Scalia displays his intellectual prowess on the bench...

[cynatnite]

looks particularly queasy when Peter Eliasberg—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!"

http://www.slate.com/id/2231805/?from=rss

[Raven]

1. Scalia is an outrageous man. He's a conservative Catholic.

[elleng]

5. who appears not to understand the effects of NOT being Christian.

What a handicap that is!

[orpupilofnature57]

8. I'm a recovering Catholic ,he's a outrageous Catholic and agent for Neo-nuts.

[olegramps]

123. Scalia is the best argument for revoking the life time appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Scalia is most probably a member of the secret cult Opus Dei. The same cult that Hanssen the FBI spy belonged to. Members of this cult that is determined to create a virtual theocracy have infiltrated the highest positions of power in our government.

[LiberalFighter]

141. Best we can see happening is a fatal heart attack

[TexasObserver]

2. Yes, Scalia can't understand why his galloping Christianity is a problem.

He's utterly unfit to be on the Supreme Court.

[Enthusiast]

109. That's for damn sure.

UNFIT!

[JuniperLea]

3. Oh he needs to put the crack pipe down!

That is just stupid!

I just did a Google image search for Jewish cemetaries, and I've not seen ONE cross. It's pretty pathetic when The Google is smarter than a Supreme Court Justice!

Scalia is a motherfucker!

[Confusious]

43. The graves of Jewish dead in Arlington

Have the Star of David, Islamic have the crescent moon.

[JuniperLea]

127. That's what I thought!

I don't get how this idiot can say such ridiculous things... scary he's a SC judge!

[orpupilofnature57]

4. And we have to depend on this Turd-head ,to keep Corporations out of

the elections.

[bbinacan]

6. Are any Jews buried in

that cemetery?

[Blue-Jay]

7. "It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia.

No shit?





He's some kind of fucking genius.

[katkat]

131. woo, a deer?

How cool is that. I'd like to think that when I croak and get buried, deer will be browsing around from time to time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Oh, I thought it was in reference to his beating GWB at tic-tac-toe.

[bleever]

10. Scalia on freedom of religion: Get over it.

What a pompous plutocratic placeholder he is.

[Hepburn]

11. Fuck you, Scalia....

....this is the symbol you spat upon for years:



Your fucking, bullshit cross is from your catholic churh that looked the other way while pedophile priests raped children ~~ honors NO ONE! Your pedo cross does not honor Wiccans, Jews, or atheists. It's a CHRISTIAN symbol ~~ and nothing more. How would you like a Star of David over a Catholic grave? Not very much, right? So why the hell do you think Jews ~~ or any other religion ~~ would want a symbol of Christianity bullshit?

:mad:

[Forkboy]

12. I don't want to know what Thomas displayed.

[WeDidIt]

13. Ahhhhh, Justice Antonin Scalia. The Justice Henry Billings Brown of his day. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

17. Samuel Sewall, in 1692

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sewall

[WeDidIt]

20. Henry Billings Brown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Billings_Brown

[orpupilofnature57]

22. Sewall burnt witches!!! tony ain't that b ,your right Henry Billings Brown

[WeDidIt]

25. Yeah, all Henry Brown ever did was come up with the phrase...

"separate but equal".

[orpupilofnature57]

27. Thats why I conceded. ,Biggest misanthrope statement in modern time

[WeDidIt]

And you were correct. I doubt seriously if Antonin Scalia would burn people

mostly because he wouldn't be able to get four more votes to do so.

[verges]

78. And I don't think he's smart enough to light a bic.

[NashVegas]

14. The Cross Pre-Dates Christ By a Couple Thousand Years

A shame many people don't ponder the implications.

[WeDidIt]

19. D'oh

Responded to wrong post.

[orpupilofnature57]

24. Not as a symbol ,but a mode of death.

[tekisui]

28. The implications that is precedes Christianity?

That is an interesting point, and the one that Scalia was trying to make. As much as I loathe Scalia, he makes good arguments. Through today's eyes, though, the cross is largely a Christian symbol.

[starroute]

41. No, he does not make good arguments

Even if Scalia had been trying to argue that other people also use the cross as a symbol of respect for the dead -- and he wasn't -- he would have been totally out of line.

