Christian Cross deemed secular symbol by Supreme Court

[iNow]

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"?

Yes to both.

 

 

I don't see why religious symbols ought not be on government land.

 

Having them there is less of an issue than who put them there. In the case being discussed in this thread, the cross is there on government land due to the actions of a veterans group with congressional charter. Had some child or widowed spouse of a fallen solder done the placement the issue would be vastly different.

 

Further, you seem to be ignoring the obvious ramifications. You feel it's okay to honor the soldiers, and fail to understand that your attempt to do so is dishonoring the jews, muslims, non-believers, and all other non-christians who died for their country.

 

Yay, let's honor our solders... so long as they shared the same delusion as christians.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now, if the soldiers are unknown, how can we be sure that they were Christian?

We can't, but the question is irrelvant to the issue at hand since it was not the soldiers who placed the cross, but instead a congressionally charted group who erected the memorial on federal land.

 

 

Is it sufficient that most people interpret the cross as being a Christian symbol, in the context of a memorial?

I stipulate that this is my opinion only, but the answer is a resounding yes. Any arguments to the contrary (that this cross erected as a death memorial and worshiped at easter is not a christian symbol) are simply untenable.

[swansont]

We can't, but the question is irrelvant to the issue at hand since it was not the soldiers who placed the cross, but instead a congressionally charted group who erected the memorial on federal land.

 

I think there are two issues at hand. Your poll was a general one, so there is the general question about the secular nature (or not) of a symbol. Then there is the specific context that instigated the poll, of the cross on federal land.

[Dak]

However, the military headstones in that picture are not two sticks nailed together, and presumably more expensive than something simpler.

 

Marble's expensive, and minimizing the amount of material used might make them cheaper than slabs.

 

Whatever they choose, I'd prefer they keep it wholly secular, maybe a stone with a quote or some similar

 

That kinda fails at being easily recognizable from a distance as a memorial

 

otoh, i'll admit that if I see a honking great big cross I don't know wether it's supposed to be a memorial or a statement along the lines of 'we're all christian :-p', so that kinda fails too. But it is at least traditional.

[jackson33]

Further, you seem to be ignoring the obvious ramifications. You feel it's okay to honor the soldiers, and fail to understand that your attempt to do so is dishonoring the Jews, Muslims, non-believers, and all other non-christians who died for their country.[/Quote]

 

NO inow, the Cross was placed there by CHRISTIANS to Honor all Veterans of WWI, there was no intention to dishonor anybody.

 

 

Update; FNC has been reporting the Cross has been stolen or disassembled and removed from the property. IS this what's called American...or what we have come to, when laws are not agreed with.

[Moontanman]

NO inow, the Cross was placed there by CHRISTIANS to Honor all Veterans of WWI, there was no intention to dishonor anybody.

 

Intentions do not really matter, Jews and Muslims would not feel honored by a cross, nor would Pagans non believers and even some sects who profess to be Christians.

 

Update; FNC has been reporting the Cross has been stolen or disassembled and removed from the property. IS this what's called American...or what we have come to, when laws are not agreed with.

 

Well if Fox is telling the truth I agree it is sad, illegal acts are not going to help this issue at all.

[ewmon]

I am among many Christians who would rather see separation of church and state, and so, would have no cross on any public land or building. But if they plan on erecting a replacement, I think it fair, realistic and also less argumentative that they use a replica of the original structure and plaque. I wonder if anyone has a good photo of it.

 

FYI, the federal government has authorized the use of 41 religious emblems for use in the Arlington National Cemetery, representing the world's and North America's major religions, and these include emblems for wiccans and atheists. (To me, a natural conclusion is that atheists wouldn't have any symbol at all. Hmm....)

[jackson33]

Intentions do not really matter, Jews and Muslims would not feel honored by a cross, nor would Pagans non believers and even some sects who profess to be Christians. [/Quote]

 

I don't know Moon, being agnostic myself, when a person blesses me, forgives me or in some manner rewards me under the name of their God/Religion, it certainly does not offend me. When thanking the person, I assume those intentions were honorable. To assume they were not would seem to me be selfish and hardly the time to begin spreading my belief's...

