This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← US Supreme Court - cross is now a secular symbol

US Supreme Court - cross is now a secular symbol - Comments

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 1 by prettygoodformonkeys

Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

There's gotta be some way to subvert this.

Fuck.

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:12:00 UTC | #464777

andrew.trapp's Avatar Comment 2 by andrew.trapp

Great, then I guess burning a cross would no longer be considered a religious hate crime?

And Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" depiction of a cross in a tank of urine should no longer be considered offensive to xtians?

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:15:00 UTC | #464779

sidelined's Avatar Comment 4 by sidelined

Does this mean that churches that display a cross symbol are now indicating they are now no longer a church organization but a secular one and are thus subject to taxation?

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:17:00 UTC | #464782

DeusExNihilum's Avatar Comment 3 by DeusExNihilum

-Headsplosion-

Really, US Supreme court? REALLY? I Despair. They're not even trying to hide their agenda any more.

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:17:00 UTC | #464781

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 5 by prettygoodformonkeys

Well, if it's secular they shouldn't object to this....

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2905/1468822cg8.jpg

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:18:00 UTC | #464783

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 6 by prettygoodformonkeys

In that context, the cross is now de-Christianised
Presto-change-o! Bullshit in the classrooms is OK now TOO, because, in that context it has been de-christianized! Dust off that old Dover file, and let's do some re-decidin'!

(note: I don't think they'll be able to keep their mouths shut about jesus with a big ol' cross up there in front of everybody. This thing has so many ways to fall apart, now that I think about it.)

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:25:00 UTC | #464787

Abdul al-Hazred's Avatar Comment 7 by Abdul al-Hazred

How many non Christians died for the United States? How many Jews landed at Normandy? How many Hindus and Seikhs serve in the military today? More and more non-believers are serving in the military today...

And all of these people can be memorialized by an ancient Roman torture device.

Disgusting, revolting. One more clue that it is time for me to end my time as a US citizen...

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:27:00 UTC | #464788

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 8 by prettygoodformonkeys

Wait a minute. Why use a cross, then? It's now meaningless. Use a swastika.

Just make sure you ask for a de-Nazified one. Fuck.

* ...the lone poster continues to rant....*

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:30:00 UTC | #464790

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 9 by God fearing Atheist

Russell is right that the cross is associated with war graves, but that is because most of the dead were nominal, if not actual Christians!

It has always struck me that this was yet another aspect of the incessant drip of religious propaganda.

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:38:00 UTC | #464795

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 10 by mordacious1

The lower court got this right and SCOTUS got it wrong (5-4). It sucks, really.

That being said, I think The Center for Inquiry (and Russell too) is over-reacting to this. The decision by the Court was one of those weird ones, where few justices could agree with anything.

Granted, Kennedy did state, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm…. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”
But the decision written by Kennedy only had two other justices signing on, Roberts and Scalito...

So, by no means is this going to be a sweeping SCOTUS ruling. Even Kennedy said, “To date, this Court’s jurisprudence in this area has refrained from making sweeping pronouncements, and this case is ill suited for announcing categorical rules.”

This is still a poor ruling and the justices were all over the map with their opinions. The problem will occur when a similar case is brought and Thomas and Scalia join Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts.

Sun, 02 May 2010 00:59:00 UTC | #464798

caharris.harris's Avatar Comment 11 by caharris.harris

I'm up for the "burning cross isn't a religious hate crime" idea though. And that churches should no longer be subject to taxes because they are secular. Other than that, I'm disgusted.

Sun, 02 May 2010 01:09:00 UTC | #464801

Aiser's Avatar Comment 12 by Aiser

@andrew.trapp

Burning the cross might not work. It might.. MIGHT lead to you being labeled as some kind of anti govt/UnAmerican/Fascist/Anarchist. Since that is how our world works today.

Sun, 02 May 2010 01:58:00 UTC | #464806

pkruger's Avatar Comment 13 by pkruger

A cross is not a secular symbol in ANY context.
This is not the action of a civilized nation. You cannot define something as being true when it is not. Shame on The United States Of America Supreme Court.

And when addressing this action someone says "Well, it's not the end of the world", one could easily reply "Oh, yes it is"

Frightening.

Sun, 02 May 2010 02:08:00 UTC | #464810

modern_artifact's Avatar Comment 14 by modern_artifact

Oh please, the only place where the cross is a secular symbol is in Japan where it's used as a fashion accessory.

Sun, 02 May 2010 02:12:00 UTC | #464812

msloane's Avatar Comment 15 by msloane

Maybe a cross would be okay if it was oriented so ... "X"
...where "X" means "no religion".
???

Sun, 02 May 2010 02:54:00 UTC | #464817

Abdul al-Hazred's Avatar Comment 16 by Abdul al-Hazred


She was also on the descending side in the recent ruling that gave Corporations person status under US law.



An awful and filthy ruling.

Sun, 02 May 2010 03:35:00 UTC | #464824

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 17 by Enlightenme..

8. Comment #485579 by prettygoodformonkeys on May 2:

"Wait a minute. Why use a cross, then? It's now meaningless. Use a swastika.

Just make sure you ask for a de-Nazified one. Fuck."

-------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Sun, 02 May 2010 04:15:00 UTC | #464828

andrew.trapp's Avatar Comment 18 by andrew.trapp

@Abdul al-Hazred #7: Please don't leave. Rulings like this mean that secularists need to redouble our resolve, not give up.

@prettygoodformonkeys #8: Remember, the swastika actually predates the Nazis. It has been used in Nordic, Hindu, and other cultures for many centuries, usually as a sign of good luck.

