Christian Cross deemed secular symbol by Supreme Court

[DrDNA]

Agreed.

I will rephrase.

Sometimes stupid acts lead to favorable outcomes.

[Moontanman]

Agreed.

I will rephrase.

Sometimes stupid acts lead to favorable outcomes.

 

This would be greatly dependent on whose definition of favorable you were using don't you think?

[DrDNA]

LOL

Absolutely!

[Moontanman]

LOL

Absolutely!

 

Then at least we agree on one thing.

[swansont]

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

 

From that link:

 

In the Latin alphabet, the letter X and the minuscule form of t are crosses.

 

Which supports my position that crosses are not always Christian symbols, and that not all Latin crosses are Christian symbols.

 

It has been assumed that the cross in question is a Christian symbol. I'm wondering if that has actually been established.

[Skye]

From that link:

 

In the Latin alphabet, the letter X and the minuscule form of t are crosses.

 

Which supports my position that crosses are not always Christian symbols, and that not all Latin crosses are Christian symbols.

 

It has been assumed that the cross in question is a Christian symbol. I'm wondering if that has actually been established.

 

The district court ruled in 2002 that it violated the establishment clause so I guess so.

[Moontanman]

From that link:

 

In the Latin alphabet, the letter X and the minuscule form of t are crosses.

 

Which supports my position that crosses are not always Christian symbols, and that not all Latin crosses are Christian symbols.

 

It has been assumed that the cross in question is a Christian symbol. I'm wondering if that has actually been established.

 

I guess you could be correct, i mean there must be lots of reasons people would want to set up a huge lower case t in the desert on top of hill so everyone can see it. Literacy maybe? Do they set up other letters around the world so every one will know the alphabet? Maybe they are trying to teach the space alien visitors their letters?

[iNow]

Which supports my position that crosses are not always Christian symbols, and that not all Latin crosses are Christian symbols.

Agreed on both points.

 

 

It has been assumed that the cross in question is a Christian symbol. I'm wondering if that has actually been established.

Would it be possible for you to cite any other examples where peoples deaths are honored by the cross, wherein that cross is unrelated to christian theology?

 

That's what gets me about the position you're putting forth. Yes, crosses are not always christian, but these crosses were erected to honor soldiers deaths so all indicators suggest that they are, in fact, religious in nature. I welcome examples showing where crosses have been used to honor deaths within the last few hundred years which were not themselves representative of christian symbology.

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

This is the most well reasoned post on the subject. It speaks to the reality of the situation, whereas the rest of this thread is about the assumptions and downstream interpretations - a lot of baggage we've added to a simple gesture of respect for their sacrifice.

 

Hey man, if you're going to fight and die for me, then I think I can decorate your grave with whatever symbology you'd like and still not assume or endorse that symbol as a state religion nor suggestion of such, nor would it have ever even crossed my mind.

 

I think we have to be careful to preserve our history while we patrol our government for violations of church and state. Using religion to define marriage and subtending rights might be an example of allowing religion to perverse the state, but crosses on burial grounds and "In God We Trust" on money are examples of historical traditions that perform no function beyond cultural or emotional respect.

[swansont]

Would it be possible for you to cite any other examples where peoples deaths are honored by the cross, wherein that cross is unrelated to christian theology?

 

I can't. I haven't researched it, though I suspect it would be difficult to find such examples. But I would prefer that the question be asked and answered, rather than just being assumed. Has anyone asked the person who erected it for an explanation of why it isn't a religious symbol? I haven't seen this addressed in what I've read.

 

That's what gets me about the position you're putting forth. Yes, crosses are not always christian, but these crosses were erected to honor soldiers deaths so all indicators suggest that they are, in fact, religious in nature. I welcome examples showing where crosses have been used to honor deaths within the last few hundred years which were not themselves representative of christian symbology.

 

This is an inductive thought process, though, not a deductive one. Which is why I prefer that the question be asked. Because we know that crosses in general are used in secular ways.

 

But those pushing for the conclusion that the answer is that the cross is indeed a secular symbol should be careful what they wish for. Because defiling a cross is no longer necessarily a religious act, and Christians will no longer be able to be outraged (without fear of being labeled hypocrites) at such incidents.

[ecoli]

This is the most well reasoned post on the subject. It speaks to the reality of the situation, whereas the rest of this thread is about the assumptions and downstream interpretations - a lot of baggage we've added to a simple gesture of respect for their sacrifice.

 

Thanks... some posts I really do take pride in.

[Moontanman]

From that link:

 

In the Latin alphabet, the letter X and the minuscule form of t are crosses.

 

Which supports my position that crosses are not always Christian symbols, and that not all Latin crosses are Christian symbols.

 

It has been assumed that the cross in question is a Christian symbol. I'm wondering if that has actually been established.

