Deegan said:
That is the source, if they want those crosses removed, what is the difference? I said that I heard him say this, and I can't remember which program, but the proofs in the pudding. If they will fight to have these removed, why would Arlington not be next on their hit list. I find it disgusting you would agree with their stance on the cross, as it is an international sign of the dead. What else could they put up to signify their dead relative died here protecting others, a tomb for cris sake?
What is "that"? What is your sourse in the first place? I went to the Amrican Atheists website and read about Utah.
"THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) CROSS BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD -- ATHEISTS IN COURT TO REMOVE CHRISTIAN HIGHWAY MEMORIALS
Web Posted: December 5, 2005
American Atheists went to federal court this week to stop the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Department of Transportation from erecting large metal Christian crosses on state property that honor state troopers killed in the line of duty.
The petition, filed by constitutional attorney Brian Barnard of the Utah Legal Clinic also seeks immediate removal of existing memorial crosses in six known locations, including a Utah Highway Patrol facility.
"The crosses are intentionally erected by the (Utah Highway Patrol) Association in prominent places visible to the general public," notes the court affidavit. "They are visible to motorists using the adjacent roads and highways owned by the State of Utah... Each cross was erected on real property owned and/or controlled by the State of Utah..."
Joining in the action are three members of American Atheists: Stephen Clark; Utah State Director Michael D. Rivers; and veteran First Amendment activist Richard Andrews.
monthly special The suit seeks $1 in damages, and a ruling from the U.S. District Court that the use of the Utah Highway Patrol logo on the crosses and their presence on government property is illegal. Mr. Barnard argues the practices violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and a similar provision in the Utah State Constitution.
Defendants include representatives the State Highway Patrol, Utah Department of Transportation and the Department of Administrative Services.
Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists said that the suit is the first of many that will be filed seeking the removal of other Christian crosses and memorials on public highway right-of-ways in other states.
"It's a growing problem across the country," Johnson told reporters. "We end up with these little Christian shrines everywhere."
Mike Rivers, Utah State Director for American Atheists said that by permitting the crosses on public property, "The state is giving the impression that government is endorsing religion."
"We know that religionists are going to scream about this lawsuit and claim it's an example of discrimination," he added. "But the government has no business promoting one religion over another, or religion in general."
Ironically, the state Transportation Department has a specific regulation prohibiting the placement of religious symbols and shrines on or adjacent to any public highway. It is also state policy to remove the illegal memorials. Citizens may place wildflowers along a road, however, get involved in the Adapt-A-Highway program, or sponsor a "memorial sign" with a secular safety message like "Drowsy Driving Kills."
The several Christian crosses referred to in the Atheist lawsuit were erected by the Utah Highway Patrol Association beginning in the early 1990s. The group is a private, nonprofit organization with the goal of "supporting Utah State Highway Patrol Officers and acknowledging these troopers' service to the people of the State of Utah." It has also been granted the use of the official Utah Highway Patrol logo, which is placed conspicuously on the 12-foot-high crosses erected near the location where troopers died in the line of duty. All of those locations are public property.
That's the constitutional problem according to Mr. Barnard who has filed dozens of First Amendment cases over the years, including legal challenges to public displays of the Ten Commandments.
"The presence of the Latin crosses on government owned property with the Utah Highway Patrol logo prominently displayed thereon has the primary effect to advance religion, and conveys or attempts to convey the message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred," wrote Barnard. "The reaction of the average receiver of the government communication or average observer of the government action is that of endorsement of religion and particularly of Christianity..."
Jeff Nigbur, a spokesman for the Highway Patrol, told the Deseret Morning News that the cross symbol was selected "because it is the international sign of peace, and it has no religious significance in it." He also maintained that "a large number" of crosses were placed on private property adjacent to public roads.
Barnard described that claim as "less than honest," adding that the Latin cross is a symbol of the Christian religion.
"I don't think there is any question that troopers should be honored. They have given the ultimate sacrifice," said Mr. Barnard. "But they can be honored in a way that doesn't emphasize religion."
As for the property issue, Barnard provided the media and the court with details on the locations of the Christian memorials along with photographs.
Mike Rivers said that the goal of the American Atheists lawsuit was not to stop the honoring of fallen troopers but rather Utah's blatant promotion of sectarian religion.
"We feel the department of transportation, by allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association to pick a religious symbol is unfair. We think that it should be totally secular with no religious theme."
The claim that the crosses were "nonreligious" didn't sit well with one "self-proclaimed God-fearing American" who talked to the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper, and supports the religious monuments.
David Tabish told the newspaper that the American Atheists suit was just another example of creeping secularization.
"We've taken God out of the schools, out of city council meetings and taken the Ten Commandments out of government," Tabish complained. "It's time we stand up and put God back in our country."
He added that he will be organizing a public march to support the Christian cross memorials, and will picket the federal courthouse when proceedings begin."
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/utah12.htm
There is a HUGE difference. Just read above. You don't have Athiests taking down crosses off of peoples' grave, but you do have them demanding that crosses put up by the state as memorials with Utah Highway Patrol logos on them and being erected on state property, no less, is inappropriate. That is the difference.
So, you have no proof of what Dave Silverman said (I've contacted him and I will quote what he says), nevermind that there is a disclaimer on his blog "Dave's opinions are not always the opinions of American Atheists, Inc".
You went from "They want to remove the crosses from the cemeteries at Arlington" to "If they will fight to have these removed, why would Arlington not be next on their hit list." In just a couple of posts you went from stating fact to conjecture. And that's all you have to back this up.
As for the cross being "an international sign of the dead", you surely haven't gotten out much (or read much either). Go to any Muslim country and you will not see crosses on graves, but crescents. In fact, I'm pretty sure you will only see crosses on Christian graves which are in countries where there is a large Christian population. It's hardly international, except among Christians. You can put a memorial that says something along the lines of "In the memory of fallen Utah state troppers" in a large letters. I find it disgusting you would have people who AREN'T Christian have a big cross put up in their name posthumously inferring they were Christian. There's something similar that happened in my family which I won't go into here, but suffice it to say I certainly can relate to how these Atheists feel, even though I'm not. I wonder how you would feel if instead it was a huge Muslim crescent being put up by the state to recognize these state troopers and just think how you'd feel if one of them was a Christian relative of yours. I hope you now at least have some empathy.