The cross was appropriated by Christianity 2000 years ago and has never recovered. Ever since then, Christians have taken any crosses they encounter either as signs of fellow-Christians or as some kind of demonic mockery of Christianity.

As far as I know, the last non-Christian use of anything vaguely cross-like was Thor's hammer -- which was more of a T than a + anyway -- and that was 1500 years ago.

[tekisui]

48. I am with you.

I didn't mean his argument in this case was good. In past cases he puts up arguments that piss me off. I disagree, he usually comes at it from no man's land, but he always finds an angle to work his ideology. He is consistent and annoying.

[Enthusiast]

111. His arguments suck.

Just like he does.

[NashVegas]

116. I Have Great Respect for the Cross

As a spiritual symbol, in general, more than any religion it's attached to. I doubt the people who put this specific cross in place were thinking as much about the god Jehovah as they were about the fallen. That said, it wouldn't have killed anyone (other than a few zealots) to allow other religions' symbols to join the display.

[Zoeisright]

63. And if Jesus was put to death on the electric chair, Christians would be

wearing little diamond-encrusted electric chairs as necklaces.

[TxRider]

67. And if Afghanistan was a U.S. state, the ACLU would blow up the buddhas.

Or be pushing for it at the supreme court.

This case is ridiculous.

Please don't tell the ACLU that Texas owns several old spanish missions, we may have to remove them from public land as well, even the Alamo is a christian church.

ACLU is the secular Taliban. I'm an atheist and can see that.

[TankLV]

71. Ahh - another texASS bit of "intellect" we see!

FAIL

Don't you agree how WONDERFUL it is that we don't have to have texASSans ruling the power structure anymore?!!!

That is the biggest "gift" of the Obama LANDSLIDE...!!!

[TxRider]

90. Ahh another bigot shooting the messenger

What a flowery show of intellect on your part, right back at ya.

The supreme court allowed the ten commandments to remain at a state capital.

The test was that it had religious significance, but also non religious significance.

In this case the site has obvious historical significance, placed in 1934 by WWI soldiers themselves.

It was later taken into possession by the government in 1994.

The test is what other significance than religious is enough to allow it to remain.

And is it legal for the government to give the land away to avoid the whole situation.

Personally I fall on the side of the WWI soldiers who chose this as their own monument in 1934, and the others from across the nation who visited it and made it their monument long before the government made it a park and some thin skinned secular fundie got his panties in a bunch over it.

I believe the the historical significance that nobody denies exists, justifies it remaining in it's historical context, just as the significance of the ten commandments at the state capital was allowed to stand due to it having significance other than religious, even though it is clearly a religious symbol.

And I'm an atheist to boot.

If congress dreamed up this idea, and was trying to establish this now, and it had no other significance than religious, I would be dead set against it.

[EFerrari]

80. LOL

[NashVegas]

114. You're Quite Wrong About the ACLU

In fact, they recently championed (successfully) a group of people in Nashville who were told they had to stop having regular services/prayer meetings in a city park.

[Le Taz Hot]

118. Oh, well, yes

because the ACLU has a long history of blowing up shit. :wtf:

I vote this one the stupidest post of the day.

[Jokerman]

124. "ACLU is the secular Taliban."

That is one of the stupidest remarks I've ever seen on DU.

Congratulations.

[bvar22]

128. I agree.

"The ACLU is the secular Taliban"

Completely, utterly, totally, STUPID.
The bar for stupid posts at DU has indeed been lowered today.
A feat I would have though impossible before reading this post.

[aquart]

112. And the swastika predates the Nazis. So fucking what?

[sakabatou]

15. *facepalm* Vaffanculo, Scalia!

[asjr]

16. I wish the attorney had asked Scalia if

he would approve of a Star of David on his own tombstone.

[Sal Minella]

21. That's what I was thinking.

He reminds me of the little old lady tourist in France who said "I think EVERYONE should understand English if it is spoken slowly and distinctly."

Scalia is obviously simply not qualified to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. I'm not sure he has brains enough to be a county judge.

[asjr]

23. Torquemada would have been so proud of him.

[unkachuck]

18. Fat-Tony does it again....

"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,"

....I think that's an outrageous conclusion....

[Canuckistanian]

26. People of other faiths don't want the cross on their graves? OUTRAGEOUS

Why, I hear even King David was a follower of Christ!

