Jared Moore

Neutrality is impossible.  Every decision is made based on a particular worldview.  Yet again, in the name of “neutrality,” American judges have determined that associating something public with Christianity is “unconstitutional”: 

SALT LAKE CITY — 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.

The ruling reverses a 2007 decision by a federal district judge that said the crosses communicate a secular message about deaths and were not a public endorsement of religion. It’s the latest in a recent rash of mixed-bag rulings on the public use of crosses.

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.

First erected in 1998, monuments were paid for with private funds and erected only with the permission of the troopers’ families. Nearly all of the 14 crosses are on public land.

Two men behind the cross project have said they selected crosses for the memorials because the image of a cross can simultaneously convey a message of death, remembrance, honor, gratitude and sacrifice.

The problem is that such crosses were placed on the highway using private funds and with the permission of the troopers’ families.  In trying to enforce “religious freedom,” these judges actually destroy it with the guise of neutrality.  They say that God is fine in the private realm, but not in the public realm.  In God’s world however there is only one realm: God’s realm.  You can read the rest of this article here.

Furthermore, the judges argued for the use of some symbol that is neutral:

“Unlike Christmas, which has been widely embraced as a secular holiday … there is no evidence in this case that the cross has been widely embraced by non-Christians as a secular symbol of death.”

Once again, there is no such thing as a neutral worldview.  Their argument is ridiculous, and extremely relative.  What “evidence” is there as well that Christmas has been embraced as a secular holiday?  Anti-Christians that do embrace the holiday do not call it Christmas.  Do these judges watch any rappers, pro-sports players, or celebrities that are not Christians, but wear crosses?  What about the millions of teens that are not Christians, but wear crosses? 

Finally, shouldn’t religious freedom mean that all religions are allowed?  By removing the crosses, these judges communicate that the only religion that is allowed in public is the Anti-God religion… which is a violation of the constitution!