descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behavior?

Thu Apr 22 14:32:35 PDT 2010

Just to reiterate the point:  The Hawaiians chose the Union Jack to underscore their historic ties to Great Britain and not for religious reasons.  Thus, it is not an example of using the cross for religious purposes.  The same simply cannot be said for the city and county seals -- whether in New Mexico or Stowe, Ohio, that used the Cross for an explicitly religious purpose in secular symbol.

*************************************************
Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208

518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)

paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu>
www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com/>
*************************************************

________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Janet Alexander [jca at stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:39 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: Re: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behavior?

I know what the Union Jack is. What I said is that -- unlike a cross at a war memorial, or symbols reflecting the role of religion in the history of the Southwest -- those crosses did not have any religious symbolism at all for the Hawaiians who adopted it as part of their flag (since they had a state religion that was polytheistic and headed by the King who designed the flag) and never have had any religious significance in the context of the flag. It is not that they do not have any religious significance "for Hawaiians today."  They never had any religious significance whatever for Hawaiians, but only a purely secular significance reflecting the relationship of Hawaii with Great Britain. Thus the Hawaiian flag is not an apt example of a "cross" that has both religious and secular significance.

At 01:14 PM 4/22/2010, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="_000_E7AAEC684F9E3641B8CFC2B9A0BD965ADB1F014DA4UCLAWE2K7lawn_"

            The crosses on the Union Jack are the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick.  To be sure, they probably have no religious significance for Hawaiians today, but that just reflects my point, which was to respond to a poster who did ?not comprehend the argument that a cross could ever be considered to be a non-religious symbol.?

If one is looking for examples of crosses that have religious significance to some but also have nonreligious meaning, the Landing Cross and the crosses on the Las Cruces seal would be examples of that.  Likewise, the names of various cities would be examples of other originally religious references that have religious significance to some but also have nonreligious meaning; but of course then we?d be moving further away from the specific claim about a cross (quoted above) to which I was responding.

            Eugene

From: Janet Alexander [ mailto:jca at stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:53 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: RE: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behavior?

Just to clarify, as to the repeated reference to the Hawaiian flag. Those are not crosses; they are the British Union Jack. The islands were a British protectorate until King Kamehameha unified the Hawaiian nation in 1810. The flag was adopted in 1816, with 8 stripes representing the 8 islands and the Union Jack in the corner representing the nation's close relationship with Great Britain. King Kamehameha was the head of the indigenous Hawaiian religion, which prevailed until after his death in 1819. Therefore, whatever the significance of the flag to the British, there is no chance that the Union Jack had any sort of religious significance for the Hawaiians when the flag was adopted.  The Congregationalist missionaries immortalized by James Michener did not even arrive until 1820. Thus the Hawaiian flag is not on a par with the cross in the desert and has only a non-religious significance.

At 11:59 AM 4/22/2010, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
        So should Christians likewise adamantly object to Las Cruces, and its flag and name?  To the Hawaiian flag?  To the cities named after religious figures?  To the First Landing Cross in Virginia Beach, http://www.virginia.org/site/description.asp?attrID=10473? All of these are secular applications of Christian symbols.  All those "secularize" them insofar as acknowledging that the symbols have secular meaning as well as religious meaning.

        My sense is that Christians shouldn't adamantly object to them, just as the nonreligious like me shouldn't adamantly object to them.  I would think that if we took things across the quad to the humanities people, and asked about meaning and not legal significance, they'd tell us what they've been saying about so many things for so many years -- symbols have multiple meanings in multiple contexts, the meanings change over time, the number of meanings often grows over time, and trying to limit the meanings to the One True Meaning is a lost cause.

        Eugene
...
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100422/ac81de67/attachment.htm>