[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by malaekat

I simply view crosses as little road signs warning me that that particular area might be hazardous as a driver I appreciate being warned. Crosses are not considered so much as a religious symbol anymore in the context of their use. I have many aethist friends as well as other friends of other cultures who use crosses for gravemarkers in the context of use it is not a christian symbol but a recognizable symbol of respect. Perhaps you are being a little too sensitive about the shape after all it is just a shape like a stop sign or a road flare. But then again maybe you view the shape of a flare to be an offensive misuse of a triangle.

Thanks for your insight and response, Malaekat. (I know I am not a favorite of yours.) About how you like being "warned"... I guess I can see that. Perhaps, it is that (although I don't run a dedicated route,) I take these same interstates to the West Coast every other week or so. I am not a stranger to these roads, or vice versa. I KNOW this curve or that is dangerous, and each week I see ANOTHER cross on some of those curves! And each one seems to try to OUTDO the other! They are not gravemarkers, as the dead are not buried there, they are Memorials. I can tell by the sizes of the crosses, exactly how many children died, and whether the mother died along with the father! As for shapes, some of them are Byzantine in nature ( I guess those are orthodox Catholic or something ) and some are Jewish. Others are plain, as I said. Some have flags waving off of them, as if to say, THIS guy was patriotic, and the rest of you weren't! :?

I've seen rows and rows of small plain white crosses in National Cemeteries, and I can hardly keep from crying! I hope someday to be buried in a National Cemetery with but a simple white cross, and I barely know if I deserve it!

But, if I die on some dangerous curve on a public highway, I DON'T want or expect to be "memorialized" there! I believe memorials are for the great people of our society. But, it seems that EVER since Columbine, this nation has gone crazy with memorials to every tragedy, no matter how simple or inconsequential.

And how SAD it is, that SOME of these "roadside memorials" often fall into disarray, when those who cared enough to plant them, move on with their lives, and no longer maintain them. So, NOW.... I'm not only faced with a reminder of a death, but ALSO of a life long forgotten!

I don't really KNOW what motivates my distaste of these memorials. Is it Constitutional correctness? Moral Majority paranoia? A sense of my own mortality? Or unwanted episodes of sympathy? If I KNEW the answer.... I wouldn't have asked the question!

I do NOT believe it is antiSemitism (I have many Jewish friends as well,) or anti Hispanic bigotry. I may be a bit Agnostic, but I don't believe I'm atheistic.... or at least not militantly so! :lol:

I hope others will respond with opinions OR castigations! I have truely been searching for the answer to this for months now. It took me that long to decide to make this thread! I no longer know if I am bothered MORE by the crosses.... or by my reaction to them!

It is not easy for me to ask for help.

Thanks,

Hobo

[GMAN]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



There is no such thing as separation of church and state. The state cannot legally prohibit those who wish to express their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the ACLU and others have pounded into our heads that there is a constitutional separation of church and state until some actually believe it. The amendment prohibits the state or government from establishing a state religion, such as in some of the Islamic states like Iran.

I don't have a problem with people putting crosses up on public highways where they have lost loved ones. After all, the government is or should be made up of us, the citizens of the U.S. The land on which those roadways were built was taken constitutionally by using eminent domain. It was the people who owned that property before the government took it. Having crosses on the highway should remind us that we need to be careful. I think it can give solace to those who place them.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by PackRatTDI

There is a local guy here that has tried repeatedly to get our city to remove the 3 crosses logo from the city seal because it violated the separation of church and state.

The seal is 3 crosses within a blazing sun. The seal was designed in 1948 t be premiered for the city's centennial celebration in 1949.

The ACLU has refused to help him with this case because the NM chapter acknowledges that the three crosses are historical, not religious in nature. While the exact origin is in dispute, most stories seem to follow along a similar theme, that a group of Spanish travelers heading to Santa Fe from El Paso Del Norte (now Cd. Juarez) were attacked and killed by Apache raiders. The dead were buried and the scene marked by crosses. When the Spanish later started settling in this area, they named the area" "El Pueblo del Jardín de Las Cruces" (The Village of the Garden of the Crosses). It was later shortened to Las Cruces when the town was officially founded in 1849.

A beautiful story, Packrat! I'm a BIG fan of the city of Las Cruces! I stop there every chance I get! I think I heard about this (through my googles) at one time, but I thought it was a town in Cali. It was on the news for awhile! Anyway, I certainly WOULD NOT want this suit to succeed in YOUR town, or any other! As I said, I am not ALWAYS a fan of what the ACLU does! If the town in named "Las Cruces," it follows that crosses would be part of the town "seal" or logo! I am NOT for "removing" any semblance of religion from our society! And certainly NOT against crosses being part of a logo for a town named after CROSSES! :roll:

The gentleman in question .... was an idiot! and Gov. Bill Richardson personally ordered the NMDOT to not remove the symbol.

