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:
