Source: Religion News Service
WASHINGTON, August 2010: When the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 12-foot crosses erected to honor fallen Utah state troopers violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion, it said “We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which argued in favor of the crosses on behalf of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, said the case could have repercussions beyond Utah. “In the wake of this decision, any privately-erected, religious memorials on government property in those states could be vulnerable to a court challenge,” the organization said in a statement. The Becket Fund said the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The American Humanist Association, which filed a brief opposing the crosses, hailed the ruling. “Governmental endorsement of Christianity, even in the form of an officer’s memorial, isn’t appropriate on our public highways,” said David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association.
[HPI note: On April 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruling on Salazar v. Buono avoided this issue in a 5-4 decision by ruling narrowly about the specifics of the case. The Court bypassed a decision on whether favoring crosses over other religious symbols represents a violation of the Establishment Clause. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia supported the idea that a cross is a holy symbol, able to represent all the faithful and not just Christians. However, writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy did not endorse that idea, ruling on the grounds that “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm”.]