Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway
We read:
"A federal appeals court says the 14 crosses erected along state highways to commemorate fallen Utah Highway Patrol troopers are a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the memorials had the effect of conveying a state endorsement or preference of a certain religion.
The ruling reverses a 2007 judge's decision that the crosses communicate a secular message about deaths and were not an illegal public endorsement of religion.
The Texas-based American Atheists Inc., sued to have the crosses removed from state property. The group claimed that without context the crosses imply that trooper who died there was a Christian. [Rubbish! All sorts of people who were not religious during their lives have Christian rites at burial for purely social reasons]
Source
A cross is a conventional marker of mourning in the USA and many other countries -- many of which (such as Britain) are only minimally religious -- so might well have been allowed on those grounds.
In any case, however, the crosses do NOT "establish" a religion. The State would have to be paying the clergy for that to be the case.
Next stop would be SCOTUS but that would be unlikely to be successful as SCOTUS does accept the spurious claim that the constitution demands a separation of church and State -- a much wider demand than forbidding an established church, which is what the constitution actually says
5 comments:
This is another example of why the Left has worked so hard for decades to get what's actually in the Constitution changed to what they want it to be. It's what they mean when they say the Constitution should be a "living document". "Living", as in, able to manipulate, adjust, tweek, and change as they see fit, while ignoring and bypassing the people.
Many people believe that having a half/black Marxist as US president, as is the case, was what the radical Left wanted. It was not. Sure, it was a great 2nd place prize, but only because it gave them faster access to the First Place prize. That was, and continues to be, the SCOTUS. Almost everything a US president does can be reversed, but there are no erasers, delete or rewind buttons at the SCOTUS. What they say stands and can literally change a society for many generations. And unlike the gullible fools who believed everything Obama said during his campaign, rational people understand that change is not always for the better.
Far too many Americans still don't realize or understand that their country, their society, indeed, their very way of life, are all in "very" serious trouble. They still believe they live in a free country in spite of the fact that there is evidence to the contrary every day. The American people no longer have the beauty of freedom. What they now have is the illusion of freedom, and even that illusion is fast being washed away.
Freedom, like pure, clean water, is essential to our way of life. But people used to freedom can not survive on a simple illusion, just as a man dying of thirst can not survive on the illusion of water.
Does this mean that our National cemeteries, where our war heros are buried, and where the majority of grave symbols are crosses, are now illegal?
Anytime you give someone a job for life, (federal judges) without them having to account to anyone, you create a mini-God with the power to abuse. This is not a good thing!
Regarding Anon 5:15...
What a DICK! I pray that you and your ilk get prostate cancer and kick the proverbial bucket. Not a threat, just an opinion.
How pathetic.
So if several of the officers happened to be Jewish and they erected a star of David for those officers, would that establish a state religion of Judaism? if one of the officers was a Muslim and they erected a crescent and star to memorialize him, would that establish a state religion of Islam?
The fact is that all officers were of the Christian religion, so their memorial should reflect it. Were they of other religions, I would expect the memorials to reflect those as well.
-sig
I find it amazing that Jon, an Australian, has a better grasp of our constitution than those elected or appointed to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Post a Comment