not take Majority wishes into consideration.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    I believe that the people who objected to the crosses should have the decency to find the money to replace these memorials with something they don't find offensive. That would be a compassionate and caring way to show respect for these fallen heroes. Although it always makes me sad to see one of these 'markers', they also remind me of the sacrifice good people have done for those of us who live in this great state.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    Whatever memorial is used should represent the faith of the person who it commemorates. If there is no faith then a simple obelisk should be used. How hard is that, really?

    If religious symbols on government land are such a problem why aren't groups protesting all the crosses in Arlington?

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 9:46 a.m.

    Now lets remove the crosses from Arlington! Come heck or highwater we will kick Christianity out of our country, who cares that it was founded by a bunch of radical Christians.

  • billybubba South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:01 a.m.

    The problem is not the crosses take them down leave them up, what is going to happen when this battle is done this same group will go after something else. So whats next limiting the number of religious buildings with in a city mile? Telling all religions to be quiet and go sit in the corner. So what will be next? Everyone knows that this will not be the end of take, take, take everyone can be offended about something. I am offended because so many people think I want to listen to their music while sitting at a red light with my radio on and windows closed. Do I have the right to force them to turn it down or put a stop to it? Enough is enough

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:14 a.m.

    Honor the fallen with a memorial at the State Capitol.

    Religious freedom means you can worship without government interference, it doesn't mean that you get to put your icons hither and yon.

    I agree fully, with Texasmom on this one.

  • RBTJR PLATTSBURGH, NY
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:26 a.m.

    @Texas Mom-you took the words right out of my mouth! People die every day, in different circumstances and places. Maybe the appropriate place to grieve is at the final resting place of the deceased, or a private memorial garden on one's private property.
    So, why not have a marker (whether it's crosses, tombstones, plaques, etc.) where everyone breathed their last? The landscape would be cluttered with them! Plaques in hospital rooms, stores, a spot in a parking lot,stores, churches, anywhere, etc.
    So, far me, it's not a matter of separation of church and state-just the practicality and appropriateness of where to memorialize a loved one.

  • Two Cents Springville, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:27 a.m.

    How about selling a small piece of land to the family or friends of the fallen officer, thereby making it private property. Then they can erect a symbol if they want to. And it's not public land.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:53 a.m.

    I guess this means the 10th circuit court has accepted that anything in the form of a cross IS a religious symbol? I've never thought that the form was used any more than an efficient way to put someone's name on a placard and secure it in place to the ground. The fact that the early Romans also found that an efficient way to secure a crucifixion victim to the ground as well is not lost on me. What's interesting to me is that the 10th circuit court has accepted that because a religion has chosen to use that particular form in its worship that it somehow assigns religious meaning to the form to those not of that religious faith. The only meaning that really is ascribed therewith to non-believers should simply remain a healthy respect for someone else's religious observance. I simply object to the 10th circuit court forcing me to accept the form of the cross as a public religious symbol. It is not, it is only religious to those who are believers of that faith.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    i guess qw hve to go to the punch bowl, Normandy and all other cemetaries and remove crosses. I say we occupy raveyards and this crosses and let these miserable libs TRY and take them down.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    I have been to Arlington and other military cemetaries around the world and the Court system in the United States needs to get a life beside throwing aspersions on the dedicated people who have put their life on the line and protected our nation, states and local communities over the past 100 years as public servants. We need a realignment of our system that our forefathers wanted to see go forward for hundreds of year and not put under as has happened in not very many years.

  • Morgan_Freeman's_Voice Provo, Zion
    Dec. 14, 2011 11:10 a.m.

    I'm an atheist, and I don't mind if highway patrol officers have their religious symbols to commemorate their memorials on public land It really doesn't bother me; I don't think my religious rights are being taken away. They died in the line of service, and deserve some kind of respect. However, considering this is Utah, I'd venture to say that some or almost all of them are LDS, and a cross is just not a good representation of their faith. Though if their family approves of the cross to be used for their memorial, then I seen no problem.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 11:10 a.m.

    Let's get the story straight about Arlington National Cemetary!