I don't always know what to think of Gov Bill..... but I like his style!

His lawsuits are more of an attention getting method for his little "atheist rights" group which is comprised of about 2-3 members, depending on who you talk to.

I have no problem with Atheists, individually or in a group. As LONG as they don't try to force THEIR views on others in this country! (Of course, I feel similarly about "moralists.") :lol:

This may not be a "popular" statement but, I believe that MINORITY views should have a voice, but they should realize it is a MINORITY voice.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by nrvsreck

Hmm... maybe going a bit overboard on this one, don't ya think? I'm also very liberal and not Christian in the least, but I don't see anything wrong with people marking the sites of where their loved ones died along the highway. I suppose many of them are Christian so... therefore, crosses. And I'd think it very callous for the state DOT's to remove them.

I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, but I'm not buying your argument on this one. :roll:

Well... I'm not really asking anyone to BUY my argument! And perhaps it IS over the top, but I didn't intend it to be so! I was only asking for opinions and insight, and you have given me a GOOD one! Thanks!

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by PackRatTDI

I seem to recall that it was decided that this wasn't a violation of the separation of church and state because it was private individuals putting up the crosses, not the state and it fell under the same category as students holding their own prayer meetings on school property or at intramural activities. The only legal violations may be state specific laws against placing private "signs and memorials" on state right of ways.

The regulations vary from state to state. They're more restrictive in Colorado, Massachussets and Wisconsin, where the law specifically prohibits them. Other states don't seem to take a position. Other states allow a family to have a state maintained sign placed at the scene of a fatality accident, usually restricted to DWI accidents. Colorado changed their law to allow CDOT maintained signs placed at all accident scenes with fatalities that took place after May 1, 2004. The families pay the cost of the sign installation and it's maintained as any other road sign by the DOT.

FWIW, the Spanish name for these memorials is Descansos, which literally means "place of rest"

VERY good points and information, Packrat! I hadn't heard about this. (the roadside cross decision.) I can SEE where it is similar to the decision to allow prayer meetings on school grounds, as long as they weren't LED by, or IMPOSED by school officials. That WAS a "compromise" that allowed state property to be used for religious purposes as long as it was not "mandated" or supported by the school system. I agree that it would not be fair to DISCRIMINATE against religious groups, in favor of non-religious, when EACH pay the same taxes for the property! But, I am STILL uncomfortable with THIS "display." (perhaps, your info will help me get over it.)

I also want to thank you for introducing me to the word Descansos! I am always eager to learn MORE of any foreign language! Of course, I have to point out that this word is not proper... as this roadside spot is NOT the "place of rest" for these who have passed on! I'm pretty sure they have found a place of rest in a cemetery somewhere, but I'm pretty sure that I am the ONLY one who cares that something was lost in translation!! :lol:

{{ Unless, of course, they think that the SPIRIT remains "at rest" where the bodied died! }} :shock: :shock:

Thanks again!

[Slimland]

Well I agree with GMan on the understanding of the seperation of church and state..

But that being said I agree with Hobo on the crosses and other things on the side of the road..I think it is a distraction, and could cause an accident No matter what Religion, or ethnic background..

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by GMAN

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course you know that I am very familiar with this Ammendment! :lol: But, I will admit that I have not fully considered the "free expression thereof" part in THIS situation! Thanks, for reminding me!

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. The state cannot legally prohibit those who wish to express their religious beliefs.

Of course I agree with the second part of that, but must respectfully disagree with the first part!

One cannot, in good faith, ignore an elephant in the room! Whether "explicitly" worded (to your satisfaction) as a section or ammendment to the Constitution or not, (which it WAS) there is no doubt that our founding fathers MEANT that the governing of the Union should be SEPARATE from the FREE expression of religion by its citizens, and likewise from the oppression of religious laws! Specifically, at the time, from the laws imposed by the Church of England, from which they fled.... and equally relevant to the Islamic fundamentalism that so many other countries languish under today. It is, indeed, ONLY this concept that provides for the tax exempt status of ANY church in the nation.


Unfortunately, the ACLU and others have pounded into our heads that there is a constitutional separation of church and state until some actually believe it. The amendment prohibits the state or government from establishing a state religion, such as in some of the Islamic states like Iran.

This IS, IMHO, the more relevant part of the ammendment, but as you point out, not the ONLY protection provided by it! As a result of the FIRST part of it, I would have thought it might be unconstitutional for the "STATE" to allow crosses to be placed along public roadways. But, I can certainly see (also with Packrats help,) that it might be unconstitutional to PROHIBIT such displays by individuals on this same public land.

