Scalia downplays power of the Christian cross
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments on the fate of a cross erected by the VFW as a war memorial on government property in the Mohave desert. Press accounts of the argument suggest the case will be decided on the rather narrow issue of whether Congress successfully mooted church/state issues by arranging to transfer ownership of the land to the VFW in 2004.
But the most interesting and telling exchange came between Justice Antonin Scalia and Peter Eliasberg, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney:
As reported by the Wall Street Journal:
“Justice Antonin Scalia disputed the premise behind the lawsuit, telling Mr. Eliasberg that it was unfair to view the cross merely as a Christian symbol.
“The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead,” (Scalia) said. “What would you have them erect? Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”
“I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew,” Mr. Eliasberg said. “So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.”
“I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead,” Justice Scalia said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”
That’s one of the more absurd statements you’re ever going to hear from a Supreme Court justice. At least I hope it is.
Ask Jewish people, and Jewish veterans, whether they think that a Christian cross honors their war dead. Ask Muslim veterans whether they consider the cross a “common symbol of the resting place of the(ir) dead,” as Scalia tried to argue. Most would not. As Eliasberg pointed out, there are no crosses in a Jewish cemetary. It is not a common symbol of the resting place of the dead. It is an exclusively Christian symbol.
Scalia embarrassed himself with that argument.
Two other points:
– Scalia demonstrates yet again the inanity of the arguments used against the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as justice. All judges — liberal, conservative, male, female, Italian-American or “Nuyorican” — bring their own backgrounds and perspectives to the job, just as Scalia has done here. He was speaking not as a legal scholar but as a devout Christian whose faith blinds him to the fact that others might see the cross differently than he does. It would have been shocking to have heard a similar argument from the lips of Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, the two Jews on the court. It was merely surprising to hear it from Scalia.
– In his effort to smuggle the cross over the wall dividing church and state, note how Scalia had to belittle its significance and try to strip it of its emotional power. It’s not really a cross, the place where Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind. It’s not really the symbol of Christ’s sacrifice, a symbol that has been deeply revered by his followers for thousands of years. No, Scalia asks us to pretend that it’s just a horizontal stick tied to a vertical stick, a generic, bland little device, “the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead” for all faiths. It has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity.
Borrowing a metaphor from the Bible, Scalia was playing the role of Peter in the Garden, claiming to government officials that he did not recognize Christ even though he saw him right in front of him. It demonstrates once again how government-sanctioned expressions of religious faith inevitably cheapen that faith and bleach it of its power. Yes, the wall separating church and state protects government from religion, but most of all it protects religion from government.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
219 comments Add your comment
Matilda
October 8th, 2009
8:49 am
Good one, Mr. Bookman!
Normal
October 8th, 2009
8:51 am
We should have a law that states only athiests are allowed to hold office. Talk about your separation of church and state then…
Mrs. Godzilla
October 8th, 2009
8:51 am
Mr G and I send thanks to y’all who offered kind words on Saturday.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
8:52 am
Fourth!
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
8:52 am
so, there you have it. according to Antonin Scalia, the cross is no longer a Christian symbol. it is evidently a lower-case T.
oy.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
8:53 am
Normal, only Aethist can hold office on Sunday, don’t you know anything about Blue laws!
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
8:55 am
I think we should tear down all symbolism. The Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, the Grand Canyon, all of it!
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
8:56 am
Or put Reagan and John Lennon on Mount Rushmore, either one is fine by me.
Normal
October 8th, 2009
8:56 am
But Gandalf, if only Athiests held office, there would be no blue lawsand…you could buy booze on Sunday! Win-win!
Bosch
October 8th, 2009
8:57 am
Hey Mrs. G – I hope you and Mr. G are regrouping well. My regards.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
8:58 am
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
8:58 am
Mrs. G –
welcome back and (hugs) … was so sorry to hear about your mimi …
Northern Songs, Ltd.
October 8th, 2009
8:59 am
GtheWise – I posed an answer to your “last night” query downstairs.
