When is a Cross not a Cross?

Be sure to vote in the poll at the end of this post.

Is the cross just a cross?  Is there a way that a cross cannot be a religious symbol?  In the interest of separation of church and state, the Supreme court will rule on an upcoming case that could redefine the boundaries of how religion can play a role in governmental life: Salazar v. Buono

The story goes like this:

A white cross erected on a rock outcropping on federal land in California’s Mojave Desert is at the heart of a Supreme Court case about the government’s display of religious symbols. The Veterans of Foreign Wars’ Death Valley post first built the cross at Sunrise Rock in 1934 to honor Americans who died in combat in World War I.

Neither the VFW nor Sandoz ever owned the land where the cross is located — nor did they have permission to build on the land.

But in 1999, a Buddhist asked the National Park Service for permission to erect a Buddhist shrine on federal land near the cross. The agency refused, setting in motion a series of events in the courts and Congress, culminating in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing.

Is it possible that a cross could be refined by the federal government as a non-religious symbol?  If you think that is impossible, then consider this:

the [Supreme] Court is being asked to limit dramatically–or virtually eliminate–the right of taxpayers to sue the federal government for maintaining sectarian religious symbols on public property.  If the Court seizes the opportunity and denies taxpayer standing to challenge federally sponsored religious displays, then constitutional prohibitions of such displays will be effectively unenforceable; in other words, at least in part, the establishment clause will be merely hortatory. The Atlantic

NPR reports that: “Advocates for the cross contend it is not a religious symbol.”

If the high court agrees, then either the court will ignore the establishment clause or, they will consider that a cross could be something other than a religious symbol. Why these two extremes?  If the court does not see this case as a situation of a federally sponsored religious display, then how can the court ignore what affect a religious symbol can have?

There is a certain power in a symbol.  Symbols create unity, conflict, and action. To Christians, the cross is a symbol of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  How is it possible that a symbol can be separated from its meaning?

It cannot.  A symbol, especially a religious one, is an object or image that points beyond itself.  By definition, a symbol presents a message.

In addition, even though that this country has a theoretical separation between religion and government, there are all sorts of religious symbols and religious customs that can be found on government property: The 10 Commandments, The Bible, prayer before Senate sessions, and invocation of God in governing documents… also the occasional, “God bless America” by the President.

Most Christians contend that we have become a country where our government has too much power, but Christians cry foul when the government does not use that power to promote our country’s historical “Christian values.”

Is there a contradiction in there?