The Supreme Court has refused to take an appeal of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that sided with American Atheists: 12-foot-high white crosses erected along Utah roads as memorials for fallen Highway Patrol officers are unconstitutional. The crosses are massive, have the Highway Patrol emblem on them, are erected by a private organization, and are on public land. No one else has been allowed to do anything like this, secular or religious.
Apologists actually tried to argue that the massive crosses aren't even religious, never mind Christian.
The state said it was not endorsing religion by allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association to erect the crosses, rather it was memorializing the highway officers who died in the line of duty.
The Utah Legislature, after the lawsuit began, passed a resolution noting that a white cross "has become widely accepted as a symbol of a death, and not a religious symbol, when placed along a highway."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled for the atheists, concluding that the 13 cross memorials could convey to a "reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity."
The appeals court noted that each memorial uses "the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity" and "conspicuously bears the imprimatur of a state entity, the UHP."
"The fact that the cross includes biographical information about the fallen trooper does not diminish the governmental message endorsing Christianity," the appeals court wrote. "This is especially true because a motorist driving by one of the memorial crosses at 55-plus miles per hour may not notice, and certainly would not focus on, the biographical information. The motorist, however, is bound to notice the preeminent symbol of Christianity and the UHP insignia, linking the state to that religious sign."
When the 10th Circuit denied the patrol association's request for a rehearing, dissenting judges who wanted to reconsider the matter said the majority appeared to be trying to purge from the public sphere anything related to religion.
Source: USA Today
Keep this in mind whenever you hear people whining about secularists "purging religion from the public sphere." The impression such apologists are trying to give is that private, personal expressions of religion are being threatened. In reality, what they are defending are things like this: massive symbols of Christianity that are emblazoned with government endorsements and on public land where no one else is allowed to erect anything at all.
This is unambiguous endorsement of Christianity over all other religions and over secular beliefs. This is precisely the sort of thing which the separation of church and state exists to prevent, but it's also precisely the sort of thing which Christian Nationalists are desperate to have become part of the fabric of national life.
It's partly because they are theocratic authoritarians seeking to impose their religion on everyone but also because they know their religion doesn't appeal to people given free choices -- they are convinced that it's only through government endorsement that their religion can compete. And they are right about that, even though it's an admission that their religion is weak and worthless.
The Supreme Court refusal to hear the appeal was noteworthy for the strongly-worded dissent issued by Clarence Thomas. He has never expressed the slightest sympathy for church/state separation; on the contrary, whenever he's spoken on the issue (and he speaks very little), he has expressed more support for state-level theocracy.
One might think that the case is now over -- the courts have ruled, so the crosses have to come down. Right? Well, maybe not. Republican politicians in Utah seem to have little or no respect for the Constitution, church/state separation, or the authority of the courts:
"I don't buy that this is about separation between church and state," [State Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman] said. "This continued fight is about whether the state of Utah will allow atheists to have carte blanche authority."
Further, Wimmer said the crosses boiled down to a "sovereignty issue" and Utah has a right to memorialize troopers however it chooses, despite the federal courts.
One option, Wimmer said, would be to privatize the land on which the crosses stand. He said there may be other options, but did not elaborate. ...
Beyond that, [Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council] said the federal courts have shown "disrespect" to the troopers and their families. "The court says tear them down at a time when we should give memorials to ease the families' loss."
Source: The Salt Lake Tribune
I'm sure that Carl Wimmer is sincere in being upset that atheists have won a victory -- but notice that he doesn't offer anything remotely like a legal argument against the decision. No, it's just the fact that atheists were on the winning side of the court case that seems to bother him. Imagine if it were a Jewish group that filed the lawsuit and Carl Wimmer was whining about Jews having "carte blanche authority" to... well, to do what, exactly?
To tell Christians that they are breaking the law, that they can't abuse their power to seize special privileges for themselves, and that the law requires that Christians and Jews be treated the same.
That's what bothers Christians like Carl Wimmer -- that a minority, be it atheists, Jews, or someone else, has the temerity to tell Christians that they are doing something wrong. Christians like Wimmer don't like it when uppity minorities presume to assert their equality before the law. Minorities should know their place and be thankful that they aren't exterminated, right?
Notice that the only groups coming to Utah's defense are Christian groups -- like the Family Research Council. The Christian cross isn't a Christian symbol and when the state gives a private group the right to erect Christian crosses that isn't an endorsement of Christianity, but Christian organizations -- and specifically organizations with a history of pushing theocratic policies -- are the only ones which object to the decision. Curious, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment