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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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
-
Valid point, but the courts have interpreted it differently. By allowing religions symbols, you are tacitly endorsing that religion.
The Mojave Desert case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salazar_v._Buono) is a great example of this. When a Buddhist went to erect a monument, he was threatened with arrest. The government has endorsed Christianity and rejected Buddhism. This is clearly in violation of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Read up on the case history and the actual decision. The Court ruled that the sale of land to a private organisation was legal, and whilst they commented on the first Amendment, that was not their actual ruling.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Umm, Peter, the railroads and those who built them weren't the ones that built the country in the sense in which Chaplain Mike apparently intended it.
My understanding of the transportation available in 1776 doesn't include the railroads - which had not yet been built. The Asian contributions were primarily to the first transcontinental railroad, begun in 1863.
When you state "...it is a limited view not supported by the facts to state that this country was built on Christian values." which one of these were you discussing?
Massachussets was founded by Pilgrims (Christians) seeking religious freedom from the Church of England. Rhode Island was founded by Christians who fled from Pilgrim persecution in Massachussets. Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers (ummm, still more Christians) seeking freedom of religion. Maryland - founded by Catholic Christians seeking freedom of religion. (ever heard of Lord Calvert?) The Carolinas were settled primarily by Protestant Christians, including heavy doses of Scots Presbytarians. Savannah, the first major city in Georgia, was settled primarily by Irish Catholics.
Yes, there were a few others of different religions and even a few with no religion at all.
The non-Christian values were mostly interjected decades after the Constitutional "building" that is under discussion here. The people who signed the Constitution were mostly Christians, too. The result is a Constitution that sounds very much like "...love thy neighbor as thyself."
.
-
-
...or hooked on phonics.
-
-
Very well put, phriend.
I don't believe that either the Mojave cross or the CFD one involves government endorsing anything, but your point about the difference in endorsing and establishing goes right to the crux of the matter. (pun intended)
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Philly,
Re-read what I wrote (when you're not on company time), what I wrote was that allowing only ONE religious display while prohibiting others would be a tacit endorsement (or sponsorship) of that one religion over any other. That is indeed prohibited by the constitution. Furthermore I wrote that so long as any religious symbol is allowed (by other relgions) then that is NOT endorsement but accomodation (keep your day job as well).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
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 accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."
I think that "endorsement" and "preference" are very much the same thing and is indeed only a semantical distinction. If you 'prefer' something then you are tacitly 'endorsing' it, simply by your preference.
Again, allowing any religion to display its symbol is an accommodation to the Free Exercise clause. Only allowing ONE religion to display is a preference, or endorsement. As it relates to the Mojave Desert discussion.
-
-
Vic, the comment about the Buddhism being rejected and Christianity being endorsed in the Salazar case is disengenuous.
From the link you posted: "The letter also indicates that “[c]urrently there is a cross on [a] rock outcrop located on National Park Service lands. . . . It is our intention to have the cross removed.”
Please explain how "It is our intention to have the cross removed." is an endorsement of Christianity??? I frankly don't think you can, and I think you cherry-picked a portion of the Salazar case to try to make a point without looking at the fact that the NPS intended to prohibit all religious displays on the site.
I might suggest that you take your own advise and "Read up on the case history..."
-
-
Vic,
Shame on you for lowering yourself to Russ' level by using such inappropriate language.
Shame, shame, shame on you. Consider yourself thoroughly castigated and promise to never again stoop to such a level. Or at least, use the approved Philly spelling of that word.
-
-
Ben,
Where did I generalize to a large group? Please show me the specifics. I'm fairly sure I use a lot of qualifiers when I'm writing. As to attribution of quotes, it's just too cumbersome to go back and forth looking at what people have written. If I need to to get a passing grade I will but otherwise I'll stand with some of the 'generalities' I've supposedly made.
As to Vic's comment, I agree it was over the top and discontinuous with a calm discussion but I do appreciate where he was coming from. It was in response to Russ' comment which, all ***'s aside it was very clear what he was saying, and talk about generalizing!
My quote, "Granted he's not a moderator but by his own actions he seems to feel it incumbent upon himself to make sure all contrary views have been met and countered. This always includes getting back to people who've made personal attacks in the ongoing discussion." I've seen you do this Ben. You make it point to respond to all (or most) contrary views and comments yet you let Russ' thinly veiled F-bomb slide by. Why was that?
As for Dave, let him moderate as he chooses. Unless a discussion is about paid versus volunteer or some of us are choosing to reply sarcastically, he tends not to interfere in these kind of discussions. I never said nor implied I wanted a moderator to intervene, those are your words and don't suggest I said them.
-
-
Vic, I'm not Philly, but I'll respond to a couple of your points...
"...this can be viewed as the government preferring one religion over another. That violates the Establishment Clause." Your right to misconstrue a government preference does not trump any other individual's right to freely express their religion, period.
"The Free Exercise Clause does not extend to public employees using public property, but it absolutely protects their right to practice as the see fit, and compels the government to make "reasonable accommodation" to allow them to practice their faith."
The Free Exercise Clause applies to all American citizens anywhere on U.S. territory.
The claim that it doesn't extend to public employees using public property is bogus.
What part of "...shall not be infringed" limits public employees' right to display their religious preference on public property.
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.
"Equal oppression" does not equal "freedom". And...to cite a specific of the issue under discussion, the group complaining about the cross has oppression built into their name.
"Freedom FROM Religion" is blatantly stating that the group wants to be free from religion. The name and purpose of their group runs counter to the principle of the both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause....especially the latter.
-
-
Jack, one other thing...
How is Russ's "...F*** The Mutts..." a display of religious arrogance. It's insulting, it's intolerant, and it's dismissive, but it isn't a religious statement.
It's not really "classic", either.
-
-
Ben, I stopped reading mid-way. I wasn't at all rude and that is simply bullshit on your part. That you and I disagree is no big deal, but that you are now taking it personally is a big deal. Also, I notice you have this very disagreeable practice of cherry picking your quotes to make your points, again I call shenanigans. Read what I wrote about Charleston, I have no problem with it, nor do I have a problem with the Mojave issue. So long as everyone is treated fairly. You seem to be implying that I am in favor of having the crosses removed. I didn't say that. I do have a problem with some people who see it not as a memorial but as a christian thing and thus their right to have that christian thing. Many in here have made some objectionable comments regarding this issue and it's come from both sides, though most often from the pro-christian cavalcade.
As for your comment about enlightening you rather than citing legal precedent, do you NOT read my comments? Seriously, I know you have much better comprehension skills than that, it seems more like you are just looking to pick a fight. As far as I'm concerned your two recent comments here are borderline over-the-top. It appears that you've mixed up what I've written with what others have written.
And finally, let's be honest, you will continue on your course because it has to do with religion and your beliefs. That recent Court rulings support your beliefs (as well as mine) has done nothing to temper your attitude. You appear (at least to me) to be rather angry about this whole discussion. Maybe it would be better if you stepped back for a bit and took a breather.
-
-
See, this is what I mean. You will stoop to practically any level to push your own agenda forward. Russ' "F*** The Mutts..." came about as a result of his disagreement with the discussion and people who wanted the crosses removed. That is a display of HIS religious arrogance and that of many that have voiced similar thoughts.
I never said it was a religious statement, but rather a "display of (his) religious arrogance." Are you now going to parse every single word I write, to the point of "What is 'is'?"
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
