Religious symbols on public land

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

I recall reading about Salazar v. Buono in a recent book highlighting landmark supreme court decisions on the separation of church and state. And even a rather hardcore advocate of absolute separation such as I found it hard to sympathize with the ACLU in this one. The cross went up in 1934. Sure, there have been the usual "territorial pissings" from Christian around the issue that I find annoying (for example "improving" the monument in recent years), but surely there must be a certain age to a monument from where we can agree it becomes "traditional". We can't just go around tearing down traditional monuments (French revolution, anyone?). At some point we need to accept that certain objects in our environment become icons- artistic, visual, cultural, etc- and have to some degree become part of our melieu.

I mean should we tear down crosses in Arlington Cemetery or on Civil War battlefields? Should we remove Renaissance depictions of the crucifixion from national art galleries?

Even in very secular nations in Europe, most of the mountain tops have crosses on them. These are traditional. I wouldn't want to see them ripped out in some sort of misguided quest to remove ALL religious iconography from places where they have long existed. Wouldn't want to see any new ones, of course, but I think it is a common sense approach to recognize the historical, cultural, or artistic significance of those long there.

It certainly does not make me concerned about Kagan that she took a common sense approach to the issue.

[crazyfingers]

I mean should we tear down crosses in Arlington Cemetery or on Civil War battlefields? Should we remove Renaissance depictions of the crucifixion from national art galleries?


What crosses in Arlington Cemetery?

http://4and20blackbirds.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/washington_dc_014_arlington_cemetery_headstones_ro ws_big.jpg?w=425&h=319

http://readjack.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/arlington_national_cemetery-memorial-day.jpg

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=g8o&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&resnum=0&q=Photo+of+Arlington+Cemetery&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=WBboS7KGI4K0lQev6-yRAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQsAQwAA

The government does not specify what is on a gravestone in a government cemetery. The family decides. Not a CSS issue.

[Alex]

Were all the tombstones at Arlington individually specified by the families of the deceased, or were they put there more or less on mass production principles?

[crazyfingers]

Were all the tombstones at Arlington individually specified by the families of the deceased, or were they put there more or less on mass production principles?

My understanding is that they all look like the above photos and of course what's written on them is up to the family. That's not a CSS issue.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

Look, that was just an example, not the main point. It is not germaine whether Arlington's crosses are painted on tombstones or in the shape of tombstones, that is public land, and if we wanted to be really nasty about enforcing true separation, we could indeed demand they be removed (it would not win due to previous court precedents, but the logic is the same) Clearly if we were extremely doctrinaire about absolutely not having religious representations on public land, the tombstones with crosses (or Stars of David) on them at Arlington would have to go (like I said though, this is an illustration, not the main issue).

The point is that there are plenty of religious symbols on public lands put there by various people in our past history- families, volunteers, war veterans, government officials, etc. At some point we have to accept that they have some sort of historical, cultural, or artistic basis for being there- a statute of limitations, if you will. Where that line is timewise, it is hard to say.

A good foil to this case is the recent attempts by Christians in the San Francisco Bay Area to rename one of our most prominent peaks, Mt. Diablo. They object to a peak named after a "devil", so are trying to change the name of Mt. Diablo and its state park to "Mount Reagan". Now I wish I were making this up, but I am not. I think that we can all recognize that this sort of territorial pissing from Christians cannot be allowed. Nor should they be allowed to erect religious symbols on public lands for reasons of asserting authority. Certainly a new cross on Mt. Diablo would be objectionable.

But at some point we must recognize that religious symbols that are long established have a right to be there. That is what the Supreme Court has done in the case of Salazar v. Buono.

[Alex]

I don't think religious symbols acquire a "right" to be undisturbed merely on account of their longevity. Some of them, at this time, receive a sort of venerable status because of our cultural assumptions.

Christians who wish to erect religious statues on public lands, count on similar assumptions for permission to do so. These statues are not necessarily "assertions of authority". They're a visible expression of beliefs that are not yet proscribed.

In the case of war memorials: Should only secular memorials of soldiers killed in combat be allowed in public spaces?

[Pandora]

I recall reading about Salazar v. Buono in a recent book highlighting landmark supreme court decisions on the separation of church and state. And even a rather hardcore advocate of absolute separation such as I found it hard to sympathize with the ACLU in this one. The cross went up in 1934. Sure, there have been the usual "territorial pissings" from Christian around the issue that I find annoying (for example "improving" the monument in recent years), but surely there must be a certain age to a monument from where we can agree it becomes "traditional". We can't just go around tearing down traditional monuments (French revolution, anyone?). At some point we need to accept that certain objects in our environment become icons- artistic, visual, cultural, etc- and have to some degree become part of our melieu.

