When does a cross cease to represent Christianity and become a secular symbol? According to Justice Antonin Scalia, when it’s used for a war memorial.
As Susan Jacoby, the Washington Post’s resident atheist, reports:
In oral arguments this month in the case of Salazar v. Buono,, which concerns the constitutionality of a 5-foot cross on federal government land in the Mojave National Preserve, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the cross is a universal, rather than a Christian, symbol. When American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Peter Eliasberg suggested that a less controversial World War I memorial might consist of “a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I,” Scalia asked, “The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war?” Eliasberg replied, “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.” Scalia, a devoutly conservative Roman Catholic replied indignantly, “It’s erected as a war memorial! 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 places of the dead.” Uh, not exactly. It is not the most common symbol of the resting places of the dead in Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu countries. It never appears in Jewish cemeteries—a piece of information that Scalia seemed stunned to hear. “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,” Scalia said in an outraged tone.
There are few occasions when I’d side with Jacoby over Scalia, but in this case she’s absolutely right. Scalia is one of the sharpest legal intellects of our age so maybe he’s making a point that is beyond my ability to grasp. Nevertheless, as a simply matter of theology I don’t think he could be more wrong.
What do you think? Does the cross, when placed in a cemetery, cease to represent the sacrifice of Christ and become a universal symbol for the dead?
October 30th, 2009 | 9:18 am
Well, Scalia is right on one point: the cross in such a context does not necessarily merely honor the Christian dead. However, that is true because of the universality of Christ, not because the cross becomes a non-Christian symbol. The cross can be a symbol of honor for whatever is good and honorable in any and all of the dead, but it always is such from a Christian perspective. Of course, I have no problem with Christian symbols on government land, so I would probably agree with Scalia’s practical conclusion in a case like this.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:07 am
I understand where Scalia is coming from. There are a lot of nominal Christians who are, in a practical sense, atheists. For them, the cross no longer evokes thoughts of Christ. It is a part of their history, their culture, but they don’t want to connect it back to Christ. It is like some who are born Catholic. They are born into a family. Just because the family says something does not mean they necessarily believe it.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:10 am
Joe,
Not only do I agree with you, and think that Scalia is grasping at straws, but I also believe that his tactics are, in the end, detrimental to those of us who want religious symbols to be able to stand publicly. In the end, a religious symbol should be able to stand in a public place because there is nothing wrong with a religious symbol in a public place, not because it is in some way related to history. What Scalia seems to be implying is that religious symbols, insofar as they are religious symbols, should be disallowed, but should be allowed if they serve some other purpose. Regardless of whether he actually believes that or is using language that will be attractive to Justice Kennedy, it is detrimental to the cause of allowing Christian symbols as Christian symbols on public land.
That said, it should be pretty self-evident that non-Christians would not choose a cross (a symbol of the eternal sacrifice of Christ) to honor their dead.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:32 am
In a few days we shall celebrate Hallowe’en, or Feis Samain in honor of the druidic new year. We shall wear masks and disguise ourselves as those dead in order to fool the spirits of the dead who seek that night to re-inhabit living bodies.
Oh, wait.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:38 am
Two observations: A cross can simply be a symbol of the One who laid down His life for others – in that light, it is perfectly appropriate. Secondly, what percentage of the US dead from WWI were in fact Christian? Perhaps we should do the math and add other religious symbols to the monument sized according to the casualty percentage. My guess is that there would be no significant visual cahnge in the memorial (unless you are very close to it).
October 30th, 2009 | 10:41 am
A lot of people wear crosses as jewelry without implying any Christian faith. In a similar way, AFAIK, there’s a line of legal theory that allows a cross or even a Nativity scene at Christmas can be considered to have a public, secular value if it is presented in such a way as not to imply government endorsement of a particular religion, or something like that. In practice this usually means, e.g., displaying a menorah next to the creche, and then suddenly you have a secular expression of holiday festivity in general rather than an endorsement of the Incarnation.
In this case, I’m no expert in this area, but Scalia’s case here seems strained to me. I wouldn’t automatically assume that a cross around your neck means you are a Christian, but I would assume it means you aren’t Jewish. Beyond that, as a symbol honoring the dead, a cross seems more explicitly religious than as a bit of jewelry. I’d be open to further arguments, but I’m not persuaded by Scalia’s comments.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:39 am
I think that the cross represents the burden that these people we are remembering bore for us, and universalizes it in a way that anyone can understand; I can think of no more universal symbol of sacrifice for others than the cross, whether you are a believer or not.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:43 am
There are Stars of David, and I recall seeing at Punchbowl on Oahu a Budhist wheel. So it is not like the markers are “one-size-fits-all”.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:08 pm
I think the approach is wrong. His approach is to deny the symbolism of the cross. The question shouldn’t be “is the cross a symbol of Christianity”…the question should be whether a religious symbol is acceptable on public ground, and if others are acceptable as well. It’s the same old question that has only risen in the last half of the 20th century – do we have freedom _of_ religion, or freedom _from_ religion.