Brad Steel
October 8th, 2009
9:00 am
hmm.. i though scalia had legally changed his 1st name to benito. go figure.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
9:00 am
Normal, the way I look at it, I run out of beer on Sunday, I can either, do yard work, go to the bootlegger or go to a sports bar and watch football and get waited on by a girl in a too tight low cut top. Blue laws aren’t all that bad sir!
Northern Songs, Ltd.
October 8th, 2009
9:00 am
GtheWise — I’ll be going tomorrow night – it’s Johnny’s birthday, doncha know.
Northern Songs, Ltd.
October 8th, 2009
9:01 am
Out. Of. Afghanistan. Now.
Matilda
October 8th, 2009
9:02 am
Is the Mimi like the Granny? Wow. I’m sorry for your loss, Mrs. G. That one stings, I know.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
9:04 am
Northern Songs, Ltd.:
you are correct!
Excellent show, my biggest beef is “Paul” doesn’t play Bass “Loosey Goosey”. I recommend Rain to all.
jconservative
October 8th, 2009
9:05 am
Note Jay’s statement: “… Yes, the wall separating church and state protects government from religion, but most of all it protects religion from government.”
This has been an important thought in the formation of the First Amendment “Establishment” clause. If the government establishes “its” religion, it will probably destroy my religion. So thought a number of the Founders.
And Scalia is dead wrong in his cheapening of the symbol of Christianity. But he only needs four more votes to carry the day.
TnGelding
October 8th, 2009
9:07 am
Impeach. What an embarrassment. We simply must devise a new method for screening and confirming nominees. The law is the law.
Brad Steel
October 8th, 2009
9:07 am
condolences, mrs. g.
you and your rapier wit were missed.
Northern Songs, Ltd.
October 8th, 2009
9:08 am
cool. looking forward to it. now it’s back to work before the network police come knocking on my office door. later all.
Brad Steel
October 8th, 2009
9:10 am
scalia’s argument belongs on AM radio and Fox, not in the SC.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:10 am
GtG –
by the by … if you haven’t heard Eva Cassidy’s cover of Imagine, you haven’t heard it the way it’s meant to be sung …
TnGelding
October 8th, 2009
9:11 am
Mrs. Godzilla
October 8th, 2009
8:51 am
You now have another angel watching over you. And you were an angel for trying to care for her. Take comfort knowing she’s in a better place. No more sorrow, no more pain. Someday soon you’ll be together again.
TnGelding
October 8th, 2009
9:13 am
I think the cross will be allowed to stay, but not because of his argument.
Stan
October 8th, 2009
9:14 am
I agree that it was a dumb argument…but if the feds gave/sold/whatever the land to the VFW then I fail to see an issue worthy of the SC on this one.
Let it go people.
sd
October 8th, 2009
9:15 am
This cross didn’t bother me. Nor would a Star of David or golden Buddha.
What does bother me is the continued development of our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. I am sick of this idea that the “Parks are for the people’s enjoyment”.
Ed Abney was correct. They shouldn’t even build paved roads through the parks. Let the people who want to visit the parks, walk.
On Cumberland Island right here in GA there is a small church from slave times. It is a long hike if you want to visit it. It is the hike that makes it special. Our Congress has now MANDATED that the Island Rangers offer a minimum of three driven tours to that church. SO, they are going to have to build another road.
Stop it. Get out of your cars and walk.
WhoCares
October 8th, 2009
9:18 am
THIS? is all the Supreme Court has to do? Who needs ‘em?
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
9:20 am
Welcome back, Mrs. G.
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
9:21 am
I think we should tear down all symbolism. The Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, the Grand Canyon, all of it!
And, Stone Mountain?
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:23 am
Taxpayer –
do they still end the Stone Mountain laser light show with the generals riding off ???
yee. haw.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
9:24 am
Nope, I like Stone Mountain.
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
9:24 am
scalia’s argument belongs on AM radio and Fox, not in the SC.
I’m wondering if that is not where he got it to begin with. I mean, Rush’s reach into the bowels of the Republican party is deep.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:25 am
sd –
“Stop it. Get out of your cars and walk.”
um. http://www.viennamedical.com/images/invacare%20wheelchair%20TREX2_400_A.jpg
jsut sayin. the parks are for EVERYone. not jsut them with 2 good legs.
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
9:26 am
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:23 am
I don’t know. I have not been there in so long, I could not tell you.
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
9:28 am
EXPAT: Old John and that wife of his did a pretty darn good job of singing Imagine…
She, like Ms. Obama are the downfall of thier men. Brilliant men who married poorly. Why did you have to get me started….
david wayne osedach
October 8th, 2009
9:30 am
This cross in the Mohjave desert has been there 75 years. And now during the worst recession since the Gret Depresssion it is found to be offensive?
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
9:31 am
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
9:24 am
Nope, I like Stone Mountain.
How ’bout if we just re-carve the images to something like Abe Lincoln and MLK and Lee. A little diversity. What ya say. How about a little walkin’ the walk from these Republicans that claim to be so tolerant. I know the argument. It is a southern heritage thing. Well, then let’s carve an image of a little slave girl in shackles on there to make it more historically accurate.
Bosch
October 8th, 2009
9:31 am
Well, Scalia is always good for entertainment, but I wonder how the fundamentalists feel having a Supreme Court justice basically say, “The cross is no biggie.” The making for slippery slopes.
Doggone/GA
October 8th, 2009
9:31 am
“Get out of your cars and walk”
And what if you CAN’T get out and walk? Are such places to be ONLY for the enjoyment of that ambulatory? All handicapped persons need not apply?
Doggone/GA
October 8th, 2009
9:34 am
I wonder if Scalia had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made that statement?
Gandalf, the Wise
October 8th, 2009
9:37 am
Taxpayer:
Why can’t you just respect the great warriors of the Confederacy? The War of Northern Aggression brought great pain to the CSA. Once the yankees won and ended slavery, did they go to any great length to improve their condition? I think not. Slavery would have died with or without the War of Northern Aggression, possibly with more grace than what happened for 1865-1965. I was teasing earlier, but now I am serious. You have a warped view of what really happened in the late 1800s down here.
Mrs. Godzilla
October 8th, 2009
9:38 am
Based on Scalia’s previous history, I would suggest Scalia has never really understood Christ, let alone the symbolism of the Christian Cross.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:39 am
DWO –
this case didn’t come out of nowhere – it’s been going through the lower courts for years, now. and it wasn’t because someone “suddenly” found it offensive –
“The cross, erected by a veterans’ association in 1934, stood peacefully for years until the National Park Service was asked and refused to build a Buddhist sanctuary nearby. Congress then blocked the funds to tear down the cross.
Retired Park Service employee Frank Buono fought back, charging in his lawsuit that the government was favoring one religion over another in violation of the constitution.
Buono, a Roman Catholic, won in a lower court, but Congress then designated the cross as one of the nation’s 49 national memorials.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihYoeJ0KVHgA3pieIbULSGAE54Qw
Joan
October 8th, 2009
9:42 am
The revisionist history that so many seem to want to engage in is ludicrous. Next you will have atheists saying they need to delete God from the Constitution, chip “In God We Trust” from all of our public buildings, and the like. Monuments erected when this country still made sense ought to be allowed to remain. If, in future, people want to erect a giant turd to commemorate their idiocy then they should just go for it.
FrankLeeDarling
October 8th, 2009
9:42 am
Let’s put a golden calf next to it
Joan
October 8th, 2009
9:44 am
In 1934 people were a heck of a lot smarter and more tolerant than they are now. All this forced political correctness tries the soul.
Bosch
October 8th, 2009
9:44 am
Revisionist history? Is God mentioned in the Constitution? Where’s Dave R when you need him?