 

 

I am among many Christians who would rather see separation of church and state, and so, would have no cross on any public land or building. But if they plan on erecting a replacement, I think it fair, realistic and also less argumentative that they use a replica of the original structure and plaque. [/Quote]

 

ewmon; I understand the Constitutional Definition, as the prevention of an establishment of a National Religion, ie the Church of England 1776, allowing the open practice and to worship as the person wished, or not at all. I doubt even the most ardent of Evangelicals would advocate for their own understanding be mandated by Government. I wonder if you could separate the religion of those that serve in Government from their actions, or if that would be a good thing.

 

As for rebuilding, I'm afraid your going to see more legal fighting over the issue, however the following is a good basic feelings of those involved. Personally, I'd prefer to see the original cross found and placed back where it was for it's symbolic value, which includes it's current controversy.

 

The VFW promised that the memorial will be rebuilt at its remote rock 70 miles south of Las Vegas and 200 miles northeast of Los Angeles.

 

"This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell said.

It was not immediately clear whether they would be permitted to erect a new cross or whether a new cross would fall under the Supreme Court ruling.

 

"We're waiting for news from the Department of Justice as to what we should do. The case is still in litigation," Slater said.[/Quote]

 

http://cbs11tv.com/national/mojave.cross.stolen.2.1687292.html

[Moontanman]

I don't know Moon, being agnostic myself, when a person blesses me, forgives me or in some manner rewards me under the name of their God/Religion, it certainly does not offend me. When thanking the person, I assume those intentions were honorable. To assume they were not would seem to me be selfish and hardly the time to begin spreading my belief's...

 

I honestly do not care about that cross on way or another but rest assured that many of faiths other than Christianity would not agree it honors them.

 

 

I doubt even the most ardent of Evangelicals would advocate for their own understanding be mandated by Government.

 

Sadly, knowing many of them as I do, I think this is naive, many of the fundamentalist mind set actually assert this should happen and a very few even assert violent conversion of the government and masses. On a positive note these last groups do not appear to be gaining ground as fast as other more benign groups.

 

 

I wonder if you could separate the religion of those that serve in Government from their actions, or if that would be a good thing.

 

I'm not sure about their actions but nearly all pretty much claim to be Christians due to it being quite difficult to be voted into office if you are not a Christian.

 

As for rebuilding, I'm afraid your going to see more legal fighting over the issue, however the following is a good basic feelings of those involved. Personally, I'd prefer to see the original cross found and placed back where it was for it's symbolic value, which includes it's current controversy.

 

To me the stealing of this cross, if indeed this is what happened was a cowardly act if nothing else.

[iNow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/us/12cross.html

A seven-foot-tall Latin cross in the middle of both the Mojave Desert and a Supreme Court case on the separation of church and state has been stolen, federal officials said Tuesday.

 

The cross, made of metal tubing reinforced with concrete and bolted to a base on a rock, about 200 miles east of here, was discovered missing Monday.

 

A large plywood box had covered the top of the cross for several years, making it look like a big wooden lollipop, while a lawsuit over whether a religious symbol could stand on public land made its way through the courts. That box disappeared Saturday, said Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, where the cross is, or was, located.

 

No motive was known, Ms. Slater said.

 

<...>

 

Peter Eliasberg, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which has fought to have the cross removed, said, “We condemn without hesitation any theft or vandalism.”

 

 

[ewmon]

Just some related points to ponder to flesh out the thought process here …

 

I had a son who served in the Marines. Let’s say, for example, that he died in some obscure location in Iraq, and that his remains were eventually found. As it turns out in this piece of fiction, the local Muslims gave him an Islamic burial with all the ceremony and trappings that an Islamic funeral would have.

