> Sorry, but those crosses only
>have meaning to a select
>group of friends and family.
>
>
> I don't like them distracting
>other drivers from seeing me
>or my family members.
>
>It has nothing to do with
>being a non believer....which I
>am sure I am, by
>your standards.
>
>"If God did not intend for
>man to hunt animals, he
>would have made broccoli more
>fun to shoot"
So how is that a compelling argument for the removal of markers of Troopers killed in the line of duty as opposed to any of the other millions of roadside advertisements, buildings, or otherwise? Or is it just these particular markers that pose a danger? Weak argument. I find your position troubling that you find these markers only to hold meaning to certain family and friends. These are markers which signify the ultimate sacrifice by those who were in the service of public safety enjoyed by all, not just a select group. Does the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier have no merit because the soldier was not known to you or me?
The argument the Supreme Court refused to address was whether or not the symbol of the cross used in this context was a direct endorsement of Christianity which could be a real or perceived preferential treatment of citizens dependent on their religious affiliations. Specifically, the court refused to address the issue of whether or not that symbol raises to the level of that governmental endorsement. This would have been a hallmark case law set by the court had it been heard. As it sits now, several different courts have rendered inconsistent opinions. Some circuits have deemed it to be a universal sign of death and or sacrifice not specific to religious affiliation. Other courts, as in the case of the lower courts which have previously ruled on the markers in Utah, have deemed them to be more specifically a religious symbol without separation when used in the context of death and or sacrifice.