Kayaker 71
October 8th, 2009
9:45 am
Next the ACLU will insist that the Ten Commandments be removed from the dais of the Supreme Court where they have been since the building was erected. “The Republic endures and this is a symbol of it’s faith”, stated Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughs on Oct 13, 1932 when the corner stone for the Supreme Court building was begun.
This Republic has a long history of the importance of God when most deists wrote the formal documents of our country. Few, if any of them, were Christians. The symbol of the cross became much more prevalent as our country matured into what it is today.
There is nothing wrong with separation of church and state but this cross in the Mohave desert was erected by the VFW in 1932 to honor war dead from WWI. The land was originally owned by the VFW but it was donated by that organization of the Federal Government after the cross was erected.
Are we to go around wholesale in our nation’s capitol and remove all of the religious symbols on all of the government buildings? When these buildings were constructed, the inclusion of religious symbols seemed pretty important to most everyone. To a great many of us, they still are. They are a part of our history and our heritage and have lived with government in a pretty good relationship for a lot of years.
Lord Help Us
October 8th, 2009
9:45 am
Scalia is a sham Christian like so many others…
If you have not done so, you should watch Michael Moore on Hannity the other night. Their discussion on Christianity is priceless. Hannity, as usual, is shown to be the hypocrite (and ignorant of the facts).
Scalia, Hannity, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and so many other self-proclaimed Christians act in ways that would surely disappoint Jesus.
Fly-On-The-Wall
October 8th, 2009
9:45 am
Wow, civil discussion so far. This is amazing. I’ve not seen one last this long, but I’m sure Whiner will be here soon to change the subject and upset the good vibes.
Matilda
October 8th, 2009
9:47 am
Gandalf, the suffering of the South during and after the Civil War was indeed profound. The suffering of Union soldiers and their families should not be dismissed, either. But the South’s rebound from crushing poverty took decades.
But WHO REALLY SUFFERED? Same as always: the common people who fight the wars on behalf of the RICH, ARROGANT
N.J.
October 8th, 2009
9:47 am
That’s always the case. Its been going on for a while because the courts refused to hear the case in the past, and now are willing to do so. The simplest solution would have been to build a Buddhist monument for the Buddhists and solve the problem. If anything the problem lies in those who refused to allow the Buddhist monument and less over the issue of tearing down the cross.
The issue of the little church in the wilderness here is case in point. The locals demanded that they get a road and rides to the church. But that requires spending the tax dollars of people who do not want to have a road to the church. The issue of abortion is case in point. No federal dollars can be spent on it because it violates the personal religious beliefs of a percentage of the population but not ALL of the population. As a result people on the opposite side of this issue can make other demands on the government as well, such as not wanting their money spent on religion.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:50 am
Joan –
“In 1934 people were a heck of a lot smarter and more tolerant than they are now”
hahaha … yeah, the country used to be SO much more tolerant of Jews and anyone else who wasn’t a white christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank
Jay
October 8th, 2009
9:51 am
Joan writes, and I agree:
“The revisionist history that so many seem to want to engage in is ludicrous. Next you will have atheists saying they need to delete God from the Constitution…”
There’s no need to delete God from the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers never included that word in the document in the first place.
N.J.
October 8th, 2009
9:53 am
The argument about only allowing atheists to serve in government is a false one. Largely the main reason that the founders created what is called the “separation of church and state” was to prevent those who are of the majority religion from prohibiting people who are not part of the religious main stream from taking part in government. This included not only atheists, but people who were in a small religious minority when the founders were alive…the Baptists. The Baptists were heavily persecuted at the time of the American Revolution. The founders did not like this sort of discrimination so they established a law that would prevent a “religious test” from being applied to serving in public office.
it is ironic that the Baptists, who were once one of the most persecuted religious groups in America are now basically attempting to assert their personal religious beliefs on every other group in the country. They also very perversely call themselves “Values Voters” and so assert that they are the only people with “values”. Thus you get blue laws that forbid the sale of alcohol on Sunday, largely because of a religious belief that is not held by the majority of Americans in the United States.
