On the Cross and the Law.

[JoeyKnothead]

Is the Cross a Generic Burial Symbol?

From the article here.

Justice Antonin Scalia disputed the premise behind the lawsuit, telling Mr. Eliasberg that it was unfair to view the cross merely as a Christian symbol.

"The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead," he said. "What would you have them erect? Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"

"I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew," Mr. Eliasberg said. "So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead," Justice Scalia said. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion."

Question for debate:

Is the cross too tied to Christianity to not be considered a Christian symbol?

[micatala]

Is the Cross a Generic Burial Symbol?

From the article here.

Justice Antonin Scalia disputed the premise behind the lawsuit, telling Mr. Eliasberg that it was unfair to view the cross merely as a Christian symbol.

"The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead," he said. "What would you have them erect? Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"

"I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew," Mr. Eliasberg said. "So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead," Justice Scalia said. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion."

Question for debate:

Is the cross too tied to Christianity to not be considered a Christian symbol?

NOw, I realize the only excerpts from the case I have seen are the few lines above, but I have to ask "what planet is Justice Scalia inhabiting?"

The cross is a common symbol for graves yes, but only in pre-dominantly Christian areas.

As far as other options, how about a simple rectangular gravestone?

Now, do crosses sometimes honor war dead who are not Christian? Sure, I imagine they do, especially if the religious affiliation of the dead is not known and they are from or buried by a pre-dominantly Christian nation. BUt to assert, as Scalia seems to be doing here, that the cross should be considered some kind of religiously neutral symbol for honoring the dead is completely ridiculous.



As far as the lawsuit, my view on such issues is typically that there are some on both sides who make too much of the symbolism and the controversy. While I don't know all the details of the establishment of the cross at the location being debated here, my view would be that as long as people from other religions are also free to erect religious symbols, such a display is not necessarily unconstitutional. [/i]

[Goat]

As far as the lawsuit, my view on such issues is typically that there are some on both sides who make too much of the symbolism and the controversy. While I don't know all the details of the establishment of the cross at the location being debated here, my view would be that as long as people from other religions are also free to erect religious symbols, such a display is not necessarily unconstitutional. [/i]

The key point in this particular case was not only did they have a cross displayed, but they refused to allow monuments that had the religious symbols of other religions. They then bypassed the normal protocol to allow this land to be owned by a group with a Christian connection, so that the cross could remain there.

The combination of refusing to allow the religious symbols of other religions, and the bypassing of normal protocol to attempt to keep the cross there is the issue.

[McCulloch]

I think that a time may come where the cross becomes a generic symbol, but it is not here yet.

Even the Red Cross has had controversies about the religious ties to its symbol. In order not to offend Muslims, the Red Crescent was recognized by the ICRC in 1877 and formally recognized in 1929 .

[micatala]

As far as the lawsuit, my view on such issues is typically that there are some on both sides who make too much of the symbolism and the controversy. While I don't know all the details of the establishment of the cross at the location being debated here, my view would be that as long as people from other religions are also free to erect religious symbols, such a display is not necessarily unconstitutional. [/i]

The key point in this particular case was not only did they have a cross displayed, but they refused to allow monuments that had the religious symbols of other religions.

If this is the case and we are talking about public land, then I would say the cross is in violation of the constitution. One might make the case that since the cross has been there for something like 60 years and constitutional interpretation was different at that time, then it might be grandfathered in. However, if the requests for other symbols is more recent, then in my view, they lose any credibility in making the "grandfathering case."

They then bypassed the normal protocol to allow this land to be owned by a group with a Christian connection, so that the cross could remain there.

This is problematic, but I am not sure such protocols are relevant to the constitutional questions. To me, the question is whether religious freedom and diversity is being respected.

[Goat]

This is problematic, but I am not sure such protocols are relevant to the constitutional questions. To me, the question is whether religious freedom and diversity is being respected.

What makes it relevant is that they were making exceptions so they could keep a religious symbol in place. And yes, the request to place a Buddhist symbol in the park had been fairly recent.

[Coyotero]

Read about this just this morning over at the WIld Hunt.

It's ridiculous. The least we can do to honor the dead is to give them a proper marker. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'd be furious if a cross was to be placed on my grave or that of my family.

Wiccans only recently won the right to have the pentagram displayed on military graves. Asatruars are fighting for the same right to have a proper marker symbol (Thor's Hammer.)

www.hammerproject.org

[McCulloch]

Read about this just this morning over at the WIld Hunt.

It's ridiculous. The least we can do to honor the dead is to give them a proper marker. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'd be furious if a cross was to be placed on my grave or that of my family.

Wiccans only recently won the right to have the pentagram displayed on military graves. Asatruars are fighting for the same right to have a proper marker symbol (Thor's Hammer.)

www.hammerproject.org

Interesting read. Is there any approved symbols for those without religious beliefs?

Not wanting to wait for an answer, I turned to my friend Google.

Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers Department of Veterans Affairs

[row]Atheist [col][img]http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/images/emb-16.jpg[/img] [row]Humanism [col][img]http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/images/emb-32.jpg[/img]

[JoeyKnothead]

Just an aside...

When I was in the Army back in the early eighties, I declared myself an atheist on the form for declaring such. This information would be placed on our dog tags for whatever purposes.

Somehow "atheist" turned to "no religious preference". Seems I was gonna get prayed over whether I liked it or not.

[Coyotero]

Just an aside...

When I was in the Army back in the early eighties, I declared myself an atheist on the form for declaring such. This information would be placed on our dog tags for whatever purposes.

Somehow "atheist" turned to "no religious preference". Seems I was gonna get prayed over whether I liked it or not.

I had a friend in the Air Force a few years back. He wanted "Asatru" listed on his tags, but instead was given "No religious preference". He repeatedly asked to get it change, and from what he says, he was simply ignored.