The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Freedom Group Protests Cross at Charleston Firehouse
JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. - A group that supports the separation of religion and state wants a cross removed from in front of a Charleston fire station that city officials say honors nine firefighters killed battling a furniture store blaze.
The fight over the cross extends from a battle the Freedom from Religion Foundation had with the city last December when the group complained about a nativity scene in front of the same fire station. Officials added secular decorations, including snowmen, to comply with the law.
Most of the decorations came down by the new year, but the cross stayed up, the city saying it was now a memorial to the firefighters killed in June 2007, said Rebecca Markert, a lawyer for the foundation.
The foundation didn't buy the explanation, sending a letter last week to the city threatening to sue if the cross is not removed because it violates the U.S. Constitution by endorsing a specific religion. The group also said for the past five years the same cross had been removed at the same time as the Christmas items.
"We believe it is a sham to say it is now part of a permanent memorial when before it was being put up and taken down in December as part of Christmas," Markert said Tuesday.
The cross rests near a stone memorial with the names of the nine Charleston firefighters killed as they fought a blaze at the Sofa Super Store.
Lawyers for the city told officials it was a legal display because it is a secular emblem of death.
"The message communicated by the cross is clearly one of honoring fallen firefighters and not of furthering a religious purpose," lawyers for the city said in a news release.
The letter from the foundation gave the city a May 14 deadline to take down the cross.
Related
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. - A group that supports the separation of religion and state wants a cross removed from in front of a Charleston fire station that city officials say honors nine firefighters killed battling a furniture store blaze.
The fight over the cross extends from a battle the Freedom from Religion Foundation had with the city last December when the group complained about a nativity scene in front of the same fire station. Officials added secular decorations, including snowmen, to comply with the law.
Most of the decorations came down by the new year, but the cross stayed up, the city saying it was now a memorial to the firefighters killed in June 2007, said Rebecca Markert, a lawyer for the foundation.
The foundation didn't buy the explanation, sending a letter last week to the city threatening to sue if the cross is not removed because it violates the U.S. Constitution by endorsing a specific religion. The group also said for the past five years the same cross had been removed at the same time as the Christmas items.
"We believe it is a sham to say it is now part of a permanent memorial when before it was being put up and taken down in December as part of Christmas," Markert said Tuesday.
The cross rests near a stone memorial with the names of the nine Charleston firefighters killed as they fought a blaze at the Sofa Super Store.
Lawyers for the city told officials it was a legal display because it is a secular emblem of death.
"The message communicated by the cross is clearly one of honoring fallen firefighters and not of furthering a religious purpose," lawyers for the city said in a news release.
The letter from the foundation gave the city a May 14 deadline to take down the cross.
Related
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
Ben, you must be getting writers cramps, because I have blisters trying to keep up with you.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ben, sorry, anytime I hear (read) someone say (write) "Freedom OF Religion", not "Freedom FROM Religion", it's because they are pushing their christian agenda. Our government was designed to be free from religion. Good enough for me. Otherwise they would have incorporated religion into our constitution. They didn't.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Ya know, you've said "read the First Amendment" several times...here it is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I've bolded what has come to be known as the "Establishment Clause." The clause following it has become known as the "Free Exercise Clause" The combination specifically prohibits the government establishment of religion, but Government cannot prevent a person from the free exercise of their religion. They have subsequently been interpreted over the years that religions displays on public property violate the establishment clause. The courts have usually determined that all religions must be treated equally with public goods, so erecting a cross is out (it is usually impractical to erect enough monuments to not offend anyone) but granting access (for example, allowing a church to use a school auditorium following the same rules any other organisation would follow) is allowed.
Check the Wiki page...it talks about the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, their history (which is fascinating in it's own right) and even goes into some of the current controversies such as displaying a creche on public property, using public funds for secular aspects of religions organisations like schools and hospitals, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Halverson on
-
Have they said anything about the free exercise clause as it relates to having no religion? I'll go back to the Declaration of Independence, where it states that "all men are created equal.: I'm going to assume this includes on basis of religion. So, therefore, how can you protect the religious rights of someone, but not protect the rights of someone with no religion. Where is their right to exercise? I'm neither condemning nor condoning the actions the Freedom From Religion Foundation is doing, but someone could potentially accuse the CFD of violating their first amendment rights for forcing the cross on them.
I wouldn't expect much to happen if that did occur, but some people will do anything to get attention.
-
Permalink Reply by Blaine Cowan on
-
Mr. Borg,
I'm pretty sure that Jerry Falwell is dead. If he is cramming religion down your throat, that's a miracle....maybe even a sign from God. :-) LOL brother.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Actually, they do factor in to this topic. Are you saying that individuals don't have the right to passively demonstrate their religious affiliation on public property when they are alive, but it suddenly becomes OK after they die???
No Ben, this does not factor into this discussion, nor debate. Have you served to understand the way things work for a veteran? You do realize that in boot camp that you put down your religious beliefs, be it Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, whatever and that is placed on the person's dog tags. In the event a veteran is killed, their dog tags depict their religious beliefs so that a proper prayers and burial can take place according to that person's religion.
When the servicemember is buried in a veteran grave like that in Arlington, or any other military cemetary, their grave is a private grave, just as it would be for any other countless cemetaries across the country. The religious symbols depicted upon such tombstones are the beliefs of the individual. These servicemembers are buried next to their brethern, of all types of religious backgrouns, and as such those symbols are depicted. This is why you see a Star of David tombstone next to a Cross and so forth.
The argument as set forth was that the poster I replied to must not understand this concept, and perhaps you don't either, that having a common non-religious symbol on a tombstone in a place like Arlington, will never happen and has nothing to do with this debate here. Contrary to some of the beliefs here, Arlington is not a public place, but the graves are individual. Also, in order to be interred in such a cemetary, one has to have served the country, the average citizen is not going to be interred there.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
John,
I won't answer for Ben, except to say that you're on shaky ground when you suggest he might not understand a particular concept.
-
-
I understand WP, and this would not be my first go round with Ben. I understand he is very knowledgeable and can make a good argument. However, there is a reason for the religious symbols on all those tombstones in such a cemetary like Arlington, and it does not factor in this debate of some goofy group attempting to take those symbols away from such a place. The grave is that of the individual, it is not public ground.
-
-
This is me not answering for Ben. (I'll be back later for a look).
-
-
Manifest Destiny was validated by specific, religious, christian beliefs. In other words, their god backed their decisions.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
That is an oversimplification. Manifest Destiny was also racist, imperialist, territorial, and economic. All of those were more important to the people that engaged in it than any religious aspects.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
