Advanced Search

Lawyers Clash Over Memorial Crosses

By
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Nov. 14 2007 08:37 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

One day after the nation paid tribute to fallen members of the military, an atheist group argued before a federal judge that the placement of memorial crosses on Utah highways to honor fallen Highway Patrol troopers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge David Sam heard arguments Tuesday from lawyers in a controversial case where American Atheists Inc is battling Utah and the state’s Highway Patrol Association over 13 memorial crosses erected along Utah highways.

Each cross is placed on or near the place where events occurred resulting in the death of an officer.

American Atheists contends that the 12-foot crosses are religious symbols that should be removed from state property because they illegally constitute an endorsement of religion by the Highway Patrol Association.

Brian Barnard, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, argued before the court that any "reasonable observer" knows that the cross is the "preeminent symbol of Christianity," representing the death of Jesus Christ.

He also added that putting a Highway Patrol logo on them "is literally a stamp of approval" by the government of Christianity.

Assistant Utah Attorney General Thomas Roberts said the crosses in this context are not religious symbols but secular symbols that represent "death and remembrance."

He told the judge that the memorials honor the sacrifice of the deceased troopers and serves as a reminder to drivers to be careful.

Roberts argued that crosses aren’t always imbued with religious meaning, pointing to telephone poles and road markers which can form the shape of a cross but are permitted on government property.

Following arguments, the judge the said he did not find that the government to be "entangled" with a religious issue because the UHP Association is not considered a religious organization.

Sam said he would issue a written opinion soon.

Both lawyers from each side say they will appeal the decision if they lose the suit, which started in 2005.

Family members of fallen troopers and others who are a part of the Utah Highway Patrol Association have also joined the case, after being granted a motion to intervene. They are represented by attorneys from the Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund and an affiliated local attorney in Salt Lake City.

ADF senior legal counsel Byron Babione joined local attorney Frank Mylar in attending the hearing.

Babione defended the constitutionality of the crosses in a statement Monday, saying the memorials are not paid by taxpayers and were constructed by volunteers and materials donated by local businesses.

According to ADF, a ruling in favor of American Atheists could place other cross memorials placed by private citizens in legal jeopardy.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
Prophet
  • Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:08 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Earlyed
So true! So true!
EarlyEd
  • Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:08 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
The quote by Mr. Barnard is not accurate. Clearly he must not be a "reasonable observer". You see, the Cross is not just a a symbol of the death of Jesus Christ. The cross has no body, the tomb is emtpy and Jesus is alive. But more to the point, I believe these suits are creating a hostile environment wherein certain symbols are targeted only because of grudges held by a particular group. We are surrounded by flags, emblems, city and county seals that are replete with pagan symbols, Roman gods and godesses, native american religious symbology, etc. and nobody says a word. The only person who would dare say a word about a Star of David on government property would be decried as antisemitic. Anyone who would bring a suit against a depiction of Quetzalcoatl on city grounds would be labeled intolerant. There is a huge double standard here. Everyone knows it but those who can do anything about it are to often too afraid.
Tom
  • Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:01 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
watch I am afraid you are correct I am reading a book written by Alan Sears and Greg Osten, Titled The ACLU vs America---chilling to say the least.
Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
The Watch
  • Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:40 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
"he and those like him (can you say ACLU) could well be call traitors themselves."

You can't be refering to the Anti-Christ lawyers Union. :)


You are so right Prophet. in your interpetation of the First Amendment.
Prophet
  • Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:56 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
amne, tom! amen!
I think Bob's final comment sums up his entire argument.. I wish it had not been flagged. there really was nothing offensive about it, in my opinion. But i dont think Bob was expecting someone to actually read the amendment and understand what it said. most people hear "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and think, "Oh...so there IS a separation of church and state." When in reality there isnt. All it's saying is that congress cant say "You must be a Christian." It doesn't say that congress can't pray to God. It doesn't say that congress cant express it right to free speech in expressing their belief in God. It doesn't even say that courts can't hang the ten commandments from their walls. But it does say that they can't force you to do the same.
Tom
  • Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:49 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Slacker and Prophet very good post. I might add that it wasn't until about 1947 when one of our wonderful supreme court justices found in this wall in the constitution. wow where was it for a hundred and forty some years. I also wonder how BobC feels about the Bible being the main school text book for at least a 100 years or so. Or how he feels about one of the first things the new congress did was to pray. Or how he feels about the many times a President of these United States has ask the nation for a day of prayer and fasting. traitor we are? I think in light of the history of this country and in light of the writtings of those who founded this country and in light of all the monuments that have been built that invoke God's name since the beginng of this once great country, he and those like him (can you say ACLU) could well be call traitors themselves.
Maranatha--come quickly Lord Jesus
In Christ
Tom
Slacker
  • Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:10 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
BobC: so I will ask this since you didn't answer it before, where in the constitution does it say that there is A WALL of Seperation... I have read the constitution and NOWHERE does it say that there is a WALL of SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE... the Wall of seperation that you mention actually came from a Thomas Jefferson speach he gave to the Danbury Baptist Society in Danbury Conn stating the following " there shall be a wall of seperation between the church and the state"... So I ask again where in the constitution does it say that there is a seperation of chuch and state.... I have read the constitution and my first amendment states the following "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor hinder the free expression thereof...

I understand you have alot of anger issues, someone has done something to you and you want to blame it on God, but please don't disrespect this country with your diatribes about traitors and such because as I see it the only problem in this country is that certain groups of people have made up history as THEY saw fit... Good day...
Prophet
  • Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:05 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Prophet
  • Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:59 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
I've been told worse.
Prophet
  • Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:49 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
The governor of Georgia just got run through the ringer for praying to God to help end their drought. Why? He's not forcing anyone else to. He's not making it a law that you have to pray to God. He's simply excercising his right to free speech. Bob would love to do away with free speech...which is also part of the first amendment. He wants part of the amendment, but wants to do away with part of it.
He puts himself under his own judgement when he says "Tom, The choice is respect the 1st Amendment, or be a traitor." He needs to respect the first amendment or be a traitor.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here