Thursday, October 08, 2009

Justice Scalia has a very difficult time understanding that whole "separation of church and state" thing.

As the Supreme Court weighed a dispute over a religious symbol on public land Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was having difficulty understanding how some people might feel excluded by a cross that was put up as a memorial to soldiers killed in World War I. (You can see a picture of the boarded up cross here.)

"It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead," Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. "What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"

Peter Eliasberg, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer arguing the case, explained that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and commonly used at Christian grave sites, not that the devoutly Catholic Scalia needed to be told that.

"I have been in Jewish cemeteries," Eliasberg continued. "There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

There was mild laughter in the packed courtroom, but not from Scalia.

"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," Scalia said, clearly irritated by the exchange.

"Outrageous conclusion". Is it really? And would Justice Scalia feel the same way if the religious symbol that had been placed to "honor" the fallen American soldiers was the Jewish Star of David? The Buddhist Wheel of Dharma? The Baha'i Faiths Nine Pointed Star? Or perhaps the Hindu Swastika is more to their liking?

No if ANY of these symbols had been placed in honor of these soldiers Scalia would undoubtedly be leading the charge to have it removed. After all it does not represent HIS religious beliefs.

Times have changed, and thankfully Americans are far more cosmopolitan than they were back in 1934. We now have a better understanding of the differences that exist among the people of the world. And with that in mind, can we not imagine how hard it must be to constantly be confronted with the knowledge that you and your religion are valued less than the dominant religion of this country?

You are constantly reminded by the holidays that are celebrated, the pledge of allegiance your children are forced to recite in schools, and the very money that you earn while chasing your American dream. How is that for a reminder that your values and beliefs are not welcome here?

And it is not as if this challenge was brought by an Atheist, or anti-religious nut, it was brought by a Christian who served in the military: Although a Catholic and a veteran, Mr Buono said he wanted to see "neutrality" and that the cross represented an inappropriate expression of religion in public life.

If we are truly a country that respects ALL religious freedom then by definition we must be a country that constantly demonstrates a willingness to correct past examples of incivility to those who do not share America's most dominant faith.

Remember the words that are engraved on our most famous symbol of freedom:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Perhaps instead of having our children repeat an oath of allegiance to a country that may not yet openly value them, it would be better for them to repeat the last few stanza's of this sonnett. In my mind this better reflects the values that I hold dear in this great country of ours.

35 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:21 AM

    What do you expect from a member of Opus Dei? Remember, members are required to wear that funky self-torture leg thing - to remind themselves of the suffering of Christ by brutalizing themselves. So he's bound to be grumpy and irritated! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't get me started on Scalia.

    OT, but as of a few minutes ago, Sarah's book had slipped to #2 on Amazon, #5 on Barnes and Noble. I think we'll see it fall precipitously, despite the fact that Amazon's rankings are configured in a way that takes past sales into account, not just present sales.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:41 AM

    That is so weird Gryphen! I have had the Statue of Liberty's words in my since I woke up this morning. And I thought THAT was strange. Must be the times. All those that believe in guns and war, anti immigrant, anti gay, anti help-your-fellow-man, anti, anti, anti!!! are really gettin' in my head these days. Get out, please.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:28 AM

    Scalia is batsh*t crazy. The only thing scarier than Scalia, himself, is the fact that he's a Supreme Court Judge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:48 AM

    Cases like this should not be brought. It only makes us separation people look petty.

    and the land it is on is now private land

    I am as anti-religion as they come, but I don't think anyone should care about something like this when there are real issues wtih Christian encroachment to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Welcome to the theocratic supreme court. We Know how to interpret the constitution. And let me remind you that from up here on the bench...You all look like a bunch of ants.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:06 AM

    In the same manner that if my gay next door neighbors are allowed to marry, both in a Civil and religious union, it affects my own marriage ZERO, so too, if someone nails two pieces of wood together, in the form of a cross, it affects me ZERO. As long as memorials are not a safety issue, or become eye sores, what difference does it make? I really do not believe it affects nor demeans any religion.

    I am not a religious person, but I am not opposed to saying Merry Christmas. I have never prohibitted any of my four children from attending a church service with any of their friends nor having a sleep-over at a friend's house that have gay parents.

