Ask An Atheist: Crosses Aren't Religious?

[Music] and welcome to another edition of the Freedom From Religion foundation's ask an atheist on Facebook live I'm Dan Barker I'm co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and with me today are two of FFRF Saturnia patrick elliot and liz Cavell in the past we have reported many state church legal victories on this show but we can't win them all we should win them all but sometimes the courts get it wrong today we'll be talking about a recent bad decision in FFRF skates challenging a pennsylvania county's official seal which includes a large christian cross and as always on ask an atheist you're welcome to submit questions which we will try to answer during the show feel free to submit them in the comments below or by emailing us at ask an atheist at FFRF dot org by the way this is our 100th show FFRF ask an atheist started more than two years ago and I think we should recognize the people who make this show happen back in that can we look into the control room there we go there's a on the left there is Bruce Johnson who's our director and on the right there is no Gil fillin who's doing sound say hi Noah Noah's with audio for the Arts and can we see Lauren over there oh hi Lauren Lauren is the producer of the show she handles the teleprompter and you can see the teleprompter up there right all the words that it looks like I'm saying spontaneously there's coming off of them with Lauren sub prompter and she also handles the questions so congratulations for 100 shows and there's another reason to congratulate this this week this month and that is that Patrick became a father last week so congrat you are you the unholy father the holy I am I am a very unholy father but happy father so just on August the 5th by the way I look that up August the 5th is Ellery shemp's birthday gallery chef the famous litigant in the ship decision in the school so congratulations Patrick and so let's get back to the Pennsylvania decision before we talk with Liz and Patrick we have a brief clip of some news that aired three years ago I think three years ago this week it's the emblem of Lehigh County displayed on government buildings and official documents I get it with what water bill I get it with my garbage bill look closely and you might see why the County ceiling flag don't fly for everyone including Candace Winkler the cross is literally a symbol of Jesus Christ's crucifixion there's a constitutional law about separation of church and state and it seems very simple to me so earlier this week Winkler along with three other Lehigh County residents and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a federal lawsuit against the county it alleges the Latin cross at the center of the seal violates the first and Fourteenth Amendments and excludes those who are not religious why do pay taxes and I think that my voice does matter and I think the constitutionality of the issue matters but some residents like John Pearson want the seal to stay the same I've been here 38 years and I think it looks fine and you want to put two seals on it that's fine but you know what don't take what's good off the force is good similar lawsuits have been filed across the country says attorney John Dorsey of the power ton legal group who is not related to the case anytime you raise an issue where the government seems to be imposing or endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others even those who do not have any religion it can be interpreted as infringing on their right in a previous letter responding to the foundation County officials wrote quote it is the position of Lehigh County that the presence of the cross on the seal among other items of historical significance has the secular purpose of recognizing the history of the county so it seems pretty obvious to me that when you look at that seal there's this big Christian cross right in the middle what other message can you get but what that guy said Christianity is good and it's part of our history so Patrick you've been involved in this case since the beginning when was it three years ago that's when we filed but you know our involvement went back even further than that asking them to you know address this before a case you know before we even went forward with the case so can you bring us up to date I mean kind of give us a little bit of the history of our involvement in the lawsuits yeah sure so again we filed in three years ago prior to that we we wrote pointing out basically what courts across the country had already decided was that using the the preeminent symbol of Christianity the Latin cross on a government flag or government seal is unconstitutional and here they really used the as you saw in part of the video they use the seal throughout the community they've got it in there my commissioners here in court there commissioners courtroom they have it on the outside account of government buildings on County documents every page of the County website so it's not like this is just some you know government symbol that's been put away they've really embraced it and using and are using it you know today throughout the county so and I flew to the Allentown Airport a few months ago which is the county seat isn't it Alan Townsend county seat it was right there on the wall in the airport a big a big symbol right and they had fly it on the flag so a neat but there's a flag at the county airport so we went forward with the cases you met one of our plaintiffs in the video but we had three other local plaintiffs who opposed their government symbol being this this Christian cross and we filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in federal court and then in 2017 we won the district court agreed that you know which seems obvious to us that that this is the symbol of Christianity the government can't adopt that symbol you know it violated you know two prongs of the lemon test basically being a you