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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 Ben Waller on
-
Jack, you are generalizing again, and you're offering unproven and unprovable assumptions to back it.
Of course this thread is specific to the Christian religion, because it is about a cross display. If it involved a religious symbol from another religion, then it would be about that particular religion, not the one under discussion. {Restating the obvious}
Please explain how the passive display of a religious symbol is proselytizing???
Proselytizing is either "inducing someone to convert to one's faith"
or "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause".
The cross does neither. It is a generic Christian symbol and does not differentiate between any Christian denomination and any other Christian denomination. The cross displayed at the CFD firehouse is not specific to any one Christian denomination.
Further, in order to prosyletize, there must be active recruiting and a specific denomination involved. In this case, the CFD cross involves neither of the elements that must be present for proselytizing to take place.
The CFD corss is not proselytizing, it's just "the free exercise therof".
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Not specifically the cross(es) in Charleston but overall, this discussion and others like it. It is very typical of certain christian flavors to simply have to be out there pushing their faith like crack cocaine (and with the same effect and validity) and I've come to see this (and those) as just that.
Please feel free to continue on and discuss as you wish but really, I see no further point in in. It's about making sure that certain people really get to speak their beliefs (while regrettably having to allow others to do the same).
I see little difference between the taliban and other theocracies and what certain christians would inflict on this country. It's about their "beliefs" and how they need to have everyone else believe and follow them. In fact, the worst of the 'religions' tell their believers to go out and convert or....well, we've seen how that can be interpreted.
May the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you all with his noodley appendage.
Ramen,
http://www.venganza.org/
-
Permalink Reply by Russ on
-
keep the cross, loose the nuts, FTM-P(AR)TB F***The Mutts Protect (And Remember) The Brothers. They got the nativity removed let them keep the memorial and the cross
-
-
Actually, Vic, the Charleston firefighters have the right to display a cross on public property for whatever reason they choose to give.
It is protected by the "Free Exercise" clause you mentioned.
The Free Exercise clause simply says that the free exercise "shall not be infringned". Preventing the display of the cross at the CFD station is infringing on the Constitutional rights of the Charleston firefighters.
The cross is not-repeat-no a violation of the Establishment clause!
That clause was clearly intended as a prohibition against the federal government establishing a state religion. That was part and parcel of the U.S being founded on - among other things - the free exercise of whatever religion individuals chose instead of being forced into membership in a state church like the Church of England.
Your last paragraph simply doesn't apply. The Free Exercise clause gives the CFD firefighters to practice their religion freely, and that clause does not state that this freedom can be infringed on public property.
And...the Charleston firefighters are not using the firehouse property in the same manner they would their cars, homes, or church property. The cross is not specific to a specific denomination, it is not evangelizing or proselytizing, no one is being recruited to that religion, and the city is not promoting a specific religion, because the city didn't place the cross nor are public funds involved.
The Free Exercise clause protects religious freedoms everywhere, not just in someone's yard or in their car. If I'm wrong, please show me a public property exemption for the Free Exercise clause as written in the 1st Amendment.
BTW, cars didn't exist when the 1st Amendment was written, so you're adding a freedom that didn't exist then while eliminating one that did.
-
Permalink Reply by Steven C. Hamilton on
-
I apologize to all by stirring the pot with the initiation of the Arlington Cemetary post.... However, I stand by my point and I feel that it is very interesting argument indeed.
-
-
No need to apologize - the Arlington Cemetary issue is completely pertinent to this discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
The headstones at Arlington are relevant here, but they are a historical site. There is a lot of precedent and case history of making exceptions for historical sites, I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement there.
The CFD cross is clearly not of "historical value" as it is new.
-
-
Read the SCOTUS ruling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salazar_v._Buono)...they allowed the land the cross is on to be sold to the local VFW hall for the specific purpose of evading the rules that prohibit the display of religious symbols on public property. The did not rule "in favour of a cross staying federal land."
You will also note that when a Buddhist tried to erect a similar symbol, he was threatened with prosecution. This is exactly why this sort of thing should not be allowed, in this case, the government has endorsed one religion, and suppressed another.
-
-
I will believe your arguments above as soon as your station lets me hang a big banner off the front that says "There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet." As a taxpayer (we'll have to assume I live in your town for this) I have that right since the building is public property. In fact, maybe we could hang them off of some FDNY stations to honour the Moslems who worked in the WTC and were killed on 9/11!
How long will it take before your station, mayor, and the local press are inundated with phone calls and complaints?
It's easy to bend the rules on speech and religion for popular causes that arouse the emotions (religion, the tragic deaths of 9 men) but remember it cuts both ways. The same rules need to apply to unpopular speech and stuff that everyone hates.
-
-
No, fuck you Russ. Read the Constitution instead of wiping your ass with it. We can honour the fallen and not dishonour the principals our nation was founded on.
-
-
Russ,
For you to refer to anyone who disagrees with you as "...F*** The Mutts..." is both insulting and a classic display of religious arrogance and is (at least to me) a clear example that this discussion (on your part, anyway) is NOT about freedom of expression OR religion, it's about how some christians insist on being able to display whatever they want, where ever they want, when ever they want.
To presume that anyone who disagrees with allowing the cross(es) to remain are disrespecting the fallen firefighters is absurd and insulting and shows how truly narrow minded you are. I'm surprised you haven't suggested stoning those who disagree with you, that would be in keeping with biblical tradition, not to mention talibanic ones.
Moreover, I'm more than a bit dismayed that Ben hasn't chimed in here reprimanding you for such a hostile attitude. In fact it's attitudes like yours that drives the animosity between those that want to display their beliefs on public property and those that want to prohibit it.
And FYI...the nativity scene was allowed to remain so it appears that facts are irrelevant to any discussion you participate in.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Jack,
I wasn't even able to decipher what the barely-literate Russ was grunting. (Although I had a pretty good idea). I had no trouble, however, understanding Vic's, I-can-out-ignorant-Russ, response. So I have to wonder, if you're dismayed by Ben's failure to reprimand Russ over his comment - one that Ben may not have seen yet - how dismayed should Ben be that you have not done likewise with Vic? (At least in public).
For what it's worth, I don't have a rock-solid position on this matter. I'm certainly not "offended" by religious iconography, in private or public places, but I don't exactly offend easily. I will say that Ben's argument seems to be more rational than Vic's. They each refer to the Constitution to make their case, specifically the 1st amendment. Vic refers to the "Establihment" clause while Ben refers to the "Free Exercise" clause. It's easy to see the logic in Ben's argument - The government may not infringe on the right of the people to freely exercise their religion. Vic's point is not so clear to me. He continually makes the point that the government is "endorsing" a particular religion in allowing a cross on public property. (A point which I don't concede, but I understand his thinking). However, there is no constitutional proscription regarding the "endorsement" of religion, only the "establishment" of one. It would be a mistake to see that as quibbling over semantics, they are clearly two different things.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
