by As Russ Pearce, Rob Vischer and Bob Cochran have discussed elsewhere on this blog, some evangelicals and conservative Protestants are now wringing their hands over the impending Protestant-free Supreme Court. Their points (and the comments) are thoughtful and illuminating, but miss something more important that is also linked to the recently decided Salazar v. Buono.
Not quite three weeks ago Justice Kennedy confidently declared in Salazar that the Latin cross is secular and not just Christian. Admitting the deep theological significance of the cross for Christians, Kennedy insisted that it means “so much more.” This echoed a remarkable exchange at oral argument (see pp. 38-39), where Justice Scalia labeled “outrageous” counsel’s common-sense observation that Jewish war veterans might not feel honored by a Christian cross.
I think only a Christian in a predominantly Christian society would seriously maintain that the quintessential symbol of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection could hold out a welcoming nonreligious meaning for Jews. When the overwhelming majority of the population professes belief in the Christian God, Christian symbols, practices, and references are so common and unremarkable that their theological significance seems invisible . . . to Christians. In a Jewish or Muslim society, would Christians feel fully included by some purportedly secular meaning attached to ubiquitous stars of David or crescent moons? Forgive my skepticism.
The “Judeo-Christian” tradition notwithstanding, evangelicals are now worried that their faith interests are not adequately represented by actual Christians and Jews who are not evangelicals. Of course, this very concern is majoritarian; Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Muslims, and other religious minorities (not to mention unbelievers) necessarily lack any expectation that they should enjoy representation by co-religionists in government.
These two events expose a cultural blindspot of many conservative Protestants, as well as the doctrinal bankruptcy of “religious neutrality” in symbol cases. When you identify with the Christian majority, it’s easy to convince yourself that culturally common Christian symbols are neutral and inclusive, but things look different from the outside looking in.
As an evangelical Christian I must agree with Gedrick’s article. The Cross is an extremely important symbol for me. Why it should be held out as being a sufficient symbol for honoring religious others does not make sense to me. Yes, historically, the United States has had Christianity as its primary civil religion. Our dollar bills note that “In God We Trust.” Yet the Cross is not religiously neutral and it can only be that way if Christianity as a religion fails and it subsequently functions as asymbol conveying only aesthetic or other meanings. May God forbid this decline. As to the lack of a Protestant on the Supreme Court bench, this change is one in which the changing religious landscape of America is becoming more evident. Again, as an evangelical, African American, theologian and lawyer, I do not want legal decisions bsed upon fine points of religious doctrine, but instead upon sensitive but legally reasoned opinions that respect America’s religious heritage while still rendering secular opinions that honor our separation of church and state.