Supreme Court: The Mojave desert cross can stay
posted at 12:29 pm on April 28, 2010 by Allahpundit
There’s no Establishment Clause exception for de minimis violations, but if there was, this would be a prime candidate. The cross is five feet tall; it’s located in a desert; it’s been there for decades with no complaints until recently; and it’s designed as a war memorial. In fact, the land on which it sits doesn’t even belong to the federal government anymore. Congress transferred it to the VFW years ago precisely in order to avoid a church-and-state challenge. The risk that anyone’s going to stumble upon it and feel the heavy hand of government nudging them towards Christ is, in other words, remote. And yet this court battle has been raging for fully nine years, ending this morning in a 5-4 decision at the tippy top of the judicial food chain featuring six different written opinions. Not only that, the ruling doesn’t even provide any broad guidance: The issue that decided the case was whether a lower court’s injunction preventing the cross from being displayed on federal land could be nullified by having Congress transfer the land to a private owner. Answer: Yes. Which, I suppose, raises the question of what would happen if the government started building churches and then selling them off to private owners, but since that’s not going to happen in any sphere of reality outside of a Dawkins polemic, let’s not dwell on it.
Here’s the opinion. An interesting detail noted by Stevens in dissent: Ownership of the land isn’t the only Establishment Clause issue here.
The 2002 injunction barred the Government from “permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.” App. 39. The land-transfer statute mandated transfer of the land to an organization that has announced its intention to maintain the cross on Sunrise Rock. That action surely “permit[s]” the display of the cross. See 11 Oxford English Dictionary578 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “permit” as “[t]o admit or allow the doing or occurrence of; to give leave or opportunityfor”). True, the Government would no longer exert direct control over the cross. But the transfer itself would be an act permitting its display…
In my view, the transfer ordered by §8121 would not end government endorsement of the cross for two independently sufficient reasons. First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display. Congress’ intent to preserve the display of the cross maintains the Government’s endorsement of the cross…
Congressional action, taken after due deliberation, that honors our fallen soldiers merits our highest respect. As far as I can tell, however, it is unprecedented in the Nation’s history to designate a bare, unadorned cross as the national war memorial for a particular group of veterans.Neither the Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial, nor the World War II Memorial commemorates our veterans’ sacrifice in sectarian or predominantly religious ways. Each of these impressive structures pays equal respect to all members of the Armed Forces who perished in the service of our Country in those conflicts. In this case, by contrast, a sectarian symbol is the memorial. And because Congress has established no other national monument to the veterans of the Great War, this solitary cross in the middle of the desert is the national World War I memorial. The sequence of legislative decisions made to designate and preserve a solitary Latin cross at an isolated location in the desert as a memorial for those who fought and died in World War I not only failed to cure the Establishment Clause violation but also, in my view, resulted in a dramatically inadequate and inappropriate tribute.
It’s a good thing he’s retiring because that “this is the national World War I memorial” argument would be grounds if he wasn’t. I take his point — honoring Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist troops, etc, with a cross is rather insufficiently nuanced — but if the worry is observers feeling influenced by the display, how does Stevens justify the religious symbols on the headstones at Arlington? There’s theoretically no government endorsement problem there since servicemen get to select their own insignias, but (a) it is federal land and (b) seeing so many crosses associated with such valor, even with stars of David and crescents mixed in, is more powerful than some puny cross in the desert. To be clear: I have zero problem with it. Just wondering how JPS squares that circle.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Of course he doesn’t. They’re American.
blink on April 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM
–It’s a question of what those statutes are meant to symbolize: religious values or historical (not wholly religious values). The cross may be allowed in this case (it was remanded back to the lower court for handling) because, in part, 5 of the justices determined that the cross represented a memorial for dead soldiers, not a religious symbol.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM
–Looks like it’s not owned by the government, though. It was designated a memorial by the government but seems to be owned and operated by a private group.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:31 PM
I’m just surprised some evangelical atheist hasn’t gone out there and destroyed it.
brak on April 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM
You missed the point entirely.
blink on April 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Just be happy it was a 5-4 decision. It should have been a 9-0 decision.
Its a victory for the good guys, folks.
Conservative Samizdat on April 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM
–
–My post was in response to Jade and the WWI memorial in Kansas City, MO. Not this case.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM
A bit OT to blink and Allah:
blink, I’m pretty sure you’re a lawyer.