I mean should we tear down crosses in Arlington Cemetery or on Civil War battlefields? Should we remove Renaissance depictions of the crucifixion from national art galleries?

Even in very secular nations in Europe, most of the mountain tops have crosses on them. These are traditional. I wouldn't want to see them ripped out in some sort of misguided quest to remove ALL religious iconography from places where they have long existed. Wouldn't want to see any new ones, of course, but I think it is a common sense approach to recognize the historical, cultural, or artistic significance of those long there.

It certainly does not make me concerned about Kagan that she took a common sense approach to the issue.

I agree with this ^^^

[Politesse]

I dislike any incarnation of "separation of church and state" that results in censorship of artwork, whatever its religious content. Even in the US, you'd have to tear or modify down a huge number of public monuments in order to comply with a ban on religious imagery, particularly if you included the Egyptian religion in that estimation. In Europe... I shudder to think of it. The result iconoclastic massacre of artwork and architecture would make the Taliban's actions against the Buddhas of Bamyan look good. You either misunderstand or overvalue the precept of "separation" if you think it should be used to ban the construction or preservation of public artwork with religious themes.

[crazyfingers]

I don't recall any significant (or insignificant) CSS issue in the US having to do with artwork. It's a non-issue.

[Politesse]

I don't recall any significant (or insignificant) CSS issue in the US having to do with artwork. It's a non-issue.

Are you pretending that the case you describe does not involve art? You want the cross-shaped memorial removed, right?

Even if you don't, several in this thread clearly do. Take Alex's statement that "I don't think religious symbols acquire a right to be undisturbed merely on account of their longevity."

[crazyfingers]

There is no way to pretend that the Mojave Cross case was about art. It's about Christians commandeering a piece of land to create a christian-only war memorial.

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/crosstwotwo.jpg

http://ericredmond.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/mojave-cross.jpg

Art had nothing to do with it.

[crazyfingers]

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11320798039800159923&q=%28Salazar+v.+Buono,+2009%29&hl=en&as_sdt=40000002&as_vis=1

Nothing about art in the arguments.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

For context, the cross is a memorial to "All war dead" was placed there by the VFW in 1934. The reasons it went up were certainly not strictly religious, back in those less enlightened days when it was assumed that the cross was sort of standard shorthand for memorializing dead people. As mentioned above, certain objects have cultural or historical significance and should be preserved if they have established meaning or significance to people. It was originally put up as a war memorial, not some sort of controversially overt assertion of Christian dominance.

You are again arguing with a tangential issue. It is not just a a question of art. Personally I think it an eyesore, and one that has been "improved" over the years by Christians making misguided attempts to make it even more monstrous (and why in the hell can't modern Christians produce good iconography? Aesthetic = BIG IS GOOD!). The issue is that at some point we have to tolerate long established symbols. Not just for artistic reasons, but for historical and cultural reasons.

I would certainly object if someone erected that thing on a hill now.

[crazyfingers]

For context, the cross is a memorial to "All war dead" was placed there by the VFW in 1934. The reasons it went up were certainly not strictly religious, back in those less enlightened days when it was assumed that the cross was sort of standard shorthand for memorializing dead people. As mentioned above, certain objects have cultural or historical significance and should be preserved if they have established meaning or significance to people. It was originally put up as a war memorial, not some sort of controversially overt assertion of Christian dominance.

You are again arguing with a tangential issue. It is not just a a question of art. Personally I think it an eyesore, and one that has been "improved" over the years by Christians making misguided attempts to make it even more monstrous (and why in the hell can't modern Christians produce good iconography? Aesthetic = BIG IS GOOD!). The issue is that at some point we have to tolerate long established symbols. Not just for artistic reasons, but for historical and cultural reasons.

I would certainly object if someone erected that thing on a hill now.

A "war memorial" used only on Easter Sunday, only by Christians..... Turned into a "war memorial" after the lawsuit was started in an effort to permanently commandeer the land...

I don't buy it.

In any case, I started the topic as a place to collect facts about Kagan's position on separation of church and state. Not to argue the Mojave Cross issue Again (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=286259)

[Alex]

Leaving considerations of art and venerability to one side, does anyone seriously believe that having a Christian cross in the Mojave desert or the presence of religious symbols in public buildings and on war memorials etc., puts in jeopardy the doctrine of church/state separation written into the US Constitution? How are the freedoms of secular citizens threatened by tolerating these emblems?

