Cross Is Central Symbol Of Christianity And Must Not Be Secularized By Government, Americans United Tells CourtAU, Allies Say Officials’ Use Of ‘Secular’ Crosses To Memorialize Utah Highway Patrol Officers Is Offensive And Violates Church-State Separation The cross is a Christian symbol and government should not try to use it as a secular memorial marker, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told a federal appeals court.In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, Americans United and allied religious leaders and organizations take issue with a federal court decision allowing Utah officials to place crosses along highways to memorialize state highway patrol officers who have died in the line of duty. State officials insisted that the Christian symbol is a secular symbol and can be used regardless of the personal religious beliefs of the officer being honored. U.S. District Judge David Sam ruled in November of 2007 that the cross is a ?secular symbol of death? and held that Utah officials and the Utah Highway Patrol Association can continue to erect the 12-foot crosses.Americans United is asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court ruling. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said he is offended by the claim that the cross is merely a secular symbol.?The cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity,? said Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. ?For the government to claim that the cross is a secular symbol is deeply offensive and betrays a poor understanding of religion and our Constitution.?In its brief, AU points out that the cross has been tied to Christianity for many centuries.?In upholding the display of roadside crosses on public land throughout the State of Utah, the district court embraced the State?s characterization of the cross the clearest and most universally recognized marker of Christianity as nothing more than a ?secular symbol of death,?? asserts the brief. ?This conclusion is historically inaccurate, blind to contemporary realities, and offensive to believers and nonbelievers alike.?The brief in American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan argues that governmental display of the cross violates the constitutional mandate of government neutrality toward religion.Joining Americans United on the brief are the Anti-Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance, the Union for Reform Judaism and Dr. Eugene Fisher, retired associate director, Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
I’m very pleased that this issue has drawn so many allies and so much attention. The whole concept of the “secular cross” is insidious. If the Cross is declared secular, the next step is “secular” crosses on the White House, in the Supreme Court, everywhere, without a hint of government neutrality.Can you think of a time when a cross is secular? If a cross is secular when it?s erected, as in Utah, for dead cops, would you erect one for a dead Jew? Muslim? Atheist? Why not?I spoke about this on the Catholic Channel (Sirius), and the callers were siding with me! CATHOLICS are on OUR SIDE! Did I just type that?
It’s sickeningly hypocritical for our gov’t to ’secularize’ the cross. How out of touch can they be?? I’m glad the Catholics can come to their senses on at least one issue… I suspect they are responding more to the choice of wording ’secular’ being associated to any form of the cross than the fact that gov’t chose a cross for public display.
These crosses are twelve feet tall!? If all they want is to acknowledge the death of a cop then put a two foot tombstone there instead. Better yet put the tombstone in a cemetery.
The cross hasn’t been secular since theists nailed a god up to one. This is just another scheme. Like the moment of silence. Like “religious expression” in public schools. Like Bible classes in public schools.
This time it’s something tangible and long-lasting. It’s also a symbol of violence that we can always remind Christians about. If they say it’s not a torture device, just ask them if Jesus enjoyed his time on one. They’ll eventually have to admit that it’s actually a terrible terrible thing…that they wear on their freakin’ necks…!
This is just another reason why we should be disposing of all of the roadside memorial torture devices in our world.
Joe Zamecki
Austin
Religion is vile.
what, yep, disgusting.
on a lighter tone which may be a good thread:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html
And the bible teaches not to do this! Sweet.
I’ve never understood the whole business of planting crosses on the roadsides where someone has died.
If erecting a cross where someone has died is the thing to do, then why isn’t every hospital lawn crowded with crosses? Or if there is no lawn then why aren’t the buildings plastered with them? And why aren’t there crosses on lawns in front of homes where someone has died? And maybe crosses should be painted on convenience stores because a clerk has been shot and killed there. And the site of the twin towers–why bother with a memorial? Wouldn’t thousands of crosses be the ticket? This list could go on until eternity. The whole cross idea, completely aside from the issue at hand, smacks of stupid!
I thought crosses were in honor of Osiris who was nailed to a lead-lined cross and tossed into the Nile (and later dismembered), only to be resurrected and rule the everlasting and bountiful afterlife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris#Mythology
If this is the first time any of them has supported us that would make this a sort of a milestone.