    1. It is a CEMETARY....not some government land by a highway. People aren't forced to see them like they are on a highway.

    2. The graves in Arlington are marked with white headstones, rounded at the top. Crosses are "not the standard there. The stone itself can be engraved with a small cross or other accepted emblem

    3. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently offers 39 authorized faith emblems for placement on markers to represent the deceased's faith. The ACLU did sue over Arlington cemetery so they would allow Wiccan veterans to have pentacles on their headstones. Theyre in favor of religious symbols on headstones, as long as we treat all religions equally.

    4. The government will provide at no cost to the estate of the deceased an upright, white marble headstone or white niche cover. The order for the headstone or niche cover will include the appropriate inscription and choice of faith emblems.

    5. Cross or no cross, even if it is federal land, Arlington Cemetary is something more private and special. It isn't by a public highway.

    Get your facts straight people!

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 11:38 a.m.

    The court has gone way too far. The first amendment religion clause was designed to allow freedom of religion. The "separation" that has been added by the courts comes from an overly broad interpretation of the principle that no one church should be favored above others. If the deceased or their loved ones acting in their stead choose to use a cross as a memorial, it should be no one else's concern - unless for some strange reason all memorials of any type are banned. Banning memorials that have a religious connection and allowing those that do not have a religious significance is ironically a violation of the freedom that the court claims to be protecting.

  • Morgan Duel Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    There is an old saying that we have a choice to desire good or to desire iniquity. My thought is that if this nation keeps turning toward the desire for iniquity that one day the people of the nation shall have the reward of iniquity.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    Texasmom is correct. Keep the memorials in the cemetaries where they belong. Nobody I know has a problem with crosses, or stars of david, or pentagrams on tombstones in Arlington or any other cemetary. That is what those spots are dedicated for: the final resting places and memorials to those who have died.

    Just don't associate a religious symbol with an official government agency, much less a law enforcment agency, on public property along highways and byways. Even if nobody intends for it to be an establishment of religion, it at least gives the appearance of one.

    The Supreme Court has decided. Now respect the laws of the land and take the crosses down! If you need help, let me know.

  • three11stu Saratoga Springs, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    This is not about the fact that people were offended that they were crosses. This is not an attack on religion, and wanting to remove all forms of religion from existing. The fact is that PUBLIC money was used to fund these crosses. How would the majority of citizens in Utah feel if we were paying to fund projects that were completely against the LDS faith. They would not approve of their tax dollars going to fund something like that.
    If these crosses are paid for with PRIVATE money, and placed on PRIVATE land, then there would be no problems.

  • KamUte South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    My father is on the name of one of those crosses. I have testified in court for them. It's ridiculous in so many ways. The farmer next to my father's memorial is willing to put it on his land but that is not good enough for some because people that wanted to read it would have to stop on public lands to park. It just so happens that there is a state memorial right there regarding church pioneers. Oh well. It appears my mom will soon have a giant cross in her garage.

  • Richie Saint George, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    I think the UHP shold start ticketing every state vehicle that commmits the slightest infraction of the law and check all all drivers for alcohol.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:04 p.m.

    TexasMom is right, we saw a whole cemetary lit up by solar lights down in Louisiana last month. Families gather graveside to mourn almost nightly wih lawn chairs and coolers.

  • trumpman23 Layton, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:12 p.m.

    One of you liberals please explain to me why you support the Atheist mother and son who would put a skeleton dressed as Santa Cluas on a cross in Virginia but decry this display that honors fallen troopers. Both were done on state property, both were displays of religious (or non-religious) right.
    You wait for the opportunity to pounce on displays of faith but support those that would tear them down. It all seems a bit hypocritical to me. But it's all in the name of the constitution, right?

  • billybubba South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:15 p.m.

