Decades old war monument in peril

[FlaSoxxJim]

If that is the case, there shouldn't be a parks department, since it all pays homage to the United States of America, who has pretty much been oppressing someone since day one.

 

I wasn't taking a shot at the entirety of Christianity, I was responding specifically to Tex suggesting that he was essentially incapable of taking offense at the site of a symbol. I posited the swastika as a particularly offensive symbol he might not have considered, and then extended the argument to suggest that a crucifix could be similarly seen as a symbol of an oppressive entity to some people.

 

Of course, you are correct in your assertion that our nation has some dodgy history and plenty to be ashamed of — as do a great many nations.

[StrangeSox]

At least according to Bulls***!, some native American tribes take offense at Mt. Rushmore.

[NorthSideSox72]

At least according to Bulls***!, some native American tribes take offense at Mt. Rushmore.

As they should. That thing is an abomination.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

As they should. That thing is an abomination.

 

I'm glad I didn't have to be the one to say it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm glad I didn't have to be the one to say it.

Some opportunist jackass decided that he should build giant heads of Presidents, destroying a mountain that overlooks what little was left (at that time - now there is even less) of the land allowed to the Lakota, and so the people already routed by the United States got to look up every day and see the faces of that country's leaders staring at them. It was beyond insulting, even by the standards of that time.

 

Of course now, that's all national park and forest, as I believe the reservation has further shrunk and is now at the foot of that mountain any more. I'm not 100% sure on that aspect, though.

 

It is different than this case though, in key ways. That cross was not a horrible insult to anyone. And it wasn't a government funded mission either.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

As they should. That thing is an abomination.

Heh. That was my 20,000th post. Glad to see I haven't lost my edge.

 

[Texsox]

I was responding specifically to Tex suggesting that he was essentially incapable of taking offense at the site of a symbol.

 

Come on Jim, you know I can work up some righteous indignation and take offense to anything And I thought your point was excellent, and SS reply to be even more so.

[Texsox]

Heh. That was my 20,000th post. Glad to see I haven't lost my edge.

 

[StrangeSox]

Some opportunist jackass decided that he should build giant heads of Presidents, destroying a mountain that overlooks what little was left (at that time - now there is even less) of the land allowed to the Lakota, and so the people already routed by the United States got to look up every day and see the faces of that country's leaders staring at them. It was beyond insulting, even by the standards of that time.

 

Of course now, that's all national park and forest, as I believe the reservation has further shrunk and is now at the foot of that mountain any more. I'm not 100% sure on that aspect, though.

 

It is different than this case though, in key ways. That cross was not a horrible insult to anyone. And it wasn't a government funded mission either.

 

Not only that, but the guy who built the monument was a racist POS. Its one big "f*** you" to native americans. And, of course, tacky.

[Balta1701]

Not totally certain how to react to it but I don't think I like Scalia's line of thinking here. Basically, his argument is that the cross is not a Christian symbol.

the ACLU lawyer whose client objects to crosses on government land—suggests partway through the morning that perhaps a less controversial World War I memorial might consist of "a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians."

 

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

 

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

 

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."

 

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

 

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

[southsider2k5]

Scalia asks, stunned.

 

symbol of … of … of the resting place

 

Eliasberg dares to correct him:

 

thunders Scalia

 

Gee I wonder whose point the author was trying to get across...

[StrangeSox]

Called it.

[Balta1701]

Here's the NY times version of that exchange, if it makes 2k5 a little happier. I tried to find a Fox News article but they hadn't covered it.

The question of the meaning of a cross in the context of a war memorial did give rise to one heated exchange, between Justice Scalia and Peter J. Eliasberg, a lawyer for Mr. Buono with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.

 

Mr. Eliasberg said many Jewish war veterans would not wish to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity,” one that “signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.”

 

Justice Scalia disagreed, saying, “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.”

 

“What would you have them erect?” Justice Scalia asked. “Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”

 

Mr. Eliasberg said he had visited Jewish cemeteries. “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew,” he said, to laughter in the courtroom.

 

Justice Scalia grew visibly angry. “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,” he said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUSblog has a good recap of the coverage:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/thursday-round-up-4/#more-11597

 

Yesterday’s oral arguments did generate a healthy dose of media interest in Salazar v. Buono, which asks whether a cross erected as a memorial within a California national park is constitutional.

 

In a New York Times piece titled “Religion Largely Absent in Argument About Cross,” Adam Liptak reports that none of the justices except Antonin Scalia pursued the question whether the cross violates the Establishment Clause’s separation of religion and state. Instead, the discussion revolved around whether the government’s transfer of the land beneath the cross to private hands preempted any constitutional infraction. Robert Barnes at the Washington Post notes that Salazar is the Court’s first opportunity to weigh in on the Establishment Clause under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts. The replacement of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who grew increasingly protective of the separation of religion and state during her tenure, with Justice Samuel Alito, who at yesterday’s argument seemed to accept the transfer of land beneath the cross to private ownership as a solution to any constitutional problem, could signal a shift in the Court’s stance. USA Today focuses on a divide revealed during the argument between the most conservative justices on the Court, who seemed satisfied with the government’s proposals, and the most liberal, who remained more skeptical; Justice Kennedy, however, did not “tip his hat.” The Los Angeles Times and Christian Science Monitor offer their own coverage. All five of the stories above highlight a testy exchange between Justice Scalia and ACLU lawyer Peter Eliasberg about the symbolism of crosses in general: Scalia remarked that “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead,” while Eliasberg countered that the cross is “the predominant symbol of Christianity.” NPR cleanly summarizes the history of the case and the questions at issue.

