Colbert explains why the cross is secular

I referenced the Salazar v Buono case the other day – here’s Stephen Colbert explaining why Scalia was right to argue that the cross is a non-religious symbol marking the place of the dead.

Folks, America may be a deeply Christian nation, but people of all faiths are welcome here to worship Jesus in their own way. Unfortunately, our tradition of separation of church and state too often separates church and state. But a new case before the Supreme Court may end all that, and it brings us to tonight’s word: Symbol-Minded.


The cross represents everybody: Christians and people who are going to hell. And since it represents everybody, shouldn’t we use it to symbolize every religion? Or symbolize no religion? Atheists can have crosses, too. They can use them to replace whatever traditionally represents their lack of belief.

So, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, put up those crosses. And do not worry that it will conflict with your faith. Because if Scalia is right, that means that the cross no longer signifies that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God. Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried. On the third day, he rose again in fulfillment of the scripture. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his Kingdom will have no end!

None of that!

Scalia knows it’s just two pieces of wood nailed at a 90-degree angle. And what better symbol to commemorate those we sent to die in a war?