[orpupilofnature57]

29. It's a wonder Shrub and Kkkarl didn't taught that one.

[Canuckistanian]

47. Shrub and KKKarl could't even IMAGINE other faiths

Let alone make allowances for other faiths.

Their mission was to convert everyone to their own brand of "Christianity"

[tekisui]

30. Interesting case. I look forward to the vote.

[Hekate]

31. Could Fat Tony be any more of an asshole? He is arrogant beyond belief. nt

[devans00]

32. Serious Stupid

Yep, that's some Grade A stupid. Scalia should be embarassed.

[nilram]

33. this would be funny if this were a bar story, tragic coming from a SC justice -nt

[Fuzz]

34. Um, WTF? He's out of his fucking mind.

[Tx4obama]

35. There's a HUGE problem here...

If the Supreme Court were to rule that a cross can't be displayed on government property, then all cemeteries on government land will be affected

[cynatnite]

36. It hasn't affected them before on other challenges...

so, I don't see that as being an issue here.

[kenny blankenship]

38. I doubt that the plaintiff is asking for such a ruling.

The idea that a cross is not a fit monument for collective sacrifice of American soldiers of all different religions does not require individual graves in govt. owned cemeteries to have a "neutral" headstone.

[Tx4obama]

39. I'm just going by what they said on TV

I think it was on MSNBC the other day they said that this decision could affect the cemeteries on government land.

[merh]

75. Whoever reported this "concern" is mistaken and ignorant.

This is what the tombstone of a christian who is buried at a National Cemetery looks like.



This is a Muslim's grave marker



The Star of David

[Tx4obama]

86. And here are some crosses...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/colton/3017201801/



Also, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trektheworld/2062637309/

[merh]

88. The point being, other religions are respected - there are not just

crosses.

There is just a cross at the memorial in question.

Get it?

[Tx4obama]

89. The point is ...

if the court rules that a cross cannot be used as a memorial on public land then it WILL affect ALL public lands.
The case will set a precedent and other public lands will be affected.
Get it ?

[merh]

95. WRONG

It cannot be the only symbol.

You just don't get it.

There is but one religious symbol - the cross - at that memorial.

The other religions are represented, thus not giving preference to one religion.

[TxRider]

99. Sure it can

But it must have other significance that purely religious. A secular significance.

Such as hmm.. what could it be... Ahh yes historic significance.

If this was a cross monument congress was creating from thin air themselves, I would be firmly against it.

It is not being created, and it holds obvious historic significance as well as religious, which is the secular reason it was declared a monument, and the only reason there is even a debate about it, other than the government trying to give the land away to duck the issue.

[merh]

102. It was turned into a memorial by Congress.

It had historic significance and would not be a problem if they had let those silly Buddhists build a shrine nearby.

I guess there were no Buddhists that fought and died in WWI.

[Sal Minella]

129. Big difference between a public monument structure

and private individual grave markers.

[TxRider]

91. The other point is

That this wasn't established by the government, it was established in 1934 by WWI survivors, for WWI survivors, and has historical significance as well as any religious significance.

If congress was simply creating a monument where none exists, I would be lock step in fighting against it.

But since it has historic value and significance, outside any religious meaning, it should be allowed to stand.

Just as the SCOTUS precedent allows symbols like the ten commandments to stand on state land if the context provides other meaning than simply religious, or naked child pics to be legal and not kiddy porn if other significance exists such as "artistic significance"...

Get it?

[merh]

93. Can the government change Mount Rushmore or any of their

historic monuments?

Then add the other religious symbols to this one. The lone cross is not appropriate as a government monument.

[TxRider]

96. Nor is the ten commandments

Yet the SCOTUS ruled they can stand as long as there is context other than purely religious.

Historical significance outweighs the separation issue IMO.

If congress was creating this where no monument had been, I would fully agree with you it would be inappropriate.

In this case it it is historical and has significance as such, so even if it is a religious symbol it should be allowed to stand. Just as historic churches the government owns are allowed to stand.

[merh]

97. Just as they can change or add to other historic monuments

they can add to this one.

[TxRider]

100. Sure they can

We could carve Bush onto Mt Rushmore too...

But it just wouldn't be quite as historic a monument then would it?