But Allah, I’m surprised at all of this sudden interest in the details of statutes and cases. It is good to actually read what people are talking about, I know, but are you a lawyer/recovering lawyer/considering becoming a lawyer? (Just curious. Tell me it’s not my business if you don’t want to respond or simply ignore me).
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Not true. the BSA was formed in 1910, what you are refering to is a federal charter granted under title 36 “PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS”
The text of which essentially grants the BSA non profit corporate status and ownership of its emblems.
Fighton03 on April 28, 2010 at 1:41 PM
No aspect of the Constitution has been so badly mangled by the Court than the Establishment Clause. Spend a couple of days reading the rulings on the issue over the past couple of decades and you’ll be mystified as to what can and cannot be done. It’s a hodge-podge of requirements and standards all arbitrarily enacted.
It’s really a mess.
And from reading this ruling, it’s gotten worse.
SteveMG on April 28, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Jade was commenting on Breyer’s “this is the national World War I memorial” argument. Whether one, both, or neither are private is immaterial.
blink on April 28, 2010 at 1:43 PM
How is that different than the case here? The property isn’t owned by the government, but the point was brought up that designating it a memorial could have crossed the line.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 1:43 PM
What’s next on the Libtard atheists’ agenda?
My bet is that they’ll next sue the federal Gummint for allowing Christian crosses and Jewish Stars of David on buried veterans’ headstones in National cemeteries that are Gummint-owned.
These are very sick people who are living proof that someone can have their head so far up their ass that they need to open their mouth to see where they’re going.
CatchAll on April 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Allah’s a lawyer.
blink on April 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM
It’s not really sudden. You just haven’t been here long enough to see it with any regularity. I don’t recall exactly, but AP has mentioned before that he either was a lawyer or at the very least passed the bar.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM
jeff, I’m a post-Vatican II cradle catholic who grew up being taught by Kumbaya-singing nuns who asked their students to make collages depicting world peace rather than contemplate the official church catechism, so I don’t purport to be an expert on doctrine by any means.
But your interpretation of the meaning of the cross is a new one on me. Since when is a cross meant to serve as as a kind of geographic marker to indicate ‘deserving’ territory where Christianity is already extant or as a kind of anthropological artifact to indicate the already-established temporal prevalence of a sufficiently expressed faith?
Aren’t crosses erected instead to remind us where reverence for the divine is lagging, to inspire faith where there is none?
Seems to me the guys in the propagation/evangelation offices in Rome would be much more gratified to see a cross in a place that really needed it rather than in a place that already ‘deserved’ it, no?
leilani on April 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM
–It was initially owned by the government in this case.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM
–Ah, a recovering lawyer. Thanks for letting me know.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM
The entire “separation” interpretion of the establishment clause is wrong and has been untenable from the start. How is a cross on a hill as “law” respecting the establishment of religion? It isn’t. There is no historical basis for it. This is why the body of establishment clause law is so conflicting and can’t be reconciled. Justice Breyer has noted this in his rebuttal to a 10 commandments case and ended up stating that sometime you just have to use old fashioned judicial discretion. For the layman, this means he’s making it up as he goes along. This may do wonders for Justice Breyer’s ego but it is hell on the elementary school teacher who wonders if her Christmas play will pass muster. It is well past the time for the separation doctrine to go.
tommyboy on April 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Sure, but what was being responded to was still the point about it being designated by the government as a memorial. Also, it’s not currently owned by the government.
That’s my assumption, though for all I know he might still practice. My mother keeps her stuff up to date just in case even though she’s only ever needed it to help out family.
And you’re more than welcome.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Wouldn’t care. If the cross/crescent/Bhudda fits the memorial, then it should be used.
I do, however, think the crescent should not be a symbol used for 9/11 memorials. That would be pretty messed up.
And it does not matter where the memorial is.
And as far as I know, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit ANY display of religous icons or ideas on property, federal, state or otherwise:
I would say it’s pretty #$%^&*( OBVIOUS what this means.
The fact that the courts have used it to DENY people the displaying of any religous notions is rediculous.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM
If you study up on early America, you’ll find out that not only did the United States government build churches, they printed Bibles. The Bibles were intended to be used in schools, to educate our children.
Our founding fathers were not stupid – they knew we could prosper only if a majority of Americans were religious – specifically Christians.
