# Has The ACLU Ever Complained About This? (Fire Dept. Crosses)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 15, 2015, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525 "2015-12-15T12:59:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/21 "2015-12-16T11:06:57Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I do like the way they’ve apparently thought it through aliteratively. I imagine other candidates in the running to have included the Red Crown, Red Cravat and Red Crumpet. Only works in some languages though… _la Cruz Roja, la Media Luna Roja, el Rombo Rojo_ (wich frrrrrrrankly has too many rrrrrrrrs). Of course that’s to be expected given how many languages there are. ---
**Author:** ![botsgotme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@botsgotme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/botsgotme)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/22 "2015-12-16T12:58:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t know any numbers specifically for the Establishment Clause cases, nor for cases in all courts, but the ACLU’s “batting average” in cases decided by the US Supreme Court from 1920 to 1999 is analyzed [here](http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000307). Our\* overall success rate is something over 56%. > > - speaking as a proud card-carrying ACLU member So, does having a religious symbol (cross) on a (public building) fire house violate the establishment of religion clause? ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/23 "2015-12-16T13:24:38Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > It’s an adaption of the [Maltese cross](http://www.signology.com/firefighterSymbols.php). Which has the explanation that the knights of st john , under this banner, took on the Saracens, and had to fight fires to do so… hence got labelled as the first fire fighters. “Because of their selfless heroics, the Maltese cross has come to symbolize a willingness and commitment to brave danger in order to rescue others from a fiery death.” Nothing religious in it… ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/24 "2015-12-16T15:35:28Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > So, does having a religious symbol (cross) on a (public building) fire house violate the establishment of religion clause? Only if it would be reasonable to conclude that the symbol is an endorsement of Christianity. I learned just in this thread that the symbol is based on a cross, to me it has just always looked like a flower. After learning about the history, I don’t think it’s an endorsement of Christianity, so I’d say it’s fine. It’s the common firefighter symbol, which is derived long ago from a Christian cross, but there’s no longer a direct link. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/25 "2015-12-16T16:53:23Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > So, does having a religious symbol (cross) on a (public building) fire house violate the establishment of religion clause? It’s not a religious symbol. It’s a firefighter symbol that was derived from a religious symbol. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/26 "2015-12-16T16:54:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yeah, if only because they wouldn’t take on cases they didn’t think they had a chance of winning. Well, yeah, that applies to most of life. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/27 "2015-12-16T16:55:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t know any numbers specifically for the Establishment Clause cases, nor for cases in all courts, but the ACLU’s “batting average” in cases decided by the US Supreme Court from 1920 to 1999 is analyzed [here](http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000307). Our\* overall success rate is something over 56%. > > - speaking as a proud card-carrying ACLU member Thanks! Great research. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/28 "2015-12-16T19:43:01Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > So, does having a religious symbol (cross) on a (public building) fire house violate the establishment of religion clause? An actual Jesus-y cross, standing alone? Probably. As a general rule, SCOTUS has held that old religious symbols (think WWII memorials and the like) can stay so long as they can [del]invent[/del] find some sort of secular or historic purpose for the display. Newly displayed religious symbols, on the other hand, tend to get short shrift. Establishment clause jurisprudence is a bit of a mess. ---
**Author:** ![joe.russell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@joe.russell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joe.russell)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/29 "2015-12-16T22:41:06Z")
We recently had a mess with a silhouette of a solder kneeling by a cross in a nearby town. > **[City of Knoxville Asked to Remove Veteran Memorial Cross from Park](https://who13.com/news/city-of-knoxville-asked-to-remove-veteran-memorial-cross-from-park/)** > > KNOXVILLE, Iowa — The city of Knoxville is divided over a landmark honoring veterans and some are even calling for it to be taken down. Some say the display of a solider kneeling at a cross a… The cross looks similiar to those at arlington national cementary, but they said it couldnt be displayed on public ground. I suppose it must have something to do with the establishment clause you refered to. It ended up getting moved across the street on someones private property. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/30 "2015-12-16T22:53:02Z")
> [@joe.russell](#): > > We recently had a mess with a silhouette of a solder kneeling by a cross in a nearby town. > [http://whotv.com/2015/08/19/city-of-knoxville-asked-to-remove-veteran-memorial-cross-from-park/](http://whotv.com/2015/08/19/city-of-knoxville-asked-to-remove-veteran-memorial-cross-from-park/) > The cross looks similiar to those at arlington national cementary, but they said it couldnt be displayed on public ground. I suppose it must have something to do with the establishment clause you refered to. It ended up getting moved across the street on someones private property. Was the ACLU involved in that? ---
