When you see a white cross on the road side...

Remove all ads!

A cross is undeniably a Christian symbol, which is why only Christians come to complain when the ACLU rightfully opposes placing such on public property/roads/etc.

Santa Claus is not really a Christian symbol and Christmas has become, like it or not, a secular holiday(and what's more "Christmas" was originally a Pagan holiday called "Yule" which was hijacked by Christians who lamented all of the revelry going on which they could not take part in).

Now if by some unimaginable circumstance Christian crucifix/crosses become secular devices then I will be the first to tell anyone still complaining to give it up. If this were already the case then you fundamentalist Christians would not be so adamant in attacking the secularists' positions on this matter.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 10 seconds later... ----------

Wow. An actual nihilist! I hope you are not atheist because we all-too-often have to deal with the 'Nihilist' straw man.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 53 seconds later... ----------

I agree with this...regardless of what your religious beliefs are .

On more thing; I have no problem with "memorials" or "grim warnings"(that a road is dangerous and someone has died there). Where us secularists get miffed is when those memorials/warnings take the form, of religious advertisement.

 

And you don't think the cross has become something of the same? How many loose girls in your HS wore cross necklaces? How many japanese RPGs have you played where the cross is the ubiquitous sign for anything religious, even if the religion is pantheistic? If such a thing is possible, the cross has become a secular symbol for the sacred in general, as well as a simple matter of decoration. The random headstone in US movies often involves a cross somewhere. I've seen crosses on the roadside to mark accidents many times, with at least two of which I knew the person wasn't Christian. The ubiquitous sign of grieving teens at another teen's death in TV is almost always a Cross with candles and little notes. It's background. It's filler. It's secular.

 

I don't believe the cross has become secular. It has secular if quasi-mystical acceptance in Japan, but this isn't Japan. I've known plenty of loose girls who wore crosses -- but they were to the last person not only religious but active in their churches. I have tons of stories that would make many a good christian blanch about deeply religious but shockingly kinky southern baptist I dated throughout my junior year in high school. I still kick myself 15 years later for breaking it off with her when I did -- I was an idiot to let a good thing like that go -- but that's another topic for another day.

Would a Jew want a cross on his grave? Would a Hindu? A Muslim, a Sikh, or an Atheist? No. The cross isn't secular, dude. At least it isn't in the United States. I still have no problem with Crosses serving as roadside memorials as long as the Cross in some way represents the beliefs of the deceased. If the deceased was a Jew or a Muslim, they probably wouldn't have wanted a cross to mark their passing. If the person had no real religious conviction, it probably comes down to his family.

 

This is, sadly, quite true. I suppose I should have said something like the 'completely lost (to the Church) "bad" girls', who wear it as simple jewelry. Of which I've known a few.

These same groups protest over people getting Christmas off, but not their holidays. That doesn't mean it's not secular, only that it hasn't lost all of it's symbolism. Perhaps it would be better to say that both Christmas and the cross are in the process of secularization, with Christmas further along.

 

NOG, I think you are erroneously conflating cultural acceptance with secularization. The truth is that most Americans are at least nominally Christian. Because of this Christian symbols and symbolism are more acceptable in our society, but that fact doesn't make those symbols any less religious.

 

In my experience, most Americans are habitually Christian, but not religiously so. Many of them are hard-pressed to even tell you who Christ was. When they think Joan of Ark was Noah's wife and that Samson killed the Phinklesteins with the Axe of the Apostles (those were actual survey responses, from grown adults, in churchs), I don't count their use of the cross as religious.

 

You exaggerate. That most Americans fail to meet your standard of Christianity is beyond doubt, but what you speak of is ignorance, not inappropriate religiosity. 41% of Americans can't name our vice president, but I wouldn't say these people aren't American. The issue is far simpler -- they're stupid. Not properly grasping the story of Noah's Ark or understanding the significance of the sermon on the mount doesn't make you non-christian or irreligious -- it just makes you stupid.

 

I define 'religiously Christian' as 'depending on a personal relationship with the sacrificed and risen Jesus Christ, one with God, to be saved.' If you don't even know who Jesus is, you aren't religiously Christian, no matter how many years you've attended Church.

Again, I speak only from my experience. Most of the church-goers I've met did so as a social activity, or a habit. Not as a religious experience. We call them things like 'Sunday-morning Christians', 'Pew-warmers', and 'Churchians'. They will nominally default to Christian if asked what they believe, but they honestly don't care. They'll say they're Christian on surveys, but then lie, cheat, steal, and sleep around without a twinge of guilt. If you tell them it's a sin, if you quote Christ preaching against such things, they'll brush them off as 'being too legalistic', or just saying they don't care.

Again, this is just my personal experience. In my experience, Christians who actually care about being Christian are far from the American default.

 

Kind of my point. Using your definition of "religiously," Christian, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Episcopal, and Copitc Christians need not apply. Your definition is too narrow.

In the end, neither you nor I get to be the arbiter of who is and isn't "sufficiently Christian," nor do we get to be the arbiters of who is nominally Christian and who is only superficially Christian.

 

... Ok, maybe I used the wrong definition there. That's what I'd call a true Christian. Maybe 'religiously' Christian should be anyone who takes their religion seriously and actually puts some minor amount of thought into it.

For God, you're right. In the end, who is truely Christian is a matter between God and them. For our purposes of social standards, though, I think we can safely call people who go to church only to chat with their friends 'not really Christian'. Christianity isn't a social activity, it's a religion.

 

I challenge this idea that people go to church "just" to chat with friends. You can already do that at a bar, a coffee house, or the laundromat, and Church services are not pleasant for people without any religious convictions. I have no problem with you asserting that someone who only goes to church on Christmas and Easter and openly admits to not being very religious as being "not very religious," but since these people are going to church on those holidays, it is safe to conclude that Christian symbolism has some meaning to them, too. If it didn't, they would have gone to one of the legions of secular Christmas and Easter celebrations instead of church.