As John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Squiggy on April 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM
This would actually explain a lot to me about AP.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM
–Looks like the lower court thought the government intented to be devious by selling it to a private party once the government had designated it a monument and that the SC said, in effect, “don’t go there” on the intent question. (One correction: it was initially owned by the VFW, then the government, and now another third party).
–Nice to know about your mom. Looks like you’ll get a chance to use your new pool next month if this weather keeps up.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM
-It’s not so obvious to me. It’s the “respecting an establishment of relgion” that’s ambiguous.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I’m not at all religious. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been in a church, weddings included.
And I fully support this decision.
angryed on April 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM
This PEER, w/ that Buono guy: just from what little I’ve read about what they do, this case & the Grand Canyon bookstore case, should NOT be something this group should have anything to do with.
They are a whistlblower group that tattles on the FEDS when they’re screwing up the environment.
And I see they’ve been after some good things.
But religous stuff on federal property: this has NOTHING to do w/ concern for the environment.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM
The founders had only to look at the mess created by the intertanglement of state and religion during the preceding centuries in Europe for motivation to keep the two separate.
Cases like this one and “Allegheny v ACLU” show that sometimes defining the line for that separation can be difficult and, at times, seemingly petty.
dedalus on April 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Lawyers don’t think anything is obvious.
They will argue for hours about twisting a meaning this way & that.
That kind of behavior is hogwash.
I find the Constitution + Amendments extremely obvious & straight to the point, not ambiguous.
Congress did not make a law that forces people to put up crosses or any other religous stuff on public or private lands.
There is no LAW whatsoever that mandates the park service to erect a cross in the Mohave desert.
Someone wanted to do it.
End of story.
But it’s the parsing over words that people like you Jimbo do for a living that makes the $hit hit the fan all the time.
By reading outside the lines, you are voiding the words on the Constitution & the Amendments.
Reading outside the lines when considering the Constitution is NOT why those documents exist.
The language is there.
And it means one thing here.
Just like the 2nd.
The wording is frank & to the point.
But bcs people like changing definitions to suit their purpose, we get crazy court rulings that defy logic.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Then why didn’t they say that? In the text nor any any of the debates over the 1st Amendment is there any mention of anything like a separation. I would also note that the majority of the states at the time had state churches, including Virginia, so the founders clearly had no problem with a degree of entanglements.
tommyboy on April 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Looking at what “establishment” of churches in the early colonies and other nations at the time ought to clear that up pretty quickly.
E.G., Connecticut (where the Danbury Baptists Jefferson wrote to lived) had a state-established religion at the time, of the same denomination as John Adams (whom Jefferson defeated in the Presidential election).
Context matters.
cs89 on April 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM
That “cure” would be worse than the disease, I fear.
Even though the mythical “separation of church and state” wasn’t codified consitutionally & Jefferson’s sentiment didn’t mean what the anti-religionists and misguided secularists like to think it means, perhaps it would be better for people of faith – and the survival & wider dissemination of their respective faiths themselves – if it actually did!
Perhaps people of faith, as well as their respective creeds themselves, are far better served by keeping the grubby mitts of politicians and civil bureaucrats as far away from the very question of divinity as possible.
Everything government touches inevitably & inexorably transmogrifies into a catering-to-the-lowest-denominator muck, so those who are interested in the wider propagation of their respective faiths might do better to consider enacting even stricter prohibitions against the government horning in on the metaphysical purview of the spiritually-inclined at all.
leilani on April 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Why would I have a problem with the government selling the land?
Why would the reason matter in the least?
Especially if the reason was to satisfy the objections?
Religious_Zealot on April 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Since Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the drafting of the 1st Amendment (he was in France at the time) his Danbury letter is meaningless as any type of authority on the issue.
tommyboy on April 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM
AP has a degree from Yale Law School and is a member of the bar. He doesn’t practice law, however. He just went to law school so he could incur an incredible amount of debt.
Blake on April 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Only if you willfully read past the “Congress shall make no law…” opener.
Question 1 – can a Congress-passed law be found at the heart of the situation?
If the answer is ‘no’, then moving forward to Question 2 is a masturbatory exercise for lawyers and nothing more.