The Alamo is a church, I guess we need Islamic spires, and Buddhist shrines and everything else stuffed in there too.

I'm an atheist, but how about we just tell the fundamentalist secularists to unbunch their panties and have a touch of tolerance for a historic site?

Would it mean the end of our democracy to allow a historic cross to stand in the middle of nowhere in the desert, where the men who fought the war built it?

I don't think so.

[merh]

101. Guess it would help your argument if you knew the facts

The white cross, which sits on a desolate outcropping of rock known as Sunrise Rock, was erected in 1934 as a war memorial by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The original has been replaced several times. Easter services have been held at the site for more than 70 years. But in 1999, the National Park Service denied a Buddhist's request to erect a shrine near the cross then declared its intention to take the cross down. Congress responded by enacting legislation in 2000 that prohibited government money from being used to remove the cross and by designating the cross in 2002 as the "White Cross World War I Memorial." After a district court permanently enjoined the government from displaying the cross that year, a cross-happy Congress passed yet more legislation, this time transferring the small parcel of land where the cross stood to the VFW. This transfer left what the 9th Circuit court of appeals later described as a little "doughnut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve."

The Alamo was a church that was used as a fortress, it is where men died.

The cross, replaced several times over the last 75 years is just a place where vets erected a cross. Congress made it the memorial you try to protect today.

[TxRider]

104. They replaced it as needed.

The Alamo is only one of many historic Spanish religious missions in Texas, they are a national park also, the Texas Mission trail. They are churches, with nothing more than religious significance (their original purpose) and historic significance (they are still there).

I use the Alamo as an example people know, there are many others without the Alamo's unique significance. I guess we should bulldoze them or install minarets.

This cross was erected in 1934, by veterans of WWI, for veterans of WWI. It has been maintained by veterans for 70 years.

It has obvious historic significance outside of a purely religious significance. Just like all the churches in Texas the spanish built to convert the natives have historical significance.

That is the foundation of the supreme courts decision to allow the ten commandments to stand in front of a state capital, that it has other significance than purely religious.

Those are facts.

If congress declared they wanted to create a monument using a cross where none existed before, it would be wrong. To recognize a site with historical significance in and of itself is not wrong, even if a religious symbol is part of it.

[merh]

120. Congress bypassed the 9th Circuit's ruling for the specific purpose

of maintaining the cross as a religious symbol.

They don't see it as simply a historic marker, they recognize it as a religious symbol and passed law to protect it as such.

Like I said, the facts get in the way of your argument.

[TxRider]

130. Show me that in congressional records..

Specifically.

Seems they just wanted to dodge the whole issue to me.

I don't see how what congress did gets in the way of my argument at all anyway.

It still has historical significance other than a pure religious symbol anyway.

Do you deny it has any historical significance at all apart from religious symbolism?

[merh]

132. You keep spewing nonsense and coming to conclusions without

knowing the facts. Perhaps you could take the time to read the friggin 9th Circuit opinions, the briefs as filed with SCOTUS and the questions asked during oral argument. You will find all the facts and legal findings you need in that collection of documents.

You continue to argue without knowing the facts. Go learn them. It's not my place to hand them to you when they are readily available to you.

[TxRider]

42. That depends on the basis for the decision.

Was the placement of a star of David or Crescent at the site denied?

Or is a cross simply not allowed on government property?

It'll affect cemeteries in Europe as well, as they are also U.S. soil.

The wooden cross was the standard marker for fallen troops buried in the field, he's not far off the mark.

The whole issue is a huge waste of time IMO, and the soldiers are likely spinning in their graves.

[Joanie Baloney]

133. B.S.

(<~~~ a woman of few words)

[MindPilot]

136. "It'll affect cemeteries in Europe as well, as they are also U.S. soil."

Up until that comment I thought you were just a little ignorant about the laws and court decisions surrounding church-state separation issues. Now I see you are willfully so...and apparently quite proud of it.

[merh]

70. That is not the issue.

This case involves one lone cross erected as a World War I memorial at the Mojave National Preserve in southern California.



As others have noted in this thread, at the national cemeteries the grave of a Jewish soldier/former soldier is marked by a stone marker with the Star of David engraved on the stone, a Christian with a cross, and so on.

