Christian Cross deemed secular symbol by Supreme Court

[iNow]

So, it turns out that the SCOTUS has ruled, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Salazar v. Buono, that the christian cross is not a religious symbol. They say it's secular.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono

Issue

: Whether an individual has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and if an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation.

 

 

http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/supreme_court_case_salazar_v_buono

Sunrise Rock is a large outcropping located in Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County, California. A Christian cross has stood there since 1934, when the VFW erected a wooden monument to honor veterans of World War I. Since then, the cross has been replaced several times, always by private citizens.

 

Its current incarnation stands eight feet tall, was built out of white metal pipes, and was erected in 1998 by Henry Sandoz, who lives nearby. But its very presence on public land raises troubling questions about the federal endorsement of a particular religion, questions which came to the fore with a series of legal maneuvers and lawsuits starting in 1999.

 

 

http://pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/In-Brief--Salazar-v-Buono.aspx

Salazar v. Buono, a case involving a constitutional challenge to the presence of an eight-foot-tall Christian cross in the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County, Calif. The case arose when Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of the preserve, filed a lawsuit demanding that the National Park Service, which administers the preserve, remove the cross. Buono argued that because the cross is on government land it amounts to a government endorsement of religion and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

http://wildhunt.org/blog/2010/04/revenge-of-the-secular-cross.html

Is the Christian cross a secular symbol? The Supreme Court of the United States took a step towards that assertion yesterday in a decision on the case Salazar v. Buono, which challenged the constitutionality of a eight-foot Christian cross war memorial situated on public lands in California’s Mojave National Preserve (and the legality of a land-swap scheme that Congress enacted to avoid a court battle). In truth, the decision is something of a mess, with six different opinions being written on the case, but with the plurality overturning the 9th Circuit decision and remanding the case for further possible legal challenges. Still, the conservative majority did take a step towards revisionism in taking the Christian cross out of an explicitly religious context.

 

 

Again, what do you think? Is the christian cross secular? Is this a cheap and cowardly way for the court to avoid questions regarding the establishment clause?

[bascule]

I think many conservatives are probably happy about the Supreme Court now

[padren]

Darnit I clicked the wrong option in the poll, I meant to vote it's non-secular. I think it's a side-step too, and a bad one at that - do Christian's really want to the symbol of their religion reduced to a simple branding logo?

 

However, I don't think every use of a religious symbol is inherently religious in nature. If we found a giant cross somewhere off the Oregon Trail dating back to the 1840s it would be a historical landmark, whether or not on public lands. I can see the logic behind monuments as well.

What really annoys me is how this always gets messed up by the pushier people on both sides. In the spirit of "This is why we can't have nice things" you end up with students in public schools with "Jesus Saves" shirts ending up in freedom of speech/separation legal battles precisely because the some pushy person will take issue with how that could be abused if allowed, and other pushy people will push to the very edge the laws allow and test it to proselytize in public schools as if for no other reason than to make the first pushy people able to say "I told you so."

 

Why can't we have monuments like this, where not immediately suing isn't considered an open license for scattering public lands with Vegas style proselytizing billboards? The natural, rational response seems to me that "Hey, it's all good within limits" and it just seems sad that there is no way to legally convey this concept.

[Skye]

That's not really what they ruled though. The argument made by Anthony Kennedy that the government can erect religious symbols was only supported by three of seven members. Two of them voted that Buono didn't have a right to sue. The justices also voted to send it back to the federal judge to look at again, and Kennedy stated that the case shouldn't be used to make categorical rules.

[toastywombel]

The only way I could imagine a group with that kind of name being secular, is if they were an organization founded by a guy named Christian Cross.

[Pangloss]

This poll needs more options. Even the majority of the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to vote in it.

 

"Swing vote" Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion:

 

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

 

Sadly, he would not be able to participate in our poll.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Pangloss

[Dak]

So, it turns out that the SCOTUS has ruled, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Salazar v. Buono, that the christian cross is not a religious symbol. They say it's secular.

 

I think atheists have kind of 'yoinked' a lot of christian paraphernalia; from christmas, to being wed in a church, to using a cross for grave-markers and memorials.

 

otoh, YMMV

 

 

I kinda consider the cross-as-sybol-of-death to be both christian and secular, odd tho that is.

