From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:47:06 GMT


Marc Colton provides more details on the Cincinnati cross.  Apparently,
according to the newspaper account he quoted, the court decision
permitting it was based on a "religious freedom" argument, so there
was no attempt to argue the cross was secular. I believe such a decision
would be overturned on appeal.

Recall that the menorah was permitted as a secular symbol, like
a tree, according the Supreme Court. If the Cross works its way
up to the Court, entirely different arguments would have to be made,
and my own view is that they won't prevail. I am not an attorney.

As for Colton's comment that "to Christian thinking the Crucifixion
is more of a historical fact than Chanukah" he misreads my argument.
My argument is based on historians who are not using religious
thinking to cloud their scholarship, or as I further explained,
people relying on archaeological evidence. There is none for
the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as far as I know, and there
is a lot of physical evidence for the Maccabee struggle against the
Greeks. I mean no disrespect for Christianity and its beliefs, but
I'm speaking of hard evidence not colored by belief.

Putting it another way, there aren't any contemporaneous accounts of
the "divine" Jesus by other than believers. There are contemporaneous
accounts of the Maccabee struggle by the contemporaneous Greeks, who
would not be disposed to cooperate in a Jewish "belief." Antiochus is
a historical figure based on documented hard evidence. Jesus is a
religious figure based on belief and the later testimony of believers,
embellished by the Church fathers. I know many Christians believe
deeply, and respect their right to so believe, but believing deeply,
or accepting on faith isn't the same as historical scholarship. Jesus
seems not just real, but super-real to believers, and this can make
them lose sight of the difference between hard evidence and belief.

Again, no disrespect intended, and please correct me with historical
facts based on physical evidence or the contemporaneous testimony
of unbiased witnesses if I'm wrong. Inquiring minds want to know.

Finally, so we don't lose sight of what this is about, I'm not
making the above arguments to denigrate or take anything away from
Christians, but simply to point out the difference between a
historical symbol which could be ruled secular (the menorah or
the tree) and a religious one (the cross or the Ark of the
Covenant).

Note that I'm trying to be fair here. There are no contemporaneous
non-Jewish accounts of the handing down of the Tablets on Sinai, nor
any archaeological evidence as far as I know. Thus the Ark is as much
a religious (not a secular-historical) symbol as the Cross (when used
to represent the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth). I REALLY believe
the Sinai events happened, just as passionately as Christians believe
in the divine Jesus. But I don't confuse that with physical evidence
that would convince a court it's historical.

David


-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM key on server
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish