Memorial Day (when I began writing this) has always stood to me as a day of quiet
introspection, a way for us to cool our heels for a day and remember those who
have died for the country they love. However while most are quietly
enjoying themselves, there are people heating up and getting loud about
religious symbols used in war memorials.
On one
side of this discussion we have the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion
Foundation who, in their quest for complete separation of church and state,
have filed a lawsuit with the city of San Diego to have the Mount Soledad Cross (A war memorial
erected by the city in 1954) removed from city property (the story of which is
described well here)
on the grounds of it being a violation of the establishment clause. On the
other side of thing we have the Liberty
Institute, a nonprofit group "working to defend and restore religious
liberty across America". This Memorial Day they began the big kickoff to
their PR campaign dedicated to the preservation of the cross and memorials like
it, called Don't Tear Me Down,
complete with a heavy-handedly patriotic country song including the delightfully ignorant lyric: "Don't tear me down/ just walk away/ our founding fathers/ what would they say?" .
 |
| `Murika |
The thing is, as adamant as I am against
religious iconography, I do not think the memorial should be literally torn
down. It does serve as meaningful site for those Christians in the area, and
when it comes down to it, the point of a memorial is to console those who have
lost loved ones and serve as a reminder for the cost of freedom. Now before the
comments section explodes into an angry blur, I am not for the continuing
association between the cross and the government; I believe the most reasonable
solution would be for the monument to be privately owned. Have the city donate or sell the
monument to a local church, having them act as caretakers so that the monument
can stand without violation of religious liberties.
Thinking
about all this got me feeling rather introspective, and the question for me became: what
sets the case of religious symbols on war memorials apart from other cases of
states using religious iconography? Why, when I was so adamantly for the
removal of the school prayer banner in the Jessica Ahlquist case, did I get so
fuzzy and conciliatory when this came up? Empirically and legally speaking, the
cases are more or less the same; the issue being government sponsored
endorsement of a religious symbol, the answer being the removal of the symbol
from state sponsorship. The problem is that memorials are about remembering,
and the removal of a memorial, even a constitutionally illegal chunk of that memorial, is seen
as actively destroying the memory of those who were lost.
That is why my hardline approach wavers and why this fight- this clash between the values of the constitution and the minds of the Christian majority- is so much harder then many others. I am all for enforcing the separation of church and state, but it is worth being aware of why religious people, even the less-than-fundamentalist ones, are not instantly agreeing with your constitution-backed values. Emotions get involved, that is the nature of humanity; and while they should not be cause for appeasement, they should at least be cause for consideration.
That is why my hardline approach wavers and why this fight- this clash between the values of the constitution and the minds of the Christian majority- is so much harder then many others. I am all for enforcing the separation of church and state, but it is worth being aware of why religious people, even the less-than-fundamentalist ones, are not instantly agreeing with your constitution-backed values. Emotions get involved, that is the nature of humanity; and while they should not be cause for appeasement, they should at least be cause for consideration.
Trying to determine how I feel the atheist movement should approach the issue is difficult for the reasons described above. I know the secular community is all about its black and white decisions, but this is a tricky grey area. I believe that when the memorial is private and centered on one person or their family, then it is the choice of the family to give him or her a religious marking; if a man wants a cross on his tombstone, let him have it, it should not be at the mercy of the constitution. When a memorial sculpture or building represents multiple people, it should only hold a religious symbol if all those the memorial represents adhere to that faith (e.g. a cross to commemorate all those Christians who lost their lives in a war) otherwise if you wish to have a war memorial representing the state or city, it must be inclusive of all religious opinions by having none visible.
If the city wishes for its own memorial, build one not focused on a religious symbol. Secular memorials are just as good if not better than those with religious ties. One of the most sobering experiences I have had was visiting the Korean and Vietnam war memorials during ISSA's trip to the reason rally. And anyhow, the cross or religion is not what is being commemorated, it is those men and women who laid down their lives for the countries they loved. Everyone, religious or not, should respect that above all else.
5 comments:
"Before the comments section explodes into an angry blur"
Do you really take your fellow atheists as being that blindingly raging mad all the time? Surely you should know that atheists aren't all just an angry mob waiting to hound anyone that doesn't agree with the mob mentality. We have our own individual opinions like anyone else.
In fact, I not only agree with what you've said, but would in fact would not even be against retaining the memorial under GOVERNMENT ownership. The cross has come to represent secular gravestone iconography in Western society as much as Christian iconography. Check out the poster for Tim Burton's most recent (secular, non-religious) film:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm874165760/tt1142977
And just about every other film or television show that deals with cemeteries or death shows cross graves. Separation Nazis like the FFRF really need to take a chill pill and realize that Christianity is ingrained into Western society to the point that many of its symbols have become secularized in many contexts.
As far as gravestones, it's a tough call- just because many gravestones (and the archetypal ones in our minds) have Christian imagery does not mean that they suddenly lose their religious meaning (or value specifically to Christians). And, as a response to your example, just because a movie is secular does not mean that all the references it makes are.
Here's a good test, in my opinion, to determine whether a given symbol has truly become secularized- do a quick experiment where you show people the symbol of a cross and have them do some word association. If they respond with secular words, then you're good. If not (Jesus, Bible, Christianity, etc) then I would say that it is, indeed, not secular. And if you were to run that experiment I would bet on the latter occurring.
The problem is that with the separation of church and state, once some exceptions are made, it quickly becomes a slippery slope, so I understand why making these situations as black and white as possible makes sense. I think Dan raises some interesting questions- for me, this memorial would by no means be my top priority in terms of religion causing problems in the government sphere, but I think we all agree it has no place there being government owned. But I am with Dan that if it could become privately owned it would be idea.
As far as atheists liking things of things in terms of black and white, that is definitely true- but not any more true for us than any other movement/group of people in general. That's a human trait, not an atheist movement one, and the atheist movement is as susceptible to human nature as any.
Franklin:
Yes, I agree that a quiet move to private ownership would be the best solution for both parties, but I still think FFRF lawsuits of this nature are highly misguided and only make our side look like petty, heartless fools.
I like to compare this "cross" issue with the issue of city names. Is it against the separation of church and state for San Francisco, St. Paul, Monte Cristo to be named for Christian saints or deities? Not many would argue so, and I feel that as long as these "memorial crosses" were erected decades ago and are part of the country's cultural history just like those city names, we should leave them alone.
If someone tried to erect one now, fine, don't allow that. But taking established, existing ones down? That's petty, crude and heartless litigation.
Ah, I missed the part about it being erected in 1954 when I read it the first time. I do agree that that gives it an historical significance in addition to the religious one, and one that definitely makes it more worth keeping. Do you guys know if this is the same lawsuit that Jon Stewart was criticizing a while back?
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. Among the issues it addresses is government displays and monuments. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Post a Comment