know an endorsement of religion but also that the original you know purpose of in adopting this as the as the county's symbol was was a religious purpose there not really a good secular justification for that and so we won and that could have been the end of the story which it seems like it should have been the county could have did what we asked which is to redesign a seal you know that's more inclusive to everyone in the community but a religious group came in Becket fund said hey well we'll represent you on an appeal and so they then appeal to the third circuit and that's where we are today that was the decision that the Third Circuit recently ruled on the case overturning our original to see our original victory so Liz we were winning we had a strong good legal good arguments and good legal precedent so what went wrong right so like Patrick mentioned we we won at the district court level with the district court kind of applying the prevailing legal test which is the Lemon test that Patrick mentioned which is basically an analysis of whether or not a government action endorses religion or has a religious purpose or a religious effect and so the court rightly I think found that the adopting a Christian cross as the symbol and seal of the county failed that test and so we were winning so while we were on appeal the Supreme Court took a case evaluating an actual cross monument on public land in Maryland that was American Legion case also known as the Bladensburg Maryland Peace cross which we talked about on this show a couple weeks ago right that's right so while our case was pending before the Third Circuit on appeal the Supreme Court came down with their decision in American Legion basically appending the test that's used to analyze religious symbols on government property and they they sort of signaled in their opinion that that court should you this new American Legion analysis when they're evaluating government monuments symbols or practices that involve kind of long-standing monuments and symbols so the Third Circuit in light of the American Legion decision was the first case that we know of to really apply that analysis the Supreme Court said it is okay to have Christian crosses on government property well in the American Legion case the Supreme Court said as we talked about a couple weeks ago on this on this show that the the cross that was being challenged in Blaine's burg Maryland the piece cross which was also purportedly a war memorial to World War one veterans in the area that that given its its history and it's sort of evolving purposes over the course of its long-standing history didn't offend the Establishment Clause under this sort of new squishy analysis that doesn't look into religious purpose kind of throws up his hands and says well we can't really divine the purpose of something that's old because it's no longer religious right it's no longer a religious purpose well there's sort of a dash of that you know the purpose sort of evolves to be more secular over time when it's a long-standing Monument the court sort of paid some lip service to that and also the idea that the purpose can change over time or multiply in the words of the court over time and so it's basically just we're not really gonna be too discerning about the purpose when it's a long-standing symbol we're gonna give it a presumption of constitutionality so Patrick the Supreme Court the Third Circuit took the Supreme Court's what squishy bad reasoning and then they applied it to the seal in Pennsylvania is that would happen yeah and I think which we argued we did file a the court asked for additional like a supplemental brief and so we really pointed out that there's a problem or a difference between you know a cross on public property that was when it was put up was designed as a war memorial to the government today using a D symbol the symbol of Christianity as its own symbol is that there's quite a bit of difference between that and that's really not surprising because there are a number of other courts across the country that have ruled that you know cities can't adopt religious symbols as their or even included on their seal or their flag you know that includes courts that people may well consider conservative courts across the country and courts of appeals have ruled that way so so we were really hopeful that the court would while Bladensburg was an unfortunate decision that it might not apply in an unfavorable way here given the the type of violation it's not just a violation of seeing something on government on one place in government property it's our plaintiffs complain and saying you know their tax bills there they go to get permits to any any government interaction they do involves this the cross you know it's the thing that you know you'd see in a church and here they're they're County Commissioners hearing room so where their County decisions are made they have a huge seal behind where the decisions are made and they put them on TV monitors that are up in the room you know they put so it's really been just embraced by the government in a way that I think impacts people that are there who aren't Christian including our our four plaintiffs who are members we have many other members in the county but I'm just glad that some of you know that we were able to at least pursue this on their behalf because I could see I wouldn't want that to be my County to be embracing that religious symbolism so it wasn't there precedent previous county seals that have been found unconstitutional I think in Redlands California wasn't there one my brother was involved in one of those cases there's been a few so I'm most familiar with the ones that ultimately went to the circuit courts of appeals so there's there's been ones in the Seventh Circuit where we are the Tenth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit so there's been a number of courts of appeals that I've had to resolve this issue and say you can't do this some of those decisions go back to you know the mid 1990s so it's not like this is a new thing or very very old cases big pretty consistently they've recognized courts have recognized that they can't be doing this so I think the that this is a departure from you know from the precedent before and in Bladensburg as maybe the avenue that the court was looking to do it I laughed when Liz mentioned the idea that we can't figure out the purpose behind the the county adopting this in the 1940s but we're supposed to be able to divine what the founding fathers of this country meant when they meant adopted the Establishment Clause so I think some of our Supreme Court justices really embrace an approach of figuring out exactly what the founders some of the founders I guess thought about what the Establishment Clause meant but they're not at all willing to engage in that and much more modern practices because they don't they don't like where you know where it might lead them where it might lead them which is to strike down this type of symbolism so there is a point I think in the decision maybe as I mentioned that there are some things that truly have been secularized the city of Bethlehem Pennsylvania for example no one complains that there's a religious name to the city because by now everyone's accepting it it's just is just the name is that a good argument I think it's a favorite argument of the the courts that want to sort of give a blessing to these types of practices because it sort of strikes people as absurd that you would go around you know making Bethlehem changed the name of their town that that would be so disruptive and that it's that it somehow just shows a sensitivity of the of the person complaining but again whether or not that's that's true and and whether or not that's comparable in terms of what the purpose was if you go way back when to whenever someone named the town what we're talking about with the county seal like Patrick mentioned and like we tried to explain and convince the Third Circuit this is this is something that is I say all the time it is literally the stamp of approval of the county I mean I'm sure somewhere there is a stamp pad with that bad boy you know embossed on it and it and the cow he goes on day-in day-out sort of disseminating it to its people you know it makes the choice every time it builds a new building it makes the choice to plant that flag in the ground with their with their Latin cross flying and every time it orders a new box of letterhead you know it makes the choice to put that symbol on it so it's disseminating this this stamp of approval of the county that strikes a lot of its citizens as an endorsement of Christianity for obvious reasons I think I mean they also and this is where maybe I would agree with some the judges in deciding whether something has lost its religious meaning Bethlehem Pennsylvania has lost that that's the name of the town if you live in Lehigh County and you think of Bethlehem you're associating with the place it's the city that you're talking about where I don't think we've had that culturally in the US with the cross the cross both the supporters of the of keeping it know that it means the death and resurrection of Jesus in their minds and us who are non-christian think this is the they want this here because they think it symbolizes Jesus and his resurrection as courts have have have pointed out truthfully up until the American Legion case courts have accepted that the Latin cross is a symbol of Christianity and is not has no secular meaning in our culture the Latin cross is the t-shaped basic cross shaped cross monuments as is the common ridiculous parlance that tries to secularize you know these these endorsements of Christianity I guess one way to look at this is to ask after this decision came down who is celebrating right are the atheists in Allentown going yeah our secular symbol has been preserved right they everybody knows what's going on here and don't you think maybe I'm cynical but don't you think this is kind of the fallout from Trump packing the Supreme Court with conservative justices now now the Religious Right feels emboldened even religious right on the courts we've seen that I mean I don't think it's even speculation that in our cases because we have I don't know what our current is usually between 12 to 15 ongoing cases that cases that we won definitively like Lehigh where it didn't really seem that there was an option for appeal the other side is appealing all the way hoping to get to the Supreme Court because they certainly view this court as being favorable to them in every respect and and I think with Merrick garland being on the court you know rather than Gorsuch there would be very much a difference swing at least right and you know I think the other side perceives that so that's what we're seeing in our cases is that appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if we can unfortunately for us the Supreme Court has even taken one of those cases there's a case this next term that the court will be taking on school vouchers out of the state of Montana where the state of Montana said that their state constitution prohibits funding of religious schools and the state Supreme Court has authority to make that determination but the that's now been appealed to the US Supreme Court saying that that would violate like free exercise rights of parents or equal protection and so we now have the Supreme Court wading into whether some federal law would trump state constitutions that that help protect state church separation so that's a really concerning case that they even decided to take so I think you're right that I think the other groups kind of see an opportunity hopefully the court really won't press that further than cases like we've seen like the blade the Bladensburg piece cross case but it's concerning that that's a trend that we're observing well the Religious Right is