Midas on April 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM
The source of the problem is easy. The Establishment clause clearly means that the matter of religion is to be left to the the States and Congress has no power to legislate on the issue. By incorporating it into the 14th Amendment the Court defeated the entire purpose of the clause and engaged in naked judicial legislation.
tommyboy on April 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Nothing Constitutionally wrong with a *state*-established religion. The prohibition is with respect to a *federally* established one, yes?
Midas on April 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM
It sounds like a very unique case. I’ll admit that I don’t quite understand it, though it wouldn’t make sense to me if courts would be able to rule against a religious symbol on private property, no matter its past ownership.
I know, and we’re both really excited. We sign the papers tomorrow at noon, and we have a ton of family coming up from Houston to help us with everything.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM
I agree. And even if he had been involoved in a drafting, it would still be meaningless bcs it was his opinion & it wasn’t voted upon or approved by legislators.
We should all stop trying to ‘figure out’ what the founders meant & just read what they wrote in the founding official documents that were ratified.
That is what they all collectively meant, which is why the things were ratified with votes.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Talk about judicial overreach. Dude, they don’t pay you to be an art critic.
I guess Stevens’ standards of “adequacy” and “appropriateness” are the sort of crap Obama was referring to, when he said he wanted Justices with “empathy.”
notropis on April 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM
tommy-are you referring to something in here?
Bcs you’ll need to explain a little more to me what you mean there.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Jefferson did author the “Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom”, which Madison worked to pass. It’s immediate aim was at those who wanted the Anglican church as the Virginia state church, and likely influenced Madison when he wrote “Memorial and Remonstrance” and worked on the US Constitution.
dedalus on April 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM
It’s just a little violation of the establishment clause, so that’s ok.
RightOFLeft on April 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM
For private property to have a religious symbol?
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Thank God…!
Seven Percent Solution on April 28, 2010 at 3:10 PM
If the government built it and endorsed it as a national monument, I think it’s still a violation. Just like the government can’t hand out “I believe” license plates, it shouldn’t be able to hand out religious memorials. It’s not the end of secular democracy or anything, but the little stuff should count.
RightOFLeft on April 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Is that the case here? Jimbo earlier said that it wasn’t initially owned by the government. I haven’t read anything to show that the government was at all involved with the cross being put there.
Where do the tombstones in Arlington come from?
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM
I’m a might confused on how a cross on private land (formerly public land) constitutes a law that ESTABLISHES a religion.
Religious_Zealot on April 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM
To be honest, I’m not sure. I assumed they had since it was formerly on public land. In any case, as Stevens points out, it’s still designated a national memorial.
Which tombstones, the ones with Crosses, Stars of David, Crescents, Pentagrams, or otherwise? It’s not comparable to the memorial, which specifically and permanently excludes honoring non-Christian soldiers.
RightOFLeft on April 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM
According to the bastardized interpretations of it I suppose it is … although any clear reading of it says it isn’t.
darwin on April 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM
It should be noted, too, that what the SCOTUS prevented was the removal of the cross from private land.
They weren’t discussing whether the original ‘planting’ of the cross was un-Constitutional…
…nor were they discussing whether the land sale was un-Constitutional.
They were discussing whether the INTENT of the sale was enough to force the removal of the cross from private land.
And there were 3 justices (1 justice had issues over procedure) who thought that the INTENT of the sale was cause to remove a private display of religion.
Which, I believe, is the exact OPPOSITE of what the First Amendment (in regards to religion) is all about.
Religious_Zealot on April 28, 2010 at 4:03 PM
–The American Catholic Bishops are strongly opposed to the new AZ immigration law. Do you support them on that topic?
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM
“Uninformed Bigotry Specialist Jimbo3 – misreporting for duty – again.” Salutes sloppily.
Now, Let me hip you to something, JimBug – again.
A. Regarding the new Arizona immigration law: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) does NOT speak for the Roman Catholic Church, which numbers over one billion faithful, worldwide, nor do they speak in the name of any Catholic layperson, priest, Bishop or Cardinal in the USA or elsewhere on this matter. The Holy Father speaks for all Catholics in all matters of faith, morals and binding doctrine. Period.
B. Now, to put some facts into your gratuitiously bigoted and vague statement about the Catholic Church officially opposing the Arizona law: 1. There was a statement made by Bishop John C. Wester, Chair of the USCCB Migration Committee saying that he disagreed with the law, but that the Feds have not handled the problem. 2. Bishop Wester speaks only for himself and his Migration Committee. 3. Any other Bishop who wants to speak out on this bill also speak only for themselves. They don’t speak for the Church at large, for the Church in America, or even for the entire USCCB.
