Posts Tagged “cross”

The cross that for decades was lit for Christmas at Happy Acres Farm has been moved to private property down the road at Judd's Construction. Sherman officials said it was inappropriate to send a religious message with the cross now that the town owns Happy Acres. Monday, Dec. 22, 2014. Photo: Carol Kaliff, via the Connecticut PostChristmas is only a few days away, and as usual, militant Christianists around the country are furiously trying to get Christmas displays onto government property — and where they’re thwarted, they’re angry about it. An example of this is in the western part of my home state of Connecticut, as the Connecticut Post reports, in the little town of Sherman (WebCite cached article):

The Christmas cross that shone for decades atop the main silo at Happy Acres Farm has gone dark this year.

Tony Hapanowich, who owned the farm until his death in 2013, erected and lighted the cross every year during the Christmas season. But after the town’s acquisition of the property earlier this year, town attorney Jeff Sienkiewicz advised the Board of Selectmen that religious symbols like the cross should not be displayed on municipal property.…

Selectwoman Andrea O’Connor said that from a legal point of view, the display raised issues of separation of church and state.

“We felt, given the advice of our town attorney, that we couldn’t put the cross up,” O’Connor said.

For many, that’s just not acceptable:

Resident Gary Albert wondered why it’s acceptable for the town to put up a Christmas tree and other decorations at Mallory Town Hall, and to put candles in the windows at Happy Acres farmhouse, but not acceptable to display the cross.

“People all over town have started putting up their own crosses,” Albert said. “I’ll bet at this time there must be upwards of 25 to 30, including one at my house.”

I applaud Christianists in Sherman, CT who got off their asses and put their own lighted crosses on their own roofs. That’s exactly how this is all supposed to work! If you’re Christian and want to display your Christianity at Christmastime for all to see — despite the injunction against public piety left behind by the founder of your religion — then go right ahead and do it, on your own fucking property. There’s no reason it must be on government property … unless there’s some provision to this effect in scripture that I’m not aware of. I invite anyone out there so inclined, to provide such a citation, if it exists. I would really love to hear what it could be. Honestly.

As for why decorated trees and lighted candles are acceptable in government buildings, but lighted crosses aren’t allowed atop them, I suppose the reasoning is that those things aren’t overtly religious enough to be problematic. Crosses, however, being associated solely with one particular religion — i.e. Christianity — are a different matter. If it were up to me, all of it would have been yanked … but what the hell could this cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen possibly know about such things?

P.S. Note, had the town of Sherman gone around to all those lighted-cross-building homeowners and ripped them all down, that might have constituted a “war on Christmas,” and it’s something I’d oppose. But that hasn’t happened here, nor is anything like it happening anywhere else in the country. Hence, no “war on Christmas.”

Photo credit: Carol Kaliff / Connecticut Post.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on War On Christmas 2014, Part 2

Salvation CrossYes, it’s true. And there is no other explanation for their ruling. The United States Supreme Court has declared that the federal government can erect monuments to specific religions on federal property and refuse to build them for other religions. The effect is that they’re allowing the federal government to proselytize for Christianity. The New York Times reports on the decision they handed down (WebCite cached article):

A badly fractured Supreme Court, with six justices writing opinions, reopened the possibility on Wednesday that a large cross serving as a war memorial in a remote part of the Mojave Desert may be permitted to remain there.

The Court ranged far afield — both literally and metaphorically — in order to arrive at this conclusion:

“A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a plurality opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”

I’m not quite sure how all those fallen Christian soldiers would have to end up “forgotten,” if the Mojave Cross were moved to private land instead of federal property, but that’s Justice Kennedy’s reasoning. Apparently he thinks that if that particular cross were taken down, all those soldiers would be “forgotten.” They will only be remembered, if the Mojave Cross is left standing on federal property. According to him.

No, I can’t explain it, I’m merely quoting it for you. Just goes to show that being appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court doesn’t mean you’re always rational.

Unfortunately the Times doesn’t provide the context of this lawsuit, but thankfully, ABC News does (cached version):

The cross stood peacefully for years until the Park Service was asked if a Buddhist Shrine could also be built near the cross.

When the Park Service declined the request, Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another. He later filed suit in federal district court.

[On page 2, cached] While Buono, a Roman Catholic, did not find the cross itself objectionable, he was disturbed that it stood on government property when the government would not allow individuals to erect other permanent displays celebrating their religions.

Thus, what the Supreme Court has done, is to decide that, 1) the federal government can build monuments to single specific religions (the cross is a symbol of Christianity only — not of Islam, or Judaism, or Sikhism, or Wicca, or Hinduism, or any other religion); and 2) it can simultaneously refuse to build monuments to any other religion. Together those two sure look like “government pushing Christianity on people” to me.

Yes, I know, the cross was built by the VFW, not the federal government … but federal approval is required nonetheless, meaning the matter is completely up to them as to whether or not it’s built. And since they forbid a private party to build a Buddhist monument, that means the government has chosen sides and is favoring Christianity. Period.

Who said the separation of church and state was alive and well in the United States? It isn’t … not with the Supreme Court packed with theocratic religionists!

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi forums.

Photo credit: watch4u.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

A calf was recently born here in Connecticut with what appears to be an unusual marking … which of course is getting a lot of play among the religiously-minded. The Norwich Bulletin reports on this:

Sterling dairy farmer Brad Davis woke Dec. 1 to find his cow licking the head of her newborn calf. There was a white furry splotch on his head, and Davis took the calf to a heated room in the barn to dry.

A few hours later, he returned and found the animal sitting up in the sawdust, the white mark dry and in the shape of a cross. …

Neighborhood children visited and named the calf Moses.

Here’s a picture of the calf in question:

Aaron Flaum / NorwichBulletin.com

Aaron Flaum / NorwichBulletin.com

Naturally, this has been deemed so remarkable as to defy explanation:

His father, Andrew Gallup Davis, 70, said he’s seen thousands of calves born, but none with a marking like this.

“It’s not one you look at and you try to make something out of it. It’s pronounced,” he said.

A bona fide animal expert, however, said it’s not that far out of the ordinary, as the Bulletin went on to explain:

Ric Grummer, chairman of the Department of Dairy Science at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said white markings on the head of Holstein animals are common.

“I think what this is really ending up being is a coincidence,” he said. “Sometimes that marking is in the shape of a triangle. Sometimes that marking may be very irregularly shaped.” …

“Clearly, if you get a nice unique cross, it’s unique, but it’s not totally surprising that something like this would happen,” Grummer said.

Another example of coincidence and pareidolia. Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Hat tip: WVIT-TV in Hartford CT.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Holy Calf!