probably saying yeah the Supreme Court's on our side and even though it was a little decision that signals to us that we can go ahead and they gave us an inch we'll take a mile isn't there a silver lining in this in Bladensburg and maybe even in Lehi in that these bad decisions are only applying to older crosses I mean these this goes there using a historical time has passed what if a city today wanted to change its seal to put a cross on it would that hold muster right so you're right that the Bladensburg American Legion case a big dimension of that has to do with the long-standing historical nature of the monument in that case the Third Circuit in Lehigh when it was evaluating the County seal ripped right off of that in sort of saying this has been you know the County seal since the 1940s or whatever it was and so therefore this there's this long history and evolving you know sort of purpose and effect of having this on the seal that is different than something that were adopted tomorrow and it also in in the view of the court I think and I think you know this is a little bit we talked about of of a of a cop out but when they're evaluating purpose whether or not something has a religious purpose they've sort of used the the historical or long-standing nature of the monument or the symbol to to sort of avoid analyzing what the true purpose is because they're sort of this idea that we can't know the true purpose of something that was done you know a hundred years ago or has changed since then right and or the purposes have evolved and changed or multiplied or whatever and so something that you know is happening right now like you know we can talk about Arkansas's Ten Commandments monument something that the government is adopting or putting on public property or designing its seal right now in adopting religious symbols it'd be a lot easier to make the argument and you know adduce the proof that there's a religious purpose or there's no secular purpose and so we're hopeful that going forward we can still challenge monuments symbols things in that category that are popping up new and and that would still be based on at least the principles that are in the lemon test I mean a secular purpose and a you know secular effect and all of that right I mean it takes the wind out of the analysis in the Bladensburg cross case and and this Lehigh Seal case because much of that analysis involves sort of giving a presumption to these historical and long-standing things so it looks like the court is saying there's a statute of limitations on crosses what is that it you know if someone did it last year we could challenge that well you know like an Arkansas but what's the point in history where the court will say well it's been long enough now it's now so I mean you know where is that point we don't really tolerate that when we're enforcing any other constitutional right right like there's been points in time where the Supreme Court makes a decision and says no what was ubiquitous across the country was wrong whether that you know that they could enter into any number of issues I mean one might be like loving versus Virginia interracial marriage well that was obviously the the rule for a number of the law of the land in Virginia for however long until the Supreme Court stepped in and to say no this violates the Constitution right you know including the Fourteenth Amendment but I think that it's really lazy legal analysis to say oh maybe there's this time window we don't know how long it would be that older things are now going to be okay unfortunately that's the world we've been living with even since 2005 because you had those Ten Commandments cases in 2005 where a really old one was allowed to stand at a Texas Capitol and yes a new one was struck down so we've already kind of been in that realm since 2005 with this Supreme Court so it's not anything new it's just as far as being a lawyer it bothers me because I don't think that's like a sound legal principle to say we allow things that we've if things have been going on long enough we think they're okay and that's really not how the First Amendment should be enforced or interpreted right so I don't know if we should talk about this on live TV but it's just gonna affect our own internal legal strategy about what cases we might take in about what issues we might look the other way on or is that something for a future I mean I think it's obvious for any group including you know the Freedom From Religion Foundation what the Supreme Court's decisions are going to guide what challenges you take or don't take so so something similar to Blaine's burg a war memorial cross of the age it's probably not a case that we would be likely to take because Bladensburg would so aptly apply but in some sense it may be reason for us to take cases on new displays because if we let them stand for too long yeah they may well get that vintage that would allow them to be okay so I do think in some sense it means you know you're you're on the break and in some sense it means you're on the gas if there are cases that should be challenged today rather than letting them sit for too long they may well not be able to be challenged that's right so there there are cases that we took in one in the past that we might not take today because of the change in the court like Santa Clara for example yeah I mean I think everyone's in that boat when it comes to crosses because I mean as we have already mentioned the American Legion case opinion from the Supreme Court really is a departure from what was more or less unanimous circuit courts of Appeal on the question of whether or not a cross on public land across being endorsed by government actor violates the Establishment Clause there was a there was a strong body of law supporting that principle and so American Legion really is a departure on that so us and everybody else is really having to kind of rethink how we view cross cases in particular