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
William
October 8th, 2009
1:05 pm
Does God have a name? Are there more than one reference to God..The ACLU thinks so Jay and Joan. You know the ACLU that is your religious bond. The constitution refers to God as the Creator. Did yall miss that part? If a cross represents christains then do you think Creator would represent God? What say you Jay?
William
October 8th, 2009
1:08 pm
The separation of church and state has gotten so mis-interpreted to it has gotten ridiculous. Do you think healthcare will get this out of whack with the libeals leading it? I do!
Atlanta Native
October 8th, 2009
1:09 pm
Also Establishment of Religion is like the Church of England, a national church, what the founders were afraid of, and so am I. They would never have imagined people who go about looking to be offended.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
1:09 pm
Dave –
“The latter says that you are free to practice the religion of your choice. The former says that you will not be exposed to any religion of any kind in your lifetime whatsoever.
English 101. Try it sometime, USinUK.”
aw. diddums. your arguments are so weak, you resort to personal attacks? sad, that.
churches (synagogues, ashrams, etc) are voluntary = freedom OF religion.
government is not. if the State is sponsoring a religious symbol, then it is forcing you, me and anyone else who comprises that body to sponsor it, as well.
which is why the freedom to NOT sponsor a particular religion is as important as the right to worship as you choose.
ken
October 8th, 2009
1:10 pm
USinUK, I love the Bill of Rights. Just joined the NRA like millions of others. Are you a member ?
Dave R.
October 8th, 2009
1:10 pm
And yet, USinUK, the framers never placed that specific language (separation of church and state) in the text of the Constitution. But you keep using that crutch all day long.
And great comeback on the other writings included in the building, except for one thing; what other religions are they excluding? See anything from the Koran? Bhudda? L. Ron Hubbard?
Jmay
October 8th, 2009
1:13 pm
Thank you for writing about this. I was absolutely floored when I heard Scalia’s comments on NPR & even more shocked when I heard nary a peep from anyone else in the press commenting on it.
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
1:13 pm
ken –
I fully support the right to have a well-regulated militia. just like the 2nd amendment says.
Dave -
I’m pretty sure I said they included Mohommad on the SC building – if I didn’t, they do.
and now, i’m heading home …
will be back in a few hours …
Dave R.
October 8th, 2009
1:25 pm
With your argument, USinUK, we should destroy all legal tender with the words “In God We Trust” because it references God. We should tear down the Supreme Court building because it has any references to any religion whatsoever, because they are “sponsoring a religion”.
Great argument, toad.
William
October 8th, 2009
1:55 pm
“which is why the freedom to NOT sponsor a particular religion is as important as the right to worship as you choose.”
You do not sponsor a religion because you pay taxes USinUK. That is what you nay sayers are broadcasting. You say if Christainity is(and you would not protest anyother religion) present on any government property then you are sponsoring it. That is the lie the ACLU and you are proliferating by liberal activist judges.
This is a Christain nation but our founding writers did not want any religious establishment as the church of england to appear. With that in reference, You and atheists have been the squeaky wheel. It is time for this court to put a stop to it. I pray they do.
RollerGirl
October 8th, 2009
1:55 pm
Eagle scout, It works for me unless you can prove those villagers were NOT aiding the viet cong and north vietnamese communists.
If , as was claimed, they were, they got what they deserved.
William
October 8th, 2009
2:00 pm
USinUK
October 8th, 2009
1:13 pm
ken –
“I fully support the right to have a well-regulated militia. just like the 2nd amendment says.”
Does that mean I can have an assault rifel or machine gun that I can put my hands on at any time? How about a tank? I mean you are talking about a modern day militia are you not? Naaahh, you could not be referring to bows and muzzle loaders would you?
lane
October 8th, 2009
2:01 pm
Sigh … such a sad state of society this article brings to our attention. A veterans group puts up a monument 70 years ago and because it has a cross it’s being attempted to be brought down. Could it be that most sane people in the world simply see the cross as just part of a monument honoring all dead! Could it be that most sane people don’t attempt to drag the memories of fallen heroes through the mud of political correctness? No … apparently Booky thinks different. Pathetic!
Offend Christians And Jews, And They’ll Complain | Amy Alkon on MND
October 10th, 2009
1:34 pm
[...] Scalia, annoyingly, tries to pass Christianity off as constitutionality by contending that crosses are just grave markers, Islam commands its followers to convert or kill the rest of us. Mark writes at Daniel Pipes: The [...]
» Blog Archive » Is the Cross Still A Christian Symbol?
October 10th, 2009
2:10 pm
[...] been much in the atheist blogosphere about U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia’s arguments regarding the placing of crosses by the VFW on government property to honor the war [...]
Native American
October 12th, 2009
11:55 pm
After reading all of these super intelligent, brilliant comments, I feel like I unerstand what God meant when he said if we are luke warm he will vomit us out of his mouth! What a sick bunch of excuses for human beings, like in the days of Noah!
Sighing
October 15th, 2009
4:34 pm
It can be genuinely difficult to consider another person’s point of view. Just because something does not offend you does not mean others must “go out of their way to be offended” by it.
Some of these comments genuinely scare me. William seems to think he needs an “assault rifel” or worse. What do weapons have to do with this article? Would he use them to enforce his ideas of a Christian Nation?
A few folks seem to think we should give up separation of church and state, say that their own version of Christianity is the state religion, and not respect any who believe differently. So who gets to be in charge? The Southern Baptist Convention? Inquisition-style folks of any kind? Maybe then I would start to understand the desire to stockpile weapons, but really I have to prefer making sure the government is not going to be my deadly enemy.
RollerGirl even thinks the My Lai Massacre was a good thing somehow? Yikes!
Alice C
November 1st, 2009
7:26 am
My husband has a theory, called “The Frog Leg Theory”…you want frog legs? You don’t throw them in hot water. They will jump out. You put them in cool to warm water, and very slowly turn up the heat, lulling them to sleep. Then you have frog legs…..
For too long, we as Christians, Citizens of this Great Country, have let the enemy, and liberalism lull us to sleep, and change our lives while we doze. Enough. Romans 1:16..”I am not ashamed of The Gospel of Christ…”
Scalia, a hypocrite for all seasons « CT Blue
November 10th, 2009
9:30 pm
[...] of the originalists themselves. For instance, in a few weeks or months, Scalia will probably be explaining how Jamie Madison would have been all in favor of erecting crosses on public land, despite the fact that he and Jefferson did all they could to keep a divinity school out of the [...]