Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
In context, no. Obviously a cross atop a church is intended to be a religious symbol. And, as I already stated, the use of a cross as a symbol of sacrifice has historical roots in the Christian religion. However, in modern society, the use of a cross to denote the place where a person has died does not automatically carry a religious context. I believe as others have argued in this thread - that the use of the cross to denote a death, sacrifice or memorial has transcended its religious roots and is equally valid in western secular society.
I am not pretending that the historical roots do not exist. I am, however, contending that society has extracted the meaning of the symbol from the religion.
|
Ok - so we agree that a cross (of the type at issue here) is a religious symbol, although it can have other connotations (memorial for example).
Imagine you are driving and see this
huge cross by the side of the road. First thought - Christian? Or Grave?
I'm saying Christian, particularly because it is a large cross.
In this context it will likely be interpreted as religious symbol. Since it cannot be avoided (due to size), it shouldn't be on public land.
Why?
Because my government should remain neutral towards religion. It should neither advocate, nor oppress religion. This is so that neither you, nor I am discriminated against.
This decision wholeheartedly supports that philosophy, which is why I think it's a great one.