    We all have brains and independent thought, the more we are axposed to, the broader and more tolerant we become.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:19 AM

    Sorry Gryphen, I have to agree with Anonymous 8:28am. This case makes those of us who view seperation of church and state as completely off the deep end and only fuels those knuckleheads who are trying to remove "in God we Trust" from our money as well as "one nation, under God" from our pledge of allegiance. There are bigger battles to fight kids, and this is not one of them. There's such a thing as being TOO PC you know... Just sayin'
    -Ayerishgrl

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:42 AM

    You had me all the way up to "anti-religious nut." What, in your book, qualifies someone to be one of these?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ManxMamma9:47 AM

    I wondered how it is handled at Arlington National and found this article interesting: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jews.htm

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oy vay! The Christmas music just started playing in my head...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Having our Government transfer land to a private entity in order to avoid a constitutional issue is as wrong as it gets.

    The link provided by Gryphen to see the cross tells the entire story. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, as proven by the refusal to allow a Buddhist shire to be placed near the cross.

    The government is taking sides in a religious question. If they weren't taking sides then other religious symbols would be allowed to be erected nearby in order to honor the faith's of all who served and not just the Christians!

    I am so sickened by these types of situations taking place.

    EyeOnYou

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous10:23 AM

    I am Jewish and volunteer with the American Red Cross. I wear the Red Cross on my vest and shirt and I have no problem wearing the cross. I also wear a small pin that bears the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Magen David. I believe that if other religions want to build something that represents their religion at the sight they should be able to do so.
    I believe many of the early settlers in America came here for freedom of religion, but many people in this country now want freedom from religion. We should embrace our diversity and be tolerant of each other's beliefs, but one should not have to hide their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. WalterNeff11:01 AM

    re: Palin's book - I think the reason they delayed the ebook version is this: no bulk sales. I own a Kindle and I'm betting 12 people buy the ebook version of 'Going Rouge' - I'll be interested in seeing the sales ranking of that version when it's released. As for the audio version? Sweet baby Moses.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think this is a silly lawsuit. Where do we stop? Will the 'In Flander's Fields' poem be changed to conform to today's standard?

    In Flanders fields the poppies blow
    Between the crosses, row on row,
    That mark our place; and in the sky

    Shoud we add the Star of David, Wheel of Dharma, Nine Pointed Star, etc to the poem? I mean we don't want to insult any one by only having a very famous poem, that is read every year, to highlight only one religion do we?

    Is a memorial, and for its time it was completely appropriate, times 'have' changed and from now on war memorials can either be religionless or include all relgions, but don't attack the past. Which memorial will be next? Maybe we should chisel away all Freemason symbols from every monument too.

    Have you ever seen the movie 'Thank you for Smoking'? There is a scene at the end where this anti-smoking Senator is on a talk show on how he wants to change movies from the past to delete cigarettes from star's hands, and put something else in its place. Its just ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous11:22 AM

    I live near this site, and I think there are some other things to consider, Gryphen. First, to me it is a memorial for all veterans that was put up by Christians. It isn't just honoring Christian vets. Second, it has been up for 75 years and is now part of the history and culture of the area. I think it is a little late to object. Third, I do think that other religions should have equal opportunity, or in lieu of that, why not at least put up a memorial that is not of a specific religion for the vets .

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous11:37 AM

    Although it does not seem to be the basis on which this case is being tried, the reason why this was taken to court in the first place was because someone wanted to place a Buddhist shrine near the cross and was refused permission. From Gryph's link to cross photo above:

    "The area is under the control of the National Park Service and when, in the 1990s, a local resident applied to put up a Buddhist shrine near the cross he was refused permission.

    That led a former ranger with the service, Frank Buono, to file a lawsuit calling for the cross to be taken down. It was subsequently boxed over with plywood by order of a federal judge."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous11:43 AM

    In my little corner of the world, a similar lawsuit was brought before the courts. You see, my city is called Las Cruces, meaning "the crosses". Ok so far...but the thing that riled a few people is the symbol placed on all city buildings and vehicles - 3 crosses. I am not of the christian faith, and am a bit bothered by the symbol. I've often wondered how the christians who SAY they don't see anything christian in the symbol would feel if they saw a pentagram used somewhere on city property. I am pretty sure there would be an outcry.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous12:03 PM

    This is OT, but please check out the Sarah Palin page at HuffPo. The headline reads: "Levi Johnston Bristol Palin's Baby Daddy" (Photos). The photo is one that we have seen before, taken at the Republican Convention, of Bristol holding Trig and Levi tenderly kissing the baby's head.

    In the article, there are a couple of pictures of Levi, the People Magazine Family picture of the McCain/Palin families (no Levi), and the convention picture of Trig (appears two times). There is no picture of Tripp, the baby that gives Levi the description "Bristol's Baby Daddy." Does HuffPo know something we don't know????