    @ als Atheist
    Bull the problem is the appearance of religion but the way around it is calling for separation of church and state. Again I state what next will we lose.
    @three11stu
    As far as public money is concerned I will donate money to keep the monuments where they are

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    'One of you liberals please explain to me why you support the Atheist mother and son who would put a skeleton dressed as Santa Cluas on a cross in Virginia but decry this display that honors fallen troopers.' - trumpman23 | 1:12 p.m. Dec. 14, 2011

    Two points:

    1) Santa Claus is NOT part of of the mythos surrounding the Birth of Christ. As such he is not 'offending' the 'Christianity' of Christmas, because he was never PART of the 'Christ' in Christmas.

    And yet, christians see no issue with it.

    2) If you are going to claim that the 'Cross' in your description is an insult to any Judeo-Christian faith...

    than you JUST admited that these crosses FAVOR one religion, over others.

    Which, is denied in our Constitution.

    Freedom OF faith...

    does not mean FAVORING, one.

    Good day to you.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:25 p.m.

    KamUte

    Did your father believe in the law? Did he believe that the justice system works for the best for ALL Americans? Do you believe in honoring and sustaining the law?

    The supreme court agreed with the decision of the circut court. This is the law of the land. Why not have something different commemorate your fathers sacrifice? Why does it HAVE TO BE a cross? Cut off the tops. Make it a "T" and be happy.

    Since those who are fighting for these memorials seem to ONLY want crosses, it seems to me that they are more interested in winning over the atheists than in recognizing the troopers. Why?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    Just paint 10% of the telephone poles white and dedicate them to the ACLU. If we did it to all of them then people may not get it.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:34 p.m.

    I would like to see a vote - by the people of this state on this issue. Overwhelmingly the crosses would stay. I would like to see a list - of all those who ruled to remove the crosses. Who are these people and perhaps it's time that they stop hiding behind their justice robes and makes their names known so we can vote them out of office!!!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    patriot

    ALL of the supreme court justices voted to agree with the circuit court except one - Justice Thomas. Yes, it was 8-1.

    SCJ are not elected by the people per our constitution. They have a lifetime appointment.

    Do you believe in our constitution? Do you abide by the virdicts of the courts and the laws of our land - or only those that you agree with? You call yourself a patriot. Are you?

  • trumpman23 Layton, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 2:08 p.m.

    @Pagan (a.k.a.: King of the strawmen):
    When did I claim dominance of faith? I simply pointed out that the SAME symbol was used by two disparate groups as a vehicle for free speech. The liberal side applauds the denegration of that symbol and praises it as a justifiable and accurate representation of the commercialization of Christmas but are just as offended at the thought of using that same symbol to honor someone. I remind you that these two acts were done with the states' blessing.
    Quit trying to play strawman by changing the topic.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    The discussion reminds me of when we lived in Illinois. An individual was driving from Indiana to St. Louis and got on the wrong road and came through our city. The city had a water fountain that was probably 30-40 feet across and during the winter they covered the fountain with plywood to protect the fountain. For years, at Christmas time, they put a stable scene on top of the plywood. The individual from Indiana filed a lawsuit against the city and won the suit.

    I believe a lot of people other than the individual from Indiana are lost as we have seen this type of lawsuit become more in fashion every year.

  • HCB63 Orem, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 2:23 p.m.

    I am still waiting for anyone to show me just where in the Constitution are the words, "Separation of Church and State." Please...somebody...maybe one of these atheists who are so horridly offended by any religious symbol or connotation...anybody?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 2:39 p.m.

    @ HCB63

    Utah Constitution, Article I Section 4

    "There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

    In all fairness not the words "Seperation" but "No union" means the same. And it is the Utah Constitution, since it is a Utah matter, it is equally applicable.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    @trumpman23

    I consider myself a liberal, and I in no way applaud the example you illustrated. I in no way speak for anyone but myself, but I would think most any sensible person of any group (conservative, liberal, athesit, theist) would find what they did offensive, which is probably why they did it, the shock value.

    To be honest, I don't really see what being a liberal or conservative has to do with my religious values.

  • trumpman23 Layton, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 3:04 p.m.

    @Darrel:
    My intention was not political so please accept apologies if that was miscommunicated. Rather than politically liberal I could say socially liberal (or would progessive be more accurate?) in order to clear that up.
    In all honesty, though, doesn't one gain their sense of morals from their religious/non-religious leanings?
    Thank you for keeping my rants on track.