Any Bishops who may disagree or agree with the Arizona law carries no authority whatsoever to bind any Catholic anywhere to disagree, agree with, or act upon it. And any Catholic anywhere can support or disagree with their Bishop accordingly. There are over 195 Bishops in the USCCB, who also are not bound to agree with Bishop Wester, and who may or may not speak out on the law, as they see fit.
Bishop Wester’s statement is one of HIS OPINION – NOT Catholic Church teaching, and NOT EVEN THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE USCCB.
And so endeth your lame attempts to attack the Catholic Church and smear us all with your ugly propaganda, JimGoebbels.
You need to go back to telling everyone how if your daughter were pregnant you would make sure she killed the baby.
And, you should be the one boycotted, as you suggested the Catholic Church should be in another thread.
You do nothing but fill your worthless posts with misinformation and lies while attempting to appear as if you have even a modicum of intelligence or comprehension, spinning out your thread- hijacks in a nauseous web of dishonesty and boredom. Which is an effort in vain, at least to me, because after reading even one of your sickeningly baited posts, you are as obvious a waste of time as ever there was.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM
.
I’m not so sure. I think there should be a gray area that allows for some give and take. This is an old memorial and should be grand fathered in, however I would not support such a display being built today.
ronsfi on April 28, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Where did you get the idea Jimbug3 was a lawyer? Not that there’s anything wrong with that…..
But his mind works in such an illogical and unfactual way, that even a bad lawyer has more going for him…. I don’t think JimBug is a lawyer, not even a bad one.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 4:09 PM
–
Here is the entire press release (from the Catholic News Agency). It sure looks like Wester and the US Conference of Bishops thought he was speaking for all the Bishops in the US. So much for your claims of “misinformation”.
Washington D.C., Apr 28, 2010 / 04:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In a statement released April 27, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) denounced a recently signed law in Arizona which criminalizes undocumented immigrants, calling the legislative move “draconian” and saying it “could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens.”
Writing on behalf of the USCCB, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ committee on Migration noted that he joins the Arizona bishops in “strongly opposing” the implementation of SB 1070, which was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last Friday.
According to ABC news, the new Arizona law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and allows police to arrest and question suspected individuals about their status without a warrant. It also criminalizes transporting illegal immigrants anywhere in Arizona, even if by family members.
“This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation, in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated,” Bishop Wester said.
Explaining the specifics of the legislation, Bishop Wester stated that “SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity.”
“It could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens and permanent residents as well as the division of families – parents from children and husbands from wives,” he added. “It certainly would lead to the rise in fear and distrust in immigrant communities, undermining the relationships between their members and law enforcement officials.”
The Salt Lake City bishop also charged that the bill “is symptomatic of the absence of federal leadership on the issue of immigration.”
“For years now, the U.S. Catholic bishops have called upon Congress and two Administrations to enact meaningful and just comprehensive immigration reform,” he noted. “While many of our federal elected officials have made good faith efforts to pass reform, too many still view the issue through a political lens, using it to gain political or partisan advantage.”
“This gamesmanship must stop,” Bishop Wester asserted.
“Our national leaders must educate the American public on the need for reform and show courage in making it happen,” the prelate stated. “Until immigration reform is passed, other States will attempt to create and enforce immigration law, with harsh and ineffective consequences.”
In his concluding remarks, Bishop Wester said that the “U.S. Catholic bishops stand in solidarity with the bishops of Arizona in opposing this draconian law. We call upon the Administration to review its impact on civil rights and liberties. We renew our call for the Administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible.”
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Oh how kind of them.
It’s not a question of whether America allows a cross to grace its soil.
The question is whether the soil is deserving of the cross.
In my opinion, no — not anymore.
Remove it. Voluntarily.
jeff_from_mpls on April 28, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Nailhead meet hammer.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM
–I am a lawyer.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM
So you are against the Veterans’ Administration issuing gravestones with religious markings. Got it.
Taking this to a whole ‘nuther level, can the Government prevent us from praying on public lands?
Higher level: If the Government permits citizens to erect secular memorials on public land, can the Government prohibit another group from erecting a religious memorial?