[the tree]

"Swing vote" Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion:

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

I'd have to side with the quote from Anthony Kennedy. Say a government owned an art gallery, and that art gallery owned a painting that depicted something religious - separation of church and state wouldn't be a good reason for throwing it away.

[swansont]

False dichotomy. The Christian Cross is not secular. But not all crosses are Christian.

[ajb]

This is quite interesting.

 

The cross has become part of the wider culture in western counties. This, I think comes directly from the Christian religion that was far more prevalent in the past. That said, we know that crosses had significance in Celtic culture for example and I expect many other pre-Christian societies. It would be unfair to say that only Christians use it as a symbol.

 

The swastika (either right or left) has significance in many Asian traditions and religions including Hinduism and Buddhism. Though, in more modern times it has been associated with the Nazis and similar.

[the tree]

False dichotomy. The Christian Cross is not secular. But not all crosses are Christian.

I think that the one in question, undoubtedly is.

[ewmon]

"Meaning" is very subjective. A plain cross is perhaps the simplest image reminiscent of a human [standing with arms outstretched]. It seems a contrivance to associate it with a dead person (maybe if you turned it sideways), and especially of a specific dead person. If it contained a slim, bearded, slightly-clothed crucified man, then it's representation would be a different matter.

 

If we started separating religious stuff from everyday life, we'd have to remove several words and phrases from common usage... talent, goodbye, jubilee, bead, olé, kiss of death, feet of clay, handwriting on the wall, Armageddon, straight and narrow, etc ... OMG!

[swansont]

I think that the one in question, undoubtedly is.

 

It's labeled that way in several articles, but in others it's described as a Latin cross.

 

———

Dak posted an image from a cemetery, presumably a national cemetery. Are those religious displays of crosses and stars of David (and the occasional crescent that probably exists) allowable, even though they are on federal land? I'm thinking this has come up somewhere in this (or similar) discussion, and that the conclusion was probably "yes, they are; they do not violate the establishment clause"

 

Edit: Dak's picture appears to be from the American cemetery in Normandy rather than on US federal land; the options are a cross or a star. The "unknown soldiers" commemoration is a cross, FWIW.

Edited May 3, 2010 by swansont

[ecoli]

Dak posted an image from a cemetery, presumably a national cemetery. Are those religious displays of crosses and stars of David (and the occasional crescent that probably exists) allowable, even though they are on federal land? I'm thinking this has come up somewhere in this (or similar) discussion, and that the conclusion was probably "yes, they are; they do not violate the establishment clause"

Definitely not... These are deceased soldiers who worked for the military. They should be buried of federal land, considering their sacrifice for the country, and allowed to be buried according to their own religious custom.

 

Allowing/forbidding religious symbols on public land isn't an endorsement/rejection of said religion. It's simply recognizing that religion plays an important role in the lives of the vast majority of Americans. Even athiests normally have a cultural connection to a religion. I'm sure not all of those soldiers buried under a cross or star of david would call themselves theists.

 

The point is, banning all religious symbols is usually more about cultural/ protectionism disguised as progressiveness than it is about legal principle.

 

Just look at the religious symbol bans targeted at religious Muslims (and others) in many European countries. This is breeding anger and hostility, not respect, modernity and tolerance.

[Moontanman]

It's labeled that way in several articles, but in others it's described as a Latin cross.

 

———

Dak posted an image from a cemetery, presumably a national cemetery. Are those religious displays of crosses and stars of David (and the occasional crescent that probably exists) allowable, even though they are on federal land? I'm thinking this has come up somewhere in this (or similar) discussion, and that the conclusion was probably "yes, they are; they do not violate the establishment clause"

 

I'd like to know if there are any graves of anyone who is not Jewish or Christian in that grave yard and if there is what symbol is used for those people? The cross as shown, a long bottom and three short arms is a Christian symbol.

[bascule]

I kinda consider the cross-as-sybol-of-death to be both christian and secular, odd tho that is.

 

I kind of have to agree... I suppose using the Latin Cross as a grave marker is something I don't inherently see as Christian.

[Moontanman]

The Latin cross is indeed Christain

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

 

Latin cross, Cross with a longer descending arm. Along with the Greek cross, it is the most common form. It represents the cross of Jesus' crucifixion.

 

From this article it would appear that virtually all crosses are religious symbols of some form but he cross as displayed in the public grave yards ans on that hill is a Christian cross and as such is not secular any more than any other cross is.

