From CNSNews.com via Michael Savage:
American Atheists in Maryland said Friday they want the state to start removing roadside memorials; crosses, flowers and sometimes teddy bears that people leave next to
highways where a loved one or family member has died in an automobile accident. The practice is repeated all over the country.
While there are currently no petition drives or other widespread grassroots activities, Maryland atheists say they want state officials to be more proactive in the matter.
"Our position basically is that we're against it (the memorials)," David Condo, Maryland state director for American Atheists, told CNSNews.com. "We don't think it makes sense from a driver's safety perspective, for one. If you're looking at a memorial or any other thing that's been put on the road, then you're certainly not looking at the road. If it's religious in nature it could also be offensive to anyone who just wants to use the road. So it doesn't make sense from a couple of perspectives."
According to Condo, the basic Maryland State policy is to remove anything along the roadways, but he said state officials must be persuaded to enforce the policy.
There are two issues at play here. One is the safety of motorists using a public highway, the other is freedom of religion. The American Atheists may have a point on the first issue but on the second issue they're way off base.
Families have the right to put up memorials to loved ones including relgious or spritiual emblems. This type of symbolism is obviously protected under the 1st Amendment and is widely practiced in cemetaries and mortuaries across the nation. If a state's highway department or department of transportation does not deem such memroials along highways to be too much of a distraction then the families should be allowed to express their grief in a tasteful manner. For the American Atheists to try and stop them from making a religous statement is hypocritical. Keep in mind, however, that the Atheists are simply requesting that an existing law be enforced. The state will more than likely have to honor their request unless the law is struck down or modified.
These atheists need to remember that the law that allows religious expression is also the law that allows them to be atheists in the first place. This type of non-tolerance is what gives non-Christians a bad name.
Also posted on Say Anything.
Article comments
1 - Cap'n Ken
Key difference here - and I'm not saying I think the memorials should be disallowed - is when memorials are put on public property (i.e. the highway right-of-way).
Of course people have the right to display whatever memorial they wish on their own property or on a cemetery plot they have purchased, but it does become a church/state question in the public right of way.
And especially if the highway department has a policy to remove all items placed in the right-of-way but specifically exempts a category that typically includes religious symbols.
2 - Natalie Davis
Wow. This is one of the rare instances in which Cap'n Ken and I are in agreement.
3 - Rob
You're right, if the law exists then the memorials should be taken down.
Also, I'm an atheist. I just don't believe in anything. Now, I think that if the Highway Department didn't have a policy regarding clutter along the roadsides the crosses, etc. should be allowed. Why? Because the families of the victims are practicing their right to free speech. If the atheists want to put a different sort of memorial up for their dearly departed motorists, that would be fine. Both types of memorials, I think, could co-exist representative of the way Christians and Atheists co-exist.
I'm not sure if I'm being real clear on that, but what I'm saying is the cross is protected free speech, much as an atheist embleom (if one exists) would also be protected.
4 - The Theory
I'm shocked that they really see this as an issue. I think that taking down memorials would be awfully cruel and inhumane. People obviously aren't putting up crosses or whatever to make a statement... they're mourning. Keeping the memory of the loved one alive.
5 - Cap'n Ken
My point is that if the memorials are put up permanently (or semi-permanently) in the right-of-way (public property), there is no "freedom of speech" protection.
If the families came out on Saturdays, held up crosses and then left with their crosses, that's protected "speech". But a permanent memorial is a different matter.
For example, the anti-abortion crowd can get a permit to hold a rally and carry around those dead-baby posters in a city park, but they have no right to erect a dead-baby monument there.
Permanent monuments are not protected "speech".
6 - Rob
I basically agree with you, if the law says no memorials then there should be no memorials.
The question arises, however, when local government (state, county, etc) specifically allows for a small memorial in the form of a cross or other symbol, should crosses be allowed?
I think that they should be. The government is specifically allowing for memorials along side of the road and the people themselves are choosing the cross as the symbol they'd like to show.