Dan
October 8th, 2009
9:53 am
The framers of our constitution is in large part, intentionally vague in order to facilitate the evolution of this document, or documents. However in the case of the second amendment it is very specific; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” This specificity amidst the malleable verbage generally found in the constitution, is very telling. Note it specifies Congress and its lawmaking process. Congress had no part in this cross, indeed implementing a law disallowing it would be against the constitution ie prohibiting the free excercise thereof. So next time some ignorant ranter crows about the constitutionally guaranted separation of church and state calmly ask him to show first where that is written, because it is an implied extension of a very specific item. Then ask him to show you the law that congress supposedly enacted promoting/or denying said religion. This should result in contemplative silence, but it won’t because “you can’t reason a person out of something they were never reasoned into”
Matilda
October 8th, 2009
9:54 am
Gandalf, the suffering of the South during and after the Civil War was indeed profound. The suffering of Union soldiers and their families should not be dismissed, either. But the South’s rebound from crushing poverty took decades.
WHO REALLY SUFFERED? Same as always: the common people who fight on behalf of the RICH, ARROGANT ones who start the wars, and the families and communities that are destroyed as a result. They marched off to defend the “honor” of the Confederacy, or so they were told, but really they were defending the economic interests of a slave-based economy, from which most of the people gained little or no benefit themselves.
The house divided caused nothing but grief and destruction. SELFISH GREED, and the refusal to treat other humans the way one wishes to be treated, was the cause. Can we learn a lesson from this, already?
retiredds
October 8th, 2009
9:54 am
It will be an interesting decision. I am wondering if there will be a “strict constructionist” decision on this one or not. My guess is if it goes the way the conservatives want the cross will stay. If it goes against them then the decision will be an “activist” decision. Also I am wondering if Scalia’s comments and ultimate decision on this one are from his history, upbringing, world view …. ooops, that is reserved only for the liberals, I forgot.
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
9:56 am
Me thinks Gandalf’s weakness is peering through. Are those the tears of a clown I see there. Surely, they do not belong here.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
9:59 am
Dan –
I suggest you first go back and reacquaint yourself with the writings of Jefferson and Madison – they both specifically write about the separation of church and state. So, as far as “framers’ intent” goes, it’s in black and white.
Secondly, after your done with that, you might want to read up on THIS case which actually IS about denying one religion in favor of another.
Kayaker 71
October 8th, 2009
10:00 am
Bookman,
But as deists, they all appreciated the existence of a God and used their beliefs to craft most of the rhetoric which we are present in our founding documents. The presence of God is alive and well in most of our minds…. Joan is right. Although God is not mentioned in these writings, He is there, nonetheless. “Deleting God from the Constitution” appears to be somewhat symbolic in nature.
Fly-On-The-Wall
October 8th, 2009
10:01 am
Ok, I take all that back. It didn’t take too long for the mudslinging to start. Too bad, the early vibes were good.
getalife
October 8th, 2009
10:02 am
Yeah, my people are wingnuts too.
†
Sue me.
Turd Ferguson
October 8th, 2009
10:03 am
Lennon was a commie and a liar. Preaching about hippy-dom, and comunal living while he and Yoko, due to capitalism, smoked pot, did heroin, rented an entire floor of a NY hi-rise and just enjoyed life.
As Cartman says…D A M N Hippies.
Pokey
October 8th, 2009
10:04 am
Big leap here, JB. AS was not belittling the significance of the cross. If you have ever heard AS talk about his faith, you’d know what an absurd assertion that is. Did you do some research on what AS has written or said about his faith JB or, as I suspect, impute motives here to advance the animus you feel against AS, a conservative man you could run rings around you intellectually?
Do Christians ONLY honor Christians who have died for our country?? Did Christ only die for the sins of Christians or all mankind?? Sure, the cross is a Christian symbol but it is a symbol that reminds Christians of the sacrifice Christ made for all mankind, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc, etc.