 

Even though I have a deep and abiding objection to the Islamic faith, I sincerely believe that I would say, “Wow, they thought well enough of him to consider him as their own and to give his remains their utmost respect.” That is, instead of treating his remains like a piece of garbage left to rot or thrown to the dogs.

 

Also, let’s say I had a loved one buried in a cemetery with a gravestone. So, as this fictional story goes, I visit the grave and find that some Jews, who also knew this relative, had left pebbles on the gravestone, as is their custom of respect when visiting a grave. Again, this would also gladden me instead of making me fly into a rage because someone supposedly desecrated the grave.

 

Finally, the tree-belts of our roads and the verge of our highways are owned by either the local, state, or federal government. As I travel the roads and highways, I see many crosses permanently erected by their loved ones on these public properties that honor those who died in automobile accidents. I would also venture to guess that some of the dead were not religious at all. It’s strange that I don’t see those crosses stolen or removed with the rest of the roadside trash, and I don’t hear about lawsuits to remove them.

 

Regarding offensiveness, anyone who has read Huckleberry Finn knows that it contains several instances of the “N-word”, which is universally considered offensive (unless, for some strange, it appears in a rap song). Yet, I can go to almost any public library (ie, government-run library), pull a government-owned copy of Finn off the shelf, open it, and see this offending word.

 

I believe in separation of church and state, but the Mojave Memorial Cross seems like a gray area because it clearly has a history of sincerity and reverence to it. Perhaps grandfathered rights, or squatter’s rights, or something long-established or traditional? Should we erase all the native American religious symbols that appear everywhere on public lands? Because they are religious structures, should various churches and synagogues in Boston, New York City, etc be stricken from the National Register of Historic Places where they receive official recognition by the United States government?

[Moontanman]

Just some related points to ponder to flesh out the thought process here …

 

I had a son who served in the Marines. Let’s say, for example, that he died in some obscure location in Iraq, and that his remains were eventually found. As it turns out in this piece of fiction, the local Muslims gave him an Islamic burial with all the ceremony and trappings that an Islamic funeral would have.

 

Even though I have a deep and abiding objection to the Islamic faith, I sincerely believe that I would say, “Wow, they thought well enough of him to consider him as their own and to give his remains their utmost respect.” That is, instead of treating his remains like a piece of garbage left to rot or thrown to the dogs.

 

 

I have to agree with this, i would not feel dishonor for him if this happened.

 

Also, let’s say I had a loved one buried in a cemetery with a gravestone. So, as this fictional story goes, I visit the grave and find that some Jews, who also knew this relative, had left pebbles on the gravestone, as is their custom of respect when visiting a grave. Again, this would also gladden me instead of making me fly into a rage because someone supposedly desecrated the grave.

 

Again i agree but we are evidently reasonable men and it is good that we assume everyone else is also reasonable but the reality is that not everyone or even a majority of people are reasonable.

 

Finally, the tree-belts of our roads and the verge of our highways are owned by either the local, state, or federal government. As I travel the roads and highways, I see many crosses permanently erected by their loved ones on these public properties that honor those who died in automobile accidents. I would also venture to guess that some of the dead were not religious at all. It’s strange that I don’t see those crosses stolen or removed with the rest of the roadside trash, and I don’t hear about lawsuits to remove them.

 

This is not the same thing, these crosses are placed by private individuals to honor a specific death of a Christian. These crosses are kept up by the individuals involved and after a period of time are often taken down. They are certainly removed by highway maintenance people when they start to decay because the people who put them there no longer keep them up.

 

I often wonder if were to die in an auto accident and if some of my pagan friends put up a pentacle at the place of the accident how long it would stay there, not long i would bet. most people around here would go nuts if a pentacle were displayed in such a way or at all for that matter. It would be taken down immediately by some concerned Christian, i would bet money on it.

 

Regarding offensiveness, anyone who has read Huckleberry Finn knows that it contains several instances of the “N-word”, which is universally considered offensive (unless, for some strange, it appears in a rap song). Yet, I can go to almost any public library (ie, government-run library), pull a government-owned copy of Finn off the shelf, open it, and see this offending word.

