Though it is suffering economically Woonsocket, Rhode Island is a beautiful city rich with history and pride. Every year since 1977 on Columbus Day weekend they hold Autumnfest, which entails carnival rides, art and craft booths, food, bands and a parade "which proceeds down Diamond Hill Road and Social Street to the World War II Veteran's Memorial State Park."
As is traditional in local parades, there are floats sponsored by various groups that comment on local stories and politics. This year, due to the controversy surrounding a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation concerning the constitutionality of a large Christian cross stranded in a fire station parking lot, no less than three different floats featured replicas supporting the cross.
It was reported to me by an attendee that, "These floats generated applause." Other applause getters in the parade were "the military folks marching," "general statements about 'in god we trust' on the money" and "how Woonsocket should just be left alone."
Other pictures of the parade, including pictures of the crosses below, can be seen here.
Above is the float built by the Knights of Columbus. They have been very active in promoting and defending the Woonsocket Cross, having previously attended the large rally organized by John DePetro in full regalia. Since the Catholic Church has taken a strong stand on a version of church/state separation that favors the rights of believers over secular concerns, their support is no surprise.
The other two floats in the parade are more problematic. Both celebrate the cross as a symbol of patriotism and the sacrifice made by veterans in defense of this country. Here we see the cross decorated with American flags and the other patriotic and military symbols.
The cross in this context dismisses the contributions of non-Christian soldiers and veterans, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, Pagans and even some Christian soldiers who don't feel that it is right to use cherished Christian symbols in a militarized or politicized way. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) has the Woonsocket Cross listed on their page entitled "Stolen Valor." From their site, because I can't really say it better:
Those who have died for our country are rolling in their graves that their service should be used to justify Christian privilege and the suggestion that the Christian cross is the symbol for patriotism and service to the nation. This is a case of stolen valor when the service of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, and others are gathered to defend specific privileges for Christians.
Maybe the cross is Constitutional and maybe it isn't. That's for the courts to decide if and when this issue gets that far. But those defending the presence of this cross should stop pretending that this is about appreciating the rights and sacrifices of veterans. This is about Christianity, and the special place of favor that belief holds in Woonsocket.
The real message of these floats is simple: If you are not the right kind of Christian, you are not an American.
I'm hoping some state reps and senators hear the "Woonsocket should be left alone" bit. Just punish them for being so stupid.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand the complaint over Christian exclusivity regarding this particular monument: it is dedicated to three specific people who were Christians. It is not dedicated to all service-members.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the body of one of those three brothers never made it back to the United States, the monument serves the very legitimate secular purpose of a surrogate gravestone in the Gagne brother's hometown. The plain, unadorned Latin cross was no doubt selected as evocative of the same crosses used for Christian grave sites in overseas American WWI and WWII cemeteries. It is a "sister" monument to the grave that marks Mr. Jolicoeur's own gravesite in France, similar to the Statute of Liberty in Paris that faces the one in New York. It is a very fitting and touching tribute using religious iconography in a manner that both balances its religious significance particular to the specific individuals it memorializes while evoking a greater secular purpose based on its history and context.
The atheist position is too simpleminded on this one.
Vive la Place Jolicœur !
I completely understand your opinion on this Bill, but I do object to the idea that my position is exclusively atheist or simple minded. As I point out, a Christian cross excludes all non-Christians and a good portion of Christians who do not like their sacred symbol to be used in this manner.
ReplyDeleteThe cross was erected in the 1950's, the very same period of time that gave us "under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" on our money and a renewed interest in non-secular monuments. Look at virtually every monument built in this country to honor our Civil War veterans. Look at our Spanish-American War and WWI monuments. There is no religious iconography on any of them. It was considered to be in poor taste to honor our veterans with religious symbols, because we are a secular nation.
Now consider the Place Jolicoeur cross. William Jolicoeur wasn't honored with a cross and neither were any of the other nine veterans honored with place names at the time Woonsocket commissioned them. In fact, William Jolicoeur is still not honored with a cross, despite the confusion of the rededication ceremony, which invited his relatives to participate. the cross is for the Gagne Brothers, and it happens to stand on a plot of land dedicated to Jolicoeur.
Now when it came time to dedicate a memorial to the Gagne Brothers, any number of designs could have been considered. A cross was selected because the decision was made during a time of extreme religious conservatism in reaction to the Communist threat of Russia and China, the so called Godless Commies.
It was a poor choice. The Gagne's deserved a better, secular monument to celebrate their sacrifice for a country that is in truth a secular nation, despite what religious conservatives would have you believe through their David Barton inspired lies.
