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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 Jack/dt on
-
Ben, I give up. You feel the need to win, you have it bro. I'm not going to argue this any longer. Don't get me wrong, I stand by all I've said, but frankly it's just not worth the effort having to flip back and forth between pages to see who said what to whom, when and where. It's friggin' exhaustion. Besides, I'd much rather be happy than right most days. Think what you will of me, it's says as much about you as it does about me.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Jack,
Being an agnostic, I would prefer the government not prefer religion at all, let alone one over another. However, its preference (or APPEARANCE of preference) of one is simply not the same as establishment of one. That's all I'm saying.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack, that's not what he said, and you know it.
You're seem to think that this issue can only be decided by one extreme or the other, preferrably the extreme that has been the case for years.
Philly, some of the others, and I recognize that there is a middle ground that meets both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
Apparently, the courts are starting to recognize that as well.
Look around - no state religion has been established, planned, or even advocated for here.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Dybing on
-
Thank You
-
-
Considering some of the messages I've gotten from ( )ave in the past, I'd love to see the nasty-gram Vic must've gotten over this one.
-
-
Jack, I responded with an apology immediately below where you pasted the quote.
Please look down a few posts for this..." Sorry, I did call you rude that one time. I apologize for the mistake."...
and this... "My comment about your projection of anger stands. I'm not angry here and I never have been."
,,,then feel free to get back to me.
-
-
Jack, what part of "I'm not angry" don't you understand?
You've admitted at least twice here that you haven't read all of my posts. I did not generalize that you didn't read them all, I just said that when you admit that you don't read them completely then want me to post repeats of what has already been said, that it's a waste of time and effort.
You specifically challenged me for not calling Russ out on his post. The effect was challenging me for not posting immediately, even if you didn't bother to go back and check the timeline.
Claiming that you didn't make a demand because you didn't literally state the demand while at the same time making a demand in different words that has the same effect is more than a little disengenuous don't you think?
And Jack, when you claim that I'm arrogant simply because I state that I'll continue to engage in my 1st Amendment rights to free speech, that's beyond silly.
-
-
No Jack, I don't want to win. I want the Constitutional rights that "shal not be infringed" to win.
You are also insisting that I'm arguing from a basis that I clearly am not and have not. You also have not answered my direct questions about how a passive religious display on public property (supposedly) establishes a state religion, or how suppressing all religious displays on public property can be rationalized as not infringing upon individual religious freedom.
-
-
:-0
(Mr. Bill reference)
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Coleman on
-
This morning, I got up and went outside. I saw a tree and decided I should become a druid. I looked up past the tree to see a single star and the crescent moon nearby. I should become Islamic. As I considered the star, I thought, nah, I'll just be jewish. But then I noticed the branches made a cross, so I decided to be a christian.
As ludicrous as all of this sounds, the idea that seeing a cross on fire department grounds will cause a person to convert to christianity or that it even constitutes evangelism is just as silly. How many of us have seen roadside crosses at car wreck sites? These crosses do not encourage a specific religion, they merely indicate a memorial.
If one of the firefighters who perished were Jewish, I don't think anyone would say a word if a Jewish star were displayed alongside the cross.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is that these atheist groups are not satisfied with not believing in God, they feel that any religion is a compromise to their 'logical' minds and must be eradicated and those who practice religion are the enemy.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
I'll survive. If you look at my other posts, you will see a far more conciliatory tone. I have no issue arguing law, legal precedent and the interpretation of the 1st Amendment - I strongly believe the Framers were intentionally vague to encourage this discussion. These disagreements are what make America great.
As a mod, I would slam both Russ and I for acting like fools. To me that is fair.
-
-
Fair enough. I am quite tired of being derided for my beliefs. I can't help but notice no one castigating the other guy.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
