This is sure to piss off some Jazzfanz

[moevillini]

what I find ironic is that the Red Cross symbol signifies relief and comfort assistance, but the cross itself originally was a means of execution, a symbol of punishment and violence

talk about morphing....
I'm not sure where those early Christians learned their PR skills, but they sure have done a heck of a job

(unless the cross is burning of course, or appears to have burned, then that symbolizes something else entirely)

 

[roseparkjazzfan]

im not religous or anything close, by i think there should be crosses for the fallen officers. they gave thire lives and people should honor them

 

[GVC]

So if the family of a fallen officer doesn't feel comfortable with a cross being put up, they get nothing? Seems pretty insensitive and stupid to me, illegal or not.

 

[colton]

I haven't read this whole thread, but saying that the government is not allowed to use religious symbols as memorials for people who have fallen in the line of duty seems idiotic.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial)

 

[colton]

Notwithstanding the UHPA’s position, the State Defendants, in oral argument before the district court and in their briefs and argument before us, asserted that they would not allow any change in the memorial, whether to accommodate other faiths or otherwise.

In other words, only crosses would be allowed. Compare that to the Army's poisiton of having different symbols for memebers of different faiths, and that maight be a significant reason why one is constitutional and the other is not.

Ah, I see now. I didn't realize that other symbols were not being permitted for people of different faiths.

 

[GVC]

I see a Star of David...

 

[One Brow]

ONe other issue that seemed central, if not directly discussed, is having to drive past memorials versus going to cemetary. I'm not sure which was more important in the decision.

 

[Hopper]

Ah, I see now. I didn't realize that other symbols were not being permitted for people of different faiths.

The article Kicky cited actually says different things about this, Colton. It first says, for example:

"Before erecting any memorial, the UHPA obtained the consent of the fallen trooper’s family. None of these families have ever objected to the use of the cross as a memorial or requested that the UHPA memorialize their loved one using a different symbol. However, “ecause [the UHPA] exist to serve family members of highway patrolmen, the UHPA would provide another memorial symbol if requested by the family.” 2 (Aplt. App. at 1869.)"

So that was apparently the testimony at trial.

However, in a footnote it says: "(2) Notwithstanding the UHPA’s position, the State Defendants, in oral argument before the district court and in their briefs and argument before us, asserted that they would not allow any change in the memorial, whether to accommodate other faiths or otherwise."

So apparently some decision was made in the interim to harden their stance. Who knows why? Maybe because they wanted a clear issue and perhaps want to appeal it on that basis. I really doubt they would erect any memorial over the objection or protest of surviving family members.

 

[One Brow]

So apparently some decision was made in the interim to harden their stance. Who knows why? Maybe because they wanted a clear issue and perhaps want to appeal it on that basis. I really doubt they would erect any memorial over the objection or protest of surviving family members.

So, when the family does not wish to have a cross memorial, and the state refuses to erect any memorial that is not a cross, the result is that some families don't get a memorial strictly based on their devotion to their religion.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Actually, I believe what Hopper was saying is that he can gather various quotes and use them to create a huge post that says absolutely nothing we don't already know.