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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.