-255x208.jpg)
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio — A tiny cross in the corner of this city’s logo may become a church-state battle for the ages. Neither side wants to back down.
“The city may fight it,” said Gary Repella, law director for Steubenville’s city government, in an interview July 30.
The Steubenville City Council will meet tonight just as passions are swelling regarding a decision to scrap the city’s new logo. The decision is in response to a lawsuit threat by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization of and for atheists, based in Madison, Wis.
At issue is a logo adopted in December that features a bridge, a musketeer, historic Fort Steuben and several prominent downtown buildings. On the right edge of the silhouette is the outline of Franciscan University’s Christ the King Chapel, which is topped with a cross.
“We were honored they included us,” said Tom Sofio, associate director of public relations for Franciscan University.
Michael Hernon, the university’s vice president of advancement, said Franciscan may be the largest single employer in Steubenville, and the university is a core element of the community’s economy, history and culture. An image of the chapel serves as the university’s logo; the chapel is the most recognizable feature of the campus.
“Its inclusion was not on a basis of religion, and it should not be excluded on a basis of religion,” Hernon said. “At this point, we have to draw a line and say, ‘Enough is enough.’ We should fight this and pray to God that all religion is not excluded from the public square.”
Repella originally recommended that the city revert to an old logo, which contained no cross, but that decision has resulted in substantial resistance from the public. Additionally, Repella said, nonprofit legal foundations “are coming out of the woodwork” to offer assistance.
“We will be looking into it,” said attorney Emily Hardman, spokeswoman for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Religion should not be marginalized by local governments. It should not be given less protection than other forms of speech. Religion is part of history and culture, yet there are activists out there who are trying to scrub it from society as if it is pornography.”
As is often the case in church-state conflicts, case law doesn’t give a clear answer as to the legality of a city logo containing a cross. A famous conflict involving the logo for Los Angeles County was never adjudicated. The American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue because the logo contained a tiny cross that represented the role of Spanish missions in the region’s history. The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors changed the graphic in 2004 to avoid a lawsuit.
In Murray v. Austin, Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Austin to retain a cross on the city’s insignia. The court found that the cross did not promote a sectarian message because it was presented as part of the coat of arms of the city’s namesake, Stephen Austin.
Courts have allowed Las Cruces, N.M., to retain a logo that consists of three crosses because “Las Cruces” is Spanish for “the crosses.”
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said she threatened a lawsuit because a resident of Steubenville, whose name she will not disclose, complained to her. Gaylor insists the federal courts have forbidden crosses on government logos in the majority of cases.
Gaylor was glad the city originally backed down, and her organization’s website claimed it as an “FFRF victory” on July 25. But on July 29, Gaylor said she fears a fight from the Becket Fund, the Liberty Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice or other organizations that defend religious liberty.
“These organizations are buttinskis,” Gaylor said. “They are outside groups that interject themselves into these controversies. If they want to fight us, I’m sure we can find a plaintiff.”
Hardman of the Becket Fund accused the Freedom From Religion Foundation of scouring religious expression from the public square, relegating it to private, underground environments.
“From their perch in Madison, they go around threatening governments with lawsuits and acting like professional bullies,” Hardman said. “They typically win only because someone forfeits, fearing the cost of fighting them in court.”
Hardman said the foundation’s complaint about a small cross, among seven secular elements, is “ridiculous.”
“Is someone being coerced? Is this asking someone to believe a certain way? It is hard to imagine how that’s happening,” Hardman said.
The city hired Nelson Fine Art and Gifts to design the logo, and city officials requested that the design include something to symbolize the university.
“It cannot be denied that Franciscan University is a major part of Steubenville,” said Kevin Nelles, sales and marketing manager for Nelson Fine Art and Gifts. “We are known nationally and internationally only because of the university, and that chapel is their logo. It is the only image that symbolizes the university. What are we supposed to use? A dormitory?”
The company, which claims status as the largest-volume American manufacturer of Catholic art and gift products, has printed the image on hundreds of mugs, key chains, beer steins and garments. If the city declines to keep the logo, nothing would stop the business from continuing to sell the image on products.
“We own rights to the image,” Nelles said.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has become a big player in a growing effort to challenge religious art and symbolism on government property and in the public square. The organization supported the American Civil Liberties Union’s fight against the Mount Soledad cross, a war memorial which has been atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, Calif., since 1913. The Ninth Circuit Appellate Court ruled that the cross violates the “No Preference” clause of the California Constitution and therefore must be removed. The Supreme Court of the United States denied a request for review on June 25, meaning the Ninth Circuit ruling stands — and the cross will likely come down soon.
The foundation is also in a battle to remove “Big Mountain Jesus,” a six-foot-tall statue of Christ that has been part of Montana’s Whitefish Mountain ski resort for more than 50 years. The Jesus statue was erected on federal land by the Knights of Columbus as a memorial to World War II soldiers from the Army’s 10th Mountain Division.
“These types of symbols elevate Christianity over other religions and non-religion,” Gaylor said. “How could anyone who is not Christian feel welcome in a town that has a cross on its logo? It is the government’s imprimatur on one particular religion.”
Gaylor said she knows firsthand that mixing government and religion “causes injury” to atheists.
“My polling site was moved into a church one year,” Gaylor said. “I could not vote. I actually didn’t mind the church. It was a liberal church. I had attended concerts there. They often had liberal political functions there. My dad had been the janitor in that church. What caused injury was being told I had to enter a church in order to vote. It represented government coercion.”
Gaylor said local government moved her voting location to a public school after she and her husband complained.
Some activists who oppose religious symbolism say they fear religion is growing more powerful and becoming more a part of government. They warn of a theocratic takeover of the United States by Christians.
Not Gaylor. She perceives no increase in the use of religious symbolism by governments and promises a decrease.
“There isn’t more religion. There are a lot more of us [secularists-atheists] than there used to be. As a result, the complaints are increasing and will continue to increase,” Gaylor said. “We are tired of government meetings opening with prayers, and we are done putting up with other government expressions of religion. Politicians who have been forced to wear religion on their sleeves are going to have to start wooing secular voters soon.”
Gaylor isn’t buying arguments about the chapel and cross representing an institution that’s at the core of Steubenville’s culture.
“If the city and the university are indistinguishable, then the city and the university need to learn to distinguish themselves,” Gaylor said.
Hernon of Franciscan said atheists who try to banish religious expressions are violating the First Amendment. He and Nelson Fine Art’s Nelles said they have received broad-based support for the logo — even from non-Christians and atheists. They characterize opposition as a small and hostile minority.
“This is the height of intolerance,” Hernon said. “It is contrary to the values of this country and what is in our Constitution. We don’t have freedom from religion; we have freedom of religion. Our state motto in Ohio says: ‘With God, All Things Are Possible.’ Yet this militant secular attack seeks to bleach out any reference to God. The opposite of a theocracy is not some radicalized, secularized paradise.”
Register correspondent Wayne Laugesen writes from Boulder, Colorado.
John Zmirak: We Are All Islamists Now
Benjamin Wiker: The Church and the (Secular) State
Comments
Post a Comment
How can the silhouette of a cross be of any threat to anybody? Mrs Gray has a serious bigger than life personality conflict if she believes that the cross is out to get her or any other that is not a believer (unless her conscience is nagging at her). The cross is just the silhouette of another prominent institution in the city, one that provides employment for many, moves the economy of the city itself, helps educate future tax paying citizens of this country and the such. If the city caves in to this lady’s pity temper tantrum then they are doing a great dishonor to the university itself and allowing themselves to be bullied by silly nonsense. I hope the university prays a novena for this lady. And let’s face it, she must have chosen to move there, right? She has the freedom to go elsewhere too if she does not like what she sees.
If the cross is going to be on the Steubenville Logo, it must have a secular purpose. It does, and it is one of history and culture. If we argue that this is about religion, then we fall into the trap that the Atheists have set for us. If we claim that NOT having the cross is religious intolerance, then they can say that having the cross is religious establishment. If we say that the cross is there because of history and culture, then the Atheists can say nothing.
We must start standing up for what is right.We have a right to freedom of Religion.If you don’t believe in God,thats your right.Just don’t try to push it on everybody else.These crosses were here way before you and all these other people were.What right do you have to try to remove them. If you don’t believe in God,they should not bother you.Christ died for you on a cross .If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.
Just a note here…according to Snopes.com an arrangement has been made where the private land owners will give 5 acres of land to the Feds and in exchange, the California Cross will be placed back at the original site with a fenced private memorial stating it is not on Public Lands. That was Snopes.com as of May 2012.
This has to be the most inane as well as juvenile statement I have seen:
“These organizations are buttinskis,” Gaylor said. “They are outside groups that interject themselves into these controversies. If they want to fight us, I’m sure we can find a plaintiff.”
