Atheists cross at memorial

American Atheists have filed a lawsuit to remove the 12 foot high steel crosses that memorialize Utah Highway Patrol troopers who have died in the line of duty. The crosses are on public land and the atheists claim this is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The suit seeks $1 in damages, and a ruling from the U.S. District Court that the use of the Utah Highway Patrol logo on the crosses and their presence on government property is illegal.

Many family members and colleagues of the fallen officers are angry:

"As a trooper, it makes me feel bad that it's even an issue. I know a couple of these troopers that have fallen and it's personal to us. We would hope the memorial of these troopers wouldn't be tarnished by any means."

Now, the atheists may be technically correct, and I understand the issue is the protection of the non-Christian minority, but I’m afraid I am going to have to disagree with the class on this one. Don’t get me wrong. I like to point and laugh at Christians with their silly rituals and beliefs as much as the next atheist. But I would suggest this action is going to get very little support among the public, will make atheists look mean and foolish, and is likely to provoke a backlash. (Already a rally is being planned.) More importantly, we should have compassion for the relatives of the fallen officers and their colleagues who drive these streets every day. These people have apparently all decided that they want the crosses to honor their dead, and who are we to say they can’t have them?

Look at this:

This is the Arlington National Cemetery. Look closely: you’ll see crosses on all the headstones. The government uses a uniform headstone that can be inscribed with any symbol representing the deceased's religious beliefs. Along with a generic cross are symbols for other groups, including Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists. Surely the authorities could be persuaded to allow future families to have different symbols if they want them? Wouldn’t this be a better way than filing a lawsuit?

I think this action is likely to be counter productive. This lawsuit gives the appearance of atheists picking on the bereaving families of fallen heroes.  We should let this one go, and focus instead on more important issues.

Comments

[Josh]

Well argued.

[Thomas]

Yeah, although I agree with my fellow atheists in principle, in this case there's got to be a better target to go after. I don't need this dragged back up the next time someone wants to argue about how immoral my lack of religion is.

[Scott de B.]

I agree 100%. I don't find this objectionable, as long as the family of an officer can choose not to have a cross.

[BronzeDog]

More agreement over here.

If, however, they had put up a cross for a non-Christian officer, you'd be hearing me object. Quite loudly.

As it stands, my only objection is that a 12-foot cross is a bit too gaudy for my tastes.

Ideally, I'd prefer all graveyards to be non-government. Not sure about how feasable that would be, though.

[Prometheus]

Just a quibble, Skeptico. Not all of the headstones at Arlington have crosses - quite a few of them have the Star of David. Other religious symbols are also in evidence, although less common. The Armed Forces are very careful about matching the symbol on the headstone with the service member's recorded religious preference (it's on the dog tag).

Other than that, I'd have to agree - this may be a technical violation of the Establishment clause, but it isn't a worthy target and is likely to cause more harm to the cause of religious freedom (which includes the freedom to have no religion).

As tempting as it is to go after every case where religious symbology or practices are supported or promoted by government, we do have to pick our battles. Eventually, even the religious majority in the US will come to realize when they are being offensive, just as (most) people have learned not to use demeaning or offensive terms when referring to other minorities. Or, so I hope.

Prometheus

[grant]

try and take down these crosses and i'llput the fear of god in you oh god i said god what was i thinking "idiots"

[BronzeDog]

Methinks grant didn't read anything except the title and the pictures.

And, of course, that whole "fear of god" thing is the barbaric tactic known as "argumentum ad bacculum."