If someone wants a cross to commemorate the dead, shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? Is there anyone who wants to add some other symbol to this site? If so, and if there are soldiers who died who were of another religion, then add the symbol of that religion – but don’t deny those who were Christian their commemoration. Be additive – not subtractive.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:09 pm
Who’s right, Scalia or Jacoby? I think it’s a hard question. The question underlying it is what the meaning of any symbol is.
Some Jews have argued forcefully that the cross, whatever else it means, means antisemitism and that for that reason should be respectfully abandoned by Christians.
What about the Confederate flag? Does it mean love of your old school (in the case of alumni of Ole Miss), or does it mean slavery?
In Cleveland, there’s a longstanding debate about Chief Wahoo, the cartoon character who serves as the logo of the Cleveland Indians. For a lot of (maybe most) people from the region, Wahoo serves as the flag or unofficial seal of Northeast Ohio — you see him and you think, “Ah, Cleveland, land that I love.” For others, he’s an indefensibly offensive caricature of an American Indian.
Some people think that the answer to the question “What does this symbol mean?” is “It means whatever the people who use the symbol intend it to mean.” So serious Christians will agree with someone like Jacoby that the cross conveys a sharp, definite, particular religious message. A hundred years ago, though, displays of the cross in America may have been more likely to be perceived as fairly neutral and anodyne, as part of some unofficial but easily recognized civil religion. No longer. That’s a loss, in some respects, but for Christians it’s also reassuring to know that the cross (like the name “Jesus”) has the power to elicit a strong response.
Brandon Jaloway comments that, for nominal Christians, the cross “is a part of their history, their culture, but they don’t want to connect it back to Christ.” I’m told that (is this true?) in public spaces (public schools, hospitals, and so on) in Italy it’s fairly common for a crucifix to be displayed, the understanding being that it’s mostly a reference to Italian culture, history, and tradition.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:42 pm
Look, if Mr. Cohen can walk into a courtroom with a jacket that has “F*ck the Draft” stitched on it, the ACLU should be able to tolerate a cross.
October 30th, 2009 | 4:01 pm
I think Scalia is right. That is, is the cross intended to ONLY honor the Christian dead? The answer, *to a Christian* is NO – we honor all dead and we hope for resurrection for all, without consideration of the state of their soul.
It’s a sign of a religion in specific, which in turn evokes that there are other religions who believe in life after death. Though it could be argued that the Cross, as understood by Christians, is more meaningful in this context. A Star of David might only indicate the particular dead’s religion. (I may be wrong on this last point – I’d be immensely pleased to learn otherwise).
The cross is not a sign of “Christians are buried here” as much as “This is a sign of hope”. Whether people believe that that sign effectively evokes hope for them is another question. I would say it might mean more than a gray granite slab with names carved on it. In this latter example, you remember the dead in the past, but are left to find hope elsewhere.
October 30th, 2009 | 4:15 pm
So, since a lot of people wear pentagles and other occult symbols without necessarily worshipping the demonic presence, I assume the people who support the cross’s presence here would have zero problem with such occult symbols being prominently displayed on government property in a like manner.
Scalia is being too clever by half. He was better when he was on the Court of Appeals.
October 30th, 2009 | 9:10 pm
“Does the cross, when placed in a cemetery, cease to represent the sacrifice of Christ and become a universal symbol for the dead?”
The Cross is already a universal symbol of the one who “came into the world (cosmos).”
However, it is not a symbol of *liberal* universalism, which is why it must be eradicated by the iconoclasts of the day.
October 30th, 2009 | 9:38 pm
Justice Scalia also doesn’t believe there is a Constitutional right to privacy, or for that matter “The vast majority of your rights are not constitutional” (Jan 28, 2009). To his way of thinking, “rights” are products granted by the government vis-a-vis laws. This is a clear contradiction of the Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Ironically, he considers himself an “originalist.” The Founders believed we are born with natural rights that we owe to our Creator, not government. Furthermore these rights – to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – are unalienable, that is they are inseparable from human life.
The Bill of Rights was understood to be an inclusion of a few of our rights, as Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Paper #84.
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
And Scalia completely ignores James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” which defines the rationale for the separation of Church and State, as well as his explanation of civil rights arising as the logical extension of the right to “Property” (March 29, 1792)
I could go on, but suffice it to say that on the issue of Rights, Scalia is our generation’s most egregious activist judge.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:23 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Keith Jones, Robert Hartzell. Robert Hartzell said: At Cross Purposes With Justice Scalia » First Thoughts | A First …: Eliasberg replied, “A cross is the predom.. http://bit.ly/20gkjP [...]
October 30th, 2009 | 10:53 pm
Whenever Scalia or any other Christian argues that a symbol from their own religion really isn’t a religious symbol so it can remain in some prominent public place, I’m always reminded of Peter denying Jesus three times.
