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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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
-
Philly,
Let's not be disingenuous, Russ' comment was quite clear and, all inclusive. If you are on the other side of the discussion from him, you are a phucking mutt. That kind of thinking is uncalled for and inexcusable.
I have no way of knowing whether or not Ben saw that comment but, Ben's follow up is usually consistent. 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 will admit that I may be crediting Ben with greater efficiency than may be practical but in part it was to make a point, that I shouldn't be the only one dismayed, or outraged, at Russ' way of -well, for lack of a better term- thinking.
Regarding Vic's comment; at least it was directed solely at one person and was in response to the earlier attack. I think at this point in the discussion, Vic's comment, while over the top, isn't necessarily (or nearly as much) out of line as Russ', given the broad shot he fired.
To be honest it became too difficult (that or I lost interest) in following much of what was being said. Comments kept popping up in (seemingly) random places. In any event, my take of the Establishment Clause is close to Vic's, in that the government (from federal to local) can not endorse any one religion.
So in the Mojave discussion, the court ruled to allow the cross to remain as a result of 'accommodation' rather than as any endorsement. According to Vic, this violates the Establishment Clause by allowing a christian symbol on federal land. I think the court's decision was that there is no endorsement simply by allowing a person or group to express their belief. By limiting the display to ONLY the cross however, would suggest an endorsement. Allowing anyone to display on that location would be Free Exercise. We'll see in the (I suspect very near) future whether other religious elements will be allowed on that site.
With regards to the cross display at the Charleston FD, I really don't see this as any kind of governmental endorsement of religion at all. Granted that every religion has it's iconographic symbol and the cross is generally regarded as being iconic for christianity but go ahead and bury someone out in desert and see how tough it's going to be to make anything other than a simple cross. My point being that in many ways the cross has become a secular symbol for burial in the way that christmas has become a secular winter holiday. It is left to the individual to determine the greater purpose of each. Which is why nativities, christmas trees, lights and merry christmas signs are consistently being allowed to remain. They are considered (save the nativity) to be secular, seasonal displays. So long as secular displays and any other season-appropriate displays, including other religions are included, it is free expression and not an endorsement.
I prefer to believe that were any of the 9 Charleston firefighters something other than christian, their specific religious icon would have been included. So the crosses are just a way of perpetuating their memory publicly. Am I against that? Not at all.
Would I be against a small piece of land in the desert adorned with a variety of religious symbols? Probably, but not because of the symbology but because to me it would be a blight on an otherwise natural and peaceful landscape. But so long as one is allowed, all should be allowed. Sadly, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't lend itself well to an easily reproduced symbol.
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
Politics and religion, always an interesting debate!!
Jack, you went deep on that one; which always-- you have a way with words, good stuff!!
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Dybing on
-
If all the fallen Firefighters are Christian, the cross is appropriate, if not it is a violation of separation of church and state. We should honor our fallen with the symbols of their faith. If a Muslim or pagan firefighter falls let us honor them with a symbol of their faith.
-
Permalink Reply by Capt./Chaplain Mike Petrosky on
-
It's sad that this dicussion has taken such a harsh turn. In my opinion, if the city or governing authority, gives the ff's the go ahead to add the cross to their memorial of their fallen brothers, then let it stand. There will always be someone or some group that doesn't like what somebody else is doing. That's a given. This country was built on Christian/Godly values and if you believe in those nobody should need to infringe on that. Standing up for what you believe is what is right. I believe in Jesus Christ and the Great Commission, that we are to go out and make believers of all people. That doesn't in any shape or form mean, shove religion down somebodys throat. Anyhow, IMHO, those crosses should stay-never forgetting means never forgetting! Stay safe, stay low. God Bless, Mike.
-
-
Mike,
Freedom of religion was a founding value. support for all established beliefs is a corner stone of our freedom. This nation was built by people of many faiths, it is a limited view not supported by the facts to state that this country was built on Christian values. It ignores the contributions of Americans from China (railroads) for example etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Lees on
-
Thank you Chaplain Mike.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you stated, but your first 2 sentences couldn't have been any more right. It is sad.
