What comes to mind when I read this is the Christmas tree. At one point was clearly very associated with Christianity. Today, not as much. Many people of non-faith put up Christmas tress in their house in a completely secular way. I do not think the cross is quite there yet and I don't know if it can. The difference is that people don't wear Christmas tress around their necks and put them on the top of their buildings. The cross today is still the ultimate symbol of Christian faith. I don't know if that association can weaken.
Only because you have locked yourself into outdated thinking. Again, I would argue that the average person would look at a roadside memorial cross, regardless of size, and consider it a roadside memorial, and not as something promoting a religion.
In short, the problem with this decision is that the judges view on what a reasonable person would think is out of touch with reality.
I cannot believe you are honestly saying you think a Christian style cross - of the type in question here (as opposed to a Iron Cross or the Red Cross symbol) - is not a religious symbol.
Am I correct in stating that? You feel these crosses are not religious symbols?
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
What comes to mind when I read this is the Christmas tree. At one point was clearly very associated with Christianity. Today, not as much. Many people of non-faith put up Christmas tress in their house in a completely secular way. I do not think the cross is quite there yet and I don't know if it can. The difference is that people don't wear Christmas tress around their necks and put them on the top of their buildings. The cross today is still the ultimate symbol of Christian faith. I don't know if that association can weaken.
IIRC, the use of pine trees during pagan winter festivals pre-dates Christianity. Symbols evolve, change, get borrowed, etc. The FFR people need to take note of this. Not every religious symbol has the same influence that it once did.
Part of the problem is inherent in this: there is no universal marker, but I think the argument stands that a cross is still the most recognizable symbol for a commemoration of the dead in this society.
I think that that is fair. However, the problem is that symbols don't work that way. There is no committee to convene and decide upon what will become an appropriate symbol for communicating a given message. The decision to change a symbol would go down much like the Pepsi promotional debacle of a new national hockey cheer. Symbols are a part of our cultural memory, and as such, they tend to behave much more organically. If there is a change to be made, then I expect that it is not something that can only happen as the collective consciousness shifts.
I agree a universal symbol would be a bad idea and I wouldn't advocate for that. But trying to shoe horn a cross into a mostly universal symbol doesn't work either. I am not Christian, but wouldn't this water down the symbolism of the cross if non-Christians are using it?
A simple search reveals several dozen threads that argue something or someone sucks, so framing a thread in this fashion is not uncommon. In this case, I was certainly intending to be provacative with the title, but it is also a succinct description of my opinion regarding this matter, albeit taken to an extreme.
The thread title was intended to be eye catching, and has generated a pretty good discussion on several topics related to the story. Which is good, because if athiests didn't suck, the OT forum would be a quite boring today.
According to Frank Zappa catholic girls also suck.
Is it really? The cross was not adopted as a Christian symbol until quite a while after the beginning of the Church. There have been other Christian symbols that were much more important early on, but have been replaced by the cross for most. Like any symbol, replacement happens, and I expect the same holds true for the cross, and I think this may already be taking place.
Crosses have become a popular piece of jewelry for many non-religious people; if anything, this trivializes its function as a religious symbol more than anything. And yet, Christians have invented and latched onto more specialized symbols as the cross has become more secularized; surely you have at least seen a WWJD bracelet or necklace?
I said it's the point of the faith, not the only symbol. The point of the faith being that Jesus was willing to give the ultimate sacrifice on the cross for us. Without the cross, there is no redemption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian
Isn't there a commandment about worshipping false idols?
I'm not worshipping a cross, it's a symbol, not an idol.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
IIRC, the use of pine trees during pagan winter festivals pre-dates Christianity. Symbols evolve, change, get borrowed, etc. The FFR people need to take note of this. Not every religious symbol has the same influence that it once did.
Yup I am aware of the pagan tree thing. But is the Christmas tree on nearly the same level as the cross? I would say it isn't. I would be shocked to see the cross take a back seat to any other symbolism.
I agree about the FFR toning it down. I agree with this issue, but man, it is not even close to the top of the list of things I would have started with. It's hardly a priority and it does nothing more than upset people and make people who advocate for a more secular state look like selfish jerks.
I agree a universal symbol would be a bad idea and I wouldn't advocate for that. But trying to shoe horn a cross into a mostly universal symbol doesn't work either. I am not Christian, but wouldn't this water down the symbolism of the cross if non-Christians are using it?
Except that I don't think that it has been shoe-horned into something it is not. For better or worse, it has become a widely recognized symbol used to commemorate the deceased.
As for how this has impacted the church's employment of the cross, this is where a symbol's context and environment is key to its interpretation: Crosses on the side of the road are most commonly not interpreted as religious. Crosses in churches will always be powerful religious symbols, regardless of how secularized the axis itself becomes. Besides, Christians have for centuries adopted and will continue to adopt new symbols. About 20 years ago, a Christian singer named Michael W. Smith wrote a song in protest of how trivialized the cross has become. The result was the introduction of much more explicit imagery and symbols to distinguish Christians (one of which was propagated by the WWJD movement).
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I cannot believe you are honestly saying you think a Christian style cross - of the type in question here (as opposed to a Iron Cross or the Red Cross symbol) - is not a religious symbol.
Am I correct in stating that? You feel these crosses are not religious symbols?
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.
I would also argue that athiests would be better served working to further that evolution rather than countering it. Trying to halt the evolution of such symbols is counterproductive to their aims.
Last edited by Resolute 14; 08-19-2010 at 04:51 PM.
I said it's the point of the faith, not the only symbol. The point of the faith being that Jesus was willing to give the ultimate sacrifice on the cross for us. Without the cross, there is no redemption.
So do you feel that it diminishes the message that the cross is suppose to make when it's used in apparently non-religious ways?
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.
In other words it means either "here's a dead Christian" or "here's a dead guy from a Christian society."
In Jesus' case it meant "here's a dead Jew." That's about the only deviation from the normal perception of the symbol.
So do you feel that it diminishes the message that the cross is suppose to make when it's used in apparently non-religious ways?
It depends on the context. IMO, any cross on any grave is a symbol that we are all God's children and saved by his grace. As such, a memorial with a cross is a sign of hope that the person is at peace, in heaven and under that grace.
People wearing crosses; well why would you wear a cross if you aren't Christian? It's supposed to symbolize belief and being in his grace.
I can't think of a context in which it would be non-religious to a Christian. If non-Christians want to use it as a different symbol, well that's up to them. I'm sure everyone who sees a cross knows the message whether they choose to internalize it or not.
In short, I can't see the cross ever being a non-religious symbol as long as there are Christians.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
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.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