 

Swansont, none of these crosses we are discussing are examples of the Latin alphabet, no one goes around setting up lower case t's because they like the Latin alphabet. To insinuate they do is being totally disingenuous.

 

Crosses when used in this way this one is being used crosses are always religious symbols, I'll buy not necessarily a Christian symbol but a religious symbol none the less.

 

The only way this cross could be justified is if it was accompanied by the religious symbols of everyone else who died in that war. At the very least the top three or so should be included, on an individuals grave I see no problem as long as every individual gets the proper symbol.

[swansont]

Swansont, none of these crosses we are discussing are examples of the Latin alphabet, no one goes around setting up lower case t's because they like the Latin alphabet. To insinuate they do is being totally disingenuous.

 

Street signs are sometimes in the shape of lower-case t's, aka Latin crosses. I don't think anyone is arguing that these are religious symbols.

 

Crosses when used in this way this one is being used crosses are always religious symbols, I'll buy not necessarily a Christian symbol but a religious symbol none the less.

 

Unless you have checked every single use of a cross, this is an assertion rather than a fact. It also implies that nobody, ever, made a grave marker with a single post and a horizontal piece that said e.g. "RIP Booger Magee," simply because it was the easiest thing to do, and not because the cross is a religious symbol.

 

——

 

The bottom line here is that Christianity has co-opted the cross, and the natural reaction is that if you see a cross, especially in a certain context, you make that association. Much like the swastika is associated with Nazi Germany (apologies about Godwin's law here), so much so that people have seen swastika symbols in architecture and gotten upset about the symbolism, even though there was no such message intended.

example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20996515/

I'm fairly sure the US government is not a secretly Nazi organization

 

I see cross-shaped buildings all over the place, too, and I doubt anyone is going to say that there is a secret religious message there. There's a difference between having a strong association between the cross and Christianity, and saying that the meaning is inherent in the shape.

[Moontanman]

swansont, i have not asserted that every time a cross shows up it is a religious symbol when i type a t I don't think Christian, but in the context of this thread, the Latin crosses used in the contexts were are discussing, it is indeed a religious symbol. No human who has been raised in our culture would look at a Latin cross used as a memorial and think lower case t, they always think religion, almost always the Christian religion.

[John Cuthber]

OK, someone has to ask;

If the cross is so definitively Christian, why do you never see Christ depicted wearing one?

 

More seriously, the symbol here 2+2=4 is secular, but the same shape in a graveyard is Christian.

Symbols have different meanings depending on context. A cross per se may not be Christian, but the particular one that the judgement is about is certainly Christian.

I thought the cross was a corrupted Ankh anyway.

 

Incidentally, my Scottish ancestry means I have to point out that a X shaped cross is Christian too.

[elas]

OK, someone has to ask;

If the cross is so definitively Christian, why do you never see Christ depicted wearing one?

 

Because the cross did not come into use in Christ's (Earthly) lifetime, The symbol of the early Christians was a fish. Christ carried a Roman cross to his crucification. The Rabbi were allowed to order death sentences, but only Romans were allowed to carry out the executions.

[iNow]

I would prefer that the question be asked and answered, rather than just being assumed. Has anyone asked the person who erected it for an explanation of why it isn't a religious symbol? I haven't seen this addressed in what I've read.

That's fair, and I haven't seen it addressed in anything I've read either, except the original guy who put it up in 1934 is now dead so is hence unavailable for questioning. Regardless, given the circumstances, I feel it's both reasonable and safe to assume that this is, in fact, christian in nature. With that said, I appreciate your call for clarity, and for avoidance of assumption. I just think the level of certainty on this particular issue is in the 95-99% range.

 

 

 

 

 

More seriously, the symbol here 2+2=4 is secular, but the same shape in a graveyard is Christian.

Symbols have different meanings depending on context. A cross per se may not be Christian, but the particular one that the judgement is about is certainly Christian.

Precisely.

 

 

 

Now, I must concede there is something to be said about soldiers being allowed to choose for themselves what symbols go above their graves... federal land or not. However, I'm not sure that's a valid description of what's happening here.

 

In this case, we are discussing a veteran's memorial, implicitly (and potentially explicitly) sanctioned by the federal government. The cross memorial on Sunrise Rock was erected by a veterans group, and that veterans group is itself congressionally chartered. A congressional charter is a law passed by the United States Congress that states the mission, authority and activities of a group, but is nonetheless a law passed by Congress. That seems pretty plain to me.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salazar_v._Buono

Historic records reflect that a wooden cross was built on that location as early as 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as a memorial to veterans who died in World War I. Photographs depict the wooden cross and signs near it stating: “The Cross, Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars,” and “Erected 1934 by Members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joshua Tree post 2884.” The wooden signs are no longer present, and the original wooden cross, which is no longer standing, has been replaced by private parties several times since 1934. The cross has been an intermittent gathering place for Easter religious services since as early as 1935, and regularly since 1984. The current version of the cross was built by Henry Sandoz, a local resident, sometime in 1998.