**Author:** ![joe.russell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@joe.russell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joe.russell)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/31 "2015-12-16T23:00:16Z")
My bad, I thought it was aclu, but it was actually americans united against seperation of church and state. Disregard ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/32 "2015-12-16T23:56:59Z")
> [@joe.russell](#): > > My bad, I thought it was aclu, but it was actually americans united against seperation of church and state. Disregard Quite the opposite. It was actually Americans United [FOR](http://www.journalexpress.net/letter-from-americans-united-for-separation-of-church-and-state/pdf_ab2a02ca-45f4-11e5-bc49-ff203fa9f1ef.html) Separation of Church and State. ---
**Author:** ![joe.russell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@joe.russell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joe.russell)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/33 "2015-12-17T02:12:18Z")
Correct. Its been a long day… ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/34 "2015-12-17T02:29:28Z")
> [@joe.russell](#): > > The cross looks similiar to those at arlington national cementary, Headstones at Arlington generally look like these: [Arlington National Cemetery - Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arlington_National_Cemetery#/media/File:Tombstones_at_Arlington_National_Cemetery,_July_2006.jpg) Those headstones typically will only have a cross if the soldier was a christian, and jewish soldiers may have a star of David, muslim soldiers a star and crescent, sometimes no symbol if the soldier had no religious preference. There are crosses at Arlington: [Arlington National Cemetery - Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arlington_National_Cemetery#/media/File:RFKGravesite.jpg) This one’s where Robert F. Kennedy was buried in 1968. There are some deceptive pictures of Luxembourg American Cemetery in Europe (where the First Amendment is not the law of the land) [claiming those crosses are Arlington](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/07/26/phyllis-schlafly-confuses-urban-legend-with-truth-arlington-with-europe/) though, which just adds to confusion. Courts have mixed feelings about crosses displayed that aren’t part of an individual’s choice regarding their interment: > [@](#): > > One such challenge focused on a large Latin cross marking a veterans’ memorial on public property in San Diego. In 15 years of litigation, state and federal courts found the cross to be a violation of the California Constitution, which prohibits religious preferences by the state. In 2002, in Paulson v. City of San Diego, the 9th Circuit ordered authorities to remove the cross. However, the U.S. Congress transferred ownership of the site to the Interior Department in 2006. Therefore, the issue now must be considered only under the U.S. Constitution rather than under the California Constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court blocked the 9th Circuit’s order to remove the cross. Federal courts will now have to consider the original purpose for placing the cross on the site and weigh its religious character against the potential divisiveness of removing it. Quote from [pg. 12 here](http://www.pewforum.org/files/2007/06/religious-displays.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/35 "2015-12-17T06:24:24Z")
A couple of random thoughts here: Labor leader Cesar Chavez wore a “mezuzah” because he said Jesus wore one. He said, “He certainly didn’t wear a cross.” When I hear about a cross, I think about the flag of Switzerland. Or the crossed palm trees in front of an IN-N-OUT hamburger place. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/36 "2015-12-17T14:46:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > An actual Jesus-y cross, standing alone? Probably. As a general rule, SCOTUS has held that old religious symbols (think WWII memorials and the like) can stay so long as they can [del]invent[/del] find some sort of secular or historic purpose for the display. Newly displayed religious symbols, on the other hand, tend to get short shrift. > > Establishment clause jurisprudence is a bit of a mess. Yes, and sometimes when they invent those things, they only demean religion instead of upholding it. They say things like “In God We Trust” doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s another good reason for keeping religion and state apart. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/37 "2015-12-17T14:52:15Z")
P.S. did some digging and found this hilarious exchange involving Scalia denying that a cross is religious: > [@](#): > > At one point, the ACLU’s Peter Eliasberg suggested a preferable memorial would honor all veterans of the war, “and not just the Christians.” Justice Antonin Scalia found this outrageous. > > ``` > "The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned. > > "A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans. > > "It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of ... of ... of the resting place of the dead." > > Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew." > > "I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!" > > ``` [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009\_10/020327.php](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020327.php) ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525/38 "2015-12-17T15:17:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > P.S. did some digging and found this hilarious exchange involving Scalia denying that a cross is religious: It’s too bad rank blindness to one’s own biases isn’t an impeachable offense. Powers &8^] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-aclu-ever-complained-about-this-fire-dept-crosses/740525.md?page=1)