  • floridian navarre, fl
    Dec. 14, 2011 3:13 p.m.

    I have read all of article and the comments. I find most of the latter rather interesting in what is missing. My thoughts... why hasn't the State of Utah considered doing what many other states have done? That is, name bridges or stretches of highways or major intersections as memorials to these UHP individuals? My wife and I travel at least 15,000 miles each year across this great land in our minivan. When I see a sign designating a stretch of highway or bridge or something similar my thoughts, usually lasting for the duration of travel on that piece of road or structure, is of the individual, his/her sacrifice, and perhaps a spouse and/or family he/she may have left behind. Isn't that the purpose of the symbol -- the individual and the life given in the service to his state and/or nation? It would be easy to find such memorials in or near the individual's home town -- where he/she may be best remembered. Sure beats something at the place of death.

    Just a thought on a quiet, reflective afternoon down South.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 3:30 p.m.

    No 2.

    The Utah Highway Patrol Association has erected the 12-foot-tall, white crosses to memorialize troopers killed in the line of duty, is a lie.

    The actual reason for the 12-foot-tall religious symbol cross was to promote and impose religion upon the American people.

    The trooper whos name is on the monument neither wants or needs this kind of monument, and probably was not deserving of the honor. Highway patrol officers are paid public employees doing a necessary job for business and society. It is wrong to heap upon them phony and largely untrue attributes.

    All public employees are deserving of our respect and appreciation for their services. Not just those who wear uniforms that identify themselves as mainly serving business.

  • Munk Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:04 p.m.

    What are they going to do next? Ask that all the crosses be removed from national cemeteries??? This is so wrong on every level. IT has everything to do with the respect of a patrolman fallen in the line of duty. I don't care what the symbol is... a Cross, a Star of David, a Hammer or a Dolmen, Monolith,... etc etc. It is about the respect that I mentioned.

    For all of you that my comments offend.. I step on your sensibilities. Step..Stomp.. Step

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    People favor pushing christianity on America sure appear to come across as spoiled children when court rulings don't go in their favor. Very interesting.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    Should read: People who favor

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:06 p.m.

    The UHPA should just keep the locations but replace the crosses with the instrument that led to the demise of these wonderful servant's lives.

    We can line our highways with large replicas of guns, knives, clubs, getaway cars, etc. Such a memorial we would have to honor these fine men and women and nobody would be offended!

  • Love_The_Beehive Orem, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:24 p.m.

    It's sad enough that this is even an issue; what's sadder still is the fact that three different state agencies are involved with having the crosses removed. What a waste.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:29 p.m.

    Munk wrote:

    "For all of you that my comments offend.. I step on your sensibilities. Step..Stomp.. Step"

    Throw your two-step, stomping tantrum until you are blue in the face.

    The law is on our side.

    I bet that just grates on you, doesn't it?

    Oh, well. We we give as much regard to your sensibilities as you expressed to ours.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:31 p.m.

    re: als Atheist "The Supreme Court has decided. Now respect the laws of the land and take the crosses down! If you need help, let me know."

    Actually, the Supreme Court has decided not to decide. That's a bit different.

    See if you can identify who/what entity said this: "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religions role in society." Yep, you guessed it, SCOTUS.

  • NotBuyingIt MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:38 p.m.

    How utterly sad that people can be soooo petty about something like this.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    RE: The Atheist

    What Law?

    Federal Congress did not put the crosses up.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:40 p.m.

    Court ruled that crosses are religious and on government property. Arlington Cemetery is government and they have these crosses.

    Through efforts of Argonne Unit American Womens Legion, the Argonne Cross was erected to their memory and honor. At the juncture of the arm/stem of the cross is a carved low relief eagle and wreath.

    President Coolidge approved in 1927 a monument consisting of a bronze sword adorning a 24-foot gray granite cross. The inscription on the cross reaffirms sentiment expressed by Prime Minister King regarding Americans who served in the Canadian Armed Forces. Following WWII/Korean War, similar inscriptions on faces of monument were dedicated to Americans who served.