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous12:09 PM

    That Huffington post article is from Sept.1,2008. Why are they posting it now?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scalia is more conservative than the Pope...he is way out of the mainstream of society, and extremely old school Catholic. I think he almost became a priest if I remember correctly.

    Someone with such radical religious right beliefs should have never been a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let me take a moment to clarify the point of this post.

    My issue is not with Riley Bembry, the man who erected the cross in the first place (after all it is not uncommon for perfectly reasonable people of faith to be dismissive of other religious considerations), my issue is with Justice Scalia, and his inability to recognize how this may be perceived by people who do not share his faith.

    To be perfectly honest if the land this cross occupies becomes private property than the issue is resolved in my eyes. I certainly do not want the gesture that Riley Bembry made in kindness to be dismantled if there is an alternative solution.

    However I still take offence at Scalia's attitude toward this case, and would hope that our Justices exhibit far more compassion and understanding in the cases that come before them.

    Anonymous 9:42, an "anti-religious nut" is anybody who is constantly attacking religion at every turn just for the hell of it. I am not religious but if people do not try to proselytize to me or inject their brand of faith into my government, I usually have no problem with them.

    I save my venom for the Jerry Falwell's, the James Dobson's. and the Jerry Prevo's, of the world. And for those who have lost site of the true message of their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous1:23 PM

    On the one hand it kinda seems like a frivolous lawsuit. Bringing lawsuits over little shit makes us look petty and easily distracted by stupid details.
    On the other hand, I've just been reading a history book about the religious wars in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries...Huguenots hacked to death in France...political figures assassinated left and right...whole wars started over religious myths...power seeking nobles switching religions on the basis of how powerful it could make them...a shudder goes down my spine. I don't think this one little case is that big of a deal but the more history I read the scarier our future America looks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And by the way let me just say how much I appreciate all of the intelligent and passionate comments that this post inspired.

    I don't shy away from controversial issues, as readers of this blog well know, and I really enjoy when people feel comfortable enough to disagree with me or to challenge my assertions. So long as it is done out of a true intellectual disagreement and not to disingenuously pick a fight with me or the other visitors.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous1:53 PM

    oh Gryph-now why would we pick a fight with you? We love you! And yes, it is wonderful that we can all disagree on certain issues, but are able to argue our points in a civil, sane, intellectual, opinionated but open to discussion way. Which is we we all love this blog! And also, this is what separates us from the bots-the ability to argue our points without resorting to their childish behaviour.

    -Ayerishgrl

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous2:57 PM

    Hey, Ayerishgrl:

    Maybe you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those of us against the "Under God" part of the pledge if you knew that it was only added in 1954 to make the pledge, not only some kind of mindless oath of patriotism, but also a public prayer (brought on by the Knights of Columbus). People seem to forget that it wasn't part of the original piece.

    My daughter does not participate in the "pledge of allegiance".

    ReplyDelete
  27. Vote scalia off the Island. Oh Shit.. We cant.

    -------------------------- to Anonymous@1:53 PM ...I COULD NOT AGREE MORE! I dont have to believe in God to PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO MY COUNTRY!!! WTF????

    In '54 Ike caved to a preacher who wanted to show we were better than the Godless commies.

    My sister whom I love dearly, said that if parents dont want their kids to say "Under God" they should send them to "athiest" schools. I said WTF???? You have it BACKWARDS!!!

    BTW, that preacher also said to be a good American you HAD to be a Christian.

    YIKES!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous4:32 PM

    See, here's the problem. Just today news came out that about one in four people worldwide are Muslim. And I'll bet you anything if someone like Scalia was presiding over a judicial decision involving someone complaining about people putting a Muslim shrine or Islamic icon out as a memorial, he would TOTALLY support their objection. But he belongs to the "America is a Christian nation" mindset. Which is out of place in American politics due to the separation of church and state.

    These types of decisions in which we can no longer be faith blind, that is, no longer blind to the fact that much of the world is NOT Christian, are going to be more and more important if we want to move forward into this new century as an enlightened country. People like Scalia are so incredibly biased and prejudiced because of their ultra religiosity that they don't belong on the Supreme Court. And the fact that he could not remotely understand WHY someone might object to the cross being there at that memorial shows the dangerous level of his cluelessness.

    But then, he was placed on the Court by a man who said that God told him to make war with Iraq.

    (And we all know how well that one worked out.)

    If we don't have clear separation of church and state within our governmental and judicial bodies, times will never change and we'll just keep making religious wars on each other forever and ever....as we have always done. At some point we as a people need to stand up and say FUCK THAT. (To put it bluntly.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous5:39 PM

    For over a decade my brother and I have had the same discussion concerning prayer in school. He says its wrong to prohibit it, poor suffering Christians are being picked on.
    I continue to ask, Ok but who's prayer is to be used?