The Hispanic name of Mount Diablo is part of the cultural history of the American people. It probably reflects the superstitions of the Spanish soldiers who patrolled that part of California, and it should not be altered on that account if no other.

[Politesse]

Leaving considerations of art and venerability to one side, does anyone seriously believe that having a Christian cross in the Mojave desert or the presence of religious symbols in public buildings and on war memorials etc., puts in jeopardy the doctrine of church/state separation written into the US Constitution? How are the freedoms of secular citizens threatened by tolerating these emblems? The same way gay marriage threatens hetero marriages? There's a special brand of idiocy in this country which posits that whatever the government allows, it must also endorse. Thus the only way to ensure your own freedoms is to curttail those of others.

[Alex]

The same way gay marriage threatens hetero marriages? There's a special brand of idiocy in this country which posits that whatever the government allows, it must also endorse. Thus the only way to ensure your own freedoms is to curttail those of others.

I don't think secular citizens do feel threatened by the prospect of gay marriage. It's the religious fundamentalists that are most likely to object on moral grounds or arguments from scripture.

I think you might misunderstand my position. I do not have a principled objection to all religious symbols on public properties - especially not those which have been there for a long time. I'm in favour of at least tolerating them and perhaps enjoying any aesthetic merit they might possess.

[crazyfingers]

Leaving considerations of art and venerability to one side, does anyone seriously believe that having a Christian cross in the Mojave desert or the presence of religious symbols in public buildings and on war memorials etc., puts in jeopardy the doctrine of church/state separation written into the US Constitution? How are the freedoms of secular citizens threatened by tolerating these emblems?

The Hispanic name of Mount Diablo is part of the cultural history of the American people. It probably reflects the superstitions of the Spanish soldiers who patrolled that part of California, and it should not be altered on that account if no other.

It's a behavior akin to marking the territory the way animals mark the territory to claim it as theirs.

[crazyfingers]

The same way gay marriage threatens hetero marriages? There's a special brand of idiocy in this country which posits that whatever the government allows, it must also endorse. Thus the only way to ensure your own freedoms is to curttail those of others.

I don't think secular citizens do feel threatened by the prospect of gay marriage. It's the religious fundamentalists that are most likely to object on moral grounds or arguments from scripture.

I think you might misunderstand my position. I do not have a principled objection to all religious symbols on public properties - especially not those which have been there for a long time. I'm in favour of at least tolerating them and perhaps enjoying any aesthetic merit they might possess.

How do you feel when the powers that be allow only Christian crosses but deny the request by others to put up their symbols? That's what happened here. Buddhists asked to put up their symbol near the cross and were denied. Only Christians got the privilege.

[Politesse]

The same way gay marriage threatens hetero marriages? There's a special brand of idiocy in this country which posits that whatever the government allows, it must also endorse. Thus the only way to ensure your own freedoms is to curttail those of others.

I don't think secular citizens do feel threatened by the prospect of gay marriage. It's the religious fundamentalists that are most likely to object on moral grounds or arguments from scripture.

I think you might misunderstand my position. I do not have a principled objection to all religious symbols on public properties - especially not those which have been there for a long time. I'm in favour of at least tolerating them and perhaps enjoying any aesthetic merit they might possess.

How do you feel when the powers that be allow only Christian crosses but deny the request by others to put up their symbols? That's what happened here. Buddhists asked to put up their symbol near the cross and were denied. Only Christians got the privilege.
That's a problem. A different problem. Saying that the government should not give preferential treatment to a particular faith, is not even remotely the same as saying that it should generally disallow any religious expression on its properties.

[crazyfingers]

That's a problem. A different problem. Saying that the government should not give preferential treatment to a particular faith, is not even remotely the same as saying that it should generally disallow any religious expression on its properties.

The two are clearly connected.

Had you observed my postings here and at IIDB/FRDB and at TR for the last 9 years you'll note that I have always said that if one is allowed, all must be allowed. I do not have a problem with all being allowed, except that you reach a point where there's too much clutter. However when only one is allowed, that's a problem.

This is exactly a case of only one being allowed. It's a fact in the case. Others were barred.

You'll find that in a lot of the 10Cs cases, which are very similar to this, only one was allowed, the Christian message. Others were banned. It's almost always a case of only one being allowed, preference for Christianity, where these things come up.

You can't call it a separate thing when they pretty much always go together.

[Politesse]

I don't think it's reasonable to throw out freedom of religious expression based on certain cases where it was not, in fact, genuinely afforded. If the problem is preferential treatment of a religion to the point of discrimination against others, I'm all with the complainers. But the solution is to allow the Buddhist display, not to tear down the existing memorial.

