A federal judge in Utah "promised to decide the issue soon" and he has. David Sam yesterday ruled in favor of the state's Highway Patrol Association and against plaintiffs' argument that the separation of church and state is violated by13-foot memorial crosses erected on public land to honor fallen officers. In his decision (which begins on page 78) dismissing the case, the judge ruled that the "memorial crosses at issue communicate a secular message."
Plaintiffs request that this Court simply declare the UHPA's Latin crosses to be "exclusively religious" symbols without taking the context in which the UHPA displayed those crosses into account. Plaintiffs cite a number of cases in which courts declared that publicly-displayed Latin crosses violated the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs fail to state, however, that the courts in those cases examined the purpose and the context or use of the crosses before determining what the crosses communicated.
…
A community may come to recognize over time that a traditionally religious symbol does not necessarily endorse religion. For example, in Allegheny, the Supreme Court noted that "[a]lthough Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas." This progression occurred as Americans who did not subscribe to Christian beliefs increasingly placed Christmas trees in their homes. Just as the Christmas tree evolved into a secular symbol of celebration, the cross has evolved into a symbol capable of communicating a secular message of death and burial. While the cross retains its religious meaning when placed in religious contexts, it has transformed into a representation of death and burial when placed in pop culture settings and when used as a memorial.Like the Christmas tree, which took on secular symbolism as Americans used the tree without subscribing to a particular religious belief, the cross has attained a secular status as Americans have used it to honor the place where fallen soldiers and citizens lay buried, or had fatal accidents, regardless of their religious belief. And the progression of the cross from a religious to a secular symbol continues as crosses are increasingly used to symbolize death in advertising campaigns, films, television, and seasonal holiday decorations frequently having nothing to do with religion or a particular religious belief. Consequently, the court finds a reasonable observer, aware of the history and context of the community would not view the memorial crosses as a government endorsement of religion.
Thanks to Religion Clause for the links. This passage is striking in its diminishing of the cross toward a Christmas Tree-like secular appropriation. Was that really necessary to reach this end result? And is it true? Is that what the cross is today? It sounds as if families of the deceased troopers were able to approve of the symbol and request a different religious symbol if desired. Plus, the Association is a private entity, and the crosses are not paid for by any public money. Couldn't those facts be used to insulate the State here, without having to strip the cross of its religious significance? The Deseret Morning News notes that plaintiffs intend to appeal to the 10th Circuit. A federal judge in Utah "promised to decide the issue soon" and he has. David Sam yesterday ruled in favor of the state's Highway Patrol Association and against plaintiffs' argument that the separation of church and state is violated by13-foot memorial crosses erected on public land to honor fallen officers. In his decision (which begins on page 78) dismissing the case, the judge ruled that the "memorial crosses at issue communicate a secular message."
Plaintiffs request that this Court simply declare the UHPA's Latin crosses to be "exclusively religious" symbols without taking the context in which the UHPA displayed those crosses into account. Plaintiffs cite a number of cases in which courts declared that publicly-displayed Latin crosses violated the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs fail to state, however, that the courts in those cases examined the purpose and the context or use of the crosses before determining what the crosses communicated. … A community may come to recognize over time that a traditionally religious symbol does not necessarily endorse religion. For example, in Allegheny, the Supreme Court noted that "[a]lthough Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas." This progression occurred as Americans who did not subscribe to Christian beliefs increasingly placed Christmas trees in their homes. Just as the Christmas tree evolved into a secular symbol of celebration, the cross has evolved into a symbol capable of communicating a secular message of death and burial. While the cross retains its religious meaning when placed in religious contexts, it has transformed into a representation of death and burial when placed in pop culture settings and when used as a memorial. Like the Christmas tree, which took on secular symbolism as Americans used the tree without subscribing to a particular religious belief, the cross has attained a secular status as Americans have used it to honor the place where fallen soldiers and citizens lay buried, or had fatal accidents, regardless of their religious belief. And the progression of the cross from a religious to a secular symbol continues as crosses are increasingly used to symbolize death in advertising campaigns, films, television, and seasonal holiday decorations frequently having nothing to do with religion or a particular religious belief. Consequently, the court finds a reasonable observer, aware of the history and context of the community would not view the memorial crosses as a government endorsement of religion.
Thanks to Religion Clause for the links. This passage is striking in its diminishing of the cross toward a Christmas Tree-like secular appropriation. Was that really necessary to reach this end result? And is it true? Is that what the cross is today? It sounds as if families of the deceased troopers were able to approve of the symbol and request a different religious symbol if desired. Plus, the Association is a private entity, and the crosses are not paid for by any public money. Couldn't those facts be used to insulate the State here, without having to strip the cross of its religious significance? The Deseret Morning News notes that plaintiffs intend to appeal to the 10th Circuit.