Buttinskis? That’s really placing the level of debate on a higher plane. The topper, though, is “They are outside groups that interject themselves into these controversies.” All I can say that is: FFRF look in the mirror. Or to put at their juvenile level “I know you are but what am I? Nyah Nyah!”
As an alumni of Franciscan University and a Catholic, I can say that this is indeed another attack by seculars on people of faith. It is also a slap in the face of the University that has done more to assist that Valley in these post-Steel Mill years. Of course they don’t want to think on those terms.
Good grief - she’ll walk into a church for a concert or other public event, but she “can’t” enter when it’s a polling center?
Must be an easterner. There are many towns in the west where the local church is still the largest public space available; it’d be really hard to gather for major events without using it!
The idea of separation of church and state is not really even in the constitution. But people who don’t really understand what The First Amendment says always want to make it sound like it is saying something that it is not.—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” basically states that our government cannot require citizens to join a specific religion, as in some countries where a mandatory religion is the law of the land, i.e.in those countries where it is a crime to be anything other than Muslim, etc. It also states that it cannot keep people from practicing the religion of their own choice. Having a cross in a city logo is not forcing anyone to join any specific church nor is it preventing them from being an atheist or any other religion. They are still free to do whatever they want to do. But the fact remains that the city has a deep history centered around its church based university. The logo simply depicts that history. It is time that we Americans take our country back from those who are hell-bent to take it over and destroy it.
Is it such a large step from insisting that nothing in a bit of artwork sanctioned by a public body should reveal the factual place of religion in the life of a community to insisting that nothing facing someone driving down a public street should reveal the factual place of religion in the life of a community? If one cannot tolerate the image of a cross on a drawing of a church, how much more offensive it must be to encounter an actual cross on a real church.
Quotes like “What caused injury was being told I had to enter a church in order to vote,” would seem to indicate that for Mrs. and Mr. Gaynor this is less about protecting someone’s 1st Amendment Rights and more about their own hyper-inflated sense of self-importance—as is the case with all bullies. I’m glad someone is finally standing up to them.
As an alumnus of the University and a lifelong resident of Steubenville, I’m very much against the logo. If the city wants to create a logo that reflects our history and culture, that’s fine. There is no need to include divisive religious symbols in it. Government should remain secular and inclusive. I’m glad the law and the constitution reflect this.
Lemmy, are you suggesting that if the “history and culture” of a place could not be described accurately and objectively without including religious elements, that that history should be revised when it comes to the government’s representation of it?
Lemmy said “Government should remain secular and inclusive. I’m glad the law and the constitution reflect this.”
The constitution says no such thing. That is a recent invention of godless liberals. Had that liberal perversion of the constitution been around sooner, we wouldn’t have city names like St. Louis, St. Paul, San Francisco, et al would we?
I’m saying that a logo created by the government, using taxpayer dollars, to represent ALL of it’s citizens should be free of specific religious symbolism. Seems simple enough.
“That is a recent invention of godless liberals.”
One that is supported by the courts and two centuries worth of jurisprudence.
Bullies. Bullies from Madison, WI. Not from the community in question. Atheists are attempting to purge our culture of all Christian artifacts, memorials, logos, etc. it’s too bad, but to take over what Christians have built (I.e. the USA) from within is what it looks like to me. And with our complicit support. One day we will catch on to their shrieks of intolerance as they bully us around.
“Bullies from Madison, WI. Not from the community in question.”
Wrong. Dead wrong. The FFRF in Madison was contacted by folks that live HERE in the community. I live in Steubenville and am very glad that the FFRF was contacted.
It would be useless for me to post anything further regarding this matter as I posted my opinions previously without animosity or rancor and you chose not publish my remarks. There is only one side to any debate involving the catholic creed and that is the one that is pro catholic. There obviously is no room for competing views. Sad!
Everyone is free to practice any religion or no religion. However, the government is regulated by our constitution that is written by the people and for the people. And who are the people? Everyone, regardless of faith. When using tax money that is paid by the people (that is, everyone, not just Christians)any agency of the government should not be promoting a religion over another or excluding those that do not practice a religion. Placing a Christian symbol on a government logo is a clear sign of favoritism of one religion over another.
These issues are not new. However, it is difficult to make your voice be heard in a country where Christians are a majority. More importantly, Christians have a tendency to react violently and with malice toward anyone challenging their sovereignty. Just because these exclusionary symbols have been around for many years it does not mean that they should be there to begin with.