Not that details matter to you, JB, but Peter did not deny Jesus in “the Garden” but the high priest’s courtyard. Peter defended Christ in “the Garden” to the point of slicing a man’s ear off.
stands for decibels
October 8th, 2009
10:06 am
Oh dear. Looks like the Virtual Bluenose can’t tolerate a little street Sicilian, even buried in a URL. Sorry, Jay.
Suffice to say that what Tony felt compelled to utter in church about his critics, goes double for me back to him.
Normal
October 8th, 2009
10:07 am
MR. PRESIDENT, KEEP G-D OUT OF OUR COURTS, GOVERNMENT, AND CLASSROOMS NOW!
———
He’s not listening to me about the troops either…
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
10:09 am
Jefferson:
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
Madison:
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
and my personal favorite: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
Doggone/GA
October 8th, 2009
10:11 am
“it is a symbol that reminds Christians ”
And THAT is the whole point…which you don’t seem to realize you’ve confirmed. It is a symbol for CHRISTIANS – not for other religions.
Fly-On-The-Wall
October 8th, 2009
10:12 am
Kayaker 71
I wonder if the issue could be the ‘extent’ to which we interpret the presence of God in what founding father said and wrote? Only in recent years have we seen the Christian Right interpret the founding fathers to be more in line with their evangelical beliefs. Is this founded or so we just allow an alternate view of what they said?
South Rules
October 8th, 2009
10:13 am
(the drone beautiful brainwashed children singing…)
Mmm, mmm, mmm…..Barack Hussein Obama
Jay and Barack says do not pray,
to no one but me, Lord Barry say
I will give you all that is good and sweet,
if only you kneel and kiss my feet
We will ban all crosses that are blasphemous,
and replace with Muslim crescent, so glorious
I order all women to wear their veil,
or else I will banish you without fail
To my men you must destroy the infidels,
and virgins I will give you so sweet they smell
Mighty Barack has spoken now do your deed
because Queen Michelle and I have all we need
Love me and I will give you honor,
but in secret I consider you nothing but fodder
Mmm, mmm, mmm…..Barack Hussein Obama
(sweet little children drone endlessly)
Taxpayer
October 8th, 2009
10:15 am
What are the most common things that a majority sees.
TnGelding
October 8th, 2009
10:16 am
Normal
October 8th, 2009
10:07 am
They’re coming home; in flag-draped caskets.
Fly-On-The-Wall
October 8th, 2009
10:16 am
dang, typing too fast again. Last sentence should be ‘Is this founded or DO we just …..’
Jackie
October 8th, 2009
10:19 am
We have associated the cross with Christianity resulting in social mores that are “understood” by a vast majority of citizens.
The display of a religious symbol on government property seems to be acknowledging the government(people) support/favor one religion over the other.
Dan
October 8th, 2009
10:21 am
USinUk, Madison and Jeffersons private papers or even the public documents are just that they are not the constitution, the portion in question was constructed carefully to avoid abuse from either side the document is quite clear. Actually the very fact that you must point to other docs, supports the position that the the second amendment as it is written does not cover such items. As to your other point, I see no reference to anyone being denied their right to practice another religion, and their is certainly no law prohibiting that. If people don’t like the way it is currently written their are remendies to further amend the constitution through the legislative process. The courts should have no lattitude to do so
Pokey
October 8th, 2009
10:22 am
Doggone,
Where did I write that it wasn’t a symbol for Christians???? WHERE???? Where in my comments is evidence that I don’t “realize” this??? WHERE???I am addressing JB’s specious argument that AS, a Christian, is downplaying the significance of the cross as a Christian to “smuggle” the cross over the “wall” between church and state. I am making the point that Christians view the cross as a symbol, in this case to honor all WW I dead, for all mankind, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
I wasn’t addressing the legal merits of the case, just JB’s lame attempt question the sincerity of AS’s faith.
Perhaps my point is too subtle for you?? It wouldn’t suprise me if it was.
