Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said that the Christian cross is a "universal" and not a particularly Christian symbol. The issue concerns a five foot cross at the Mojave National Preserve which honors war dead from World War 1. As he put it, "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting places of the dead." When told that this is not so in countries with a strong Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist presence, Scalia said, "I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead."
Scalia's position will likely be hailed by the religious right, which likes nothing better than to plaster its symbols in as many places as possible, rather like a dog marking its spot. Slap a cross on a lamppost and make it a Christian lamppost!
The early baptists, however, would have been appalled. The Christian cross is a mere "universal" symbol? The Christian cross doesn't really mean anything?
Back when baptists were an oppressed minority, and not the strutting triumphalists of today, they stood for religious freedom. They even supported the "atheist" Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800 because he believed in the free practice of religion, and cheered his election when he won. They would have been outraged by Scalia's remarks.
Antonin Scalia, the prime mover behind the infamous Bush v. Gore decision, is one of those people, like the late William Rehnquist, who is described as "brilliant." Yet, has either one of them ever actually done or said anything that was even coherent?
Comments