@Aiser #12: Well I _am_ an anti-gov't minarchist, does that count?

@modern_artifact #14: Lol, just like here where Buddha statues are used for home decoration. (One of my Buddhist wife's pet peeves.)

@#16, 17: Not to get off on a tangent here, but actually it was a good thing for companies to be ruled to have personhood status for free speech. First, this reasoning follows from the same entityhood reasoning that allows you to sue a company as if it were a person. Remember that ultimately, a company is just an association of people. Second, this ruling applies to _all_ associations of people, including unions and non-profit groups. If an individual wants to spend his own money on a campaign issue ad, he can spend as much as he wants. But if two or more people wanted to pool their money for the same cause, they are (or were, now with this ruling) limited to $5,000 each. The ruling on free speech will now allow non-profit organizations to benefit from and make use of large donations from wealthy contributors.

Sun, 02 May 2010 04:30:00 UTC | #464831

Wulfgar's Avatar Comment 19 by Wulfgar

white is black by law

Sun, 02 May 2010 05:34:00 UTC | #464839

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 20 by Jos Gibbons

How America works:
1. Make secularism part of the Constitution.
2. Defy it anyway.
3. Don't let any specific example get to the Supreme Court for decades.
4. Have a Supreme Court on which a majority of the judges belong to the group of anti-Constitution monsters responsible for 2. above.
5. Claim that it's now "dewrongised" (that's presumably the generalisation of deChristianised, though it pretty much always will be deChristianised anyway since the anti-Constitution monsters are all Christian), i.e. that we've been doing something unconstitutional for so long we're allowed to keep doing it. Make it sound less stupid than that, of course; since secularism means not lending credence to specific beliefs, say the symbol or practice doesn't stand for them any more because of how long 2. has gone on.
6. Sit back and watch the majority mentioned in 4. agree with 5., even though it makes no sense, and hence cause the violation in 2. to persist forever, thus making 1. a waste of time.
NOW do the people who use step 5. understand why they're full of dangerous nonsense? What if all of the constitution were made powerless by this sort of tricks?

Sun, 02 May 2010 05:47:00 UTC | #464841

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 21 by Diacanu

Well, let's put it to the test.

If it's a secular symbol, then it's about as sacred as a "stop", sign, so let's get to dipping these things in shit, piss, those fuckin' chicken-for-bun sandwich abominations, get to it, arts community.

This is what we have you around for.
The time is now.

Sun, 02 May 2010 05:55:00 UTC | #464843

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 22 by Diacanu

sidelined-


Does this mean that churches that display a cross symbol are now indicating they are now no longer a church organization but a secular one and are thus subject to taxation?


Oooo, excellent point.
keep it coming, folks!

Sun, 02 May 2010 05:58:00 UTC | #464844

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 23 by Diacanu

Ooo, oo!! If it's a secular symbol, and there's no copyright on it, a corporation can grab it up!

Yeah, a chain of strip clubs!

Have a neon animation of a stripper riding it!

Sun, 02 May 2010 06:03:00 UTC | #464846

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 24 by Diacanu

Oh! What about the Klan burning one?

What repercussions will that have?

Won't it ruin their little parties?

Now, it's just a lowercase T.

Sun, 02 May 2010 06:14:00 UTC | #464849

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 25 by Diacanu

Come on, get your imaginations working, people.

*Grinds knuckle in eye in mock weeping*
Eeew, eew, I'm scawed, I wanna wun away!

Snap out of it!

Sun, 02 May 2010 06:16:00 UTC | #464851

Wulfgar's Avatar Comment 26 by Wulfgar

copyright, not a bad idea‎

Sun, 02 May 2010 06:43:00 UTC | #464856

hubris's Avatar Comment 27 by hubris

Well... TECHNICALLY the cross isn't a symbol of Christianity. It's a symbol of execution. If you go with that however, putting crosses on graves would signify that these people were executed. Is that really the intention? Of course not. The symbol more likely refers to SACRIFICE when in the context of military graves and memorials. But the cross symbolizing sacrifice is purely a Christian connection because to them, Jesus was sacrificed by God to pay for whatever. To the rest of the world, he was executed.

The use of the cross as a secular symbol on graves for people who were not executed makes zero sense. I wish I was a lawyer... maybe.

Sun, 02 May 2010 06:59:00 UTC | #464859

Ryou Concord's Avatar Comment 28 by Ryou Concord

Great, then I guess burning a cross would no longer be considered a religious hate crime?


You know what? Just this once, I wish somebody would burn one. Ordinarily, I wouldn't approve because it's a task undertaken by racists or some other equally absurd religious faction. But if somebody were to burn one just to say, "Oh hey, no foul. Just burnin' a cross, don't mind me." in response to the inevitable religious outbursts, I think that would get some nice publicity concerning this travesty committed by the Supreme Court in our country. Maybe then it would be given a second thought.

Ahahahahaha, but I doubt it. I bet they're wetting themselves with joy because they know not enough people could possibly oppose it.

Sun, 02 May 2010 07:15:00 UTC | #464863

Sertorius's Avatar Comment 29 by Sertorius

For me, strictly in the context of a grave, the cross is secular. It is IMO now a cultural marker of the location. That is in the UK where as far as I can tell we are almost all athiests, the USA may be different.

Sun, 02 May 2010 07:17:00 UTC | #464864

TrickyDicky's Avatar Comment 30 by TrickyDicky

Is it only me or does anyone else have the feeling that in some aspects our "civilisation" is in regression?

Sun, 02 May 2010 07:20:00 UTC | #464865