I find it odd that so many are writing in to say the cross doesn’t really mean anything (atheists are making too big a deal) and you better not try removing it because you are attacking my religion. You can’t have it both ways. The point is that if I were Jewish, thought about moving here, then saw the logo with a Christian cross, I would not feel welcomed. It is shouting out only Christians are welcomed; Others are not. That is why Thomas Jefferson included the principle of the separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment. And, yes, I know those words are not there but the Supreme Court has used the phrase in numerous court rulings. Isn’t it time to leave religion to the churches and not have government endorse just one faith? Think about why the cross is so important to you and perhaps you can see why others (non-Christians) would disagree.
I just want to add that these “buttinskis” are just that. These lawyers for ACLJ, the Libery Counsel, the Becket Fund and others are itching to get their paws into this dogfight because they will get paid regardless as to the outcome. If the City of Stubenville loses, all those lawyers will still get paid outrageous sums of money that has been bankrolled by Christians. The only ones who won’t get paid or reimbursed are the taxpayers of Stubenville.
Then I guess the city leaders of Steubenville shouldn’t have used the taxpayers money in such a silly wreckless fashion. Spend it on education, police, roads….anything but promoting religious institutions (which just happend to be against the law).
All of you whining and complaining about a small cross on a City Logo sound a lot like my kids when they were 12 or 13 years old….rebelling against their parents and any authority,trying to create a lot of messes that others have to clean up, and generally, just very immature. The difference is that teenagers eventually grow out of that stage, but obviously many of you never grew out of that stage…
“These organizations are buttinskis,” Gaylor said. “They are outside groups that interject themselves into these controversies. If they want to fight us, I’m sure we can find a plaintiff.”
Funny she says this….she is the buttinski who jumped into this from states away. I think if there really were someone who complained there are enough ways to keep it in Steubenville and interject. If the city wants to fight them they can find a plaintiff???? I thought she said they were already contacted by someone?? Buttinski LOL
I for one know many people who have only heard of Steubenville because of the University and the symbol for that is the Chapel. Why don’t they take it to the people of the actual city(not states away) and see what they think…if it is that concerning put it on the ballot for voting. If people want to be heard one way or the other they can go vote.
“The difference is that teenagers eventually grow out of that stage, but obviously many of you never grew out of that stage”
Yes, some of us never grow out of the stage of upholding the law. Deal with it.
D. Koski: upholding the US Constitution is the obligation of every city and state in the USA. Individual cities or states do not have the right the decide when to uphold the Constitution and when to ignore it.
Dave: standing up against infractions to the US Constitution is the obligation of any US Citizen. The US Constitution guarantees the freedoms that make the USA so distinct from the rest of the world. I find it surprising that you equate performing our civic duty with throwing a tantrum. Any attack to the US Constitution should be taken seriously, unless you do not value your freedoms granted by this document.
Wow! Thank goodness Constitutional issues can’t be decided by popular opinion. Just think… your women-folk wouldn’t be able to vote anymore, all your black neighbors would be enslaved, and nobody would have guns but the police and the Army. That’s the world you want? The chapel’s silhouette is distinctive enough all by itself. Keep the cross where it belongs; in your hearts, around your necks and out of government.
Steubenville is an OUTSTANDING CATHOLIC University. It’s clear that a cross is appropriate.
The Obama administration has already taken upon itself to have government intrude on religious matters by forcing Catholic/protestant colleges and hospitals bow to his will by forcing the draconian HHS mandate on these Christian institutions. Those of you saying keep the cross out of government have it completely backwards…Obama has ALREADY forced his government into Christian Colleges including my own son’s college Colo. Christian Univ. in Denver. And as you Catholics know…he has done the same to your Christian Colleges and hospitals. Wake up…
What will America be once all the crosses are gone? As the crosses disappear one by one, our freedom of religion also disappears, along with the values of our founding fathers. The USA will become a godless and secular nation much like the one portrayed in the movie “The Hunger Games.” One way Christians can fight back is to place a cross on their personal property – in their front yard, on the front door, in a window, in your car, anywhere on their personal property. The Christians of Steubenville should stand up and express their freedom OF religion by blanketing the town in white crosses. Frankenmuth, Michigan did this very thing in 2008 and the atheist who was insisting that a cross be taken out of their city logo backed down and withdrew his challenge. Crosses are springing up in people’s front yards all across America. There is a company in Florida that manufactures crosses for this very purpose: http://www.FreedomCrossesUSA.com Ever.y cross is engraved with IN GOD WE TUST or GOD BLESS AMERICA. Enough is enough! It is time for Americans who believe in God to STOP the dismantling of Christianity.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.