I wish I knew how to do the quotes of posts to which I would like to respond, but, I don’t. I like what Zamechi said, and I agree. Wearing a cross is no different than if your father is killed in a driveby shooting, and all who remember him wearing an ornament around their neck that resembles an assault rifle.
I think that what justme said is very relevant as well. The cross is much much older than Christianity. The earliest known use as a religious symbol was in Mesopotamia to represent “Tamuz”, a mythical god-king, roughly translated, meaning “the cleansing fire.” Then came the Egyptian anhk which is really a fallis representing the eternal cycle of life, with a vagina, her butt cheeks, and an inserted male genetalia.
The cross is no different than Christmas being celebrated at the winter solstice, Easter being represented by the rabbit, a pagan fertility symbol, and the worship of the madonna. They were all doctrinal compromises the Roman Catholic Church made to smoothly absorb the pagan tribes conquered by the Roman Empire.
Which complicates everything, what symbol would you leave at the site of a fallen loved one, or a hero, that would satisfy everyone? Most likely nothing would fill the bill.
I understand the fight we have with the seemingly self blinded automatons who consider “family values and morality” as the sole possession of fundamentalist religion. And I understand the intentions of those who have committed themselves to fending off the attempts of fundamentalists to dig inroads into our government policies, and if I weren’t so old, tired, and busy, I would be right there with them.
I wonder sometimes, though, are we choosing the right places to make a stand. I may be wrong, but, I think that maybe if we demand that a Christian policeman who died in the line of duty, and the family and his friends want to mark the spot, and believe he has gone on to his reward for his sacrifice, is that a good place to draw the line in the sand?
I think sometimes we need to work smarter, not harder.
NeoWolfe
septos,
septos,
Certainly not the first time for AU, for this is exactly what they do – fight for separation of church and state, and they do it quite successfully. Good to see some of the religious groups join in as well. Not all churches want entanglement with the government.
Especially not the entanglement of some other version of religion that might then come out ahead in the race to control everyone else.
NeoWolfe,
You ask why, if the family and friends of a Christian policeman who died in the line of duty wish to mark the place where he died, if this is a good place for us to draw a line in the sand, correct?
Where exactly should the line be drawn? Police officers aren’t the only citizens who die in the line of duty. If a fireman dies fighting a residential fire should the owners of the home object if his friends and family want to honor him/her with a cross in their yard? If a police officer dies in the line of duty on the steps of the U.S. Capitol shall we allow them to erect a cross or any other religious symbol, even an atheist symbol there?
It seems to me that the concept of cross-planting should be abandoned and the money used for scholarships, or helping someone in need rather than erecting a symbol that is offensive to one group or another. The possibilities are endless and surely would honor a person in a more meaningful way than the money spent on a huge cross on a public highway and lawyers.
So yes, I believe we do need to draw a line in the sand on this issue at this time. Just my opinion.
A cross is purely secular when it is formed by the cross-beams of a collaped building, even when Christians try to make it something other than a random shape. But crosses as grave markers are most definately religious.
Neo,
The line would blurr quickly.
The symbol that should be used has been used in this country for exactly this purpose for a very long time: the obelyst (Like the Washington Monument, the Bunker Hill Monument, etc). An obelysk is undeniably religion-neutral and obvious in meaning.
mikayla-
Exactly what I thought of – the twisted piece of metal in the debris of the WTC.
David-
Um . . . . Exactly what is the “obvious meaning?” I’m sorry, it’s late and I’m having unclean thoughts.
Isn’t a obelisk a religious marker of the ancient Egyptian religion?
What the fuck does an atheist need a cross for!? Deldo or something?
I’ve made a few comments in the past as to whether the religious could ever be our allies.
I must say – making them gag on their own legal argument because it disrespects their beliefs – essentially backing the cross-supporters into a moral conundrum
…..priceless!
However, while they may be our allies on this issue, where do the catholics stand on voter fraud being committed by illegal aliens from a predominantly catholic country?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/12/rampant-voter-fraud-by-illegal-aliens-ignored-by-government-and-media/
Sometimes, the wingnuts can be useful.