October 31st, 2009 | 9:42 am
The Cross doesn’t cease to represent the sacrifice of Christ, it can at the same time have a much broader meaning. Christmas, for instance, still commemorates the birth of Jesus…but one need not ‘deny Jesus’ to make the further claim that it has another more secular meaning in our culture. It symbolizes hope and good will more generally. One could make a serious argument that the cross is like Christmas in this regard…it has become a symbol of hope and respect for the dead in a much broader sense.
October 31st, 2009 | 10:52 am
a few cranky people out there.in the scheme of things—but amemorial is appropriate to the time it is dedicated to ss the pyramids,greek temples etc. the cross is amessage of our creator re salvation.
October 31st, 2009 | 1:16 pm
“One could make a serious argument that the cross is like Christmas in this regard”
By removing all religious meaning, sure. Xmas is just a big capitalist celebration now. That’s exactly what I meant, taking something that has religious meaning and pretending it doesn’t, in order to keep it in some prominent public place. Dishonest and sacrilegious at the same time.
October 31st, 2009 | 2:57 pm
The government shouldn’t be in the business of assigning “official” meanings to nonverbal symbols that ordinary citizens put up on public land, especially when the symbol causes no problem for 75 years.The fact is that people will have a variety of interpretations of the cross (or any other symbol–think Moses on the Supreme Court building), depending on their background. Not all of those meanings will be related to religion. For example, the plaque at the bottom of the Mojave cross says it honors “the dead of all wars”–indicating that those who set up the cross might not have seen any religious meaning to the cross. So Scalia was wrong for saying that the cross at issue *wasn’t* religious. He should have said that “this cross means many things to many different people, and it isn’t the government’s job to figure out which meaning is the ‘right’ one.”
November 1st, 2009 | 2:54 pm
So anyone can put up symbols on public land now?
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:00 am
Remark for Nicholas Frankovich, who on
October 30th, 2009 | 12:09 pm wrote:
“… in Italy it’s fairly common for a crucifix to be displayed, the understanding being that it’s mostly a reference to Italian culture, history, and tradition.”
Please do not use old Fascist Italian laws as a model for the USA.
The private display of a religious symbol of course does not offent anyone, nor it should, but the OFFICIAL display of the cross of the Roman Catholics in courts of justice in Italy INSTEAD of the national flag is clearly annoying jews, protestants and others for the simple reason that courts in Italy are supposed to act in the name of the republic and not in the name of the pope.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:34 am
Symbols are unique among tropes in that they can mean more than one thing at a time. So, a cross can and does simultaneously signify the suffering and death of Christ; the persecution of Jews; the Protestant rejection of the crucifix; the universal kingship of Jesus; western civilization and/or Christendom; and on and on and on. In Hollywood imagery, the cross can and does signify cemeteries and death in general.
Some symbols, like the doubloon Ahab nails to the mast in Moby-Dick, are highly significant and carry multiple meanings, but no one cares because they have no emotion invested in them. Others, like the cross of Christ, are charged not only with significance, but with passionate emotion.
Scalia is right; his opponents are also right. Scalia will lose because of the Rawlsian view of fairness now taken for granted among our ruling class.
November 2nd, 2009 | 12:31 pm
So…if the tables were turned, in a largely Eastern area, would the obervances of say…Hindu death rites and memorials be acceptable to Christians to commemorate their dead? And if not, should there be a hedge against this future possibility?
Will the right wing continue to behave like partisans in the Culture War, forcing Buddhists and Muslims to respect crosses while they are in power, then whine that their rights are disrespected when they are no longer dominant and the cross is no longer the commemorative feature used while other non-Christian religions foist their commemorations on Christians?
Are right wing Christians like Scalia ready for the “turn about is fair play” rule?
November 2nd, 2009 | 3:01 pm
What Darcy said. That is, the cross is not just a memorial for the Christian dead, but it is still a Christian symbol. It’s a Christian memorial for all those who died.
November 2nd, 2009 | 3:02 pm
Hey, Jesus died for the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and atheist war dead, too.
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:40 pm
I think what Justice Scalia is trying to point out is the fact that certain symbols who have clear Christian origins have now different meanings.
For example, when we think of the Red Cross we think of doctors and ambulances helping injured people, it takes reflection on the symbol itself to start thinking of the Christian origins of the organization.
When we say RIP we think of the death of a person, we don’t start pondering on the theological implications of the phrase “Requiescat in pace”.
Modern rap musicians wear large golden pectoral crosses (almost the same style as a bishop’s pectoral cross), yet it would be foolish to equate that with the musician being a devout Christian (especially if you listen to many of the lyrics).
I could go on (for example the current usage of rosaries as ornaments by people who are not Catholic, or in some cases even Christian), but the point is that only because the original meaning of the symbol is Christian doesn’t mean that the current meaning of the symbol is Christian.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact