• Kari

    Wow. That news story had a bit of a slant starting with the tone of the phrase “a group of Atheists.” That’s how most people refer to thugs in the mall.

  • http://megavore.blogspot.com Megavore

    Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this story is the makeshift pvc pipe cross that was made for the news anchor to hold in the studio for visual reference. I’m going to sue ABC for making a cross out of what I would term “unholy” materials. I’m also going to sue the Atheists for being a-holes. I’d hate to see these Atheists reaction to Arlington Cemetery.

  • Candi

    I did learn something though — “A cross is not a religious symbol.” WTF? People are just dumb. That pvc prop was a hoot! Because I really needed that visual.

  • http://workman.blogspot.com workman

    Oy. In terms of the story, I second the opinions on the PVC cross. Do we all really need a reminder what a cross is?

    In terms of the athiest’s case, in the most technical reading of the law, they’re probably right, but in every other way they’re very wrong. They’re memorials for police who have died. If the families of the fallen officers had objected (or wanted a star of David or non-denominational oblisk or whatever) then I could see people making a stink (but not a court case) at the UHP.

    Also, if you’re trying to make the case for atheism, trying to dismantle memorials to dead police probably isn’t the route to go.

  • southerngirl

    Who in hell came up with the pvc pipe cross idea????? That was the real hoot in this story. Local news is always fun.

    I agree with “The Atheists”. If the Christian crosses are paid for with public funds and on public property, it’s a violation of the Constitution.

    If the UHP wants to honor fallen officers, they need to raise private funds and erect a marble memorial with the dead officers names on it at UHP headquarters.

    And has anyone seen the manifesto of “The Atheist Agenda”? Now that would be a scary read. ; )

  • http://fiddley.com Pete Dunn

    Dear fellow atheists, this isn’t about you. Shut up.

    I have no problem honoring officers with public funds in whatever way honors them best. If they were Christian, then a cross is perfectly appropriate.

  • john

    I don’t have anything to add to this discussion, but I do want to say that “non-denominational oblisk” is one of the coolest things I’ve read in a long time.

  • http://psychicgeek.com witchypoo

    Who knew that plumbers had their own crosses?
    Seriously, atheists: have you been to a cemetary?

  • mick

    @Megavore:

    Arlington recognizes many different “emblems of belief”. Was every officer christian?

  • http://megavore.blogspot.com Megavore

    Arlington does recognize many emblems, but if you’ve ever been there it is a sea of crosses, and it is horribly moving. The Atheists kind of get the shaft there too though, as their emblem rather closely resembles the symbol for nuclear energy, as Ahmadinejad would remind us.
    What exactly is that symbol meant to represent — I am Atheist therefore I believe in the power of the natural order, starting with the all-powerful atom. Perhaps this one is better …

  • http://megavore.blogspot.com Megavore

    pic links didn’t work : (

  • lostinutah

    As a Christian, I actually support the atheists on a lot of what they bring up. It’s about everyone, not just my gang. However, in this case, I’m with Pete. If the guy was a Christian, dammit, let him have a cross.

    It’s like the soldier from Reno who was killed in Iraq — he was Wiccan and the army was fighting his widow on having that on his tombstone. Though that is what he truly believed in. Ridiculous.

  • Kathryn

    I have to agree with Pete on this one– unless the family of the officer has an issue with the cross being posted, it shouldn’t be challenged. If he was Christian and that’s the best way to honor him, then go for it.

    On the other hand, I did get a laugh out of the lawyer for the state repeatedly claiming that “the cross isn’t a religious symbol.” I don’t know what he’s smoking, but could I please have some?

  • southerngirl

    Pete & Kathryn–

    A question borne strictly out of curiousity– religion aside, do you think those large, ugly crosses are the right way to honor fallen UHP officers?

    I think those huge, makeshift crosses look ghastly. I wouldn’t want anyone I held in high esteem–Christian or otherwise– “honored” with one of those things, and I certainly wouldn’t want them alongside my roadways.

    It seems like UHP could come up with a better way to memorialize the officers and abide by our Consitution at the same time.

  • http://fiddley.com Pete Dunn

    I honestly think that’s up the UHP, its officers and their families to decide. After all, it is their tribute.

  • http://fiddley.com Pete Dunn

    In reply to: “It seems like UHP could come up with a better way to memorialize the officers and abide by our Consitution at the same time.”

    I’m not convinced that erecting a religious symbol to honor a fallen police officer even comes close to “[Congress making a law] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    The UHP is not Congress and putting up crosses is hardly the establishment of a religion. I think people are a bit jumpy on this one.

  • http://www.digitalcatharsis.com the mighty jimbo

    as an agnostic and former catholic, i’m frequently baffled by some of the fights in which both athiests and christians choose to engage.

    i agree, public funds to promote religious agendas are unconstitutional, but is it really hurting anyone to use a christian symbol to commemorate a fallen soldier or lawman? crosses are a christian symbol to be sure, but they are also used in countless designs, brands, and art.

    i’ll go to the trenches to fight when a clearly theocratic agenda is trying to impose their beliefs to take away my freedoms or rights. but using a christian symbol should offend no one when it has become so ingrained into american culture.

    the whole thing seems wildly irrational by everyone. of course, you could invoke the oft overused slippery slope argument, but again, can’t we be rational about this?

    it seems a waste of everyone’s resources to fight for a word in the pledge or a sentence on our currency or the symbols used in our memorials when there are way bigger issues all around us. give them their crosses, but don’t dare take away evolution in our schools. keep the pledge, but give everyone the right to marry.

    choose your fight, that’s all i’m trying to say.

  • southerngirl

    Pete,

    I agree that this is not a major skirmish in the battle of church v. state, but religious fundamentalists, along with our current Administration, are constantly chipping away at the line between state policy and church doctrine. And I believe someone has to be there to hold the line for the state, even on small issues like this.

    The main thing that bothers me about this issue is that state funds are being used to erect religious symbols on state property. That to me crosses the line.

    It has nothing to do with honoring the fallen UHP officers, which I think is a good thing. I just think the memorial could be done with less religion and more honor. For instance, I think the Vietnam War Memorial is one of the most outstanding monuments of our times.

  • Dave K

    OK, I know this is a little old, but this is the thing that bugs me about this issue: http://​origin​.sltrib​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​c​i​_​7​467532 quote “Byron Babione, an attorney for the association, said no other group has asked to set up a different kind of memorial to troopers. He said that on request, the association would accommodate another symbol, such as a Star of David for a Jewish trooper.“
    The acknowledgment that another religious group may be offended by the symbol of the cross, and therefore a substitution could/would be made. But it’s OK to offend an atheist? If the family were secular and objected to the cross, what symbol would they be willing to provide?