and of course historical and long-standing monuments in general but again like Patrick said we were doing some of that analysis already in light of Van Orden the old Ten Commandments cases that have been muddying these waters for in the in the the Lynch dynamic of whether it's surrounded by enough secular stuff all of that but you know that the case we won recently when did we win Santa Clara like two years ago in the last two years where we we actually got them to move a big Christian cross from public land to private property today would we take that case I think actually there's an argument to take it under the California Constitution which also has strong state church separate shrine din it so just because we took a case in the past that might not prevail today under the Establishment Clause there still might be a state right you know to challenge it and that's what happened in some other in recent cases like in Oklahoma in the last few years where their their state Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Ten Commandments monument that was at the State Capitol and so if you live in Oklahoma you don't have to just rely on the Establishment Clause you have a state constitutional protection so yeah it's hard sometimes to go back in time and you know apply this but I was reminded by kind of what you hinted at Dan a little bit of the cross not being religious is like I think maybe be careful what you wish for with some of these religious groups is now they're important religious symbols I think the cross means something to people they wear it it's adorned on their churches are we are you devaluing a religious symbol by arguing that it should be that it's secularized in some sense so I do think both with prayer and and with religious symbols that people who are religious should be careful about making these arguments because you're really somewhat you know decreasing the importance of a religious symbol and and its importance to the religion when you're arguing that they should just be anywhere and don't have special significance so maybe there's some little dishonesty there where they're saying we should keep the cross that we love so much because it's not really religious yeah I mean they're talking out of both sides of their mouth aren't they well and also pumping the historical piece I think is important because I mean clearly obviously what's being winked at and bargained for in that what you're talking about is it's Christian nationalism it's you know it's it's promoting the idea that these these counties and communities have a history of being Christian or have a Christian founding and that you know that in and of itself is secular somehow you know like you know we can't help it if we're a Christian nation kind of thing or we're a Christian culture and the the bargain being made is yeah maybe it's sort of D values are our religious symbols but what we get in return is of course what the Establishment Clause is meant to protect against which is government endorsement of our particular religion and you know a sort of infusing government and patriotism with our brand of religion and of course that's Christian nationalism and so before we go to questions unless you have something else you want to say I want to bounce off of that because I read that in Pennsylvania in Lehigh County they were arguing that this is reflects the roots of our founding of this community when actually people were living in Pennsylvania for 15,000 years before it was founded by these Europeans who came over here with guns and Bibles and said we are now a Christian you know so isn't there a little tinge of Americans not just nationalism but superiority over you know the people that we invaded certainly insensitive to you know to Native Americans and populations that had been here and and I don't know that they exactly said that this was the founders the actual wording I think that it was adopted when the seal was approved was that that the seal that the cross signifies Christianity and the god-fearing people who are I think the foundation and backbone of our county so so I think they're kind of saying exactly what you're saying dan but they're being even more explicit saying it signals it signifies Christianity so so you're right I think to to have this view of the founders what's going on in their head is white settlers who who came and who were Christian and not taking into account at all populations that had lived there for or as you said for many decades and and thousand year plus prior to that so it's triumphalism isn't it time okay I mean it's it's Christian supremacy I mean that's what it was meant to be and the the graphic that just got thrown up was a commissioner who was on the County Commission at the time that the seal was adopted in the 40s and his statement about what the purpose was which was two years after they adopted the seal was what Patrick just said it signifies Christianity and the god-fearing people that are you know the backbone of the county and what the Third Circuit said was well that was one guy on the Commission out of three he designed create so he was the guy to ask but you know the Third Circuit wasn't really moved by that because you know it just wasn't enough to overcome this presumption of constitutionality that we should have for these long-standing symbols and you know who knows how that would have how that's changed over time and and it doesn't it's not imputed to the commissioners now and and all the rest but of course it the purpose was to sort of adopt a symbol of Christian supremacy in the county so you know that I am a member of the Lenape tribe the Delaware Indians an enrolled voting member of the tribe because of my dad and his family and our tribe lived in the Delaware River area in that whole part of Pennsylvania way back then and so the suggestion that before the Christians came there was no true morality or true virtue or true family love or