I don't have a problem with people putting crosses up on public highways where they have lost loved ones. After all, the government is or should be made up of us, the citizens of the U.S. The land on which those roadways were built was taken constitutionally by using eminent domain. It was the people who owned that property before the government took it.

Not ALL of it. Much of the land crossed by interstates (at least) was BLM land! And much of the "private" land that was "domained" was GIVEN to the people by the government. I'm speaking in terms of WESTERN territories, of course, but very LITTLE of that land was ever PAID for by an American citizen. Carving a public highway out of the "Land Grants" of Maryland or Pennsylvania, of course, would have been different! :lol:

But, I take your point that it is Public Land, and therefore we cannot prohibit the free expression of religion thereupon. Interestingly, though, hitchhiking IS prohibited! :lol: Hmmm.....

Having crosses on the highway should remind us that we need to be careful. I think it can give solace to those who place them.

So would CAUTION signs! And I can't help but believe that "solace" is not the motivation!! [we have cemeteries for that purpose] And does the family (who may have never even BEEN there, or may never return) have a right to "consolation" on public land, that trumps my right NOT to be "disturbed" by such memorials on that same public land?

To be honest, and NOT meaning to be a "twit," I find these memorials to be a DISTRACTION as I drive my 80k lb rig down the road! [that's 80M to YOU, Gman! :lol: ]

[greg3564]

Not ALL of it. Much of the land crossed by interstates (at least) was BLM land! And much of the "private" land that was "domained" was GIVEN to the people by the government. I'm speaking in terms of WESTERN territories, of course, but very LITTLE of that land was ever PAID for by an American citizen. Carving a public highway out of the "Land Grants" of Maryland or Pennsylvania, of course, would have been different!

We really should ask the Native Americans what they think of land that was "private", "domained", "given".

Back to the subject. I think the crosses or whatever marker, is fine and at the very worst it will remind you that someone died here and to be careful.

Interesting tidbit about church and state. I grew up in Simi Valley, CA. On a prominent hilltop there is a large cross that goes back at least a hundred years or more. The missionaries placed it as a marker for others to find while travelling in between the various missions.

The land the cross sat on eventually belonged to private owners. When those owners were looking to sell the land to developers approx 10 years ago, the Simi Valley Parks Dept bought the land. The reason they bought it was because the Cross Hill overlooked the Ronald Reagan Library, and thus wanted the hill to remain free of development.

Here's where the lunacy starts. Some self described atheist filed a lawsuit against the City of Simi Valley. He stated that the cross is a religious symbol affiliated with mainstream religion. So he sued the city and in his lawsuit he wanted the cross to be taken down. Some people have too much time on their hands.

So the city beat him at his own game and turned the property over to the Nature Conservancy, "all in the name of conservation."

[PackRatTDI]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

VERY good points and information, Packrat! I hadn't heard about this. (the roadside cross decision.) I can SEE where it is similar to the decision to allow prayer meetings on school grounds, as long as they weren't LED by, or IMPOSED by school officials. That WAS a "compromise" that allowed state property to be used for religious purposes as long as it was not "mandated" or supported by the school system. I agree that it would not be fair to DISCRIMINATE against religious groups, in favor of non-religious, when EACH pay the same taxes for the property! But, I am STILL uncomfortable with THIS "display." (perhaps, your info will help me get over it.)

I also want to thank you for introducing me to the word Descansos! I am always eager to learn MORE of any foreign language! Of course, I have to point out that this word is not proper... as this roadside spot is NOT the "place of rest" for these who have passed on! I'm pretty sure they have found a place of rest in a cemetery somewhere, but I'm pretty sure that I am the ONLY one who cares that something was lost in translation!! :lol:

{{ Unless, of course, they think that the SPIRIT remains "at rest" where the bodied died! }} :shock: :shock:

Thanks again!

Lots of things get lost in the literal translation between English and Spanish. Some things that sound very nice in Spanish don't quite have the same ring to it in English. A friend of ours who is a musician was singing a song called "Boracherra" which means "Drunken woman". He translated some of the lyrics into English. For example: "With your ass up in the air you are a very good friend of mine" sounds much better in Spanish. :lol:

The tradition of descansos started in Latin America. Being predominately Catholic, they go all out to memorialize the dead. There is a large cemetary in Ciudad Lerdo (which is the Mexican sister city of Las Cruces) that is a tourist attraction because of some of the beautiful marble architecture of some of the tombs. Even pauper graves get a marble headstone. There are many marble quarries in the that area and marble is dirt cheap. My dad got 3 new marble grave stones made for my grandparents and aunt's graves at a marble memorial shop for less than $100. The same kind of stone here in the US would probably have cost twice that for each stone.

Those things were f---ing heavy, but they sure smoothed out the ride in the big Chevy Express 3500 van we took down there. :lol:

[happyhookin]

I've always thought of them as a way for the family to grieve, nothing more, nothing less.