[TankLV]

73. What is it with all you texASSans?!!!

ANY Religiouis symbol on PUBLIC property SHOULD be a problem!!!

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!

[verges]

79. As pointed out upthread....

What about the Alamo?

[Tx4obama]

87. You Sir are apparently a rude stereotyper. n/t

[TxRider]

92. Nope, not according to the supreme court it isn't.

Look, I'm an atheist and at least I know that.

Look up the decision the supreme court handed down on the ten commandments at the Texas state capital, and the Kentucky state capital.

As for running around calling other posters asses, project much?

[sendero]

37. What's outrageous..

... is that a mental midget like Scalia could sit on the highest court in the land.

The dumbing down of America is across the board.

[TxRider]

40. Many people say the same of the ACLU in this instance.

I guess we need to hike over to France and remove the crosses from the WWII cemeteries there, at any cemetery any tax dollar ever helped bury anyone or maintain...

Lets just ban any cross whatsoever from view at any time from any place including being able to be seen from a public roadway...

Might as well go sand off all the crosses, stars of David, and crescents off the grave stones at all our military markers at every national cemetery too.

I simply do not get it. I cannot see how this cross has anything to do with congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or interferes with free exercise of religion.

This whole separation of church and state thing that isn't even in the constitution, and has been extrapolated and stretched well beyond reason goes a bit too far at times.

There are far bigger and better issues the ACLU could be wasting supreme court time over.

[starroute]

44. This is not a cemetery, it's a national memorial

According to the ACLU, "In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial, one of only 49 such memorials around the country. Others include Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, although the Mojave cross would be the only one dedicated to soldiers who fought and died in World War I."

Do you think it would be appropriate to erect a giant cross on the National Mall? Or to carve one into the face of Mount Rushmore? Do you think it's appropriate for the only national memorial dedicated to the soldiers who fought in World War I to be a Christian symbol?

This is about privileging one religion over all others, and that is definitely unconstitutional.

[TxRider]

49. Wake me up when we do

Until then, this is much ado about nothing.

I'm an atheist, or agnostic at best.

Doesn't bother me one little iota that this cross stands in memory of the dead of WWI.

The cross in Mohave dates back to 1934, long before the land was government land which dates to 1994, and IMO it is ridiculous to demand it be taken down.

It's not privileging one religion over another, it's a historic artifact.

"The history of the Mojave Cross dates back to the years after World War I, when many veterans returning from war suffered the effects of having lived in a battle zone. Gripped by “shell shock”and respiratory illnesses, many sought refuge in the desert wilderness of California. A group of such veterans, in 1934, erected a simple white cross on a rock to stand as a memorial to their fallen comrades. In the years to come, veterans of WWI would flock to the area, for desert picnics and solemn moments of silence at the cross.

What the veterans who erected the Mojave Cross couldn't have known at the time was that, some 60 years later, Sunrise Rock and the 1.6 million acres of Mojave desert surrounding it would become the Mohave Desert Reserve, a tract of land owned by the United States government under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service (NPS). They further couldn't have predicted the Constitutional crisis that would take place once the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was informed in 1999 by Frank Buono, then assistant superintendent at the reserve, of the existence of the cross on public government land. "

I suppose if the cross Jesus himself was nailed to was displayed at the smithsonian the ACLU would similarly sue for removal of it from public view.

This is a silly and hurtful thing IMO, pushed by intolerance just as deep and blind as any religious intolerance.

[cynatnite]

50. As an atheist, I'm very tolerant of other religions...

I don't give a crap what people worship or how they express their faith. I'd rather not see our government take a side by allowing a religious symbol to be displayed on government land when it's not allowing it for other religous symbols.

I like the idea of our government being impartial when it comes to religion and this does not reflect that.

Besides, from what I read about it, they're going to work a deal where the VFW is going to buy the land and the cross will remain.

Problem solved.

[TxRider]

52. The ACLU is fighting the land transfer as well.

To me it's a historic thing, not a religious thing.

[FlaGranny]

113. I used to think like you.

Then I grew up and realized what it really means to display religious symbols on public lands. It was easy to believe there were more important things to worry about. The truth is though that people must continually fight for their rights in order to not move an inch in the wrong direction. The government has no right to raise one religion over another and it has no right to prevent any citizen from practicing any religion or having no religion at all. It's just that simple. My father, a WWI veteran, was an atheist who hated religion. He is certainily not represented at that monument.