true real true American traditions is really kind of insulting of course who's left there to complain how many of the tribes are left there in that County to complain about that now they've been wiped out through a huge genocide basically our tribe which used to be there migrated six times and ended up with about 700 members we almost went extinct because of the loving Christians who came over here to impose their it's not even a European view it's a middle-eastern transported to European transported to Lehigh County so it really is something of an insolvent yet they don't see it that way they see Christianity is something good so that's my rant for the day anything else or shall we go we get to take questions let's do it all right here's some questions uh oops push the right button here okay here's a question from Kate si AIT Liang felt because of this case can public schools legally display crosses inside schools like they are doing with In God We Trust science No so there's a couple layers there the in god we trust' science which is kind of a separate problem but just to address the first part of the question which is does this case from the Supreme Court now change the landscape within the public schools and I think the answer to that is no it it did it it did I think devastates a little bit of the landscape with as it regards to monuments on public property that are long-standing and as we've saw in Lehigh that that's also applying now two symbols government symbols such as I mean it's right that's quite right but there's no reason to think that the public school body of case law which has always been more of a heightened level of review that that's at all affected by by the American Legion case and yeah the American Legion case being one thing but even though our panel of judges in this case the Lehigh case said that and said in the opinion basically said that this doesn't change our public school precedent they have a footnote and citing to some of their public school cases which have been quite strong so this Court recognized that there's this distinction and Supreme Court has also recognized that so the schools can't run around put crosses up all over the place now as a result of this no but of course we are seeing in god we trust' statutes being passed passed around the country which is usually comes in the form of state legislatures passing some sort of law that says every school you know shall display and god we trust' in a conspicuous place or in every classroom or something like that which is of course incredibly problematic we get a lot of complaints as those displays are going up in god we trust' has been a difficult legal challenge to mount in the past just to the motto because of the uniqueness of it being adopted as the the national motto by congress so there could not have happened by the way no which is i mean in our view clearly unconstitutional but which has been really insulated from court challenges courts have not been willing to define the motto itself unconstitutional but we do think that this ubiquitous display of in god we trust' throughout our public schools is definitely creating kind of a different situation and we can continue complaining about that okay right I need to press this button one more time okay now here's a question from Lucas Swank is there any plan to challenge the Lehi decision distinguishing the seal from a war memorial essentially arguing that the cross has a secular purpose of remembrance but the seal doesn't have that I mean I think that's that's effectively you know what we were arguing I mean in terms of the options to appeal are are there's not a lot of road left I mean you either go to the full panel of judges on the third circuit so this was a three-judge panel where you go to the Supreme Court and both of those are very highly unlikely to be taken they're both quite an uphill battle so you know that's something that hasn't been definitively decided but there's it's it's difficult to make that distinction that's what we were pointing out I do think if you had a different panel of judges they easily could have come to the conclusion that we were suggesting which is that these are two two very different scenarios and we haven't decided yet legally no we have a short window yeah you have a short window to do that but again pointing out the difficulties in doing so I don't know that I would expect that we probably would not file additional challenges but you know that's something as the attorney I don't get to make that decision that's what the clients you know really get to decide so could we look at it as the kind of damage control just to contain it within the Third Circuit for now yeah I mean it that's really where this case applies to so that's you know a narrow I think it's New Jersey Pennsylvania and maybe Delaware I'm like not just up to speed on all my surrogate states but but that's where this case applies to and it's pretty confined to the idea of a you know a seal from the 1940s and flag and interpreting Bladensburg under that the court that the court does say you know on a on a basically on a more extensive record the outcome could be different so we really had the statements of people who adopted it and that's what we had we didn't have further evidence so the outcome might have been different had we had transcripts from everybody saying exactly why they did it unfortunately because of time we don't we didn't have those so I don't I don't know that even within the third circuit that this would prohibit somebody from challenging another type of display yeah yeah of course Joel Kaufman does this mean that proponents of state flags with confederate emblems on them can also make their historical argument I love that question and Annie Laurie gave a great quote to a reporter that I just spied on because I was copied on the email that I thought was great and it was something like you know an auntie Laurie rhetorical question