Comments for Secular Law

Comment on 10th Circuit En Banc Denies Review of Highway Cross Case by deca durabolin

deca durabolin — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:48:06 +0000

But i want to tell that this secularlaw.org is extremely helpful, Thanks for taking your time to write this.

Comment on Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution by Sandra

Sandra — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:07:02 +0000

Much appreciated for the information and share!

Comment on 10th Circuit En Banc Denies Review of Highway Cross Case by Bob Ritter

Bob Ritter — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 01:30:38 +0000

Eric, you correctly point out that the cross is not integral to all Christian sects. Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge David Sam, noting that 57% of Utah residents are Mormon, wrote as one of the stipulated facts: "Neither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor its members use the cross as a symbol of their religion or in their religious practices." He subsequently used these facts to argue that the defendants did not have a religious purpose for using the cross: "It would be unprecedented judicial divination for this court to nevertheless discern that the UHPA directors or state officials were intending to promote those minority [Christian] religions [in Utah] through the use of the cross design."

The problem with Judge Sam's logic is that while Mormons do not use the cross as a symbol of their faith, they nevertheless recognize the cross as a Christian symbol and are not offended by it.

I would also note that the U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs officially recognizes the Latin cross as the emblem of belief of Christianity. I further submit that if the Latin cross appears on a grave stone at a cemetery, it signifies that a Christian is buried there. To test of this view, I visited a Jewish cemetery earlier this year and, not surprisingly, not a single grave marker had a cross on it.

Comment on 10th Circuit En Banc Denies Review of Highway Cross Case by Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:14:47 +0000

Although you refer to the Latin cross as “the preeminent symbol of Christianity,” that has not always been the case.

As I recall, New England’s Puritan founders generally rejected the cross as a symbol that they connected with the Roman Church, and with what the Puritans regarded as idolatry.

The Puritans’ aversion to the cross was indeed so great that Governor John Winthrop recorded in his journal how, on coming to a place marked “Hue’s Cross” because it was there that travelers customarily crossed over a river, â€œbeing displeased at the name, in respect that such things might hereafter give the Papists occasion to say, that their religion was first planted in these parts,” he promptly “changed the name, and called it Hueâ€™s Folly.â€ 1 JOHN WINTHROP, WINTHROPâ€™S JOURNAL â€œHISTORY OF NEW ENGLANDâ€ 1630-1649, at 94 (James Kendall Hosmer, ed.; New York: Charles Scribnerâ€™s Sons, 1908).