"Of course it should. That's not only good theology: the cross has meaning for all of life—spiritual and temporal, religious and secular. But it's also good law: crosses, decalogues, icons, and other religious symbols can have vital spiritual meaning for believers yet serve essential cultural functions as well. It is these cultural functions that often save religious symbols from constitutional attack."
John Witte, professor, Emory Law School
"A cross has taken on universal significance. In Normandy, on the beaches, you see thousands of crosses displayed. [The cross] is immediately recognizable not only as a symbol of the Christian faith but of universal sacrifice. As Christians, we can understand the universal significance of the cross as a symbol of sacrifice, because … Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. So I don't think it's inconsistent."
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel, American Center for Law and Justice
"For many symbols there is a cultural component. For example, there are people I know who are agnostic or atheist who culturally say 'God bless you.' On our money we have printed 'In God We Trust,' even though probably many of the people who exchange money have no belief in God. In the American landscape it's become possible to have expressions of faith that have secular and cultural meaning apart from the moorings of faith and religion."
Pat Mahoney, director, Christian Defense Coalition
"I think most people miss the point or miss the spiritual implications of the debate by focusing only on the Constitutional question. Is getting symbols onto the public square by secularizing them a good thing? I would say absolutely not. To strip religious symbols of their religious meaning undermines religion. The cross is constitutionally ...1