Any laxity enforcing freedom of and freedom from religion encourages further deviation from our rights and before we know it, we'll be dealing with a government dictating our religious beliefs. Most likely that government would be a fundamentalist Christian one. Fundamentalist Christians always believe they are being persecuted, when the real persecution in the US comes from these "Christians" against all "others." To me, they seem to be similar to dogs that become aggressive and start biting out of pure fear. For some reason, the loudest get the most attention, and fundy Christians sure can be "loud."

[Stephanie]

61. Not in the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[TxRider]

98. Not quite

I don't see the term "separation of church and state" in there. It is not in the constitution, it is an interpretive concept.

Allowing a religious symbol to be preserved and stand on state property because it has other significance outside religious significance, even though it is a purely religious symbol is in fact supreme court precedence.

The ten commandments on the Texas state capital grounds is one such precedence.

[MindPilot]

138. I would hope DU'ers are smarter than to try that one.

"Right to Privacy" is not in there either, but do you deny it exists?

[nemo137]

68. The crosses are on Christian graves. Jewish war graves at Normany have stars.

http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=152347

there, for instance, and I believe the Muslim troops from French North Africa have crescents. As for separation of church and state not being in the constitution, I believe that Madison especially made his views on it clear, in the Memorial and Remonstrance on Religious Freedom.

[TankLV]

74. Of COURSE you refuse to "get it" - you're from texASS!!!

Clue: Not EVERYONE is a fucking "southern baptist"...

you know - the denomination FOUNDED because of it's OPPOSITION to the NORTHERN Baptists' promotion of ABOLITION!!!

or, to put it more clearly - the southern baptists idiots formed their own sect because they INSISTED on SLAVERY...

I'm sure you'll try to negate that "small" fact...

[TxRider]

94. Why would I negate it, I'm an atheist

Why do you fell a need to just follow me around calling me an ass without any meaningful response.

I believe there are rules about that here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Have yuo EVER been to a military cememtery?

If you have not, I recommend you do.

You will quickly realize that Christians get a cross, Jews get a Star of David, Muslims get a nice half moon, and so it goes.

I think Atheist are a problem, but easy to solve actually.

[gratuitous]

45. So put up a Star of David or a Crescent

If the symbol doesn't matter, as "Justice" Scalia says, then one is just as good as another, right? Nothing exclusive about whatever symbol is used, right Tony?

[TxRider]

51. It's a historical site

The cross there predates the land becoming public, and was put there by veterans who sought the quiet solitude of the desert after WWI and became a place WWI veterans gathered.

The whole challenge of it is shameful and smacks of intolerance to me, and I'm an atheist.

As someone who has known and spoken with many WWII veterans, and teared up as they cried, making a fuss like this over something them men who came home shell shocked with burned lungs from chemical weapons from WWI put up themselves at a place they gathered for the rest of their lives is disgraceful.

[gratuitous]

54. And it belongs to all of us

I'm a Christian and I don't want to see sacred symbols of my religion cheapened by being made into a government display. The placing of the cross smacks of government appropriation of religion to me.

So who's right, if we both have our own opinion?

[TxRider]

56. The WWI soldiers who placed it there in 1934 are right

When it was not public land, and we should respect it's historical status.

I'm not thinking about what I want, or what you want, but what they wanted.

Suppose someone starts a church of Washington, and their symbol is a bust of Washington. Should we deface mount rushmore?

Suppose we find the architectural symbols on a greta historic building are the symbol for some chinese religion growing in numbers here in the US? Do we tear down a historic building because of it?

When does it get too silly? When does this complete intolerance begin to conform to common sense?

[cynatnite]

57. It was a religous symbol when it was erected and it's one now...

That has not changed. It's the land that changed.

I don't think the ACLU will get far in it's attempt to stop the land from being sold.

Besides, I'd buy your argument that it's a historical site if they had erected religious monuments to those soldiers of other faiths.

[TxRider]

62. I assume those of other faiths used the site as well

And likely were far less thin skinned while reminiscing with their peers over their friends who died in battle.

Religious or not, it should remain.

