In 1998, the Utah Highway Patrol Association (UHPA) in a gesture of memory and gratitude began putting up 12-foot high crosses near places where Utah highway patrol officers died in the line of duty. Each cross showed the Highway Patrol Officer's insignia as well as his or her name.
The crosses are paid for by the Utah Highway Patrol Association with private dollars. They are privately owned and maintained. According to Lt. Lee Perry, U.H.P. Section One Commander, when someone drives by, they will recognize the crosses as symbolic for a person who died.
The crosses were the idea of Perry and his friend, former police officer Robert Kirby, now a columnist for The Salt Lake Tribune. Though the cross is not commonly used by Utah’s dominant religion, the LDS Church, they chose it because it could convey quickly to motorists a 'message of death, sacrifice, and honor.'
The program was implemented in freedom without interference from the State of Utah which "neither approves or disapproves of the memorial marker." If allowed to continue, the practice could through the years spread to other states as a reminder for highway safety in dedication for fallen officers. (See Washington State Patrol, Service with humility.)
American Atheists, Inc., can't believe that crosses are not necessarily Christian as an acceptable symbol of burial. They argued in Utah federal district court that the white crosses weren't chosen simply to honor comrades but that since those crosses have official Utah Highway Patrol logos and were on public property, they were therefore a government endorsement of Christianity.
In late 2007, the court decided that while the cross retained a religious meaning when in a religious context, it was understood and used by all as essentially a secular symbol representing death and/or burial when used as a memorial:
...the cross has attained a secular status as Americans have used it to honor the place where fallen soldiers and citizens lay buried, or had fatal accidents, regardless of their religious belief. And the progression of the cross from a religious to a secular symbol continues as crosses are increasingly used to symbolize death in advertising campaigns, films, television, and seasonal holiday decorations -- frequently having nothing to do with religion or a particular religious belief. Consequently, the court finds a reasonable observer, aware of the history and context of the community would not view the memorial crosses as a government endorsement of religion."
American Atheists didn't buy the argument but believe that every time they have to look at one or more of those crosses, then their separation of church and state rights are being violated. They appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit sided with them.
A three-judge panel said in its 38-page ruling (American Atheists v. Duncan (08-4061) that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the crosses indicate Christianity was being endorsed by government and to "fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP."
Though many roadsides show crosses placed by private individuals honoring a dead relative killed in car accidents, the court stated:
"The mere fact that the cross is a common symbol used in roadside memorials does not mean it is a secular symbol. The massive size of the crosses displayed on Utah's rights-of-way and public property unmistakably conveys a message of endorsement, proselytization, and aggrandizement of religion that is far different from the more humble spirit of small roadside crosses."
Shortly after the ruling, the Alliance Defense Fund stated, "One atheist group's agenda shouldn't diminish the sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and their families. The families of the fallen should be allowed to honor their loved ones as they wish."
Each of the 14 families approved the use of a cross even though not all of them were Christian believers.
David Silverman, the Vice President and National Spokesperson for American Atheists, Inc, said that his organization didn't want this fight but "How anybody could say crosses are not Christian is beyond all of us. It's completely inappropriate."
When Silverman heard the ADF might take this fight to the Supreme Court, he thought it wasn't worth it for them, "If they bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court to have the Court decide if crosses are not Christian, that will be a waste of time and a waste of Utah's money!"
The crosses will remain up until all appeals are exhausted.
Based on precedent, the ADF will most probably win at the Supreme Court as shown in from last April in regard to the Mojave cross, (Salazar v. Buono), a Latin cross which was placed atop a prominent rock outcropping in 1934 to honor war dead:
"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 religion’s role in society.”
After that ruling, vandals sneaked out into the desert and cut down and stole the cross.
Fortunately, after Utah's crosses are allowed to stay, they won't be so easy to make disappear.
For original article and references, click here.
"Yes, there have always been accidents, a wagon would turn over, a man would die. But the journeys of our grandfathers were slow, there was time to contemplate the relationship of life and death. Now time moves fast, cars and trucks race like demons on the highways, there is little time to contemplate. Death comes quickly, and often it comes to our young. Time has transformed the way we die, but time cannot transform the shadow of death." Descansos: An Interrupted Journey" Rudolfo Anaya, Juan Estevan Arellano and Denise Chavez (Del Norte,1995).
No comments:
Post a Comment