[Winstonm]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...9_10/020327.php

[barmar]

I heard that exchange on NPR today, and I was incredulous. That guy can obviously rationalize anything. Does he really belong on the SC?

[jdonn]

That is truly amazing. I mean can't someone show him that he is factualy wrong?

[mike777]

"don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead,"


Yes good question...can a Cross honor anyone buried in a USA military cemetary who does not believe or only some of those buried? Can the Star of David honor all or only some buried by it? As he asked; this is a question of honor.


In this case I think the real issue, which I bet will be ducked/avoided is can a religious symbol be put on federal land even if from 60 or 200 years ago?

If no..ok remove all of them from the last 200 years.

[shyams]

Disclaimer: I am neither American nor Christian.

IMHO, there are two parts in this issue.
1. Could crosses mean more than Christianity? I think the answer is yes. Crosses as a symbol are older than Christianity as a religion. They would have been used due to myths ("protection from vampires & evil spirits") or as symbolis/threats (marking of territory)

2. Could the structure discussed in the Supreme court fall into the category of a generic cross not related to Christianity? I can't answer that with certainty, but if it was built around or immediately after WWI, I would believe it exclusively represents Christianity.

I think Justice Scalia could easily justify his stance by using the existence of cross as symbol in society even in pre-Christ times. However, I would not agree with his reasoning.

[phil_20686]

Regardless of what justice scalia said, i think you guys are missing the point. Even if the cross is a religious symbol, it has also entered out culture as the epitomy of courage and sacrifice. It is erected in honour of the courage and sacrifice of those who fell. In no way is that symbolism lessened if you don't believe in christianity.

Consider the alternatives, if you wished to remove all such symbolisms that have religous connotations.

The pentagram (five pointed star) symbolises christ's wounds, so your flag would have to go. So would the houses of congress, as they have poortrayls of wisdom and justice, portrayed in their original incarnations as lesser greek godesses.

Just chill out. The cross honours courage and sacrifice, its a completely fitting memorial regardless of your belief system.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on Oct 9 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

Regardless of what justice scalia said, i think you guys are missing the point. Even if the cross is a religious symbol, it has also entered out culture as the epitomy of courage and sacrifice. It is erected in honour of the courage and sacrifice of those who fell. In no way is that symbolism lessened if you don't believe in christianity.

The cross is a symbol for an awful lot of things.

Slaughtering Moors and Arabs...
Keeping blacks in their place...

As a non Christian I have one hell of a problem with any claim that the cross should be used to symbolize courage and sacrifice.

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on Oct 9 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

The cross is a symbol for an awful lot of things.

Slaughtering Moors and Arabs...
Keeping blacks in their place...

So you want to replace it with a statue of a soldier.

LOL.


More seriously, both those suggestions could apply in general to the american government.

e.g. Iraq, and segregation until the 70's.

Both suggestions are equally ridiculous because they assume that a symbol is tied to everything that was ever done by anyone who happened to use that symbol. That is totally seperate from its symbolism.
In western thought the cross represents the crucifixtion. That is about (among other things) courage and sacrifice. That is what it represents on the memorial.

Also, tying christianity to the crusades is as ridiculous as tying atheists to the evils of communism. I'm sure you would find it pretty annoying if people tried to tell you that atheism had brought nothing but evil into the world because of what stalin did.

[PassedOut]

Denying Christianity for personal and political advantage is a venerable tradition that dates to the time St. Peter denied Christ three times during the crucifixion.

Scalia -- a very religious person keenly aware of Christian traditions -- feels comfortable falling back on that tradition here and in other cases. This is the same tradition, for instance, that reassures Christians who assert that the "intelligent design" nonsense has nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

[ArtK78]

phil_20686, on Oct 9 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 9 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

The cross is a symbol for an awful lot of things.

Slaughtering Moors and Arabs...
Keeping blacks in their place...

So you want to replace it with a statue of a soldier.

LOL.


More seriously, both those suggestions could apply in general to the american government.

e.g. Iraq, and segregation until the 70's.

Both suggestions are equally ridiculous because they assume that a symbol is tied to everything that was ever done by anyone who happened to use that symbol. That is totally seperate from its symbolism.
In western thought the cross represents the crucifixtion. That is about (among other things) courage and sacrifice. That is what it represents on the memorial.

Also, tying christianity to the crusades is as ridiculous as tying atheists to the evils of communism. I'm sure you would find it pretty annoying if people tried to tell you that atheism had brought nothing but evil into the world because of what stalin did.

