A cross we should not bear
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is so insensitive to the religious beliefs of others that during an oral argument on Wednesday he had the nerve to denounce the idea that Jewish veterans may not feel honored by a Latin cross war memorial that sits atop a rocky slope at California’s Mojave National Preserve.
“What would you have them erect?” Scalia, a devout Catholic, scoffed. “Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”
“I have been in Jewish cemeteries,” responded ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg, who represented Frank Buono, a former National Park Service official who objected to the cross. “There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”
To that Scalia replied with irritation: “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. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”
Outrageous? Really? And if the only monument at an officially designated American war memorial was a large Muslim crescent and star, would Scalia feel included?
The cross at issue is no bigger than 8 feet tall, made of 4-inch diameter pipe painted white. The Veterans of Foreign Wars’ Death Valley Post originally placed a cross at the preserve in 1934, but that one is long gone. Due to vandals and the elements, the cross has been replaced many times. Henry Sandoz, a retired mine worker who has taken it upon himself to care for the cross, said that he has re-erected it repeatedly.
It is telling that Congress has weighed in three times to try to keep the cross where it is. Such ridiculous lengths suggest what we all know: Without a constitutional brake, government will use its power to promote the majority’s religious beliefs.
In fact, in 1999, the Park Service denied a request to erect a Buddhist memorial, known as a “stupa,” near the cross. There was no congressional outcry then. But when Buono wrote the Park Service’s director in 2000 stating that the cross violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, Congress jumped into action and barred the use of government funds to remove the cross.
Then, in 2002, when the issue of the whether the cross violated church-state separation was in federal court, Congress passed a law designating the cross as a national memorial that commemorates American involvement in World War I.
As an interesting side note, in 1999 the Park Service commissioned a historian to determine whether the cross had sufficient historical significance to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It turns out it did not. But Congress saw fit to include this replace-a-cross as a memorial as if it’s another Mount Rushmore.
Congress acted again in 2003. Worried that a federal appellate court would find the cross a government endorsement of religion (which the court did because it was), Congress transferred ownership of the land on which the cross sits to the VFW. But it included a proviso that if the VFW didn’t maintain the memorial, the land would revert back to the U.S. government.
Essentially, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not this transfer into private hands cured the constitutional defect.
It doesn’t. Congress made sure to structure the land deal so the cross would remain. To reward this end-run would open a loophole as wide as the Mojave itself. What’s next, privatizing parts of the National Mall?
And as for Scalia, he’ll take any opportunity to water down church-state separation, even if he has to delude himself into thinking that a Christian cross honors people of other faiths.
A friend-of-the-court brief by the Jewish War Veterans of the USA states that 250,000 Jewish service members served in World War I, yet the nation’s World War I memorial is a national endorsement of Christianity’s chief symbol. This, the brief says, sends the “unmistakable message” that the sacrifices of non-Christian veterans are less worthy.
Something else for Scalia to scoff at.
Robyn Blumner is a civil liberties and labor law expert who writes about individual freedom, trade, globalization and workers’ rights. She is a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times in St. Petersburg, Fla., and syndicated by Tribune Media Services. E-mail her at blumner@sptimes.com.
Oct 14, 2009 at 2:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Per my sources, the "One Nation under God phrase was forced into Bellamy's otherwise fine statement from the 1890's by the newly resurgent right wing, commie-baiting Joe McCarthy Congress in 1952. And by the way, the references to "God" on currency and in the Pledge do NOT say CHRISTIAN God. Allowing for loose translation, this could apply to virtually any religious group. Thus, only Atheists and Agnostics might take offense here, which, still, is a kind of discrimination against minorities.
*
I don't bring my politics into your church, so keep your church out of my government!
Oct 13, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jvltrnsplnt,
Our discussion thus far has been about whether or not this country has, at it's roots, Christian values and principles. Are you trying to tell me that currency or allegiance to a nation-state are exclusively Christian values or even Christian values at all?