to the effect of you know if we wouldn't tolerate a white nationalist you know symbol on our county flag why should we tolerate a Christian nationalist symbol on our county flag and I think that's perfectly put and really gets at the guts of why this is so wrong and so offensive to so many people I don't I'm not familiar with what the constitutional arguments are against or you know I don't know if these old Confederate monuments are being challenged in court and if so what the constitutional arguments are for their removal or for keeping them up but I certainly think that that is an analogous way that's an analogous way to think of that's what the court is doing is tolerating things because they've been long-standing and and being willing to sort of pull the wool over their own eyes about whether or not they promote religion just because you know they've been around for a long time and the community is used to seeing them I think that's a dangerous principle to conduct constitutional analysis and yeah of course that's where I think people may be naturally think about that because it just is another area where symbols are important they have meaning to people they deep response both and you know these I guess the Civil War issue and people using it for white nationalism people using it as part of being racist and people using their religious symbols they all have deep meaning I mean one distinction which I'm not necessarily saying this is the way it should be because I don't think those symbols the flag the confederate flag should be used by States and thankfully they've come around in recent decades to deciding to change to stop flying the Confederate flag in terms of a number of states but what we have in the First Amendment Establishment Clause is prohibiting the government from affiliating itself with religious with religion and religious symbols unfortunately we don't have something affiliating the government with really horrible racist symbols as a matter of policy governments should not be adapting these and so the probably the best means of addressing those is for people to reach out to their governor to their elected leaders and tell them to remove these and there's very good reasons to do so they may not have the same legal means that we have when the issue is religion because we have an actual legal Avenue to challenge them most viewers of this show would know that when Liz referred to Annie Laurie she was talking about the co-founder and co-president of the Freedom From Religion who gives great quotes to the press especially her rhetorical questions and so that was one that she gave to a reporter about the Lehigh County a great question okay here's a question from Lizzie Nick kinery if I'm saying that right if they are saying that crosses are secular in not religious symbols could somebody argue that the Star of David and the Islamic crescent moon and star also have a secular purpose mmm I doubt it but I do want to point out that the the court in Lehigh didn't necessarily rely on the idea that the cross is secular or that the cross is not religious I mean there is there's a flavor of that when they're when they're saying who's to know the purpose whether it's religious or secular and oh boy it changes over time and we just don't know but I do think that the court explicit in our case in its opinion that certainly the Latin cross has a religious meaning it has a religious meaning today regardless of why it was adopted but that that is not the that's not the only factor to be considered in analyzing its constitutionality and so I think that's not necessarily the reason why the our constitutional challenge fails it's sort of one thing in the mix but I do think it's important to note that the court flat-out acknowledged that of course the Latin Cross has a religious significance to many people it has a religious meaning it is the preeminent symbol of Christianity it's not denying those things it's just saying that it's use by the government as a public symbol on public property or part of the the county seal it's used by the government in that way is not necessarily religious and here's all the reasons why because its historical because it's obfuscated by time because it's gone on to also have a secular meaning in the community etc so when the Third Circuit appeals court referred to American Legion weren't they implicitly sort of embracing the arguments that the Supreme Court used about this the changing of meaning over time we don't have a choice because that's binding precedent to them if they think that that case applies they have to you know do whatever the Supreme Court says so sometimes you have decisions from courts of appeals that are reluctant but the Supreme Court said it so here blatant the Bladensburg the Supreme Court decision does have this Flair of multiple meanings or changing meanings and we think that's odd in reference to religious symbols I think I think that the Star of David and the cross have pretty pretty static meaning in terms of what the religious significance are so I do think there's some merit to the to the question that's being asked here but Liz is right - that it the court doesn't say it's a secular symbol it's kind of says oh it's a religious symbol but this is the analysis that we need to do under under what the Supreme Court has said so far there aren't any city seals that have a Star of David or Islamic crescent moon on it yet do we know there's that yeah I mean if there were that would be a you know that looks like it's a government endorsement of those religions I don't think Doug Robert I see two questions on here still Doug Roberts I'm talking to Bruce Bruce is talking to me my earphone booth two more questions do you feel that the Trump administration is allowing Christianity to creep more and more into political and public life yes yeah I mean I just I don't like the word allowing because I feel like he's like making it happen right I