Has The ACLU Ever Complained About This? (Fire Dept. Crosses)?

[Nava]

@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.

[botsgotme]

@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. 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?

[Isilder]

@Si_Amigo

It’s an adaption of the Maltese cross.

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…

[CurtC]

@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.

[lance_strongarm]

@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.

[lance_strongarm]

@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.

[lance_strongarm]

@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. Our* overall success rate is something over 56%.

• speaking as a proud card-carrying ACLU member

Thanks! Great research.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@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.

[joe.russell]

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

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.

[Czarcasm]

@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/
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?

[joe.russell]

My bad, I thought it was aclu, but it was actually americans united against seperation of church and state. Disregard

[Rhodes]

@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 Separation of Church and State.

[joe.russell]

Correct. Its been a long day…

[wevets]

@joe.russell

The cross looks similiar to those at arlington national cementary,

Headstones at Arlington generally look like these: Arlington National Cemetery - Wikimedia Commons

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
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 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

[dougie_monty]

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.

[lance_strongarm]

@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.

[lance_strongarm]

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

[Powers]

@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^]