Doggone/GA
October 8th, 2009
10:23 am
“As to your other point, I see no reference to anyone being denied their right to practice another religion”
The Budhists were denied their request to build a shrine on the same property. That is discrimination against one religion, while favoring another.
pat
October 8th, 2009
10:23 am
You So what if it’s a Christian symbol? And so what if people don’t like it? The choice was made to honor the spot in that way and so it is. It doesn’t have to be pleasing to everybody and it does not have to be representative of all who live and die. It’s just a memorial.
You know what we will be able to honor people and places with if we are so anal that we require everybody to like it? Nothing. You can’t please everybody. The cross is an expression, if you don’t like it, I don’t really care. I have to put up with things I don’t like and so do you.
Jay
October 8th, 2009
10:24 am
Dan, your arguments about the Constitution would have more credibility if you noted that it’s the First Amendment, not the Second Amendment, that’s in question here.
Doggone/GA
October 8th, 2009
10:26 am
“I am making the point that Christians view the cross as a symbol”
And still you are COMPLETELY missing the point that you are CONFIRMING what Jay said: that Scalia was WRONG that it is a symbol of honor for the dead, regardless of denomination. It is NOT. As YOU have now twice confirmed…it is symbol for CHRISTIANS.
jakesdad
October 8th, 2009
10:27 am
why is SCOTUS wasting their limited time on a case like this? I’m certainly NOT defending Scalia’s “logic” and being married to a Jew I am certainly sympathetic to separation issues but IMO this is the judicial equivalent to congressional baseball/steroids hearings. I’d rather they did their homework on the Bilski case!
Geddy Lee
October 8th, 2009
10:29 am
Know your place in life is where you want to be
Dont let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward, no use in looking round
Hold your head above the ground and they wont bring you
Down
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
New wonders in the world, wonders in the world,
Wonders in the world they wrought
Live for yourself — theres no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will
Only cry out for more
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
New wonders in the world, wonders in the world,
Wonders in the world they wrought
Well, I know theyve always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, i
Came to write this song
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
New wonders in the world, wonders in the world,
Wonders in the world they wrought
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
10:29 am
Dan –
“Madison and Jeffersons private papers or even the public documents are just that they are not the constitution”
as you rightly noted, there are parts of the constitution that are vague – that’s why you need to understand the framers’ intent. private writings, such as the letters you deride, spell out the framers’ intent. very succinctly, in fact.
“Actually the very fact that you must point to other docs, supports the position that the the second amendment as it is written does not cover such items”
considering the second amendment deals with the right to bear arms as a part of a well-regulated militia, I wouldn’t expect the quotes I posted to cover them, either.
“As to your other point, I see no reference to anyone being denied their right to practice another religion, and their is certainly no law prohibiting that”
again, the case in question DID limit the establishment of a buddhist sanctuary, so, yes. it did, infact, show preference of one religion over the other.
Doggone/GA
October 8th, 2009
10:29 am
“why is SCOTUS wasting their limited time on a case like this?”
Do you really not understand that it is the Supreme Court’s JOB to decide Constitutional issues and that this is an issue that speaks directly to the First Amendement of the CONSTITUTION?
Pokey
October 8th, 2009
10:33 am
Doggone,
I am not missing anything here. You are. I am not challenging JB’s legal point or whether the cross is a Christian symbol or is an appropriate way to honor war dead on public property. I could do that but I didn’t in the post. I am challenging the basis for JB’s personal attack on Scalia.
I don’t think it is hard to follow if you read what I wrote s-l-o-w-l-y. Try it, maybe it will help…
Mrs. Godzilla
October 8th, 2009
10:35 am
Wonder what Scalia’s take on this is:
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
That famous line, attributed to Jesus in Luke 23:34, could well apply to the folks at Conservapedia — the “conservative version” of Wikipedia — who have embarked on a project to rewrite the Bible.
In an effort to rid the Good Book of “liberal bias,” the group has set up the Conservative Bible Project, which aims to rewrite the Bible from a modern, conservative perspective.
“Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations,” the project’s Web site asserts.