 

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate recounts the Salazar argument with a humorous slant. Most remarkable for her was the uncertainty among the justices and advocates about what question the Court was addressing. Some observers had expected the case to turn on the standing of the plaintiff Frank Buono, a Catholic, but none of the justices were inclined to reach that question.

 

The Washington Post editorial page opines that the cross at stake in Salazar seems “in context more a historical marker of a bygone era than a government embrace of a particular faith.” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank suggests that interest groups on both sides of the Establishment Clause question, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Christian Defense Coalition, had an incentive to dramatize the First Amendment harm in order to attract attention – and money – to their causes.

 

And their page on the case:

 

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono

Edited October 8, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Interesting point. And while a bit sideways, there is a tiny bit of logic there. I'm having trouble explaining the point I am trying to make here, so bear with me.

 

If I believe that someting is a honor and wish to bestow it on you, am I not honoring you? Even if you might not see it as an honor? It seems outrageous at first using this example, and I'm trying to think of another. Perhaps the tradition at Hawk games of cheering through the national anthem. Some people feel it is a terrible insult to every patriotic American, no matter the story behind it. But those that are cheering, and especially those that cheered at the inception during the Soviet Union game, it is an honor. And to those cheering, it also honors the very vets who may believe it is an insult.

 

Clear as mud??

 

Who decides what is an honor and who it honors, the one doing the honoring or the one being honored? Both and they could be opposed?

[CanOfCorn]

Interesting point. And while a bit sideways, there is a tiny bit of logic there. I'm having trouble explaining the point I am trying to make here, so bear with me.

 

If I believe that someting is a honor and wish to bestow it on you, am I not honoring you? Even if you might not see it as an honor? It seems outrageous at first using this example, and I'm trying to think of another. Perhaps the tradition at Hawk games of cheering through the national anthem. Some people feel it is a terrible insult to every patriotic American, no matter the story behind it. But those that are cheering, and especially those that cheered at the inception during the Soviet Union game, it is an honor. And to those cheering, it also honors the very vets who may believe it is an insult.

 

Clear as mud??

 

Who decides what is an honor and who it honors, the one doing the honoring or the one being honored? Both and they could be opposed?

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time...that's for sure. But religion is not something to be toyed with in this case. While I understand where Scalia might be coming from...as a Jew, and not a practicing one in the least, I still wouldn't want a cross signifying my sacrifice, no matter the what the person who placed it there meant by it.

 

I see three choices...either take it down, erect other symbols or replace it with something else honoring those people.

[NorthSideSox72]

Scalia's perspective on this is fairly assinine, but fortunately, I think the ultimate conclusion he will come to is the right one - to leave the cross in place. Just for the wrong reasons, IMO.

 

Its irrelevant what religion is signified by that cross.

 

[CanOfCorn]

Scalia's perspective on this is fairly assinine, but fortunately, I think the ultimate conclusion he will come to is the right one - to leave the cross in place. Just for the wrong reasons, IMO.

 

Its irrelevant what religion is signified by that cross.

 

To whom?

[NorthSideSox72]

To whom?

To the legality of the situation. And that is what should matter here.

 

[Texsox]

Of course you make perfect sense. I was thinking more in the abstract. How about this example

 

 

Is this a symbol of God's covenant and should be taken down or is a Gay Pride symbol and left up? Who should decide? There are an awful lot of non believers that have crosses on their tombstones.

[StrangeSox]

Really? Why would they?

[CanOfCorn]

To the legality of the situation. And that is what should matter here.

 

Religion always muddies the issue.

[CanOfCorn]

Of course you make perfect sense. I was thinking more in the abstract. How about this example

 

 

Is this a symbol of God's covenant and should be taken down or is a Gay Pride symbol and left up? Who should decide? There are an awful lot of non believers that have crosses on their tombstones.

 

I think Leprachauns should make the final choice...otherwise, where does the pot o' gold go?

[StrangeSox]

Of course you make perfect sense. I was thinking more in the abstract. How about this example

 

 

Is this a symbol of God's covenant and should be taken down or is a Gay Pride symbol and left up? Who should decide? There are an awful lot of non believers that have crosses on their tombstones.

 

FWIW, the gay pride rainbow usually has one less color than the others.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Of course you make perfect sense. I was thinking more in the abstract. How about this example

 

 

Is this a symbol of God's covenant and should be taken down or is a Gay Pride symbol and left up?

 

I thought it was the color scheme from those horrendous 1970s Houston Astros uniforms.