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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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
-
There we finally have it. "The courts have been consistent - consistently wrong. They have ruled on the side of completely suppressing religious displays on public property. That is not freedom, it is oppression." What utter bullshit, Ben. Are we now moving into conspiracy theory? The government is out to get god fearing christians? Please, give me a break. One minute you're applauding the government's action to allow religious expression and the next you claiming they're 'out to get you.' Sheesh, have it both ways, brother.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack, I call B.S. I didn't "stoop" to anything. My agenda here is Constitutional. If someone is "stooping" when pushing a Constitutional agenda, the it's a sad, sad day for America in general and FFN in particular.
Russ's comment indicated arrogance and all of the other negative things I labeled it above, but there was nothing religioius about it, even in the context of the larger discussion.
Please check out any Fraternal Order of Leatherheads (FOOLs) site for the PFTM before the PTB is the first in a list of the FOOLs acronyms on the masthead. If Russ's comment was religious, then by definition, so is the FTM on the Leatherheads' site and merchandise, since it is exactly the same thing.
Russ insinuating that you are a mutt isn't religious at all, unless you're now trying to claim that the FOOLs are espousing a Christian religion.
I really thought you had the ability to discern the difference, and you are absolutely wrong when you stated "You will stoop to practically any level to push your own agenda forward."
I'm still looking for that calm, rational Jack I thought I knew. Do you know where he's gone?
-
-
Jack,
I'm not angry, but you are very, very confused on this.
I respond in specific ways to specific comments that you made, including quotation marks and you accuse me of cherry picking????????????
It is difficult to respond to that without appearing sarcastic, so I'll just let how I responded explain itself.
You are accusing me of things for which you have not one iota of evidence, and for which there is ample evidence to the contrary.
My issue here is Constitutional.
And...more to the point...neither, you, nor Vic, nor anyone else who has posted on the side of removing the CFD cross has come close to explaining exactly how forcing the CFD firefighters to remove the cross is congruent with the Free Exercise Clause's "...shall not be infringed."
It is impossible to force the removal of the cross without infringing on the CFD firefighter's 1st Amendment Rights.
" I wasn't at all rude and that is simply bullshit on your part."
I call Straw Man on that one - I didn't accuse you of being rude anywhere in that post - or anywhere else, and you admitted that you didn't even read half of my post.
And...when you accuse me of anger in an angry post like the one above, frankly, that is projection.
-
-
I've been and remain calm and rational. But like you I won't remain quiet when it comes to my opinions or what I find to be irrational attacks or comments.
I agree with the crosses at the memorial for the Charleston 9, and I agree (so long as it's applied fairly) with the Courts decision to allow the Mojave cross to remain. I haven't argued against either of them. Only the broader issue that is being pushed that these things (the removal of the crosses at the two sites) are somehow unfair to christians and/or some kind of flanking maneuver by the government to "oppress" religious beliefs.
If the court decrees that accommodation is acceptable then so be it. Personally I am not in favor of any religious symbology on public property. As it belongs to all it should represent all but as is often the case there are those that step up and want to hog it all for their own beliefs. I feel it's better that public grounds/buildings be kept neutral of all religious displays. It avoids conflict and confusion. But in doing so it in no way disallows an individual to express their own beliefs via clothing, medals, garb or anything else, while at work or in public. That right still exists and I defend anyone's right to express their own viewpoint.
A lot of where I'm coming from is when I see how various groups push their agenda into schools and local politics, trying all angles to work their beliefs into schools, education and books under various guises. You may not be one of them but there are many christians out there that do want their beliefs taught in public school. I am steadfastly against that, and any attempt to create a theocracy (which is being attempted by various groups).
So I prefer neutrality. It is NOT oppression, it does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs and it keeps religion private, where it should be. I do not believe religion should have any import in government nor should it be allowed to decide how government is run. Each unto their own.
-
-
I'll repeat something I sneaked in on Jack earlier (when he was too upset to really look, apparently.)
Both Russ's and Vic's comments were way across the line for this conversation or any othe rone here.
Both are in violation of the user agreement, too.
We need to be able to disagree without demonizing the opposition and dropping F-bombs on each other.
I normally don't advocate either admin or self-nuking of posts, but in this case, I think it's warranted for both.
Love,
Ben
P.S. - Jack, did you note that I addressed specifics to all parties involved. I did not generalize. I did not ascribe motivations to any of the parties involved. I called them out for what they actually said, not for what I imagined their state of mind to be or what I thought others who thought like them might have said if they posted here.
Are you smellin' what the Rock is cookin'???
-
-
Read Vic's link. The government clearly intended to prohibit all religious displays in the Mojave cross case.
The cross is no longer on public property, so the case is moot.
-
-
"The rudeness and generalizations on both sides need to stop...including yours. Tell me again how you "didn't accuse you of being rude anywhere in that post - or anywhere else," See what I mean, you did in fact call me rude and then you subsequently deny it.
Thanks for the link of what projection means. I see now that you're going to be both insulting and condescending.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Jack and Vic,
Again, I read and understood what you were saying. Again, the Constitution does not prohibit "endorsement" or "preference" (Which may or may not be "very much the same thing"). It prohibits establishment. If, in the past, the courts have interpreted endorsement or preference as being the same as establishment, then, much like the proverbial Sheriff, it would seem there's a new interpretation in town.
-
-
Interpretation, like timing, is everything.
from Wiki
"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation."
-
-
"Only the broader issue that is being pushed that these things (the removal of the crosses at the two sites) are somehow unfair to christians and/or some kind of flanking maneuver by the government to "oppress" religious beliefs."
I have not "pushed" that from a religious perspective, yet you respond as if I had.
And Jack, you're dancing all around the issue, but you still can't tell me how the government can force the removal of the CFD cross without violating the "...shall not be infringed." part of the Free Exercise Clause.
I understand your opinion, but when you start discussing the education system and establishment of a theocracy, those are just red herrings.
None of those things are guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but the free exercise of religion specifically is guaranteed.
I haven't said that removing the crosses was "...somehow unfair to christians", and when you throw that in a post directed at me, it is the flimsiest kind of straw man. I strongly disagree with your "...and/or some kind of flanking maneuver by the government to "oppress" religious beliefs"
If the government prevents "...the free exercise therof" of religion that is guaranteed in the Constitution, then it is not only oppression, it is un-Constitutional. The display of the CFD crosses is - plain and simple - the free exercise of religion.
And Jack, please explain how the passive display of a cross in a firehouse yard is "allowed to decide how government is run."????
OK, that one was rhetorical. The cross has nothing to do with a religious group deciding how government is run. It is a passive display, it wasn't put there by the government, and allowing it to remain is simply recognizing the Constitutional rights of the CFD firefighters who put it there.
-
-
And Jack...in the case of the CFD, no other religious display is being prohibited, so that doesn't wash in this specific case.
No CFD firefighter has requested to place a non-Christian display on firehouse grounds. If such a display had been either erected or requested, we would have heard about it.
-
-
...and the CFD cross does neither.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