[crazyfingers]

I don't think it's reasonable to throw out freedom of religious expression based on certain cases where it was not, in fact, genuinely afforded. If the problem is preferential treatment of a religion to the point of discrimination against others, I'm all with the complainers. But the solution is to allow the Buddhist display, not to tear down the existing memorial.

Well the fact is that the Buddhist display was not allowed. It was denied. In this case only one is allowed. That one is the Christian cross.

Freedom of religious expression does not include commandeering a piece of public land and excluding others.

Nor is there any right to erect a permanent display on public land and expect to have the right to keep it there. That's what happened here. The Christians stuck it there and claimed the right to keep it there and to exclude others.

And do you really want the national parks to be a free-for-all for any religious group to get to simply create a permanent human construction and expect that it will not get torn down just because it's religious? That would be nuts. But that's what happened here.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

I don't think it's reasonable to throw out freedom of religious expression based on certain cases where it was not, in fact, genuinely afforded. If the problem is preferential treatment of a religion to the point of discrimination against others, I'm all with the complainers. But the solution is to allow the Buddhist display, not to tear down the existing memorial.

Well the fact is that the Buddhist display was not allowed. It was denied. In this case only one is allowed. That one is the Christian cross.

Freedom of religious expression does not include commandeering a piece of public land and excluding others.

Nor is there any right to erect a permanent display on public land and expect to have the right to keep it there. That's what happened here. The Christians stuck it there and claimed the right to keep it there and to exclude others.

And do you really want the national parks to be a free-for-all for any religious group to get to simply create a permanent human construction and expect that it will not get torn down just because it's religious? That would be nuts. But that's what happened here.

A couple of small issues regarding this line of argument:
1. The cross went up in 1934. The Buddhist monument would be going up now. The court has taken the line of argument that religious symbols on public land can remain if there is some historical basis for them to be there. There is no historical basis for a Buddhist monument there.
2. You keep mentioning "national parks". Mojave IS NOT A NATIONAL PARK. It is a national preserve, but that dates from only 1994. The cross predates that.

I have hiked and camped in Mojave National Preserve, and I was neither aware of or disturbed by the presence of said cross. The place is HUGE. Further, I hike and run in national parks in Europe, and many, many of them have crosses on their peaks. Erecting a new one would certainly be objectionable, but like the Mojave cross, these have been there long enough to be considered historical.

Pulling existing religious symbols off mountains on all national lands would be a disaster. Here in Japan, ALL major mountains have a small Buddhist or Shinto monument on them, and have has them for hundreds of years. Even as an atheist I think the world would be the poorer for pulling them down.

[Alex]

It's a behavior akin to marking the territory the way animals mark the territory to claim it as theirs.

Are you talking about how Mount Diablo probably got its name?

Nearly all place names, in their historic context, are likely to be territorial markers/claims. Don't some of the names of states (Arkansas, Mississippi, the Dakotas etc.) originate from lands occupied or roamed by the North American native peoples?

[Worldtraveller]

That's a problem. A different problem. Saying that the government should not give preferential treatment to a particular faith, is not even remotely the same as saying that it should generally disallow any religious expression on its properties.

The two are clearly connected.

Had you observed my postings here and at IIDB/FRDB and at TR for the last 9 years you'll note that I have always said that if one is allowed, all must be allowed. I do not have a problem with all being allowed, except that you reach a point where there's too much clutter. However when only one is allowed, that's a problem.

This is exactly a case of only one being allowed. It's a fact in the case. Others were barred.

You'll find that in a lot of the 10Cs cases, which are very similar to this, only one was allowed, the Christian message. Others were banned. It's almost always a case of only one being allowed, preference for Christianity, where these things come up.

You can't call it a separate thing when they pretty much always go together.
This, in spades.

The xian exclusionism we see all around us in the US is one of the best reasons to oppose the 'little things' like IGWT on money, 'under god' in the pledge, and all the little xian 'ceremonial deism' that pervades the US.

In addition to what crazyfingers says, do you remember this incidence (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism1.htm)? All those years of the SCOTUS using 'ceremonial deism' as an excuse, but when that so called ceremonial deism comes from a different religion, it quickly becomes apparent that it isn't ceremonial to a large part of the country.

Those little things are what get cited by the xian dominionists and exlusivist types who use them to claim that the Us is a 'xian country'. Well, fuck that! They can't have it both ways. Either it's ceremonial and doesn't mean anything, or it's specifically xian, and is therefore unconstitutional.

