Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
...But are crosses used as memorial markers really not intended to convey any religious meaning? If an individual chooses a memorial marker for someone, I am very doubtful they would choose a cross unless they associated themselves with Christianity in some fashion, if they didn't they'd choose something either relevant to their beliefs, or something generic (or a laser light show for me).
|
People make choices all the time to display crosses for non-religious reasons, and I think that because there is such a sizable segment of our population that is religiously nominal (whether they be deists, agnostics, spiritualists or metaphysicists), a fair case can be made that the cross itself is innocuous. How many people who select crosses for their gravesites or those whom they love actually understand the history of the symbol? For them, while it is probably religiously rooted in some sense, is its meaning precisely what is conveyed in the display of a cross on a church steeple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
...Could it be argued that all the other memorials that have crosses in them have crosses in them because of the influence of religious Christians in the decision making process?
|
I think that this actually reinforces my point, which in part says that the
origins of any given symbol do not necessarily transfer any meaning to their ongoing use. Words are symbols. The meanings of words change over time to the point that their earlier meaning becomes completely irrelevant. I am arguing that the same holds true for all symbols, including religious ones.