A legal gambit in the battles over the separation of Church and State has been that the Christian cross is a “secular” symbol, removed from its original religious meaning by time and history. This has resulted in some rather insulting assumptions by cross-defenders and involves a good bit of historical revisionism. Now with the Supreme Court of the United States hearing arguments in the case of Salazar v. Buono, we may finally see if there can truly be a “secular cross”.

Mr. Eliasberg said many Jewish war veterans would not wish to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity,” one that “signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.” Justice Scalia disagreed, saying, “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.” “What would you have them erect?” Justice Scalia asked. “Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?” Mr. Eliasberg said he had visited Jewish cemeteries. “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew,” he said, to laughter in the courtroom. Justice Scalia grew visibly angry. “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead,” he said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

Now the case could be decided narrowly, simply on the legality of the land-transfer that Congress approved to keep the cross standing, or, if Scalia gets his way, the court could decided that Christian crosses can be defined as a “common symbol” of the dead, ending several potential lawsuits over the issue. However, while Christians may welcome a sweeping victory here, Beliefnet founder Steven Waldman warns of the spiritually unwise slippery-slope implications of a “win”.

“…the more you want Christian symbols in the public square, the more you have to prove they’re lacking religious meaning. A question for devout Christians: Do you really want the cross and the creche to become akin to the Christmas tree — or the Easter Bunny? The “secular purpose” trap isn’t the only reason the “pro-religion” position can end up hurting Christianity. Legal cases pressing Christian symbols tend to argue that these efforts are acceptable as long as the government isn’t excluding other faiths. That’s how we’ve ended up with town squares with Menorahs alongside the creches. But this is the ultimate slippery slope. The Courts cannot and should not say that pluralism is limited only to Jews. Over time, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism will inevitably end up having greater public displays, too. That means conservative Christians need to ponder a more subtle theological point. If you believe visible public displays convey important social messages, doesn’t a pluralistic scene convey a second message: that all faiths are equal?“

In other words, a secular cross would create more theological problems for the Christians who desire such a decision than they would care to currently admit. Remember the Green Bay nativity case? You could expect a lot more like that, because other religious groups in America, as they grow in size and prominence, are going to want full inclusion as well. The legal loopholes that Christian advocacy groups are trying to create will eventually, no doubt to their dismay, benefit the Wiccans, Buddhists, and Hindus who won’t be contented to simply stand by and be represented by “secular” symbols of Christianity. They should be careful about how “secularized” they want their cross.

Tags: Christianity, cross, law, litigation, Religion, SCOTUS, secularism