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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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, you're cherry picking once again. I didn't say the crosses should be removed yet you insist on bringing it up as though I have. I stated that the cross has become nearly as secular as christmas. Really, I did. And I also stated that I had no problem with them there as a public memorial. Really, I said that too.
And when you say that the government is oppressing religious beliefs, I merely stated that you must think there is some kind of flanking maneuver occurring. It's all about phraseology and trying to make a point. Rather you choose to parse every sentence and word.
You have indeed pushed from a religious perspective, all of these discussions were not the result of you being bored and playing the devil's advocate. As a christian (your admission) this means enough to you to warrant your effort here. Hence my statement about pushing a perspective.
I haven't used any straw man arguments here. They are all relevant. You may not have said removing the crosses was unfair to christians but you implied it in many of your statements. Or at the least I inferred it. I'm really just too lazy to go back through all these pages and copy and paste.
Finally I don't see disallowing religious symbols from public property to be oppression of freedom or religion or expression. To me public property is NOT the place for those things. That's what churches and private property is for. Have at it, I'm good with that.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
The current court, perhaps, may not be as wedded to the second interpretation (which is a monument to judicial imagination) as past courts.
-
-
So you think that the government should be able to prefer one religion over another? Were that the case I see all sorts of shenanigans being played out. I'd prefer the present interpretation remain married. Divorce can be so messy.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack, once again, I'll respond where, how, and when I wish.
If you don't like it, you'll have to live with it.
Further, I didn't let Russ slide. I called him out for his post - twice - elsewhere in this discussion. I called Vic out jointly with him in both places.
How about you stop being so offended that I have an opinion that differs from yours and take a look around????
"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."
I also clearly understand that you didn't bring Dave into the discussion.
Funny, I thought that I did. It was in response to your frankly silly comment that started "Granted he's not a moderator..." Jack, I don't have to check with you before I post an original thought, now, do I???
JBottom line, Jack, when you admit that you're not reading everything I post and subsequently challenge me to point out where you generalized, it's not worth the time or effortto respond further.
-
-
Ben, you've lost your ability to be rational here. Now you're accusing me of expecting you to check with me first before you post. Your arrogance is becoming phenomenal.
Again you are not fully reading what I write. When I said I stopped reading mid-way, it was in reference to the one post I was responding to, only. I in fact did end up reading it through, as I have all of your wonderful missives. It would appear that, from the one statement I made about reading only mid-way of ONE of your diatribes, you've then gone on to GENERALIZE that I don't read all of them. Hum...who's the big bad generalizer now?
Still not sure where I've demanded you respond or that you do so in a timely way. I'm hoping this is not a sign of early dementia on your part as I'm pretty sure I've expressed no expectations of when or how you'll post.
Could you further explain this statement at least, "How about you stop being so offended that I have an opinion that differs from yours and take a look around????" Firstly it appears that my having a different opinion from yours seems to be offensive to you and secondly, by looking around you're suggesting what?
"Granted he's not a moderator" is what got your knickers all in a knot here? Holy shit (pun most definitely intended)!!!!!!
-
-
Jack, that's a GIGANTIC straw man...OK, it's two.
I didn't offer any conspiracy theory, and when you make the giant leap to one, it is putting words into my mouth, and you know it.
Nowhere have I claimed that the government is out to get me, Christians, or anyone else.
It doesn't take an intentional conspiracy to oppress religion. Oppressing all religion in the interests of neutrality is still oppression. A bureaucratic "take the easy way out" that infringes on one religion - or all religions -
All I've said is that the courts have misinterpreted the Free Exercise clause, adn I believe that they have.
Jack, I really thought that you were smarter and more insightful than this.
When you start claiming that my point is BS in the same posts with two of your personal, original straw man logical fallacies, it makes it pretty evident where the BS is here.
I'll ask another question or two here.
Are you saying that the courst have not consistently ruled on the side of suppressing religious displays on public property, Jack? If you're not, then you are going to have a hard time arguing that suppressing all religious displays on public property is not either oppression or infringing on the free exercise of the individual's religion.
And Jack, you've missed something else that I implied but didn't state to see if you'd be unemotional and logical enough to pick up on it. My points about the Constitution and the CFD cross apply equally to all religions, not just to Christianity or any of its permutations.
Conspiracy theory? IAre you projecting again?
-
-
Hey, you said I was rude, I called you on it, you denied it, I pasted your quote and you haven't addressed it. As far as I'm concerned you're continuing to cherry pick, quotes as well as which issues you'll address. Oops, I guess I am expecting you to respond to certain topics and in a timely manner. Go phigure.
-
-
Sorry, I did call you rude that one time. I apologize for the mistake.
My comment about your projection of anger stands. I'm not angry here and I never have been.
-
-
I'm not angry either. Just passionate. It's that damn irish/italian mix.
At least we're in the same time zone, we have that going for us.
-
Permalink Reply by FFN WebTeam on
-
All,
Refrain from using the 'f' word and other expletives in your comments and posts, especially in an attacking manner.
Failure to do so will result in your suspension.
FFN
-
-
Jack, you clearly have used straw man arguments, particularly when you accuse me of conspiracy theories.
And Jack, I have not pushed this from the perspective of any single religion. My point about the Free Exercise Clause would apply equally if the religious symbol in question were of any other religion of which a CFD firefighter was a member.
I left the implication open, because I thought you would be able to discern that I was defending the 1st Amendment and what it actually says.
I was defending the CFD firefighters' freedom to express their relligion while at work. They happen to be Christians. I would have done the same if they were members of another religion.
I thought you would have the level of rationality and discernment to figure that one out on our own. I apparently will have to live with the disappointment.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Dybing on
-
Wow, you all need a stress break, while we all have different beliefs we are still brothers and sisters in the Fire Service. Thank God we live in a country where we can disagree. Lets tone it down a little and appreciate different views for what they are.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
