Posted on 08/18/2010 5:52:03 PM PDT by NoLibZone
The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
A three-judge panel from Denver's 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 38-page ruling that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the state and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity with the cross memorials.
"This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP," the justices wrote.
The 12-foot high white crosses with 6-foot horizontal crossbars are affixed with the patrol's beehive logo and a biography of the deceased trooper.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
I wonder if they will be next?
- Speaker of the House wants Federal investigation of any that oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.
- State Department pays for Imams ME Trips.
- NY offers State land to move Mosque.
We deserve slaughter to make room for a better people.
FTFY
I think we need to investigate who exactly is behind this anti-cross movement.
Just change the cross to the BeeHive Logo with a large RIP sign and the info now on the cross. Problem solved and everybody will get the idea from the “RIP”. Will solve the problm when first Jewish Officer and or others are killed in the Line of Duty.
bookmark
We really have such blind idiots for judges nowadays?
Never had a run-in with highway patrol of Utah or any other state but just exactly how often is religion a factor in highway traffic enforcement?
1. Not enough Jewish troopers getting killed
2. Not enough Moslems getting inducted into the State Police so they can get killed
3. Not enough Buddhists joining up, and getting killed.
4. Most likely a shortage of suitible Hindus available to be applicants
5. Maybe a more aggressive stance by the Christian troopers in the face of evil with the result that probabilities catch up with them and they get killed at higher rates.
I would propose to the court that it would be quite reasonable, given their ruling, to round up troopers in other world religious groups and shoot them ~ to balance the statistics. Their own symbols could then be erected at the side of the road.
Are there any volunteers?
"I wonder if they will be next"
That is exactly what I was wondering.
The first time I went through that state and saw all those + it scared me realizing how many people had died along the highway and wondering if I would be next.
Don’t drink and drive and watch out for the moose, elk, deer, antelope, bear, big horns and large trucks crossing over into your lane. Drive something big yourself.
I would presume that they would have used religion-appropriate signs for non-Christian fallen troopers.
Personally, I think the bigger issue was the state spending tax dollars for 12x6 foot tall structures on the roads.
In any case, given that the Supreme Court allows states and the federal government to impose special fines and imprisonment on people who burn crosses, thus elevating the Christian Cross above every other religious symbol, it seems odd that an appeals court would rule against the crosses.
And Buffalo. Those guys can move fast if they want to.
Do they have a different version of the Constitution than we do?? My version specifically states that “CONGRESS” shall make no law....,; A free, Independent, and Sovereign State has no such statement regulating them. My version also says that in a “all case where a State is a Party, the Supreme Court Shall have original jurisdiction. The very idea that a State even wasted Taxpayer funds to defend itself before a repugnant inferior court is a travesty in and of itself. No State is EVER REQUIRED TO BOW BEFORE ANY COURT OTHER THAN THE US SUPREME COURT. Even then the Judiciary has NO POWER to Enforce Anything. Somewhere there has to be a Governor or Attorney General that can read the Constitution for what it ACTUALLY SAYS. At least thats what my version says, what about yours??
How many liberals are going to jump in front of the cameras and defend this?
Where is the ACLU now?
third post of this article in three hours.
please use the search function after you see it on drudge.
The ACLU was probably on the side of forcing the removal of the crosses.
When the judges rule, there is no law.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.