As you consider playing any of these levels, pay close attention to the second clause of the First Amendment — the part that says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
And, getting back the bolded text, it’s not as clear cut as the South Carolina case would have you believe — if a state permits citizens to petition by group for customized licence plate messages, and automatically approves and issues the plates if the group is large enough, then said state cannot deny a religious group from requesting and obtaining a customized religiously themed plate. What was wrong about the South Carolina case was the active agency of South Carolina’s government in promoting said plate.
If South Carolina had just left well enough alone, and not sekceded all those years ago, the 14th Amendment wouldn’t exist and States could establish any religion they cared to.
unclesmrgol on April 28, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Guys, my bad. The VFW initially erected the cross on federal land, not land it owned. I read it too quickly. Sorry.
In 1934, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) placed a Latin cross on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve (Pre-serve) to honor American soldiers who died in World War I. ………
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM
He doesn’t. It’s simple religious antagonism that has been fomented by Leftist for a few decades now. To be true, any Socialistic and/or Communistic State require it’s citizens to be sufficiently antagonistic to religious POVs and religion in general. How else can anyone see the need for the Big Overlords of the State to take care of them rather than belief, faith, liberty, and the inherent self sufficiency that is required to achieve those spiritual goals and/or principles? Without a belief in a intervening “Power” that you can look to in your time of need or trouble, you have only government to look to for help. And that’s the point.
Sultry Beauty on April 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM
–Congratulations. That’s great.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM
The Supremes got it right on this one!
God bless our military!
sarahpalinfan99 on April 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM
See, I knew what I was dealing with.
But lemme make you a deal. You go beg mommy government for permission to worship. Okay? I do not recognize the USA’s authority on religious matters.
My homeland is in Rome.
jeff_from_mpls on April 28, 2010 at 12:48 PM
That’s wonderful. The Vatican doesn’t own the cross. They don’t have a monopoly on Christ as they claim.
My homeland is in Christ, not the men of Rome.
I think Catholicism has done more to corrupt and distort the message of Jesus Christ than any other organization on Earth. And these days, I dare say, has been infiltrated by the minions of Satan himself.
There. I said it.
We will both ignore the Government’s authority on religious matters. But I’ll also ignore the Pope’s.
uknowmorethanme on April 28, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Just been reading the post from page two back to page one.
I’m sorry to see such anti-Catholic screed coming from someone who I usually enjoy reading. I also think that when Jeff says his home is in Rome, you need to understand that he is speaking of his eternal soul, and his Catholic faith, which is his soul’s eternal connection with our Saviour, Jesus Christ.
It is painful to see that he isn’t allowed to speak to realities much deeper than our geographical and physical homeland loyalties. Because, for any true believer, no matter our race or land of birth, we are on this earth only for a moment. our true and eternal home is Heaven, and we have a King, who we worship and obey above all worldly political leaders: our Lord Jesus Christ.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 4:26 PM
–I am a lawyer.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM
And we wonder why they have a bad name.
Or maybe you just play one on Hot Air.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM
And you don’t play even a bad lawyer well, on Hot Air, JimBug. I don’t believe for a minute that you have even a modicum of legal know-how.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 4:29 PM
Congrats and good luck. Glad to hear you are doing well.
dedalus on April 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM
–I am. Believe what you want. And I’m not real sure that you can just ignore what your local bishop directs, if I’m reading some of this stuff from the Catholic Encyclopedia correctly:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:38 PM
–The Cross was built by the VFW. There’s nothing that I see that says it was erected by Catholics for Catholics (or Protestants for Protestants). And the Supreme Court says it was meant to be a memorial for all the dead US soldiers.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM
–I don’t think the government can prevent you from praying on public lands so long as everyone is given the equal chance to pray as he/she sees fits and the government is not affecting the prayers. I’m not real sure what would happen if some large public area became overcrowded with people praying and the government decided it had to restrict access for crowd control purposes or some other valid non-religious reason.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM
I am taking Jimbo’s word that he is a lawyer. Just like we all take anyone’s word here that they do what they say they do, like I am a science teacher/rancher.
I like Jimbo-but I don’t agree w/ him on a lot of things.
But he is always very polite & I don’t think you should be so nasty to him.
I know atheists, whom I really disagree w/, but we are polite to each other & I don’t act hateful towards them.
Now I’ve known some smart lawyers & I’ve known some dumb ones.
You can be labeled ‘smart’ & still be a liberal.
