August 20, 2010, - 1:05 pm
As an American who is Jewish by faith, I’ve never been offended by crosses. It’s actually to the contrary. This is a Christian country, and I’m glad. As long as it remains so, I’m pretty sure I’ll be free to practice my religion. I view attacks on crosses and Christians in America as an attack on me and my Jewish religious observances.
That’s why it offends me when I read about court rulings like the one handed down by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, this week, claiming that 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Utah Highway Patrol troopers are “unconstitutional.” Read the full opinion here. (For the record, the three judges who issued the opinion were all appointed by Republicans–Harris L. Hartz is a George W. Bush Judge, and David M. Ebel and Deanell Reece Tacha are Ronald Reagan appointed judges. Tacha was on the George W. Bush short list for a Supreme Court nomination.)
The late troopers were all Christian (11 of them Mormon, and the LDS doesn’t use a cross, so this isn’t about the symbol), and the crosses were paid for with PRIVATE money. Putting crosses on highways and at road sites where someone was killed, particularly in a vehicular accident, is a common, touching practice in America . . . for now. And there is nothing wrong with it. Yet, the court, on Wednesday, claimed that the crosses convey a “state preference” for Chrisianity. Absurd. PUH-LEEZE. I doubt anyone thinks that when they see the crosses (one of which is pictured above). (And, if they do, they’re far too sensitive to live in America, and should try their luck with such a suit in Saudi Arabia . . . or even “liberal democratic” Iraq.) Yet the court went with this moronic view in a 38-page ruling, that included this baloney:
This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP [Utah Highway Patrol].
And I wonder if the court would be all up in arms about this . . . if there were Islamic crescents, not crosses erected on those roads. I think we know the answer. As I always say, America goes overboard on the church-and-state separation, but mosque-and-state . . . there is no separation, and we must “show our tolerance” to the intolerant Islamic world.
American Atheists, Inc. filed the suit. And I wonder, where is this atheist group in the Islamic world? Where are they in Dearbornistan, where football players at public high schools have organized Islamic prayer before games and where practice is held in the middle of the night to honor Ramadan?
Now, that’s where a student would have the justified idea that Muslims using public resources get preferential treatment. And, yet, no lawsuit . . . for now.
Tags: 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, American Atheists Inc., church and state, Court of Appeals, cross, crosses, David M. Ebel, Deanell Reece Tacha, George W. Bush, Harris L. Hartz, mosque and state, private money, public land, Republican, Republican-appoined, Ronald Reagan, Tenth Circuit, Utah, Utah Highway Patrol