Reading this news story about the 43 foot cross on public land in San Francisco gets my blood boiling. A basic synopsis is as follows: In 1954 a 43 foot cross was erected on a prominent hill in San Francisco as a memorial to veterans. Seventeen years ago a court battle started where an veteran sued the city government to take down the cross because it did not reflect his beliefs. The court battle is still ongoing today.
The defenders in the court battle want the cross to remain and are trying to paint this as an attack on veterans. This can be seen in quotes from the story like:
"This is a great day for veterans."
And:
Sanders said he was glad the federal government would "take the lead in preserving the integrity of the memorial."
And:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Bush's action is "a great signal to our veterans that we will not forget the sacrifices that they made during the time of conflict."
But the fact of the matter is that no one is against there being a memorial to veterans, not even one 43 feet high. The problem is that a Christian cross excludes all veterans that did not hold Christian beliefs.
"The cross on Mt. Soledad shows a preference for Christian veterans over non-Christian veterans who have fought and died for their country, and that's wrong," McElroy said.
Would Christian soldiers be okay with their memorial being a 43 foot crescent for Islam? Or a star of David? Even if they were the minority?
The fact of the matter is that the cross itself is not offensive, nor is the idea of a large memorial on the hill offensive. Its unconstitutional. You know, that great document you often talk about defending? Its against establishment of religion, ANY religion, by the government. Quite simply, showing preference for one religion over all and any others is not allowed. Period. The cross to the exclusion of all others is unconstitutional. Its really simple and any American with pride in their founding document should understand why the cross has to be replaced with a secular memorial, or accompanied by symbols for all religions.
Since the defenders of the cross on public land know that they have no arguement against that fact, they try to change the battle into defending the memorial for veterans, which of course is not what the point of the court battle is.
3 comments:
I think you're misinterpreting the (spirit of) separation of church and state - as do most people who strive to keep religious symbols off public land.
The way I understand it is that:
a) Religions should not overtly control government policy
b) Governments should not overtly control church buisness/policy
Having a big-ass cross on public land has nothing to do with how the country is run. Hell, (in general) only uber-anal atheists give a damn these days, and they complain to try to prove a point and to stick it to people of faith.
Furthermore, take a look at war cemetaries over in Europe where our forefathers fought & died.... row on row of - guess what - christian crosses. The cross is, whether you like it or not, more than just a symbol of the Christian religion.... it is a symbol of military sacrifice.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Simply interpreted, it means that no religion gains the benefit of governemental support or oppression. Religions are free to be practiced privately.
I agree that it is usually "uber-anal atheists" that raise a hue and cry about this constitutional ammendment being ignored, but not always. And that does not make it right. Either the constitution is the rule of the land, or it is not. Can't have it both ways.
As for war cemetaries, take Arlington for example, each veteran buried there gets their choice of religious symbol for their tombstone. All religions are treated equally, there is not one generic cross for everyone.
As for saying the cross is a symbol of military sacrifice, I have to admit that is a new one to me. Any references? It might be traditionally that only crosses have been used because most veterans serving were christian of some flavour, but I am not aware of it being solely military. Plus I might suggest that a 43 foot cross in the traditional christian ratio is different than a cross like the Victoria Cross. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Cross
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn distinctions between a display of various religions where there is a real rather than token effort to be inclusive and a simple sectarian display.
Personally my objection would be - how does a cross reflect veterans? Would passers by know what the cross meant if passing by or just think "some madman's put up a cross". (from Father Ted)
It's hardly the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima now is it?
Post a Comment