mean the people that he has at high levels of position in his cabinet are certainly pushing religion into the federal government more than we have seen even you know under a number of prior presidents Republican or Democrat so I don't think it's even just allowing I think it's really there's been a push for Christian nationalism and maybe it's because our country's become more secular so there's this kind of holding on to power or protecting this ideal of that we're a Christian country so I think we're definitely seeing it from this administration and maybe it's in part because of how our country is becoming less religious maybe they're poor losers they know they're losing they're losing in the social cultural sphere and so they're trying real hard not to lose it in the government and I mean I think one of the biggest effects that the Trump administration has had on what this questioner is asking is judges that have been appointed to the federal bench I mean these are judges that are they are darlings of the of angelical movement I mean these are the most conservative of the crop and so they are definitely on board with religion in the public sphere which you know ends up in these cases as being a Christian privilege and Christian supremacy yeah last question is this really the last question Lauren yes it is okay this is from Phil Monroe a regular viewer to ask an atheist Phil Munroe asks it is hard to be optimistic about future rulings with the current he--oh is it hard to be optimistic with the current judges how do you how do you people especially consume how do we keep a positive attitude I mean I I think we've been this court has been bad and the judges that are getting appointed for lifetime appointments are going to have a lasting impact that will be bad for state church separation but I think there's another piece to this which is that the judges are one aspect to this country right how our government functions we have leaders who are becoming increasingly or at least there are people becoming of age to become into office who are increasingly less religious I think over all religion maybe has not been as important to a number of institutions and people in this country as it has been so I think as it's true I am I do have some pessimism about how well our courts will handle cases and some of these issues but maybe we don't even get there in in some respects because if we're going to have less violations because people understand more that we're a pluralistic country and we shouldn't be doing some of these things that's probably the fix that we can all at least work towards now so I have some pessimism about how our courts will interact with our Establishment Clause but not necessarily how governments will interact with religion in the future yeah I think that's right it's um you know we kind of stay optimistic by ship figuring out how we need to shift our focus and in a lot of ways this isn't this is a very dire and serious time and we're not the only ones in this boat I mean minority rights of every stripe are not faring well at the Supreme Court right now and won't be for the near future so it's it's more grassroots efforts it's more efforts at a local or municipal level or taking cases at the state level under state constitutions you know figuring out new ways to be effective because because here's what we know we know that like they have been for decades the the pews are emptying people are becoming more secular millenials are the most secular generation in history and so the demographics are trending I think in favor of a more reasonable public and electorate and so we just kind of need to find ways to harness our efforts and message that doesn't necessarily rely on on the Supreme Court doing the right thing so the courts have not caught up with the culture yet who's gonna win in the long run basically that's why we're optimistic right now it looks like you know we have some losses and FFRF by the way he has had some serious losses but on balance we have more wins than losses since Trump was inaugurated I think we've had what 13 victories and three or four losses since that time so we're we have a good batting average two never hurts to lose but let's remember we are winning most of our cases right and I mean when we took this case it was a really different picture and we were winning this case up until you know an intervening Supreme Court case so it happens but so we can't have faith but we can have hope is that what we're saying yes okay well anything else I should we and shall we wrap it up all right so you stayed awake Patrick and I yeah I got some sleep with my newborn with a newborn in the house it must be I know that feeling so congratulations so and thank you for watching that's our show for today and we invite you if you're interested in these topics you can become a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation you can help us in our vital work to keep state and church separate and to educate the public about the views of non-theist visit our webpage at ffrs org or you can just pick up the telephone and call eight hundred three three five forty twenty-one and one way you can help frf is by contacting government officials who violate the law if you want to receive FFRF Action Alerts on your smartphone to do just that text FFRF to five to eight eight six data rates may apply again that's FFRF text it to five to eight eight six we're taking the summer summer break next week but we'll be back on August 28th with another episode of FFRF ask an atheist [Music] [Music] [Music]

Channel: FFRF

Views: 3,805

Rating: 4.8468084 out of 5

Keywords: Freedom From Religion Foundation, FFRF, Lehigh County Cross, Crosses on Seals, Crosses religious symbol, are crosses religious symbols, Lehigh Cross, Dan Barker, Patrick Elliott, Liz Cavell, Atheism, atheist, crosses, the cross, city seals

Id: dN7GFP6DCWQ

Length: 52min 9sec (3129 seconds)

Published: Wed Aug 14 2019