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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 Vic Silverfish on
-
An analogous situation would be the display of a political sign in front of the station. Even if all of the local members agreed, even if the entire city council agreed, even if the entire population agreed...it is still against the rules.
Yes, you aren't compelled to read the sign, or vote for the cause it advocates. Yes you still have the right to do what you like with your property, including your car in the parking lot and your civvies in the locker, but at work, as a representative of the government (and by extension the people) you have to keep in neutral.
I don't think anyone (well most of you at least) is malicious in approving the cross. I honestly don't think anyone sees it as intolerant, but the thing to remember is that it isn't your perception that matters. The reason for the crazy set of rules is to eliminate the risk of anyone's religion being insulted.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Voges on
-
Supreme Court ruling on cross as a memorial. This is showing that it is ok to put a cross a federal land as a memorial. So if that cross can stay as a war why cant the cross at CFD stay as a Firefighter memorial.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/28/high-court-supports-mojave-cro...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Supreme-Court-...
-
-
The Separation of Church and State came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.
The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.
This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.
So in short they are miss using Separation of Church and State to try and get there way.
-
-
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
-
Permalink Reply by Spanner 122 on
-
My only question is, Were the 9 who perished Christians? If so, and the cross is to honour them, then what does it matter to anyone else. A remembrance is "of someone, for others", it isn't to represent those left behind, it is to represent those who have passed.
-
-
That is the point, and that is why is should stay.
-
-
Not really Vic. If it is wrong then why is the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a cross staying of federal land.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
John, for starters, who is "all"???
Regardless, the fact that someone can mistakenly construe a cross at a firehouse as depicting the beliefs of "all" is not pertinent to the greater issue of the Free Exercise for the individual firefighters as stated in the 1st Amendment.
This issue, despite the outrage of some of those who don't like the display, is not about the opinion of the beholder, it's about the Consitutional Rights of the person or persons engaging in "the free exercise therof".
-
-
No, Vic, you are wrong.
This goes back to the exchange that John Crabbe and I had about the crosses on the Arlington National Cemetary tombstones. Those are part of the grounds of ANC, there are thousands of them, and most of them display the Christian cross, since that was the religion of the majority of those buried there.
The legal ruling allowing the Mojave memorial cross further illustrates the legality of religious displays on public property.
Most importantly, if the cross is banned, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. That free exercise "shall not be infringed". If you don't allow the cross display, you're infringing on the individual rights of the firefighters who placed the cross.
-
-
Vic, there is a difference between politics and religion. Once again, the conversation about displaying the Christian cross on an Arlington National Cemetary gravestone, a military dog tag, etc. covers the salient points.
The military is not allowed to engage in partisan politics in uniform, on duty, or on a military base, but they are allowed to display religious symbols and to practice their religion of choice there. The same should go for other public property, including firehouses.
You're mixing apples and oranges here.
If you ban religious symbol displays by individuals on fire station grounds, you're engating in infringing on the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the1st Amendment.
"The reason for the crazy set of rules is to eliminate the risk of anyone's religion being insulted."That's bogus reasoning.
No one has the legal right to not be insulted, or to avoid all risk of seeing someone else's religious symbol(s). That is particularly true if they choose to be insulted by the passive display of a religious symbol from another religion. Displaying that attitude meets the definition of intolerance. Intolerance in this sense is "unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs".
The individual's Consitutional rights should always trump someone else's risk of choosing to be intolerant or choosing to perceive that their religion has been insulted, especially when the passive display of the symbol is the issue and not active evangelizing or other direct religious interaction.
-
-
Spanner, several of them were. I don't know if all nine were or not.
Specifically, the one whose family I escorted to the memorial service was a Christian.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
And therein lies the issue, that of religion. If it was political or even another religion this post would most likely have died out. But because it involves crosses and christians and christianity it takes on a life of its own.
Despite veiled attempts of 'fairhandedness' it really is about a specific set of beliefs and in the final analysis that people's christian beliefs and icons be allowed to be seen everywhere, not so much as 'freedom of expression' but really just a desire to be able to proselytize as they wish and where they wish, to promote their flavor of christianity as they are so moved. That...is my opinion.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