And the line quoted above is one of the group’s targets for deletion in a truly “conservative” Bible. The “forgive them father” quote “is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible,” Conservapedia states.”
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/conservapedia-rewrite-bible/
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
10:39 am
Mrs G –
will the new bible come with little WWCND bracelets??
(what would Chuck Norris do??)
Matilda
October 8th, 2009
10:42 am
I wonder if Scalia is participating in the Conservative Bible Project. Google that, y’all! From conservative columnist Rod Dreher: “The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.’d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they’ve come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project, to make sure the Lord doesn’t go all wobbly on us.”
They’re editing out “liberal” passages to help the bible conform to THEIR beliefs. I imagine much of Jesus’ red-lettered words will be stricken. (”Whatsoever you do for the least of my brethren, you do also unto me.” ) It’s just conjecture, but perhaps that’s why Scalia is marginalizing the cross. Hmmm….
JackLeg
October 8th, 2009
10:43 am
I would like to start a business that get millions of dollars of taxpayer money every year, regardless of how much we make or lose. Then I want to sue anybody that does not agree with my atheist philosophy. I want to file suits that are baseless and frivolous and cost taxpayers millions of dollars to fight them. Oh damn, the ACLU has that covered, thank you mr. carter
Mrs. Godzilla
October 8th, 2009
10:43 am
USinUK
Little that comes from that fringe surprises me any longer.
Before long we’ll see stuff like – “This is the assault weapon Jesus would have preferred”
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
10:45 am
Mrs. G –
something tells me that the meek won’t inherit squat
FrankLeeDarling
October 8th, 2009
10:46 am
As a atheist I have no major problem with the cross in question,nothing I’m going to go out of my way to see ,but I guess I can tolerate it from a historic perspective.But what I do have a problem with is the fact that others were not given the same tolerant consideration.
I also would not want my tolerance to be seen as a green light erect crosses on stone mountain
@@
October 8th, 2009
10:47 am
Well jay, since the founding fathers were in the business of founding (no gov’t. lording over them) why would they sign The Constitution in the year of “OUR LORD”?
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names
Onto the topic…
My first question…who is the plaintiff?
The plaintiff is Frank Buono, a retired park employee who says the cross suggests a government endorsement of Christianity.
Was Mr. Buono a fallen soldier? Obviously not since he was well enough to file the suit.
I believe it was in the original court hearing that a representative from the ACLU had this to say:
ACLU’s Caplan: The government has no business picking and choosing which personal religious beliefs may be expressed. All veterans, regardless of their religion, deserve to have their faith recognized on an equal basis.
Indeed they do and are accomodated when the request comes from a fallen soldier or immediate family member (assuming).
Mr. Buono was a park ranger suffering from a bad case of poison ivy. Just couldn’t resist the need to scratch.
I’ve always considered the cross (absent the body) as a symbol of ascension for the sake of security. That would seem to fit a fallen soldier. Too many Christian symbols preceded the cross to make it the be all/end all symbols of the Christian faith. I’m kinda partial to the icthus myself when not wearing the five intersecting crosses that is.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
10:49 am
Jack –
first of all, the ACLU isn’t “funded” by taxpayer money (they do recover court costs, as any winning side does)
secondly, they defend all religions as well as the atheists
thirdly, they’ve even defended Rush Limbaugh (although, that could have just been to stick it to him)
and lastly, infringements on constitutional rights aren’t “baseless and frivolous”
but thanks for playing.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
10:52 am
“Too many Christian symbols preceded the cross to make it the be all/end all symbols of the Christian faith”
right. it’s just a lower-case T, telling those soldiers “Too bad you died. you did Teriffic. Toodles til we see you again”.
Gale
October 8th, 2009
10:52 am
condolences, mrs. g. I am happy to see you here.
Wasn’t it also Scalia that insisted it was not a hardship to women in So Dakota that there would be zero facilities for abortion or abortion counselling in the state when that state’s very restrictive law was being tested? (something along those lines)