This is an interesting argument that 
I had not thought of before.
Americans
United for Church and State Separation (AU) is in a legal battle with
the Utah Highway Patrol Association for erecting 12-foot crosses on the
sites where state troopers have died while on duty.
AU Director, Minister Barry Lind argues that:
"The
cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity... for the government to
claim that the cross is a secular symbol is deeply offensive and
betrays a poor understanding of religion and our Constitution.”
This current counter-lawsuit is on the heels of a 2007 ruling that the cross was no longer just a religious symbol but became a “secular symbol of death”
after the group, American Atheists, sued on the grounds that this was a
state preference of religion. These crosses are erected on public,
taxpayer owned land. The court, instead of passing a ruling that would
be inline with the First Amendment, decided to change the meaning of
the cross.
"Roberts
held up pictures of telephone poles and showed a clip from Ben Casey,
the 1960s TV medical drama. In it, Dr. David Zorba uses the cross as a
generic symbol for death."
I'm sorry, but no one, looks at the cross and thinks Dr. David Zorba and Ben Casey. Lind observes that "this conclusion is historically inaccurate, blind to contemporary realities, and offensive to believers and nonbelievers alike.” Christianity is the context of the cross. Unless you're from Mars, I don't see how you conclude it as anything but Christianity.
A secular authority should not be messing around with
peoples faith, which this 2007 ruling now allows.The undeniable Christian iconoclast, James Madison makes the case in a letter to Edward Livington, "...that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." The AU shares this
long-established American view that government should not be in the business of interfering with
the practice of religion by interpreting its meanings and significance.
This
does not mean that we should not commemorate the sacrifice of these
officers lives. If accommodations have been made for a Jewish officer,
then why not accommodate the First Amendment? What about the
non-religious or those of other non-Christian faiths? It's like teaching
creationism in science class, should we then teach the countless other
creation stories as well?
I would think that other Christians
would support the AU in this, especially if they believe in the price
that Jesus paid for sin. And if the 2007 ruling is correct, then
already much of the meaning behind the cross has been lost.
So the question is, will you allow your government to secularize your religious symbols?
(AU Source)
(Newsweek Article)