At the end of 2005, the Deseret News carried several articles on cross memorials donated by the Utah Highway Patrol Association. In general the crosses are 12 feet high, carry the UHP beehive logo, and are on private and government owned property, placed as close as possible to where the patrolmen died.
The following LTE was published 13 December 2005 in the Public Forum of the Deseret News:
Who says that atheists are the only ones objecting to our government respecting one religion exclusively over another? A hundred years ago it was not the atheists defending our religious freedoms but the theists. I found Stephen Clark's (Readers' Forum, Dec. 11) comments to be reasonable, but Lee Benson's (Page B1, Dec. 11) and Ryan Larsen's (Readers' Forum, Dec. 11) to be reactionary and out of touch, substituting lucid social awareness for sentimental rhetoric.
Thanks to the atheists for defending my constitutional freedom to practice (or not) the religion of my choice, without having the government choose it for me.
Kyle D. Smith wrote that I was defending evil and imbecilic attempts (14 December 2005, Deseret News Public Forum) to eliminate God and Christianity from institutions or practice.
I find this claim extremely odd. First of all, I'm a Christian. Why would I want to support the elimination of my right to peaceably assemble, speak my mind, or exercise my religion?
Second, if one actually reads Stephen Clark's LTE (11 December 2005, Deseret News Public Forum) they would have noted Clark's concern for the religious values of the officers and their families. He even suggests options that respect the officer's service. This seems to do the opposite of what Smith claims.
Is it the religion that is being celebrated with these memorials,
or the fallen officer? Contrary to eliminating the religious, Clark
asked, How do they intend to memorialize fallen officers who
may be Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist? What if the
families of these officers do not want a Christian cross?