This is sure to piss off some Jazzfanz

[Scat]

It's great you could fit two stupid ideas into such a short sentence. That saves electrons compared to your usual ratio.

And yet you did it in one... congrats!

 

[Scat]

And to think that a cross wouldn't elicit some sort of religious meaning is ridiculous. Plus the whole unnatural thing buried in the ground would kind of tell me something is buried there. Doesn't have to be a cross.

Hell, if I saw the Islamic crescent moon stuck into the ground, like this, but in the ground, I'd think, "Who's buried there?" Doesn't change the fact that it's still a religious symbol.

This doens't change the fact that when any educated person sees a cross planted in the ground they realize what it stands for. A person has fallen here and we are honoring them. Your need to be argumentative and obtuse is doing you no favors. Give it up. If you try hard enough maybe you may be twinkled. Nah, just kidding.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This doens't change the fact that when any educated person sees a cross planted in the ground they realize what it stands for. A person has fallen here and we are honoring them. Your need to be argumentative and obtuse is doing you no favors. Give it up. If you try hard enough maybe you may be twinkled. Nah, just kidding.

Which is completely religious and completely illegal for a government entity to endorse. Trying to pry the cross away from being a religious symbol just doesn't cut it.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Look, I'll admit that it's not a coincidence that the religious people are defending the cross saying it's "not religious". I mean, a fool can see that in that case, we clearly do think it's religious. Let's not cut the mustard here.

But the fact of the matter is that Christian symbols are the best in the world. They are just more appealing in my objective opinion. We'll plant our damn crosses and Jesus pictures wherever we please. We might hurt some feelings, but at least we're letting other people know we're Christian and we like to read bibles.

 

[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.