You can say what you will, but to most of the non-Christian world (and to much of the Christian world), the cross is indeed a symbol of all of these things: the Crusades, slaughtering Moors and Arabs, keeping Blacks in their place, and many more things both good and bad.

Whether it is appropriate or not, that is a different question.

But denying that the cross is a religious symbol is laughable.

I was at a wedding in a Catholic Church a couple of weeks ago. The cross is prominently displayed in many places in the Church. You are going to have to make a very strong argument to convince me that these were secular and not religious symbols. And taking the cross out of the Church and putting it into a different place does not remove the religious symbolism.

When I see pictures of the graves in France of the fallen soldiers from World War II, I see the graves marked with crosses and the occasional Star of David. Try to convince me that these are not religious symbols.

[shyams]

ArtK78, on Oct 9 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

When I see pictures of the graves in France of the fallen soldiers from World War II, I see the graves marked with crosses and the occasional Star of David. Try to convince me that these are not religious symbols.

If I understood correctly, the Justice Scalia discussion was not about the symbols on the graves themselves. The cross on the grave of a fallen soldier tends to represent the religion of that particular soldier. So what if it is a cross? It "belongs" to the person who died.

AFAIK, the cross in question here is an additional free-standing structure meant to commemorate all the fallen soldiers in general.

As an example, many memorials to fallen soldiers are marble walls with names of selected (or all) soldiers, or are simple structures with famous quotations / poems that celebrate the sacrifices etc. In this specific case, it appears to be a cross. So the debate then is: would you say such a cross be removed from this memorial because it represents one specific religion? Note: Removal of the cross need not mean leaving the place empty --- replace it with other monuments?

[jdonn]

phil_20686, on Oct 9 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

Regardless of what justice scalia said, i think you guys are missing the point. Even if the cross is a religious symbol, it has also entered out culture as the epitomy of courage and sacrifice. It is erected in honour of the courage and sacrifice of those who fell. In no way is that symbolism lessened if you don't believe in christianity.

You know you are wrong. When you say it entered "our" culture as the epitome of blah blah blah, you mean it entered "Christian" culture. To be clear, it in no way represents those things to people who are not Christian. The symbolism you refer to only exists for Christians.

Btw it's also not what Scalia said, it was his obvious indignation and shock that anyone could believe anything else. Is it that shocking?

[matmat]

shyams, on Oct 9 2009, 04:55 AM, said:

Disclaimer: I am neither American nor Christian.

IMHO, there are two parts in this issue.
1. Could crosses mean more than Christianity? I think the answer is yes. Crosses as a symbol are older than Christianity as a religion. They would have been used due to myths ("protection from vampires & evil spirits") or as symbolis/threats (marking of territory)

2. Could the structure discussed in the Supreme court fall into the category of a generic cross not related to Christianity? I can't answer that with certainty, but if it was built around or immediately after WWI, I would believe it exclusively represents Christianity.

I think Justice Scalia could easily justify his stance by using the existence of cross as symbol in society even in pre-Christ times. However, I would not agree with his reasoning.

Could you please show me a reference that indicates that crosses were used to ward off evil spirits before the rise of christianity?

[matmat]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

phil_20686, on Oct 9 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

Regardless of what justice scalia said, i think you guys are missing the point. Even if the cross is a religious symbol, it has also entered out culture as the epitomy of courage and sacrifice. It is erected in honour of the courage and sacrifice of those who fell. In no way is that symbolism lessened if you don't believe in christianity.

You know you are wrong. When you say it entered "our" culture as the epitome of blah blah blah, you mean it entered "Christian" culture. To be clear, it in no way represents those things to people who are not Christian. The symbolism you refer to only exists for Christians.

Btw it's also not what Scalia said, it was his obvious indignation and shock that anyone could believe anything else. Is it that shocking?

let's just put a six-pointed star on every grave. that way everyone gets a STAR on their resting place, as we all know, a star is a symbol of accomplishment. we should do this instead of the spot-marking-X that justice scalia wants to keep.

[Gerben42]

The cross can stand for lots of things, like a dagger, or the ancient Egyptians with their Ankh symbol, but in Christian culture a cross mostly represent the cross that one particular person, among others, has been crucified.

I've never seen a military grave with something else than a cross, though. But again this might be a selection effect.
The real question is if people don't have better things to do than fight over this.