 

 

Note: The mention of religious Easter services being held there intermittently since 1935 and regularly since 1984 seems to ameliorate any confusion regarding the christian nature of this symbol.

Edited May 5, 2010 by iNow

[Dak]

I'm interested, iNow: what secular grave-marker or memorial would you use?

[swansont]

Note: The mention of religious Easter services being held there intermittently since 1935 and regularly since 1984 seems to ameliorate any confusion regarding the christian nature of this symbol.

 

I disagree. It shows that some Christians interpret it as a Christian cross. Probably most of them do. But then, they are inclined to do so; some of them even interpret certain burn patterns on toast (or a grilled cheese sandwich) as being holy as well.

[iNow]

I disagree. It shows that some Christians interpret it as a Christian cross.

I unfortunately have to concede that point to you. Your logic is accurate and crisp, and you properly deflated my intended point.

 

It just seems like such a strained argument to be making regarding an issue so clear and common.

 

 

 

I'm interested, iNow: what secular grave-marker or memorial would you use?

That's a helluva question. I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I reviewed the thread and saw the military graveyard photo with crosses and stars at the top. Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me, as I'll be dead. The memorial is for those who survive me.

 

Whatever they choose, I'd prefer they keep it wholly secular, maybe a stone with a quote or some similar, but most certainly not a cross or any other (what is generally accepted by nearly everyone on the planet to be a) religious symbol. My stance on religion is very adversarial and to place a cross above my grave would be the opposite of honoring my life... It would dishonor so much of what I have stood for for so long.

 

 

 

Now, I need to think of a way to demonstrate without uncertainty the christian nature of the cross on the Sunrise Rock memorial, as that is the only remaining part preventing me from supporting my position in this thread in full.

 

Damn you, swansont, and your crisp pedantic logic!!

[Sisyphus]

Just as an aside, most grave stones aren't in the shape of crosses or other religious symbols. They're mostly slabs, usually with a rounded top. Sometimes obelisks. That's why the fact that military graveyards are ALL religious symbols is pretty strange. My guess for why is just momentum of tradition carried on from pragmatic practice: if you have to bury a lot of people at once, not all of whom will even be identified, nailing two sticks together is an easy way to mark a grave.

[ecoli]

Just as an aside, most grave stones aren't in the shape of crosses or other religious symbols. They're mostly slabs, usually with a rounded top. Sometimes obelisks. That's why the fact that military graveyards are ALL religious symbols is pretty strange. My guess for why is just momentum of tradition carried on from pragmatic practice: if you have to bury a lot of people at once, not all of whom will even be identified, nailing two sticks together is an easy way to mark a grave.

 

Having one stick it even easier. It's religious alright, but it's also about saving money, in some respects. Those smaller white markers must be hellava lot cheaper than the pretty, large rock ones.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By the way... it seems as if Arlington National cemetery doesn't crosses for head stones. Apparently, I didn't notice this when I was there, but:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cheney.htm

[Sisyphus]

Right. Of all the ways graves are marked, two sticks nailed together is the easiest. However, the military headstones in that picture are not two sticks nailed together, and presumably more expensive than something simpler.

 

I realize now that those aren't necessarily typical, though. Here is Arlington National Cemetery:

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hehe, cross-posted!

Edited May 5, 2010 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Hehe, cross-posted!

 

Hard not to do that in this thread.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now, I need to think of a way to demonstrate without uncertainty the christian nature of the cross on the Sunrise Rock memorial, as that is the only remaining part preventing me from supporting my position in this thread in full.

 

Damn you, swansont, and your crisp pedantic logic!!

 

A difficult task, because I think symbols have only the meaning we give to them. Which puts me in the odd position of sort of agreeing with Scalia. Here's a photo from a cemetery in Missouri

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jadamson/mo-newton/mo-ne-civil-war-2.jpg

 

Now, if the soldiers are unknown, how can we be sure that they were Christian? (and not e.g. Jewish, which belies the point someone made in the SCOTUS discussion, that "There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew." Certainly true in a Jewish cemetery, but not in general.)

 

A different question is what the legal/constitutional burden is regarding the establishment clause. Is it sufficient that most people interpret the cross as being a Christian symbol, in the context of a memorial?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd have to say that the cross is sometimes secular. If you see a cross in the ground, do you think "hey there's Christians here" or do you think "someone is buried here"? The cross has been a symbol of death for much longer than it was a religious symbol (just ask the Romans).

 

Also, I don't see why religious symbols ought not be on government land. In fact, forbidding religious symbols on government land would be a violation of the Establishment Clause and/or the Free Exercise Clause.