    In 1971 a more-elaborate grave site was completed, at the request of the Kennedy family, by architect I.M. Pe. The grave site retains the simple, white Christian cross of the earlier site.

    Senator Robert F. Kennedys grave is marked by a simple white wooden cross and a marble footstone.

    Senator Edward M. Kennedys grave is marked by a white wooden cross and marble footstone identical to his brother Roberts.

    Arlington Granite/marble covers contain 11 lines and may include a religious emblem

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    Seriously people none of the arguments that you bring up are original they where vetted over and over again by the courts and found to be completely without merit.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    Which part of 'public land' don't you understand? You want to put up crosses, go buy some land and put up all you want. Problem solved.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 4:43 p.m.

    @Lane: To be patriotic is to be continually questioning the "law of the land" and whether or not it is a true representation of the will of the people. The great patriots who founded this nation did not blindly follow the "law of the land"... if they did we would all still be loyal British subjects.

    Don't confuse patriotism and blind loyalty... they are NOT the same.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 5:43 p.m.

    The proof is in the form used for the monument. If the monument was a simple single post or a round disk on a single post, the UHPA would have no interest in creating a monument to a dead trooper. Of even if they named a bridge after the trooper. Their real agenda is to advertise religion, and thus they need to use a cross.

  • noinipo Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 5:54 p.m.

    One day someone is going to boycott paper money because it has "In God We Trust"

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:45 p.m.

    I thank those who have died in service, but we don't need reminders on every roadside. Thats what graveyards are for.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Dec. 15, 2011 8:13 a.m.

    Ultra Bob says "The proof is in the form used for the monument. If the monument was a simple single post or a round disk on a single post, the UHPA would have no interest in creating a monument to a dead trooper."

    AND you forgot to add that there would be no interest in whining about it, except for the form.

    The proof is that some people want to whine about anything religious.

    Doesn't matter if its good.
    Doesn't matter if its right.
    Doesn't matter if it is honoring someone who gave their life--if it has any religious connotations or connections or anything that can be made to have any connection to religion, there are those who will blindly ignore the goodness of it, or the honor it offers, and instead blindly rail and whine and carry on about it.

  • NotBuyingIt MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    If the busybodies want to remove something "offensive" from land along our highways, start with the countless ugly billboards......

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 8:48 a.m.

    Many people whine about others who break the law. The greatest whine, in my opinion, comes from religious advocates1 who whine about not being able to break the law.

  • NotBuyingIt MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    Ultra Bob- What law is being broken by these crosses? None.....

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 10:14 a.m.

    Id have told the Federal Court to drop dead and left the crosses there. They don't hurt anyone and no one even has to look at them if they don't want to. This is the same issue as the 10 Commandments or the cross out in the California desert, all of which have been decided all over the map. Until the Supreme Court gets the guts to decide a case there will continue to be muddled case law depending on where you live. Of course the Supreme Court Justice that declined the review was Sotomeyer who is over the 10th Circuit, and we know where her ideals lie.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 16, 2011 7:48 a.m.

    I am quite sure there is a Mormon Article of Faith that says something like: "We believe in honoring and sustaining the law... when it suits us."

    Have I misunderstood?

  • Foolish Child Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 17, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    Maybe tiny plots of land holding the crosses could be sold to private individuals, thus the crosses are no longer on private land, and they could remain in place.

    Why forget those who have died because a small minority misinterprets honoring the dead at the site where they died as Congress enforcing a state religion?

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 18, 2011 4:32 p.m.

    Foolish Child,

    Nobody is saying they should be forgotten.

    Just remember and memorialize them in the places designated for such things: cemeteries. In those specially designated places, you can privately purchase a plot of land on which you can place any number of religious symbols for anyone who wants to to see.

    Why make this so complicated? Just follow the law.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Dec. 18, 2011 9:03 p.m.

    Crosses say state agency's should go.

  • als Atheist Provo, UT
    Dec. 19, 2011 7:08 p.m.

    Northern,

    That is the theocratic thinking we are afraid of. Thank you for confirming our concerns are justified.