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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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, do you think I'm a Christian who thinks that atheists are bad people?
If not, then why are you lumping me in with that generalization?
-
-
The cross isn't being forced on anyone. The cross is a passive display.
If someone was actively evangelizing, distributing religous literature or symbols while on duty, or engaging in some other action promoting a religion, then that would be "forcing" religion on someone else.
-
-
Vic, I'm quite familiar with that information, and what is key here is the "Free Exercise Clause". In this case, the government didn't display the cross, the firefighters did. That falls squarely under "free exercise".
Erecting a cross is not "out". There are acres of them in Arlington National Cemetary.
A cross memorializing the Charleston 9 is no different than a cross memorializing fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
Allowing someone to "freely exercise" their chosen religious symbol after they die but not allowing the same for living public employees is a specious double standard.
More on point, the Establishment Clause is designed to prevent the implementation of a state church like the Church of England. Putting a cross in a fire station yard is not the establishment of a state religion or anything close to it.
-
-
Let's examine this a little further...
For those of you who believe that it is prohibited to display a Christian symbol on public property, while on duty, etc., would this apply to a firefighter who has a St. Florian tattoo that is visible while in uniform?
-
-
There is no shame in displaying a symbol of a religion in which you truly believe.
"Shameless" applies perfectly here, just not in the sense in which you posted it.
-
-
Jack, I call BS again. That is a generalization, and it's an absolutist statement that is easy to disprove if there's a single exception to it.
A passive display of a religious symbol is not "pushing a Christian agenda", it is simply the free exercise of a person's religion.
That is a vast difference from incorporating religion into the Constitution. It does not establish a state church, which is what the Establishment Clause intends to prevent.
Nowhere does the Establishment Clause say that someone cannot freely practice their religion on public property, and in fact the Free Exercise clause specifically gives people the right to to do the same.
I'd support any Charleston firefighter who wished to display symbols of another religion publically. However, in this case, the cross is specifically stated to be a memorial to the Charleston 9. If my information is correct, all of them were Christians.
I have personal knowledge that several of the Charleston 9 were Christians.
My source is the family of one of the 9, for whom I was an escort to the memorial service.
-
-
"If your spelling indicates your placement on some level of normality, I wouldn't be bragging too much were I you."
Jack, someone's spelling is absolutely not pertinent to the conversation or to the validity of the person's opinion.
"I only (or mostly) responded to people who get all apoplectic about the issue."
You've displayed a fair amount of apoplexy on your side of this issue, Jack.
That is clearly a two-way street here.
I want to reinforce that have a lot of respect for you, despite our disagreement on this one issue.
-
-
John, you are indeed on shaky ground if you claim that the acres of crosses in Arlington National Cemetary are private property.
The "National" in the title of the establishment, the government funding that maintains it, the public funding that pay for the Old Guard to guard it and conduct burial services there, and the public administration that oversees it all show clearly that Arlington is a public place.
The dog tags with the service member's religion stampled on them are not private property - they belong to the branch of service that issues them.
"...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. "
On the contrary, there are at least two common non-religious symbols are authorized on military tombstones. There are authorized Atheist and Humanist symbols as shown in items 16 and 32 in the Authorized Emblems table on Arlington National Cemetary's web page.
I could use your last paragraph to make the point in favor of a cross memorializing the Charleston 9 on local, public property there by simply substituting "Charleston" for "Arlington", "memorialized" for "interred", and "City of Charleston" for "country".
"...will never happen and has nothing to do with this debate here. "
The first has been disproven per my link above, and the second is clearly incorrect, since this entire debate is about the display of religious symbols on public property.
-
-
Look
-
-
Vic,
Claiming that Congress engaged in "passing a bunch of BS laws to thwart the existing regulations regarding religious displays on public property, right down to where they allowed the few square feet that the cross stands on to be sold to the local VFW post so it wasn't on federal land."
Is a specious statement. Congress exists to pass laws. If they choose to legislate a reasonable compromise regarding a specific issue, that is not only their right, it is their obligation.
I certainly haven't said that you "aren't American enough" or stated that in any way you are not qualified or allowed to serve your community. What those of us who disagree with you are asking for is tolerance on your part, plain and simple.
Claiming "All of this is to whip up the religious base and turn this into yet another "culture war" issue to further divide the country. " is completely inaccurate. This is simply about a memorial to the Charleston 9, who happened to be Christians. That in no way interferes with any right you have, it is not designed to generate controversy, it implies nothing about your qualifications or desire to serve, andyou have no evidence to support your statement to the contrary.
This is about a group that practices organizational intolerance artificially creating a divisive issue.
Moreover, that group does not consist of firefighters, let alone Charleston firefighters.
They're seeking publicity and legalized backing for their particular brand of intolerance, that's all.
-
-
Jack, apparently you didn't think about the power of symbolism before you posted that particular little gem.
There are different definitions of "peace", too. I believe that brother Joseph was referring to the inner peace that Christian belief brings to many of its practicioners.
While you might not share his beliefs, the ridicule of them is unwarrented.
If the symbol and a deeper understanding of what it means bring inner peace to those who believe in it, I'm struggling to see how anyone could see that as a bad thing.
No one is forcing you to wear the symbol, engage in any activity supporting it, or to believe in the symbol or the religion it symbolizes.
-
-
CBz, it is indeed all about perspectives.
Why are you cramming white fire trucks down our throats?
Doesn't the Constitution guarantee freedom from white fire apparatus?
Isn't that color offensive to people who happen to believe in red fire apparatus?
{Ben removes tongue from cheek}
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