 

I am not sure this is a similar thing, Huck Finn is product of it's time period, to take out the word nigger would take away a large part of the message of the book and that message had to do with racism.

 

 

I believe in separation of church and state, but the Mojave Memorial Cross seems like a gray area because it clearly has a history of sincerity and reverence to it. Perhaps grandfathered rights, or squatter’s rights, or something long-established or traditional? Should we erase all the native American religious symbols that appear everywhere on public lands? Because they are religious structures, should various churches and synagogues in Boston, New York City, etc be stricken from the National Register of Historic Places where they receive official recognition by the United States government?

 

I agree that stealing this cross was counter productive to any realistic public discussion about it. I'm not sure about the Native American symbols, does the government keep them up or were they carved in stone before the Europeans took the land? I see no reason for churches to be stricken from list of historic places, the government doesn't build or keep them up, i don't think that is part of this conversation.

[iNow]

I thought that some of you might be interested to see this update:

 

 

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/explaining-8465-anonymous-letter.html

An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, contacted the Desert Dispatch newsroom at around 4 p.m. Tuesday. He said he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. He told a reporter that the person responsible for the theft wrote up the following explanation and statement regarding the removal of the cross. He asked that the Desert Dispatch to print the statement in its entirety.

 

We make no claims to the validity of the origins of this statement. We concluded, however, that the short time between the reporting of the cross’s theft and the receipt of this lengthy statement signified at least a strong connection. We are passing along this information in the hopes of illuminating what might have happened:

 

"1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.

 

2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.

 

3. I am a Veteran.

 

4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

 

5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

[Pangloss]

After which he went out and sugared a few SUV gas tanks, no doubt. It's not terrorism if nobody actually gets hurt, right? Just ideological vandalism, I suppose. The sad thing is that he probably thought he actually accomplished something.

 

Words are easy, as is vandalism in a remote area. Honoring the law when it flies in the face of your ideological preference -- that's hard.

[iNow]

Words are easy, as is vandalism in a remote area. Honoring the law when it flies in the face of your ideological preference -- that's hard.

Thank you. I TOTALLY agree, and that's precisely why it's so troubling that so many people are so willing to totally overlook the Establishment Clause... The separation of church and state as outlined in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States... by arguing in favor of allowing that cross to remain on government land.

 

Thank you, Pangloss. It's really a nice change of pace to be so fully aligned with you on this.

 

Honoring the law when it flies in the face of your ideological preference really is hard, and that honor needs to be put forth especially when it's the supreme law of our entire nation.

[Pangloss]

You've perfectly captured exactly how the right-to-life crowd feels.

 

Fortunately you can do exactly what they've done in the face of being shut down by the Supreme Court: Demand another hearing. Then another one. Then another one. Then another one. Until you get what you want -- what you feel cannot be compromised on.

 

If you're so inclined, of course. But even if you're not, I'm sure somebody will, which is why we're still dealing with the abortion issue today, and will steal be dealing with the establishment clause for generations to come, I suppose.

[Genecks]

Logically, a Christian cross is Christian. Thus, it is not secular. Logic, for the win.

 

Jesus was put on the cross.

But the cross really symbolizes crucification.

Personally, I questioned the oddly-shaped plus sign's usage as a boomerang while growing up...

 

ANyway...

 

Having Jesus on the cross would help symbolize it as a Christian cross.

If you walk into a Roman Catholic church, you'll more than likely see a cross with Jesus on it, all ripped and lookin' fit.

 

The absence of Jesus could signify an Orthodox tradition, where Jesus got off the cross. Maybe the nails were lacking silver or something... I'm not sure. Yet I believe the Orthodox Christians have their own version of the cross with a slanted foot rest or something like that... That would be a clue that it was an Orthodox cross. Also, the Orthodox Christians emphasize flat, 2D objects and artwork in relation to saints, Christ, and so on.

 

A Roman Catholic cross would more than likely have some kind of 3D feature to it.