    I'm still waiting for the Prayer in School Christians to answer that one. And of course they won't allow any prayer but their own.

    Slowly but surely Scalia shows what a horrible attitude he has toward the Constitution and equality.

    He and Thomas should have interesting places in the history of the SC.

    Did you see this week that Sotomayor asked more questions in her first case than Thomas did for years combined?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous9:01 PM

    I'm a Christian, but I think it is pretty arrogant of Christians (or any religion) to think that God only spoke to one group of people, US! I truly believe that he has spoken to different groups in different ways. Otherwise, why would there be so many good people of other faiths? Why would there be such similarities among the holy writings of the different faiths? How can we presume to know with whom HE had covenants?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gasman9:50 PM

    Scalia is bigoted, arrogant, and no respecter of the Constitution. Oh, he liked it alright when it validated slavery, sexism, and religious bigotry, but he is no fan of the Constitution as a living document.

    Brad, you are way off the mark with your "In Flanders Fields" comparison. The crosses mentioned in the poem are over individual graves. Those crosses were placed on those graves because those soldiers were Christian. That represents a choice of the soldier and the soldier's family. It would be far different if all soldiers were forced to use a particular symbol, even if they were of another faith. The lawsuit does not seek to ban all uses of religious symbols and certainly does not seek to prohibit an individual's right to express their religious faith with any symbol that they choose. It is a red herring to assert that this will somehow eliminate all use of religious symbols.

    The lawsuit seeks to ban a generic use of religious symbols, based not upon the faith of individuals, but by allowing the dominant religion to use their symbols to represent everyone in society. Why does anyone feel the need to force their religion upon others? If you have a right to choose your religion, you also have the right to choose not to be religious at all. You do not have the right to force me to accept your religious symbols simply because your faith might be statistically greater in numbers than anyone else's.

    You and Scalia are free to erect your own crosses to your heart's content. Just quit trying to make everyone else accept your symbols as their own. Not all of us have the same beliefs, so we should not all be forced to accept the symbols of one particular set of beliefs.

    If you want to honor service men and women, leave out the cross and erect the flag. THAT is our national symbol. The flag honors all of any faith, or no faith at all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Gasman,

    Do you know for a historical fact that crosses were only put on christian soldiers? Or was it just common practice to do so? (off the top of my head I cannot remember)

    My point is not trying to 'force' my views on anyone else. (beside the fact that while I consider myself 'christian' I hate anyone trying to force anything on another person) My point with the Flander's Field poem was to highlight the dangers of the 'slippery slope'. There are enough anti-religious nuts out there that if there is one precident case they will use that to take away more and more. Being vigorously anti-religious is just as bad as being a pushy, bible thumping hypocritical 'christian'.

    And as I said, from here on out if you want to have no religious symbols, or every symbol, thats fine with me. But we should not be sanitizing history because we don't agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gasman7:21 AM

    Brad,
    When you fill out your paperwork upon induction into the military, you declare your religious affiliation. This is what generally determines what your military grave marker will be. We know that policy was certainly in effect during WWII and I know of no evidence that the policy was any different in WWI. To assume that is was different is not warranted and makes no sense.

    I take exception to your characterization of this lawsuit as being "vigorously anti-religious." I would say, rather, that it is promoting a non-religious stance in public displays. Being non-religious in the public sphere is not "just as bad as being a pushy, bible thumping hypocritical 'christian'." On the contrary, it is decidedly in line with the constitutional separation of church and state.

    Slavery is a fact of U.S. history. That does not make the formerly ubiquitous lawn jockeys an acceptable symbol, especially in a public place. Is the demise of such tacky symbols an example of "sanitizing history?"

    Religious symbols are not appropriate in public displays. Period. There is no way to accommodate all religious, or non-religious beliefs without offending many. Why do some find it acceptable and necessary to force others to silently accept their religious images as being representative of all?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gasman,

    Wow, way to twist my words around. I never said being non religious is "just as bad as being a pushy, bible thumping hypocritical 'christian'. I said "Being vigorously anti-religious is just as bad as being a pushy, bible thumping hypocritical 'christian'."

    So if you're going to quote me, at least do so properly. Or are you taking pages from the republican playbook? I mean really.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gasman7:06 PM

    Brad,
    When I quoted you, I did so with great accuracy. If you have identified an error, please point it out specifically. My use of quotations is 100% spot on.

    I did split your sentence in half and dealt with each portion independently, because I rejected the premise of your statement. But the quotes are accurate.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.