Editorial: Burning a cross is terrorism

Friday, Dec. 13, 2002 | 4:55 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION: Dec. 15, 2002

Historians trace the world history of cross burning back to northern Europe in the time of the crusades, when they were used as symbols in rallying warriors. In the United States, after the time of the Civil War and well into the 20th century, murderous criminals adopted the burning cross as their symbol. Its fire against the dark of night summoned the hate within themselves and stood as a symbol of violence to come, violence that included burning families out of their homes and merciless beatings and lynchings. The horror these criminals unleashed upon black Americans is well documented and the burning cross stands yet today as a symbol of that murder and hate. Many symbols have many meanings for many people. A burning cross, however, has just one meaning in America and the meaning is hate and violence toward minorities, particularly black people. The m urderous violence it portends burns fear into people.

It's against this history that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Virginia's high court was correct in striking down a state law against cross burning. The Virginia court ruled that cross burning is a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone in Virginia believes that way. Arguing Wednesday before the Supreme Court, a Virginia state official defended the law against cross burning. "We have not tried to suppress freedom of speech," the official said. "All we've tried to do is protect freedom from fear."

In a message before Congress on Jan. 6, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt identified freedom from fear as an "essential human freedom." We agree entirely with that point of view and hope the Supreme Court remembers those words along with all of the acts associated with cross burning over the past hundred years. We side with those who say cross burning is "conduct," not speech. It's conduct that is intimidating, that strikes fear into innocent individuals and families. It's inconceivable that people who would engage in such an assault, which is nothing less than terrorism, could find refuge in the Constitution.