But does a memorial represent an establishment of religion? Is there a bias toward one religion or does it just happen that the officer was christian and hence a memorial would have a cross?

If the officer were jewish and it allowed for memorials to have Stars of David, this would be an "out" to the claim that these are an attempt to establish religion.

It's my interpretation that they are resembling headstones, which often are crosses, not necessarily promoting chritianity.

IMHO, the only ones who could sue would be the families if they felt the officer was not a christian and should not be interpretted as such. Otherwise it's a memorial, not an attempt to promote a religion.

To all those who keep saying its not a religious symbol, its just a marker for the dead which has no religious meaning...

Replace all references to 'Cross' with 'Upside-down cross', still withous obvious religious markings, just the name of the deceased.

Is this insulting? Is it inappropriate? If you feel so, then by definition the same unmarked cross, face up, has religious meaning.

I figure thats a pretty good litmus test.

Interesting question. I only find it as inappropriate as putting a street sign on the bottom of the pole. A simple extension of the pole beyond the top of the sign has some aesthetic appeal. Moving the sign too far down would result in a phallic abundance of pole.

As for insults, the American Atheists could still object to it. All you did was trade the cross of Jesus with the cross of Saint Peter.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?
I don't think its pushing the context, but I do think its a bit of a reach. I really don't think this matter fails any of the 3 prongs of the lemon test. Yes, its a cross, but what is it really? Its a memorial to a fallen trooper. When you look at the cross examples given thus far, what comes to mind? A reference to Christ? No, a memorium to a public servant. Lets test the 3 prongs:

1) Does the action have a secular(non-religious) purpose? Is a memorial to a fallen trooper secular in purpose? This one is probably the most difficult to determine. Do atheists have funerals or tombstones? I ask that question honestly.

2) Is the primary effect advancing religion? No. The primary effect is a symbol of memorium to a dead officer. The chosen symbol is a cross, which is culturally pervasive in the United States.

3) Does subsidizing a memorial constitute an "excessive entanglement" between government and religion? No. Its a cross referring to a trooper on a highway. The subsidy of the memorial isn't tied to whether or not the memorial is a cross.

Should the ACLU get involved in this case?
No, this example is trivial at best from what I've seen and not worth using ACLU resources either way.

But does a memorial represent an establishment of religion?

It can, if it contains religious symbolism.

I'm not certain, but I believe supreme court precedent defines the first amendment as referring to all religion, so we needn't get overly tangental about the exact words: Establishment of religion.

Is there a bias toward one religion or does it just happen that the officer was christian and hence a memorial would have a cross?

So therefore your proclaiming that the government was just bending to the private individuals desires, not actually making an endorsement itself?

Well the direct wording in the constitution is "respecting" not endorsing. I believe the word respecting here, means to have anything to do with.

Of course, complete literal interpretation of the constitution generally isn't done, as it makes the document too weak, and says Bill Gates has the right to own nukes, but anyways...

It's my interpretation that they are resembling headstones, which often are crosses, not necessarily promoting chritianity.

You don't believe they were intended to be crosses?

IMHO, the only ones who could sue would be the families if they felt the officer was not a christian and should not be interpreted as such. Otherwise it's a memorial, not an attempt to promote a religion.

Allegedly the crosses "offend" passing non-christians. Thats probably not true to anything more then a very minute degree, but that doesn't make the memorial constitutional, and that is what were truly trying to discern here.

Yes some of the people might get upset about it especially family members of the slain officer who's cross you altered. But I can guarantee they won't respond by destroying property or making death threats and actually killing people like another religion I know..

No Christian extremists only reserve that kind of behaviour for Abortion clinics and doctors, or possibly teachers who say evolution should be taught in the classroom.

"Sue Gamble’s daughter was driving on a Kansas City-area highway when another motorist tried to run her off the road. Her car was plastered with anti-creationist bumper-stickers. Says Gamble: “The man told her, ‘If I ever see you again, you’re dead’.”

Rupe and Gamble knew passions over evolution run high in Kansas, but they didn’t bargain on the issue consuming as much of their lives as it has. Their e-mail in-boxes are always overflowing. Sometimes the message is one they’d rather not hear. “I get death threats,” says Gamble. “I’ve been told I don’t deserve to live.”


My point is that EVERY religion has its violent extremists, and these should not be taken as emblematic of a religion. Yes, at the moment Militant Islamicism is on the rise and there are a lot more of them than there are of Violent Militant Christians, but that is largely due to world events. It was not always thus, nor will it always be thus again.



Anyways, back to my point, if these people are insulted/ unhappy/ angry because their monument is an upside-down cross, then obviously they cannot argue that a right-side up cross has 'no religious significance'.

Are groups like The American Atheists pushing the context the of 1st Amendment too far by trying to remove any symbol or reference to God from all Federal and local property?

Unless there are some magical properties to these crosses that transforms anyone who looks that them to become a Christian, I really don't see how this would pass as "establishment".

By not allowing them I can easily see it as prohibiting "free exercise"


Should the ACLU get involved in this case? If so which side?

Absolutely! They should join it and empty their coffers to get it to the Supreme Court. I only wish it had happened in the 9th Circus, that would insure it.

This is a situation that should provide the perfect vehicle to go back to a more strict interpretation of establishment, and provide a more reasoned starre decisis..

I don't see why. If people are insulted/unhappy/angry if a US flag is flown battered and torn or upside down to mourn a loss, does that "obviously" indicate the flag is a religious symbol?

I once jokingly wrote on the blackboard at school, that the supreme court had banned the use the of all lower case Ts on government property, because they resembled crosses. What really matters here, is the intent of the symbol, not hos good a depiction of a cross it is. Are you now going to make the assertion that the symbol was not made to resemble a cross?

Are you addressing my post? If so, no, that isn't my assertion. The cross is the universal memorial for mourning a loss, though I'm sure it has religious roots. It can be found on highways around the US and cemetaries for this reason. They can even be found in Normany, on public land in France, where the separation of church and state is more strictly regarded than it is here. If someone went into Normandy and turned all of the crosses upside down, I doubt that only the Christians would be offended.

The cross is the universal memorial for mourning a loss, though I'm sure it has religious roots.

If it is universal, then why don't we see it used for the graves of the mass majority of Muslims, Jews, or people of other no Christian faiths?

I don't think we would we see fields of crosses in the Middle East. I don't think we'd find them lying around in many places in Asia. If it is a religiously neutral symbol, then why is it used by Christians almost exclusively?

All of this has been addressed in this thread before. I'll repeat myself again. It is the Universal sign for memorial, not the universal gravestone. Do you honestly believe that every person represented by those thousands of little crosses at Normandy was a Christian? I suppose I'm taking a license with the world "universal", as I'm not sure what the Middle East uses as their sign of memorial. Only here, Europe, and some of the parts of Asia I've visited has this been the case. I seem to remember large neon crosses on south Korean hospitals as well but it has been a while so I might be mistaken there.

Do you honestly believe every grave at Normandy had a cross? Well guess what, not every grave did. Jews got Stars of David. Only Christians got crosses.

Again, not graves, memorial sites. These were places which do not have bodies, but the person is remembered via a memorial cross.

You missed the point on that one. An Upside down cross ONLY has any significance to anyone as a religious symbol, it is literally anti-Christian, the sign of down below. Thus, if a cross 'devoid of any markings' has no religious significance (as some people here have maintained) then a similar cross, devoid of markings but placed upside down MUST by definition be similarily devoid of any religious significance.

Your psudo-compairason to defacing a flag has no relevance, we are talking exclusively about religious symbols here.

I don't understand what you mean. How can a government freely exercise religion without respecting the establishment of religion?

I think the title of this thread is misleading. Strict separation of church and state was a Southern Baptist doctrine until a change in 2000.

In his newest book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, Jimmy Carter writes:



Carter, an evangelical Christian, who still believes in the separation of church and state, subsequently left the Southern Baptist Church.



I suspect there are many Christians who, like Carter, feel uncomfortable with the current attempt to bring religion into secular institutions.



Sleeper

Unlike the late comedian Justin Wilson, you can’t guar-an-tee anything.

It seems you are making a comparison between Christianity and Islam. With your kind permission, I would like to point out that Christianity is not without its violent episodes. Here are a few examples of what Christian fervor have produced.

The Crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Disputed death tolls for the Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

Salem Witch Trials

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...salem/SALEM.HTM

Paul Hill

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96286,00.html

Other Christian Abortion Clinic Violence

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Religion by it’s very nature is usually emotional. When emotions run rampant, violence remains a possibility lurking in the background.

That is one of the reasons I, and several others on the board, oppose any breach in the separation of church and state.

The government isn't supposed to freely exercise religion, the government is just supposed to allow the people to do it.

The Congress is prohibited from establishing a religion, such as Henry IV did when he couldn't get a divorce in the 1500s when he established the "Church of England".

Aside from establishment and prohibiting free exercise, anything else is an expansion of authority that is not constitutionally enumerated.

My point was that having crosses for memorials to fallen troops or officers can hardly be seen in that same context of "establishing" a "Church of America". To see it as establishment is a real stretch. But by not allowing them (or The Commandments or a nativity scene at Christmas) could easily be construed as "prohibiting free the free exercise" though.

Again, not graves, memorial sites. These were places which do not have bodies, but the person is remembered via a memorial cross.

The memorial stones at Normandy had Stars of David for Jewish soldiers, not crosses. Why is this, if a cross is a universal symbol of mourning?