[matmat]

Gerben42, on Oct 9 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

I've never seen a military grave with something else than a cross, though. But again this might be a selection effect.

Here you go.

there was also some sort of a Wiccan case vs. the military not too long ago and wiccan symbols can be put on graves as well.

It may not matter to you or me, but it does matter to some, and, in particular, it matters to those who are fighting. Regardless of your view on the (any) war, those fighting and dying in it deserve respect. Honoring them with another religion's symbol is an insult. Someone who sits in a comfy chair of a supreme court justice should be able to see this.

it's funny that i have this view, considering what my general stance on religion is...

[Winstonm]

Gerben42, on Oct 9 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

The cross can stand for lots of things, like a dagger, or the ancient Egyptians with their Ankh symbol, but in Christian culture a cross mostly represent the cross that one particular person, among others, has been crucified.

I've never seen a military grave with something else than a cross, though. But again this might be a selection effect.
The real question is if people don't have better things to do than fight over this.

It is the little things ignored that lead down the slippery slope. Massive cultural change is not usually accomplished with a single upheaval, but incrementally, little by little.

I can also bet that somewhere in 1930s Germany someone said "They are making us wear the Star of David. So what? It's not that big of deal."

The point is to make certain the U.S. government remains secular - allowing Christian symbols as Federal markers adopts Christianity as the officially approved religion.

Justice Scalia is a bigot who attempts to replace the laws of this country with his own beliefs.

[pigpenz]

so how would Scalia look at the swatsika symbol.....most Jewish and Americans can only rationalize it as a symbol of Nazi Germany, but the symbol has been around way before the Nazis

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Oct 9 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Oct 9 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

The cross can stand for lots of things, like a dagger, or the ancient Egyptians with their Ankh symbol, but in Christian culture a cross mostly represent the cross that one particular person, among others, has been crucified.

I've never seen a military grave with something else than a cross, though. But again this might be a selection effect.
The real question is if people don't have better things to do than fight over this.

It is the little things ignored that lead down the slippery slope. Massive cultural change is not usually accomplished with a single upheaval, but incrementally, little by little.
...

The point is to make certain the U.S. government remains secular - allowing Christian symbols as Federal markers adopts Christianity as the officially approved religion.

It's been a slippery slope the other way, actually. It hasn't been a matter of the government "remaining" secular, with respect to interpreting the Establishment Clause; it's been a matter of the government becoming secular, at least in the 20th century. Joseph Story put it pretty well:

“Probably, at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration*, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.

* - The First Amendment.

Quoted Text = Joseph Story - Harvard Law professor, Supreme Court Justice for about half his life, and one of the most preeminent legal writers and constitutional scholars of his day (or anyone's). His day, btw, was in the mid-19th century. The other text is from the Legal Information Institute's "Annotated Constitution," via Cornell University Law School.

Having said all that, let me say that I'm in agreement with most on this thread as far as what a cross is, what it represents, and how it should be treated with respect to First Amendment issues. But having said that, I also recognize that in adhering to that belief, I am embracing a FAR different, and far more secular, interpretation of the First Amendment than envisioned by the founding fathers. In my view, it's a preferable one, but it's unquestionably a different one.

Winston, I don't mean to attribute any notions to you that aren't yours; your comment brought to mind a viewpoint that I've heard espoused often - that a sharp, black-letter demarcation between all things religious and all things governmental has a long-standing historical validation. That's just not the case. The ACLU-style separation between church and state is a 20th century creation. Again, a good one, in my view, but a recent one. The founding fathers would have laughed themselves silly at the notion that the First Amendment would be construed to mean you can't have a cross as a war memorial on federal land.

One valid reaction might be, "Who gives a rat's ass what the founding fathers thought about it?" And with respect to some matters (slavery is an obvious example, but I think this one's ok, too), I agree with that. But I think it's at least important to be aware of that position before disregarding it (certainly with respect to constitutional analysis). Scalia isn't veering away from a 230-year old tradition. He's veering away from, say, a 75-year old tradition that in turn veered away from a longer standing one that was, in fact, closer to his view than to most people's. I agree that he's doing it disingenuously.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston, I don't mean to attribute any notions to you that aren't yours; your comment brought to mind a viewpoint that I've heard espoused often - that a sharp, black-letter demarcation between all things religious and all things governmental has a long-standing historical validation.

I have no disagreement. I am with you that the concept of a secular government - no matter when it occurred - is imperative. It is the very secular nature of our government that allows freedom of choice of worship.