Regardless of one's belief, if the department so chose to have the cross as part of their memorial to their fallen comrades, then let it be, let them honor the Nine fallen.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Armstrong on
-
People get along I think the problem is here that someone is telling a fire station that they cannot have a cross in front of there hall not whose what and ramming what into who.i'm a christian and I don't ram anything but if someone enquires to me about it I will tell them nor do i tell some one that my religion is better than theirs but if some one told me that i could not put a cross on a memorial for some fallen brothers I would tell them a whole bunch of things that I can't type in here.That is just ludicris.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
"The rap artist?" That was ludicrously easy.
Jack: Your defence of Vic's comments boils down to they weren't as bad as the comments Russ made. Keep your day job. But does that mean Vic is still in for a reprimand from you, just not as harsh as the one Ben should give Russ?
I think you may have missed the point I was making with respect to the Constitution and religion. Vic, and now you, both talk about a governmental "endorsement" of religion due to the presence of reigious symbols on public property. Even if I were to accept that argument - which I don't - there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits endorsement. It prohibits establishment. That's more than a semantical distinction as they are two different things entirely.
Gotta keep this brief - I'm on company time.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack,
For starters, apparently you are "more than a little bit dismayed" that I haven't posted on the page in question since an hour before the post that has you offended was posted.
Secondly, I've told you before and I'll tell you again. I am under no obligation to post or to not post on a given subject. I'll post as I please, per another of my Constitutional rights.
Thirdly, I may choose to take Russ to task, or I may not. If I do, it will likely be sometime after you take Vic to task for his (as Philly so eloquently put it) "I-can-out-ignorant-Russ response".
Fourth, you resorted squarely to generalizations in your response to Russ. You are usually clear-headed, unemotional, and on point with your posts here. The one above meets none of those standards. If you have a problem with Russ, then have the conversation with Russ. When you generalilze one comment made by Russ into the "attitudes like yours" comment, it frankly doesn't pass the smell test with me.
I have made no secret of my opinion on this topic. I disagree with you. The rudeness and generalizations on both sides need to stop...including yours.
Note that I have not generalized one person's opinion into an assumption about anyone else's supposed opinion, attitude, or assumed biases. I'm talking specifically to you here.
The bottom line is that unless you change your opinion on this issue, we're never going to agree. However, I'm not going to generalize your attitude into some supposed attitide by anyone else. Ditto for Vic. Ditto for the Freedom from Religion folks, not matter how heartfelt my believe that their stance is utterly un-Constitutional and indefensible. They have the right to their opinions. So do you, Vic, Russ, and everyone else who cares to chime in.
One other thing - No one who wants the cross down from the Charleston firehouse has been able to explain how that cross is evangelizing, prosetylizing, or in any way establishing a government religion. Feel free to enlighten me if you can, but simply citing previous legal precedent isn't going to cut it on this one, because that precedent has already been overturned as "overreaching" by the Mohave cross case.
In this case, enlightement will come from explaining how a passive symbol displayed by individuals in a public place is an "establishment of religion", particularly when no specific Christian denomination is mentioned theron.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
WP - check the thread for some of my posts on case history and the 1st Amendment. The courts are pretty consistent on prohibiting an overt religious display on public property, as this can be viewed as the government preferring one religion over another. That violates the Establishment Clause.
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.
We can argue this cross being a reasonable accommodation, but almost all recent case law says it isn't.
-
-
"Ben's follow up is usually consistent. 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."
Jack, what did you just do in the post from which I excerpted the above? I haven't noted you taking the anti-Christian lobby to task for some of their comments - Vic's F-bombs, for example.
Keep your comments focused on specifics, and I have no problem with your opinion, no matter how much I may disagree. When you take a response by one person and generalize it to a large group, I'll simply ask you for some evidence - who performed the survey, sample size, other variables controlled for, confidence level, and so forth.
If you can't provide said evidence, how about attributing attitudes and comment to the specific individuals who made the comments instead of unproven and unprovable generalizations.
And Jack, if you want a moderator to intervene, I'd suggest that you email Dave I. He isn't shy about moderating comments that he percieves cross the line or violate the user agreement.
In my opinion, both Russ and Vic crossed the line above, but I'm not Dave so I can't speak for him.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
