So, are you saying, that as an atheist, you'd be perfectly happy with a cross marking your grave?

Salt Lake Valley Atheists and American Atheists have a suit against the Utah Highway Patrol Association asking that the remove the 12' tall Crosses erected on public property marking the spot where a patrolman died in the line of duty. The suit also asks that the Utah HP emblem be removed from all such memorials. Last July I gave my deposition, something that I'm not accustomed of doing. I wish I had the panache that some activists have, but in the end I feel I held my own.

Here's how I feel about the subject, aside from using public lands for religious symbols. 

The monuments are there to commemorate the UHP Trooper's sacrifice for their service to the community.  The whole community.  Not just those that believe in a Christian god.  In Utah it is estimated that there are 225,000 to 250,000 Utahans that proclaim themselves Atheist of Agnostic.  Add to that thousands more that hold beliefs that are contrary to any deity that is represented by the cross.  It would be nice to have the confidence knowing that when we drive the hiways we are equally represented by the UHP who gets my tax dollars to operate. 

I don't really think that a trooper would single me out based on my Darwin fish or various bumper-stickers identifying me as Atheist, but can I be sure?  Might I fear being tasered like that of a recent individual?  12 foot tall Christian Crosses emblazed with the UHP logo give me pause.  Might it not be grounds of further suits as a basis of discrimination?  I could see that happening, not necessarily with me, I'm not the litigious type, but why not follow the constitution and keep 'em separate from the get-go.  I'm all for a monument, but why does it have to be of a religious nature?

And the cross NOT a religious symbol?  The Christian cross must may be the most recognized religious symbol the world over.  To say it is otherwise is ludicrous.  Even in this court case, the lawyers representing the UHP Association said that if a Jewish Trooper were to be killed they would erect a Star of David in lieu of the cross, then went on proclaiming the cross had no religious significance.

Wouldn't it be so much easier to erect a stone monolith with an American flag?

TheInerrantWord wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 5:55am:


Mormons don't do symbols--ironic, then, that they would participate so completely with the folks who want to leave the crosses up. 

As for PR, heck yeah, that wasn't good PR.  It's a battle we could fight, and sometimes you just have to go for what you can.  I would really love to sue for my daughter not to be exposed to Mormon Seminaries on her campus, even though they say it's not on the campus.  I'd really like to file a suit to stop requiring my child to say a Pledge of Allegiance that includes "Under God," because my child IS NOT subjected to being in the Missionary Position with a fake white-bearded mythical Freak.  But you fight what you can and this is one that was chosen for a fight. 

Similar thought:  I feel that gays should have pursued the right to separate marriage from legal state-given "marriage" rights, rather than pursuing marriage itself.  Civil Unions, or whatever you call them. 

Anyone can marry someone else, I've been to a lesbian wedding; no one comes storming into the wedding and arrests you.  The state just doesn't recognise it legally.  SO, if the religious nuts are so dead-set against us going to "heaven," or being with our partners in heaven, easy solution--just separate the legal rights out from the religious aspects.  I won't go to your church to get married if you don't want me to! 

But we were suckered into pursuing "marriage" with all of its religious implications.  I'd rather be able to walk into a courthouse and sign some papers saying my partner can be at my side in the hospital, inherit my property, and have tax benefits with me, instead of tying all of that up with religious sanctioning of our choice to live in the same house and sleep in the same bed.  WHO CARES?  But gays chased the wrong goal and ... lost. 

So, I agree--public relations has a lot to do with image, and success of ideas, and I'm not so sure that the crosses were good to chase down, but then, Atheists are so harrassed that I don't know that there's much we could chase down without bad PR.

While I respect the opinions of those of you who say that the law suit of the crosses was a poorly chosen battle, I would like to point out a few things.

First, Atheists of Utah is not involved in the suit. Due to our non-profit status, we cannot be. I believe it was Salt Lake Valley Atheists that brought the suit.

Also, from what I remember of Brian Barnard's presentation at a SLVA brunch last year, the major reasons for the suit were:

• granting of exclusive rights to one organization to use the Utah Highway Patrol emblem
• placement of some of the crosses on public land (this is akin to having 10 commandments monuments in public parks or courthouses)

I think that the defenders of the crosses are maintaining that the cross is a generic symbol for marking graves and not a religious symbol. I think that this will become the pivotal argument of the case. Much like whether or not "under god" in the pledge has any significant religious meaning any more. In order for the crosses to be acceptable on public lands, they will have to be deemed stripped of their religious significance.

Right battle? Wrong battle? I honestly don't know. But, as a tangential argument, I would like to say that I do know that even though I am sorry that an office lost his/her life in the line of duty, I do not want 12 foot crosses dotting the landscape. There is one that is very visible from I-15 somewhere between 7200 S. and 4500 S. I don't remember exactly where.

I know that police work is dangerous, and I am grateful that there are people willing to do that work- escpecially when they are working to keep us safe and not harassing us. However, they have to be aware of the risky nature of their jobs and I don't think that we need to start putting up public monuments to them when they die in the line of duty. Should we do this for other public servants who die while serving the community? How long should the monuments be up? Will there be a limit to the number that can be placed? We already have places to put up monuments to honor the dead- they're called cemeteries. With no disrespect intended to our law enforcement officers, I think that they should not be getting monuments placed where they happened to die, but they should get them in a cemetery just like everyone else.

If we do choose to honor them with a monument at the place where their lives were taken, I think it should be temporary- maybe no longer than a year. And, would it be so hard to find another symbol? Even if the cross has evolved into a generic grave marker, it still has its roots in Christianity and it still implies a certain reverence for that faith above any others. I don't think it would be so hard to use a different symbol.

godslacky wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2008 at 1:09am:

"It's just a seat on the bus, Mrs. Parks.  In the annals of the things, it's just insignificant"

Quote:

Part of the problem with the PR is the media.  They will always put their spin on the issue and the spin doesn't turn in our favor.  I find it hard to believe that my coments above would ever get press coverage.  Interviews with local parties involved were edited down to make them look heartless.  Letters to the editors of most of the papers didn't include those that wrote good editorials supporting our motives let alone our support for the troopers.  

Yeah ... personally, hey, I'm gonna be dead.  I'd rather be like my friend's mother, sitting in an urn on her kitchen.  That way my daughter can walk by and make comments to my jar once in a while.  The end.