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

OK Crazyfingers, where were you yesterday?!: ( ;

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4189892/mojave-cross-mystery?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r2:c0.000000:b0:z5

(Mojave Cross stolen)

[crazyfingers]

OK Crazyfingers, where were you yesterday?!: ( ;

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4189892/mojave-cross-mystery?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r2:c0.000000:b0:z5

(Mojave Cross stolen)

Not going to listen to Fox news.

Do they mention this likely possibility?

This cross was two pieces of metal. My guess is that the cross was taken by scavengers looking for scrap metal. There are people who make their living (or, to be more accurate, feed their drug habits) by scavenging metal wherever they can find it.

edited to add: NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/us/12cross.html) Scrap metal scavengers have been to known to scour the area, but Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute, a Texas legal group that has helped defend the presence of the cross, said he had little doubt that its disappearance was connected to the case.

The people who care about the case care about the legal principle. The scrap metal scavengers care about $$.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6378354#post6378354

[Worldtraveller]

From here: (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=25822&page=2)
Anonymous letter explaining cross theft

From here. (http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/cross-19226-anonymous-theft.html)



Note: An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, called the Desert Dispatch Tuesday afternoon, saying he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. While the claims could not be verified, the caller, who identifies himself as a veteran, seems likely connected to the theft. Below are key points of a written explanation provided by the caller.



• The cross has been carefully preserved.

• A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

• The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

• Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.'

• Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.

• Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.

• Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans.

• Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination.

• If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned.

• Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.

I see this as being akin to civil disobedience. I expect the person(s) responsible to get punishment, but I also understand it.

[crazyfingers]

Interesting!

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

From here: (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=25822&page=2)
Anonymous letter explaining cross theft

From here. (http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/cross-19226-anonymous-theft.html)



Note: An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, called the Desert Dispatch Tuesday afternoon, saying he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. While the claims could not be verified, the caller, who identifies himself as a veteran, seems likely connected to the theft. Below are key points of a written explanation provided by the caller.



• The cross has been carefully preserved.

• A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

• The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

• Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.'

• Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.

• Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.

• Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans.

• Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination.

• If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned.

• Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.

I see this as being akin to civil disobedience. I expect the person(s) responsible to get punishment, but I also understand it.

Well, knowing modern Christian aesthetics, the likely result is:
1. A truly HUMONGOUS ferroconcrete cross (utilizing the important aesthetic principle that big shit = big faith) will replace the former seven foot metal one.
2. A Christian design contest will be held, and the winner will be:
A gigantic pair of plastic praying hands poking from the ground (known in the trade as "dead Christian baby architecture"). Might have stuffed animals and pinwheels around it.
3. Another winner might be "Jesus Colossus": this massive Jesus will have glowing and blinking lights in his crown of thorns, with arms outstretched to symbolically include everyone, thus proving how religiously "inclusive" the display is. Even if the original stolen cross is returned, it will be melted down to solder the part of the base where "Christian nation" is inscribed.

[Spode]

3. Another winner might be "Jesus Colossus": this massive Jesus will have glowing and blinking lights in his crown of thorns, with arms outstretched to symbolically include everyone, thus proving how religiously "inclusive" the display is. Even if the original stolen cross is returned, it will be melted down to solder the part of the base where "Christian nation" is inscribed.

This last one does sound pretty awesome.

[Rie]

I had brunch with my Baptist Christian lady the other day and she had received a gift from her daughter-in-law which had all trying to be what we're not and stifling belly laughs.

It is a salt shaker in the perceived form of Jesus. You know, sort of all kindly and pompous and blue eyed.
I said (because I can never shut ma mouth at certain times) .."Well Jesus was a bit of a mover and a shaker wasn't he?"

There is no doubt that a cross on our pathetic one hill would be accepted and Praise Godded. Amen.

[Free in Freeport]

Religious symbols really don't bother me. They mean nothing to me, so why get bent?

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

I had brunch with my Baptist Christian lady the other day and she had received a gift from her daughter-in-law which had all trying to be what we're not and stifling belly laughs.

It is a salt shaker in the perceived form of Jesus. You know, sort of all kindly and pompous and blue eyed.
I said (because I can never shut ma mouth at certain times) .."Well Jesus was a bit of a mover and a shaker wasn't he?"

There is no doubt that a cross on our pathetic one hill would be accepted and Praise Godded. Amen.

HAH! He even inspired the religious group the Shakers! But holy cow how tacky....a Jesus salt shaker?? Would have been cooler if the pepper shaker was shaped like Satan.

[Worldtraveller]

Religious symbols really don't bother me. They mean nothing to me, so why get bent?

Because of this (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=130490&#post130490).