It's like saying if George Washington gave his land to the government on his death, and had a chapel with a cross on the property, we would have to tear it down.

Or if we wanted to preserve a national treasure like the old ship church, the oldest church in the country because all the parishioners died off, the government could no do so for historical purposes without stripping it of anything remotely religious.

Or tearing all the religious symbology out of the historical spanish missions in Texas that the state owns.

Where does this stupidity and intolerance end? In an age where child pornography can be protected by "artistic value" and the ACLU will fight to death to protect that status?

[Zoeisright]

66. Fine. Then I want a Wiccan symbol put there as well.

And a star of David, and a Star and Crescent, from the Muslim faith.

Then we'll see how those in support of this think that religious symbols are neutral.

[verges]

84. But the crosss was placed first.

Before it was government land. That makes a HUGE difference. The government DID NOT place it. Independent WWI vets did. Exercising their constitutional rights in 1934. It is now a historical artifact. Did the government acqire this land because of the cross? I doubt it. A historical marker happened to be there first. The government should tear it down? Wouldn't that be revisionism?

[Heathen57]

105. I don't ever remember anyone

holding Easter (A Xtian Holiday)sunrise services at any other veteran's memorial.

The intolerance is that you and the Xtians want everyone to pay for a religious symbol that screams of intolerance and if you have your way, have the backing of the US Government over all other religions.

Do you honestly think that Congress would declare a Buddhist shrine a national monument just to save it and then not let another religious symbol? Here's a hint, that is only for the Xtians.

It isn't the vets that are at the cross every Easter Sunday, That is a Xtian symbol and only for Xtians. You can buy into the spin, but I prefer to have the same rights as the Xtians.

[Polemicist]

115. Historical means nothing in this debate...

You can't use "historical precedent" to grandfather a religious symbol on Federal property. There is no "historical religious symbol" exception clause in the Constitution. There is no loophole there for you to use.

The 10 commandments deal is completely different. As the 10 commandments are part of three different religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Additionally, those 10 laws have a secular aspect as many of the commandments have been included in secular, non-religious common law. So allowing the display of the 10 commandments isn't favoring or establishing a particular religion by the government.

However, allowing a cross at a federal park site, at the exclusion of all others, is favoring a particular religion, Christianity. And even though I am a Christian, I know that it's unconstitutional to allow the government to favor one religion over others. That's what the establishment clause of the Constitution is all about.

And your argument about "separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution is specious. The establishment clause is absolutely in the Constitution and that prohibits the government from establishing a religion. And government favoritism is establishing a religion. The words "separation of church and state" is simply a layman's description of the effect of enforcing the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion.

The Alamo example is also specious. The Alamo isn't just a church, although a church is part of the Alamo. It's actually more of a settlement, or a "mission". And it has historical significance above and beyond it's religious significance. Something that this cross in California simply doesn't have. The cross in California is a religious icon created to honor war dead. But the choice of a religious symbol means it only honors war dead from a particular religion. Which is fine, but it can't be on public land, because it favors one religion above overs and this is prohibited by the establishment clause of our Constitution.

[CrispyQ]

121. ~boggle

You argue against historical precedence of religious symbols on Federal property, but then you state that the ten commandments are completely different?

The first four commandments aren't secular at all!

I am the Lord your God.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Displaying the ten commandments absolutely establishes favoritism of a particular religion(s) by government! Who cares that they are part of three religions? There are more than three religions & there are the non-religious. I am more disturbed by the ten commandments in a public building than I am by a cross on a war memorial, although I'm troubled by that as well.

Why have anything that is related to religion in the public sphere? Tolerance of this type of thing has led to publicly funded faith based initiatives - a clear violation of our Constitution.

I'm off to FFRF to make another contribution.

[MindPilot]

137. the places where the Ten C's have been allowed to stand

are where they integrated into displays of other documents that help weave the fabric of our culture, the US Constitution, the Magna Carta--that kind of stuff. Where the ten stand alone like in front of Judge Roy Moore's courthouse, they are most definitely a violation of the establishment clause.

On behalf of FFRF, thanks for that contribution!