 

Pagans were crucified. Thieves were crucified... and so on...

 

A cross by itself is too ambiguous. At best it could symbolize the sins of mankind, as a person had to commit a moral sin, as judged by an audience, to have been put on such an object.

 

That's my view.

 

Also, I think for most branches of Christianity, a simple plus sign is not deeply representative of Jesus' crucification experience. There would have to be more to the cross.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Genecks

[The Bear's Key]

That's funny Genecks, I was about to post the same thing: the Christian cross is obviously not secular as it's Christian. If the poll asked just about a normal cross, it might be different.

 

 

You've perfectly captured exactly how the right-to-life crowd feels.

 

Fortunately you can do exactly what they've done in the face of being shut down by the Supreme Court:

This, for example

Over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings.

 

TRENDS:

...

Five people have been shot and killed, eight others shot and wounded, dozens of buildings bombed, firebombed, even hit with napalm and noxious gas, sending several people to the hospital, all in the U.S., all in the last two years, and all for this political/ideological cause.

 

 

And that

•

1994-JUL

: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action assassinated a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he also wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges.

•

1994-AUG

: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.

 

 

Plus this

Abortion providers in northern New York state and Canada were attacked

...

•

1994-NOV-8:

Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver BC was shot in the leg.

•

1995-NOV-10:

Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster ON (Near Hamilton) was shot in the elbow.

•

1997-OCT-28:

A physician in Rochester NY received minor shrapnel wounds.

•

1997-NOV-11:

Dr Jack Fainman of Winnipeg MN was shot in the shoulder.

•

1998-OCT-23:

Dr Barnett Slepian from Amherst NY (near Buffalo) was murdered, although the perpetrator claimed that he only wanted to wound the doctor.

 

All five were shot through a glass window or door at their homes.

 

 

Don't forget that

Between 1998 and 2000, more than 80 letters which threatened Anthrax contamination were sent to U.S. clinics in 16 states. Anthrax is a potentially fatal bacteria if its spores are inhaled into the lungs. All of the letters turned out to be hoaxes.

 

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington on 2001-SEP-11, similar Anthrax letters started appearing in political offices and news media in New York, Washington, and other cities. Some letters actually contained the deadly bacteria. In late October, abortion clinics in 13 states throughout the U.S. received about 150 letters marked "Time sensitive security information enclosed" with return addresses from law enforcement groups. They were mailed from five states. Inside was a powder and a death-threat letter allegedly signed by the "Army of God."

 

 

Helping lead us to

In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services.

 

Oh so that's how things get done: wither the opposition illegally and pretend to everyone the change was brought about by good old-fashioned peaceful rallies.

 

 

 

At least what's cool about the one site I linked to, is they give credit to the majority of pro-lifers as being separate from the extremists claiming to be in their ranks, plus it mentions how a number of pro-life organizations disapprove of the violence.

 

But then I have to ask what you think the response would've been if the shoe were on the other foot: if the anti death penalty crowds behaved that way -- injuring or killing people and sending death threats?

 

Oh right, ideological opposites are *equally* misbehaved or dysfunctional. Not that you would've claimed such a thing.

[Pangloss]

Just because some right-to-life adherents have committed terrorist acts doesn't mean that none of them have a legitimate point of view. Shall we condemn all anti-establishment adherents just because one of them has committed the criminal act of theft? Of course not.

 

And you've illustrated my point perfectly: You can ridicule and over-generalize and straw-man them all you want, but you can't make them go away. Like a bad penny, they just keep turning up. We should have been able to get away from the abortion issue decades ago and moved on to more important matters. But that's life in a democracy -- elected officials representing public opinion and legal challenges in courts keep causing this issue to return. None of this has anything to do with terrorism, TBK.

 

The anti-establishment crowd will now proceed to do exactly the same thing with separation. They'll bring it back up. When that fails, they'll bring it back up again. And again. And again. The issue will never rest, because to some people it's just THAT important.