I don't see any issue with crosses along the road when the government allows them.
7 - TDavid
We have a hill nearby that a few folks have lost their lives on in car accidents and when you drive up the hill one can get distracted by the many, many wreaths, bears, flowers before taking the turn around the abrupt corner.
Ironically it is not far from a cemetary.
I can see there being other cases like this elsewhere where seriously it is a line of sight distraction and a potential danger to motorists.
Common sense dictates that this has nothing to do with religion preference, but instead safety coming first.
8 - Eric Olsen
You see them all over in Ohio, including along the turnpike. About 5 years ago I was rushing my son to a Little League game and we got caught behind a bunch of traffic near our house. All of a sudden a helicopter buzzed down and landed on a lawn. We knew that wasn't a good sign. Since we were running late for his game, I kind of cut up to the front on the side of the road and the cop let us through because he had a son in Little League too. The accident was fatal and we saw too much, there is a memorial on the side of the road there that is maintained to this day.
We moved so I don't go that way very often, but when I do it really makes me think. Maybe the memorials distract for a moment, but maybe they make people think, also, and pay more attention.
9 - Dawn
Why do atheists have the driving need to ruin faith for the entire world? It's one thing to choose not to believe in God, it is another to resent anyone else for doing so.
Live and let live. Those memorials are grim reminders to slow down and be a considerate and safe driver. I find them to be effective and they are no more distracting than billboards. In some ways, they are safety tools - as they may indicate a dangerous intersection - as is the case that Eric mentions above. I always take care when driving by anything marked with a memorial.
What a bunch of angry un-Godloving folks trying to take the joy, joy, joy from down in my heart.
10 - Rob
Hey, I'm an atheist and I think the memorials should stay. If you want to believe in god and have your memorial be a cross then so be it. I have no problem with it.
You've got a point, some of the Atheist are really antagonistic when it comes to issues like these.
11 - bhw
[grump]
I just don't like those memorials in general. Or the tendency for people to gather and swoon at the site of someone's death, especially the people who didn't even know the dead person, but just felt some driving desire to be a part of the mourning.
Or cameras.
God, I can't stand the makeshift memorials, but the formal ones can be just as bad.
Putting teddy bears and notes to someone at the scene of a [usually ugly] death doesn't really seem to me to be a healthy or, frankly, mature way to handle death. Why do people need to visit the site of a plane crash, or the stretch of beach where the debris is washing up? How about memorializing someone by celebrating his/her life and NOT by focusing on where or how s/he died.
[/grump]
12 - bhw
I should add, less grumpily, that I totally understand the desire and even need for memorials such as Oklahoma City, USS Arizona, Auschwitz, etc. Places where many people suffered and died at the hands of others. It's the individual memorials peppering every roadside that bother me.
13 - Danny
So, if religionists can erect religious symbols in public places, does that mean that Fred Phelps should be allowed to put up his anti-homosexual monument whenever a gay person died in a public place?
The memorials should go.
14 - Rob
If the memorials are offered to everybody, with their choice of symbol allowed, then they should stay.
15 - The Theory
It's not just religious people putting up these memorials. Most of the ones I have seen are either flowers, a plaque with a date on it, or a white cross.
While a cross could be concieved as a christian symbol, it's definately not exclusive to the religion. It's also traditional for grave yards, etc.
The picture that was posted with the article was mainly a sign saying to be careful and drive safe. Sure, there were two little crosses on it, however, I guarentee you that no one who was driving past that saw the crosses and though, "oh my god, they're shoving religion down my throat! i've been tainted!"
16 - bmcg61
what a freaking moron this author is.i'm sure the atheists said it was a first amendment issue. In particular, it's a separation clause issue meaning that religious symbols on public property give the impression of a government endorsement of religion. That is unconstitutional. If you disagree, try reading the opinions of numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases on the subject and then shut up.