I’m agreeing with a group of litigious atheists when I say the cross is a religious symbol. Yesterday, a number of crosses honoring fallen police officers in Utah were deemed illegal by a federal judge, saying they violated the Establishment clause.
While I disagree with the ruling I find myself agreeing with one major aspect of the argument by the atheists who sued to have the crosses removed. The judge overturned a previous decision by a lower judge that allowed the crosses because the crosses could conceivably be seen as generic symbols honoring the lives of the fallen officers.
Deseret News reports:
The white, roadside crosses that currently memorialize the deaths of 14 Utah Highway Patrol troopers are unconstitutional, government endorsements of religion on public lands, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
“We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion,” the court wrote in siding with the Texas-based American Atheists, Inc…
“The cross is such a poignant religious symbol that calling it a memorial and putting the troopers’ names on it doesn’t change the significant poignant nature of the cross,” said Brian Barnard, an attorney for American Atheists.
Outrageous as removing the crosses is, I think Christians should have been more outraged in some ways by the lower court ruling that the cross is a generic and secular symbol. It’s not.
August 19, 2010 at 5:01 am
They've gone past destroying the cross — now they are working on the rosary, as shown by Lady Gag-me who ingests one in her Alejandro video.
August 19, 2010 at 5:55 am
Why don't you Americans just say "The Government honours the memory of the fallen by erecting the symbol of their religion". This isn't an endorsement of any given religion, but an acknowledgement that the fallen trooper (etc) being honoured was an adherent of that religion, and can safely be assumed to have wanted a fittingly religious memorial. Confirmation of the religion and appropriate symbol can be left to next of kin (thus avoiding the sticky issue of having to officially declare one's religion).
August 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Ah how extreme left-wing liberal insist on separation of Church and state! Officers killed in the line of duty cannot have their names on crosses as it might offend atheist. Right, separation of Church and state. However muslims must be allowed to build the equivalent of a Dome of the Rock as close as they are able to the site of 9/11. Federal money must be used to fund the travels of muslim leaders representing this effort overseas to raise "support." The entire project must be embraced in the name of tolerance, and pluralism. And no one must say anything contrary or else it is "hateful." Why is it not intolerant, narrow minded and hateful when extremist left-wing liberals such as atheist and others want to exclude the Cross from any sort of presence in the public sphere? Why? The answer is simple. The Cross is different. Extremist left-wing liberals can embrace islam for they share many of the same ideals and methods.
August 19, 2010 at 4:41 pm
For me, the issue is who paid for the crosses, and who placed them? Public land belongs to the people, and in the simplest terms, the religious far outnumber the atheists. So if the crosses are private property, I think the judge's position is nonsense. It then rightly is freedom of expression, protected under the 1st amendment.
August 19, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Bill – I don't think this would have ever been an issue if this were on private property, so I'm going under the assumption that it is indeed public.
Regarding the cross however, it is indeed a pre-christian symbol which took on meaning long AFTER the crucifixion. It is only as holy or meaningful as we want it to be. I don't know if you remember, but 2 years ago the Saudi Arabian courts ruled the letter "x" could not be used in public because it resembles a cross. So, this is all very subjective.
Is the cross a Christian symbol? Undoubtedly. When inverted it also stands for satanism. And when in white, it stands for "plus", "more" or "positive". And of course, it is also the letter "t". So, in the future, rather than erecting crosses to our fallen, we might want to think about erecting the letter "t" instead; that's "t" as in "ta-ta", "toodles" ("good-by"). A judge would have to be crazy to forbid the letter "t" being erected. But then again….
August 19, 2010 at 7:38 pm
The other day I saw the 1960 (or so) film JOHN PAUL JONES. Because the filmmakers employ many documented conversations and events (many are admittedly fictional) there are many unselfconscious references to God in a not atypical Hollywood production. In America references to God are not objectively offensive, but simply reflect the reality of God and the reality that this nation corporately acknowledges God.
An honest atheist is not offended by a cross. There is genuine malevolence at mischief (hardly work) here.
— Mack
August 19, 2010 at 9:17 pm
My point was that the people are the owners of "public property" and if people paid for and placed the crosses, then they represent a free expression under the 1st amendment.
For the Federal government to remove such items, or to order their removal is something I do not find in the enumerated powers.
August 19, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Mack – I agree. If I see a huge sign or bumper sticker saying, "Ctulu lives!" (yes, I know I'vd just outed myself) I am hardly offended, nor do I feel the urge to petition the government for their regulation or removal. This "militant" atheism is nothing more than self-agrandizement. It comes from a very vocal minority found in nearly all sectors and walks of life that say, "look at ME!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHH!"
Bill – your point is noted. But I think at this point it's a hard case to make, given some people errantly believe separation of church and state is indeed part of the constitution.
August 19, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Since it is essential to the health of our country that we correct the delusion about separation of church and state, I will cling to my point, and assert that it will be resolved after the delusion is cleared.
August 20, 2010 at 5:01 am
I'm not surprised a Utah judge sided with the atheists, because you see, Mormons (and the judges were probably predominantly Mormon) disdain the cross. Though they want to be thought of as Christians, Mormons never wear or display a cross. Their wards, stakehouses and temples are devoid of the cross. The cross/crucifix is anathema to Mormons–they repeatedly say "the cross is an instrument of Jesus' torture, so why would you wear one"? The Mormon's hidden agenda was to have all crosses removed from Utah highways, thus they sided with the atheists on this one.
August 20, 2010 at 7:07 am
Anon – great point. I don't/never have/never will trust Mormons. They belong to an evil, devious and satanic cult, hiding behind smiles and what they perceive as "good works". The reason I do not trust Mormons is that their leadership at any point in time can say, "Mormons, now it's time to kill babies." and as in the case of Mountain Meadows, they will do it.
The Mormon cult outwardly does not support abortion, but inwardly, they had yet another "revelation" and have thus stated "Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."
Hence, Mitt Romney's flip-flop on the subject. They're only one revelation away from supporting abortion when necessary.
August 23, 2010 at 5:51 am
For sure, if atheists are SO sure there is no God, why would a cross offend them? This I do not understand.
Just the act of acknowledging the cross as a relious symbol indicates some belief in "something", right? So, they could not be defined as atheists. Is anyone else with me on this?
I was with everyone on the comments until Early Riser's last post. I'm not saying I agree with the Mormons, but they could say the same thing about Catholicism being a cult. Our leadership in the past called for killing those who disagreed with the Church. And, it happened. Lots of it. Not a pretty time in our history, but remember, the same charges could be leveled by those "evil" Mormons, as you called them.
Personally, I guess I'm a bit more careful when it comes to using the "e" word. I have friends who are Mormon and they are very nice people. Far from evil.