This really returns us to the whole:
atheist = secular
secular = atheist
fallacy. Many American Atheists support secularism. I think that support is forthcoming because we are in a minority, and we don’t want to lose ground to theocratic supporters.
Many religionists also support secularism, we just don’t see it as much as we should. When reason is invoked, however (”are you saying your cross has no religious meaning?”) we find we have allies for secular advocacy.
Atheists don’t have to support secularism any more than religionists do. But the law of the land says secularism, and I for one intend to keep it that way.
To all of you,
Many of you make very good points. When one sees a cross, one assumes it is a Christian symbol that invokes the value of the death of Jesus as the redemption of man from cycle of “sin results in death”. As a forum, we come as nonbelievers in the value of any murder contributing to our well being. But, what are we proposing to do? Remove every cross or star of David from Arlington Cemetary?
I made the point, and I think I was largely misunderstood, that to attack the right of mourners to commemorate a fallen hero, while being just and legitimate from the viewpoint of a free thinker, may not be the most inteligent place to confront the opposition in our efforts to educate the world of the true nature of organized religion. But, let me also say, I do respect your opposing views.
NeoWolfe
I’m speechless…
Neowolfe
It seems to me that you follow an extremely predictable pattern on this blog – Dave makes a post about an insidious incursion by theists into the territory of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and then you ask if it is worth our time to fight such incursions. Just where do you think we should make or stands? I say you speak your mind at every opportunity. What prevents you – and I mean you – from doing so?
What,
I know how you feel, I am no different from you. I have read about the bloody crusades to rescue the holy land from the infidels, the Spanish inquisitions, the Salem witch trials. I do clearly understand the dangerous nature of organized religion. An I also understand their plot to make inroads to turn our government into a theocracy. But, maybe I understand something that has not occurred to you yet, and that is that the huge majority of those under the spell of religion are not bad people. They are just people afraid of their own mortality, and those who feel the need for a deep meaning for their existence.
The battle we fight appears to you to be won in a courtroom. Maybe you are right. But, the battle, to me appears to be fought in the hearts and minds of the decieved. Refusing them the right to honor their dead may make sense to us. The dead cannot hear us or appreciate our gestures. Funerals are for the living, not the dead. But, my question would be, would tearing away their legal right commemorate their heroes in the way they choose open or close their minds to what our movement is trying accomplish?
You may be right. Maybe we should sue the federal government to uproot every cross in arlington. I am simply saying that we, the only hope for this planet, need to play our cards inteligently if we intend to win. Keeping Christian creationism out of our schools, prayer out our government functions, and tax free status from churches raking in millions annually seem a more inteligent place to make a stand than legislating how people grieve for their heroes.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe,
You are an idealist. And I’m sure many of us agree with your thinking in principal but it is time that we do what works. And what works is not hoping and wishing that by standing by silently things will change.
Consider the rights of blacks. It wasn’t until Brown v. The Bd. of Education
. . . oops . . .
and the Civil Rights Voting Act that things began to change, followed by Blacks activly working to make the change that things did change. I believe atheists are in the same place and now is the time, whether it happens as you hope it will, or more likely through the laws of the land.
Just my opinion.
Neowolfe
How about a rousing round of Kumbaya? Sorry it doesn’t work. Never has.
Neo,
Arlington National Cemetery is a perfect example of the separation of Church and state. Every individual gets a symbol from which to choose (or his family chooses), and each symbol is the same size, and yes you can get an Atheist symbol or a Pagan symbol.
So the government is religion neutral.
A little late, but can I just say? It ain’t catholics that are the problem. It is there religious leaders.
As a matter of fact, religious leaders are 90% of the problem. They are the ones that are bs’ing people and brainwashing the lambs.
posterelli2-
Catholics ARE the problem because they have no spine. Priests don’t drag anyone to church. Their own “loved ones” do it.
Without lambs, there would be no shepherds.
The government isn’t *quite* neutral regarding religion at Arlington; there is a list of approved symbols, and the Bush administration kept the Wiccan symbol off the list for years, even after Americans United and the ACLU filed lawsuits. It was apparently denied/ignored for years only because those in power were prejudiced against Wiccans.