[valerief]

46. OMG, what a scabby, scabby Supreme Court we have. There is no justice. nt

[Odin2005]

53. Not only a bigot, a dumb bigot.

[DCKit]

55. Fat Tony's mind has left the building. What a hateful, ignorant, insensitive maroon. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

58. Why does this not surprise me? The hubris and insensitivity of this man

never ceases to amaze me. (As does the fact that he sits on the bench in the SCOTUS in the first place.)

[Prism]

59. What a stupid, stupid case

The cross existed before the land belonged to the federal government. It was erected by private citizens. It's a historical artifact. Good lord.

This reminds me a bit of when the Taliban blew up those Buddha statues. Barbaric fanatics who have to remove from the very face of the earth those things in their eyes that are so horrifyingly offensive.

Intolerant, small-minded radicals of any stripe are gross, whether they be Christian, atheist, or seriously misguided ACLU attorneys.

[TxRider]

64. +1 It is just like the Taliban blowing up the buddhas

[uncle ray]

126. did the taliban try first to erect their own shrine next to buddha?

and peacefully coexist?

not the same.

[verges]

85. Good comparison!! nt

[Rex]

60. It really is a shame to watch Tony embarrass himself and our country.

Tony, step down kid. I guess no one will tell you what a waste of bench you are. :eyes:

[WinkyDink]

65. What a supremely ignorant man. An ugly little troll.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

69. So, Scalia has no respect for separation of religion and government. No surprise, there!

No surprise, at all. He was APPOINTED for his supremist views: religious, racial, intellectual and financial!!! HE IS WHAT HE IS,...a supremist!!!

[Jennicut]

72. Duh Scalia. I am a Christian and get this. Not everyone is one.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Sometimes I wonder if there are very little liberal-type Christians out there.

[orpupilofnature57]

106. I'm a very Liberal Christian Right here!!!!

Jesus ,was a non-violent Rabbi who was Very Liberal.

[Jennicut]

125. Good! Sometimes I feel outnumbered by the fundies.

[Nikki Stone1]

76. Is he really that stupid?

He's out of his mind.

[orpupilofnature57]

107. He has an Agenda he can't see ,and it has more to do with Global

power ,than Respect to the Chosen Many.

[saltpoint]

77. Contempt for the Other is very strong in Scalia.

[EFerrari]

82. I don't think he's developed to the point where he recognizes there is an Other.

There are leftovers in my fridge that show more relational liveliness than he does.

[saltpoint]

83. LOL.

LOL!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[MilesColtrane]

103. Study Links Middle-Aged Belly Fat to Dementia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602253.html

Hey, Fat Tony, lay offa the gabagool!

[Enthusiast]

108. I can't stand Scalia. nt

[aquart]

110. Sweet Jesus, Scalia is insane.

[watercolors]

117. Scalia thinks is is the God father!!

He looks the part, but mentally retarded.

[Solly Mack]

119. K&R

[CrispyQ]

122. Scalia is not fit to sit on the bench.

He's barely fit to qualify as human.

[dbmk]

134. Let me get this straight

No historic building/monument/artifact with religious affiliation can be preserved on public lands unless all other religions gets to have a similar presence at the same spot?

Really?

I am as atheist as it comes, but that sounds immensely dumb to me - and reeks of rewriting history.

(Oh, and technically the guys erecting it CAN have meant to honor all the dead - no matter their religion. I have no doubt that Scalia is dumb as a door nail - but he is technically right on this one. Just because the cross is the symbol of christianity - and been erected as such - does not mean it was not meant to honor all the dead soldiers. Only the guys who erected it can know that.
Lets say a man dies in combat. He is a muslim, but someone wanting to honor him, mistakenly thinks he was a christian - or simply does not gives it much thought and defaults to the sign used in his own religion - erects a cross at his place of death. Is it not still done to honor the man?)

[MindPilot]

140. It doesn't matter what the intent was--intent is for criminal cases.

What matters is when the "reasonable man" looks at it and absent any other indicators does it appear as if the government is endorsing one religion over another or religion in general over none? And a cross--the preeminent symbol of Christianity--in the middle of a National Park passes that test.

[lunatica]

135. That definitely deserves a facepalm

[Bill McBlueState]

139. See, nutjobs, this is what happens when you mix church and state

You get an agent of the US government telling Christians that their holy symbol really isn't all *that* holy; it's just a generic sign of remembrance of the dead.

Happy now?