Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
One of the peculiarities about Nevada is the plethora of monuments to people who have died in automobile accidents, ATV accidents and other causes.
Though this is by no means unique to Nevada - monuments can be found in every state in the union - the Silver State, it seems, certainly has more than its fair share.
For years, government agencies responsible for the upkeep and safety of public places have pondered the propriety of these memorials. The Nevada Department of Transportation has talked about ridding highway rights-of-way of wooden crosses that stand not only as remembrances of loved ones but also as gruesome reminders of the carnage that follows drunken, reckless and speeding drivers. So far NDOT has taken the position that as long as these monuments do not pose a safety hazard they may remain.
Now the Bureau of Land Management has joined the fray by proposing that monuments perched atop Churchill County's Sand Mountain be removed by Oct. 1. Recognizing the sentimental importance of these markers to the affected families, BLM officials have graciously and compassionately given them time to recover and move the monuments if they choose. The reasons for the BLM's decision are twofold: 1. Placing a fixture on public land is against the law, and 2. the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe has objected to the markers on grounds that Sand Mountain is a sacred place.
We happen to agree with the BLM that these well-intended monuments are inappropriate on public lands, lest the entire countryside be littered with shrines. For the same reason NDOT ought to follow the BLM's lead and remove roadside death markers.
That said, the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's objection to the Sand Mountain monuments on grounds the area holds some sacred meaning strikes us as a bit hypocritical. No doubt the families who erected these monuments also see Sand Mountain as a sacred place. Consequently, they likely see the BLM's rationale supporting the tribe's "sacred ground" as the application of a double standard.
This is another example of the folly of allowing sacred/religious symbols to be placed on public property. Once headed down this path it is pretty hard to turn back without offending someone's sensibilities.
Though this is by no means unique to Nevada - monuments can be found in every state in the union - the Silver State, it seems, certainly has more than its fair share.
For years, government agencies responsible for the upkeep and safety of public places have pondered the propriety of these memorials. The Nevada Department of Transportation has talked about ridding highway rights-of-way of wooden crosses that stand not only as remembrances of loved ones but also as gruesome reminders of the carnage that follows drunken, reckless and speeding drivers. So far NDOT has taken the position that as long as these monuments do not pose a safety hazard they may remain.
Now the Bureau of Land Management has joined the fray by proposing that monuments perched atop Churchill County's Sand Mountain be removed by Oct. 1. Recognizing the sentimental importance of these markers to the affected families, BLM officials have graciously and compassionately given them time to recover and move the monuments if they choose. The reasons for the BLM's decision are twofold: 1. Placing a fixture on public land is against the law, and 2. the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe has objected to the markers on grounds that Sand Mountain is a sacred place.
We happen to agree with the BLM that these well-intended monuments are inappropriate on public lands, lest the entire countryside be littered with shrines. For the same reason NDOT ought to follow the BLM's lead and remove roadside death markers.
That said, the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's objection to the Sand Mountain monuments on grounds the area holds some sacred meaning strikes us as a bit hypocritical. No doubt the families who erected these monuments also see Sand Mountain as a sacred place. Consequently, they likely see the BLM's rationale supporting the tribe's "sacred ground" as the application of a double standard.
This is another example of the folly of allowing sacred/religious symbols to be placed on public property. Once headed down this path it is pretty hard to turn back without offending someone's sensibilities.
