Crosses

[Christopher Lund]

I'm not saying that the cross only has one possible significance and only
one possible meaning.  But there is one primary meaning to the cross that
is most central and from which the others derive.  You give a lot of
secular meanings of the cross.  The Solicitor General says that the cross
here serves a secular purpose in giving us "a symbol of the sacrifices of
fallen soldiers" (p.28).  But that begs the question: _how_ does a cross
serve as a symbol of the sacrifices of fallen soldiers?  The link between
Jesus's death and our own, for Christians, is provided by atonement
theology.  Jesus's death on a cross was necessary so that Christians who
die would not be forever lost: "For since death came through a man, the
resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all
die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Cor. 15: 21-22).

But what's the government's answer?  It's either the religious one -- or
it's some secular one.  Reading the briefs, I get the idea that the
government has this Cross in the Mojave Desert because Christ happened to
die unjustly like a lot of our young men in World War I.  But that answer
is incompatible with the Christian message.  I think "unhallowed
perversion of the means of salvation" begins to look like the right
phrase.

Best,
Chris

P.S.  I'm okay with Swiss Army Knives.

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:10 PM
To: 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: Crosses

	Surely Christians see the cross as having deep religious
significance.  But I'm not sure that even most devout Christians see it as
having only one possible significance, and only one possible meaning.  For
instance, they're of course aware that historically it has been a means of
execution.  They're aware that it is the symbol of many nations, new and
old.  They're aware that through this historical connection it's a symbol
of the Swiss army knife, and doubtless appears in other commercial
contexts as well, whether serious or humorous (even on Austin Powers' car,
by way of a national flag).  They're aware that some people who wear cross
jewelry aren't actually particularly Christian.  They're aware that it's
the symbol of hospitals and medical organizations, including some that are
emphatically secular.

	Some Christians may actually appreciate these phenomena as a
testament to the longstanding historical role of Christianity in Western
civilization.  Some may like some and dislike others; some might indeed
complain about celebrities' wearing cross jewelry, though I suspect that
relatively few Christians indeed complain much about that.  Some might
complain about uses that strike them as vulgar (that's the cursing
example, but as to words rather than crosses) or contemptuous (Piss
Christ).  A few may be categorically opposed to all of them, though I
suspect relatively few.  But my guess is that most are at least reconciled
to the reality that, in addition to its symbolism as a "means of
salvation," the cross has a great many other meanings that are just as
much the true meaning of the cross in that particular context as the
cross-as-religious-symbol is the true meaning of the cross in other
contexts.

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Lund [mailto:ed9034 at wayne.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:56 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious
identityandjudicial
> behavior?
> 
> Let me go back to an older post of yours, if I can.  You pointed out how
> "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."
> 
> The commandeering problem maybe arises from the fact that Christians
> believe that the meaning they give to the cross isn't just one meaning
> among others.  They may think, as you put it, that there is "One True
> Meaning" to the cross.  When the government puts up the cross on the
> theory that it means something else -- or even that it just has a lot of
> meanings, none of which have any priority -- the government has
> commandeered the religious meaning of the cross.  (And this isn't just
> true for Christian conservatives; I would think it true for anyone who
> believes that the cross has a different meaning than the government's.)
> 
> Private parties, of course, can commandeer religious language and
symbols.
> And they frequently do.  We had blasphemy laws for a time, but now
people
> frequently use specifically Christian language to celebrate the car door
> slamming on their hand.  Christians complain these things; they complain
> about celebrities wearing meaningless crosses, and people who celebrate
> Christmas without understanding the reason for the season.  They can't
> stop those things, of course.  But all this is to say that I do think
that
> mass nongovernmental use of religious symbols and language can undercut
> religious meaning.  And when the state does it, I think one could
> reasonably view it as the sort of "unhallowed perversion of the means of
> salvation" that Madison feared in the Memorial & Remonstrance.
> 
> Best,
> Chris
> 
> P.S.  Eugene, how in the world do you write these posts so fast?

	By using them as an excuse to set aside real work, sorry to say
....
_______________________________________________
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.