Woonsocket Cross Remains a Violation of Church and State

Right on, Chelsea. The many that have fought us (FFRF) have done so mostly, to a losing battle. It is irresponsible for community leaders to risk taxpayer's money over the beliefs of just a few. Even among the religious, it is favored that government and church keep their distance. I doubt that this monument would stand very long if every religion had to be represented as well. The Star of David, The Mormon spire, The Crescent and Star, a Buddha, a UFO or whatever. Seems to me that if they did such a thing the cross would look very insignificant in comparaison.

Yes, that little cross would pale in comparison to the symbolism of other faiths, IF the town agreed to displaying it. I think the mayor would be wise to just remove the cross and relocate it to private land.

The Constitution will prevail, either on Friday by sane reasoning or later in federal court, thanks to the FFRF. An organization with the objective to keep America as a country where citizens are free from any religion having more than a moral influence in governmental decisions and legislation by their elected politicians.

The number of people who no longer follow the Christian Religion is growing exponentially among faith following Americans. As such, many more such confrontation between Christians and those of other and no beliefs will be forthcoming. There is absolutely no doubt that the Cross in question was erected with only honorable intentions. However, it was done so in a bygone era when the American people mainly believed in the Biblical Christian Religion. Consequently, in today's society, people of all faiths now inhabit our country and they, as well as their religious beliefs deserve the same equal respect as that of the longer practiced religion.

Religion for hundreds of years was mainly used to teach people how to conduct one's self both ethically and morally in an ever expanding society. However, in today's society, the Christian religion it's self, has become akin to a new style of clothing, for followers of that religion to wear as it were a flashing neon sign, symbolically denoting "See Me, I'm An Evangelical Christian"

The Evangelical Faith is a somewhat new form of an older Christian Religion, which in and of it's self, is of no threat to any others who hold different religious beliefs. What is a threat, is the Hollier Than Thou, attitudes Evangelical Christians have assumed. The, my religion is the only true religion and all other religions must be ignored, demeanor of Evangelical Christians. The idea, that those of the Evangelical faith have been granted by their God, the right to force their religion upon others. The right to insist that all others must adhere to the Christian teaching being preached by the theatrical television ministers and within the mega church's atmosphere of superiority over all others. That, their religious beliefs erases the rights of others to believe differently. That, their religious beliefs supersedes the Articles of Bill of Rights within the U.S. Constitution. These are the things which we all must fear and reject.

This cross does not violate the Constitution. It simply is not the case that any mention of religion by the government constitutes an Establishment Clause violation. It depends on the context of the display. The Mayor of Woonsocket has already stated it will not remove the cross and tonight's press conference will simply be a formal presentation of that decision. They will be sued and they will win this. This is a HUGE mistake on the part of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

what other context is there for a christian symbol being displayed on government property?

Here is a letter I wrote to the mayor when the story first broke explaining my position: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91367886/Letter-in-Support-of-Woonsocket-Fire-Dpt-Cross

Basically, as the Supreme Court found in Salazar v. Buono, the plain, unadorned white Latin cross was most likely selected as it is the defining image of Christian war dead buried in World War II overseas American cemeteries. The monument is to specific people who were Christians.

so you admit that it's christian symbolism on government property

Yes but this does not automatically mean it is unconstitutional. Such overly simplistic thinking does not drive our Establishment Clause case law.

For example, the Supreme Court building has a long frieze depicting the history of law. One of the segments among many is Moses holding the 10 Commandments. This is a Judeo-Christian symbol on government property, but it is presented not in a context of "Judaism and Christianity are the government's preferred religions" but "Here is an event that had a monumental influence in the history of law."

I think we should agree to disagree, because if this were to be in the same context as the frieze you are talking about, there would have to be several other images/symbols of other figures/symbols.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

I'm not saying that this cross and the Supreme Court frieze have the same context; I'm just saying that there are contexts where the government can have religious symbols on its property.

I encourage you to read Justice Breyer's concurring (and deciding) opinion in Van Orden v. Perry (upholding a 10 Commandments monument on government property given its specific context and history). This opinion will no doubt play a large role in this case.

Even if you still think it's unconstitutional, do not think that this is a simple, cut-and-dry case. This will certainly be an interesting lawsuit to follow.