[jackson33]

The Cross is certainly a Religious Symbol, where to many religions but not all and would/should be restricted to use by the Federal Government. If promoted, by implication or practice (placing a cross on all Federal Buildings or in any National Park), that would be unconstitutional IMO.

 

However in this case, two factors are involved and the heart of the case. First the land was transferred to allow (PRESERVATION) and this land was public land, when the Cross was Constructed. I don't know a State or where the Federal Government, has annexed or bought historical religious monuments, buildings (churches), designated of Historical Value, then torn down. In fact, it would be my humble opinion, the land should never have been transfer in the first place and the cross allowed to be maintained by the Federsl Government, as hundreds of other items on those million plus acres are today. I also feel for Government to destroy any symbol of significant value to any particular religion, is unconstitutional.

 

Would your judgement, be any different (than SCOTUS) if you knew when the Mojave National Preserve, actually became a National Preserve. The Cross was placed in it's current position in 1934 (on private land) and the Preserve established in 1994.

 

http://digital-desert.com/mojave-preserve/

 

 

Again, what do you think? Is the christian cross secular? Is this a cheap and cowardly way for the court to avoid questions regarding the establishment clause? [/Quote]

 

iNow; No, the Cross is NOT secular but NO the court did NOT avoid the 'establishment clause', it should never have been relevant.

[Moontanman]

I often wonder how Christains would react if some religious symbol other than theirs was ot be displayed promonantly on or in or even around any publicly owned building or property.

 

I hoestly do not have aproblem with a naitivity sceene being used at the local fire house at Christmas or the symbols of easter at Easter. it's sometimes annoying to think of money being spent on religous symbols, especially at a time when money is tight and needed services are being restricted.

 

But I wonder if i wanted a

 

 

Displayed at the time of Beltane at one of these public places what the reaction of these good Tolerant Christians would be. Even if i paid for it I bet they'd be steppen and fetchin' like their asses were on fire and their heads were catchin'.

 

I answered my own question from above, these are the 39 symbols allowed by the Pentagon on veterans graves.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers

[swansont]

The Latin cross is indeed Christain

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

 

 

 

From this article it would appear that virtually all crosses are religious symbols of some form but he cross as displayed in the public grave yards ans on that hill is a Christian cross and as such is not secular any more than any other cross is.

 

On the contrary (or converse), I think one has to say that the Christian cross is a Latin cross. That is not the same as saying all Latin crosses are Christian crosses.

[Moontanman]

On the contrary (or converse), I think one has to say that the Christian cross is a Latin cross. That is not the same as saying all Latin crosses are Christian crosses.

 

Well the link I provided says a Latin Cross is by definition a Christian cross and while I would like to believe you are correct it would be good to see something besides your assertion that my link is mistaken.

[swansont]

Well the link I provided says a Latin Cross is by definition a Christian cross and while I would like to believe you are correct it would be good to see something besides your assertion that my link is mistaken.

 

Your source was Wikipedia. To be specific, a Wikipedia article about the Christian cross.

 

I just drew a Latin cross, and it had no Christian basis whatsoever. In reality, it might have just been a lower-case letter "t." I often use Greek crosses when doing math.

[Moontanman]

Your source was Wikipedia. To be specific, a Wikipedia article about the Christian cross.

 

I just drew a Latin cross, and it had no Christian basis whatsoever. In reality, it might have just been a lower-case letter "t." I often use Greek crosses when doing math.

 

Swansont are you actually suggesting any of the crosses we have been discussing are lower case t's? Is the cross on the mountain or in the grave yards just lower case t's? I googled Latin cross, no where was it mentioned as a lower case t, in all cases it had religious significance of some sort and the Latin cross was specifically defined as a Christian cross.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross

 

Christian cross Also known as the Latin cross or crux ordinaria. It is the most common symbol of Christianity, intended to represent the death of Jesus when he was crucified on the True Cross and his resurrection in the New Testament.

 

Notice it does not say Latin cross or crux ordinaria also known as the Christian cross.

 

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/latin.html

 

If I understand the rule here you need to quantify your assertion that a Latin cross is not necessarily a Christian symbol with something other than your assertion.

[DrDNA]

So, it turns out that the SCOTUS has ruled, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Salazar v. Buono, that the christian cross is not a religious symbol. They say it's secular.

 

What do you think?

 

Stupidity isn't always bad.

[Moontanman]

Stupidity is always bad.