I think the idea of keeping and defending this monument is the simple minded one. Sure, it might not technically be unconstitutional under the way the law is currently read, but it does represent a distasteful blending of church and state, and it certainly comes under the category of stolen valor, as defined on the MAAF website. Simple minded is God, Country, Constitution, Amen. A thoughtful position takes into account the ways in which history has shaped this issue, and the ways in which this issue is being used and twisted to promote a Christian, theocratic agenda.
Your connection to In God We Trust and Under God is entirely circumstantial: yes they were all enacted in the same decade, but do you have any evidence in the primary record that "godless communists" were the reason for selecting a cross?
DeleteAs for other war monuments: I think you are making the mistake of comparing this monument to others dedicated in the memory *of all soldiers* killed in a particular war. This monument is much more personal, and as I said, it uses a religious icon that is personal to the specific individuals it memorializes while serving the legitimate secular purpose of a surrogate tombstone. It doesn't make a difference that the cross isn't for William Jolicoeur: regardless, it mirrors the same crosses that are an iconic image of overseas American military cemeteries (which also contain white Stars of David for Jewish soldiers). Had they been Jewish, I would have expected a similar white Star of David monument to be chosen.
Whether or not the Gagnes deserved a better memorial is immaterial: it is too late to uproot a longstanding monument based on purely aesthetic objection. What designs should or should not have been selected is a closed matter. What matters is whether or not this monument amounts to anything respecting a government establishment of religion, which it does not.
Though I have no evidence that the cross design was selected to oppose "Godless Commies" I was basing that part of the argument not on direct statements made by the design committee (none are known to exist) but on a good understanding of the currents of history. Very often such styles and ideas are part of the zeitgeist, and patterns can be intelligibly discerned.
ReplyDeleteIn your first comment you use the fact that Jolicoeur's cross in France is mirrored in the Woonsocket Cross, but when presented with evidence that the cross in Woonsocket is not meant to honor Jolicoeur, you claim it doesn't matter. I would submit that changing your mind on this issue is an indication that history and context, not just Constitutional law, is an important factor in determining whether or not it is aesthetically justified and morally right to keep the cross as it is.
Despite your claim, the legality of the cross is not the only question that can be asked about it. For instance, I might ask how many other public monuments to specific veterans feature religious iconography, (leaving aside actual grave markers or those not on public land). I would submit that even within this smaller category of monuments, religious symbols are not present, and certainly they do not constitute the entirety of the display, as the cross does.
Washington DC is filled with monuments to war heroes, and looking at them, I'm having a hard time finding even a small amount of religious text or symbolism, never mind the entirety of the display being one large crucifix or Star of David. In fact, looking at a statue of Joan of Arc reveals not a single religious sentiment on it. It doesn't even call attention to the fact that she is a saint! Of course, this was in 1922, long before the Cold War you so easily dismissed as being a contributing factor earlier.
Also, no fair criticism of my point of view can ignore the issue of stolen valor. The Gagne brothers did not die defending Christianity or Catholicsim, any more than Jewish American Soldiers died for Judaism or Hindu American soldiers died for Ganesh. They all fought, sacrificed and died defending the United Stets of America, and a fitting, government sanctioned secular monument cannot lightly add religious symbolism to such monuments with hopelessly confusing the message of the monument and conflating church and state.
Keep in mind that religious fervor is not restricted to the 1950s: there was a first "Red Scare" in the early 1920s and "In God We Trust" has appeared on coins since the Civil War. It is much more justifiable to link the "plain, unadorned white cross" with the iconic image of such crosses, "row on row, that marked the final resting places of so many American soldiers" in overseas military cemeteries (Salazar v. Buono). Even if the cross is not for William Jolicoeur specifically (and even if the one Gagne brother whose body never made it back to the U.S. does not have such a cross himself), the cross, in memorializing *specific people* according to their religion, does reflect that greater imagery so strongly associated with overseas war dead.
DeleteThis is particularly poignant given Woonsocket's cultural roots as a French city: the overseas American cemeteries for WWI and WWII slain soldiers where these crosses are used are located in France. I see the cross as serving as a parallel to its "sister" crosses in France.
The way we honor war dead is mindful of those people's religious beliefs, so I do not see the monument as making any statement saying that the Gagne brothers died for Christianity. You are interpreting the monument simply as a Christian symbol, ignoring the greater imagery and and history it evokes, paricularly given the cultural cross-connections between France and Woonsocket.
If the monument were to all soldiers, I would consider it inappropriate unless it also had the white Star of David (the only other option available at the time in these cemeteries due to greater religious conformity), but it would have been odd to include it on this monument given that the people it memorializes were not Jewish.
In short, it is a monument whose Christian cross both symbolizes the faith of the specific people it memorializes (as surrogate grave marker) as well as evoking the imagery of overseas American war dead in cemeteries located in France (particularly relevant for a city with French roots). This is a link that the Supreme Court identified in Salazar v. Buono and it is a link that I think the RI federal District Court will find here in this case.