As prounion points out, "...one nation, under God..." was added during the Red Scare of the 1950s. I believe that "In God We Trust" was put on our money around the time of the Civil War, approximately 100 years after founding of this country. If we accepted currency and patriotism as exclusively Christian values/principles, neither of your examples would support our country having been founded on those values/principles.
Oct 13, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
never thought about the pledge or the money thing. proof enough for me. see ya'll sunday morning!!
Oct 13, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wasn't that added during the Red Scare of the 50's?
Oct 13, 2009 at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bubs - have you ever said the Pledge of Allegiance - "..one nation, under God..", or looked on any form of U.S. currency where it says "In God We Trust". I think that answers your question.
Oct 13, 2009 at 3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
leesbunny,
With all due respect, what Christian values and principles is this country founded on?
Values such as not killing and stealing are relatively universal. It would be extremely difficult and arrogant to claim that such values are exclusively Christian.
Many of the 10 Commandments (no matter which version you use) and other Christian values as laid out in the bible are not any part of our founding documents or current laws. We can, for example, have false idols and gods before your the Chrisitan God. We can boil a kid (young goat) in it's mother's milk. We can eat shellfish, work on the Sabbath, have premarital sex. We are not legally obligated to turn the other cheek nor exact revenge in the form of an eye for eye. We don't stone adulterers. We can't sell our daughters into slavery. I could go on, but hope that I don't need to.
Sure, some of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but that doesn't mean that we are a "Christian nation". All of the Founding Fathers were white, I hope you don't believe that this fact makes us a "white nation" with "white values and principles"
Oct 13, 2009 at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Again - if you want to use my tax dollars to support some sort of effort on behalf of your imaginary sky god please provide some shred of evidence that he exists.
Oct 13, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why was "myvillagegreen"'s comment removed? Did I miss something?
Oct 13, 2009 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
bunny,
No one is asking you to tow any cows, or even to kowtow "to everyones wants" (sic). But you seem to expect all the rest of our citizens to kowtow to yours. The matter at issue here is your insistence to use your single religious symbol on public lands we ALL own and PAY FOR. Who is being forced to kowtow here? Why some in Christianity, which preaches humility (as most of us allegedly subscribe), insist on self-centeredly imposing their particular religious emblems on public properties we all own, I have no idea. But I do know many, apparently including yourself, lack the discretion to see the issue past an adamantine certainty.
Oct 13, 2009 at 7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
This country was founded on Christian values and principals, Yet no one is "forced" to Christian schools, because schools are not allowed to show any christian values.
And what have Muslims done in the name of "allah"?????
As a country we allow religious freedom, which means we do not persecute anyone for there personal beliefs and practices. However it does not mean that we should cowtow to everyones wants. If Jews or any other religion want their own religious symbol, let them put it up and take care of it themselves.
Oct 13, 2009 at 2:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nice article and decent representation of long known views of our Founding Fathers and, more recently, Jews and non religious citizenry.
*
Now we also need to realize that Muslims are becoming more and more important among our polity, and we can only profit from their increased professional integration into our foreign diplomatic circles and military protection efforts whether in the Middle East, North Africa, or Southeast Asia. I doubt if US Muslims, whether serving or only supporting through taxes, would feel honored by a monument to the sacrifice of life featuring the primary religious symbol of a single religious perspective. Indeed one that not only excludes them, but also over the centuries has called them every vicious name possible and invaded them numerous times in the name of Christ (!), incidentally, represented in their own religion as one of their revered prophets.
*
And of course, among many others, there are the Native Americans whose ancestors were slaughtered as "heathen savages" and often stripped of their own religious beliefs and cultural associations and forced into Christian schools.
*
All in a nation pioneering "Freedom of Religion" to the outside 18th century world. Acting on these noble origins, our contemporary enlightened steps may serve as an example to other nations themselves in need of more open-minded, tolerant attitudes.
Oct 12, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.