Smart has to do w/ perspective.
I would say the real test is common sense.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM
If that were true, you’d have a lot of PO’s Indians at places in the Black Hills & Cave hills of SD, Medicine Wheel WY, & Devil’s Tower WY etc.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM
–Tigerlily and I have gotten into it a few times and we were both nasty to each other. So don’t just blame her ’cause it’s partly my fault.
Jimbo3 on April 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Then I missed than conversation.
You must have really f’d up to make her that mad!
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM
JimBug, you can’t possibly be involved in secular law – don’t even try to involve yourself in Canon law.
If you had even a mildly analytical lawyer’s mind, you would have investigated the structure of the USCCB and seen that the statement Bishop Wester made, “The U.S. Catholic bishops stand in solidarity with the bishops of Arizona in opposing this draconian law” has been made by a Bishop who is a mere committe chair. Bishop Wester is without the authority to speak in the name of every US Bishop. In order for the entire body of Bishops to be represented in a public position, they must vote to take that position. Bishop Wester is being artful in his use of the ambiguous “stand in solidarity” phrase, which has no legal meaning in positions that the entire USCCB takes officially as one body.
Francis Cardinal George is President of the USCCB, and unless he confirms that Bishop Wester speaks for the entire body of American Bishops, it must be assumed that Bishop Wester has overstepped his bounds, but doesn’t think he’ll be called on it and so decided to bury it in the final paragraph of his little press release. So he spins for the media, and people like you fall for it. People like you, who are a mile wide and and an inch deep, who wish to to do harm by lying to those who are less informed. Someone like you who puts on just the thinnest veneer of civility, all the while promoting your agenda of violent, pro-abort, leftist slop. Let’s not forget your vigorous defense of making sure your daughter, should she become pregnant, kills your grandchild. Reminds me of a precedent I know.
And, for the sake of argument,(with you I have tied one hand behind my back), even if every Bishop in the US did disagree with the AZ law, there is no binding of the conscience of the faithful to agree with them. If they were promulgating something more than their opinion, i.e., they were teaching doctrinally re: the AZ law (which will never happen), then they would have to be in solidarity with the teaching authority of the Church in Rome and with the Roman Pontiff.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM
You know why I’m so fed up with you Jim? And it is very uncharateristic of me to be so unyeilding. But you “pretend” to be civil, all the while promoting the culture of death and the barbarism that is fast enveloping this nation and speeding us to destruction. You remind me of the creeps in the White House and Congress, who smile and pretend and lie and all the while they are stabbing and slashing and burning. You are like that.
But, I give you credit for fooling some of the people some of the time. I don’t know how, though. Your stances are barbaric, even if you wrap them in your faux civility.
I am not fooled at all.
We had the same kind of liar get himself elected president, pretending to be something he was not, and fooling some of the people. I would rather deal with someone honestly opposed to me, rather than someone who smiles and then stabs, like you.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Sure, but as was pointed out earlier (sorry for being too lazy to quote directly, but I think it’s on this page) there are other similar national memorials that have received no objections.
What about atheists? They don’t seem to be represented in any of those symbols. Isn’t that what the problem was with prayer day in the first place? It’s not specific to any one religion either.
Thanks to both of you. It’s been stressful, and I’m a bit affraid of putting down the deposit, but I’m also thrilled to finally be moving up a little in the world.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM
I honestly think that many people who promote these barbaric practices, like abortion, have had no personal experience or real knowledge of it & it allows them to take such a horrible stance on such issues.
I know why you’re angry-bcs I feel the same way about those that push socialist ideals, even very tame ones.
I think if I had grown up in communist Russia or China, I’d be a lot angrier than I get.
I do have to say that the more I read about communist Russia & China, I do get more angrier by the day.
I think Jimbo has been living w/ liberties he’s never had to really ‘pay’ for & so he can take advantage of them by being allowed to postulate like he does.
I think if Jimbo had ever lived under harsh conditions, like communism, he’d certainly be singing a different tune.
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM
I am certainly glad to hear someone is.
Good luck to you!
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 5:29 PM
If they have a policy to issue gravestones with only one kind of religious marker, which is what the memorial amounts to, then yes. I’m not against religion or public religious expression. I just want the government to treat us all equally, as required by the constitution. This is something that I think Christians should embrace, too. Comparing the health of Old and New World religious institutions, I think it’s clear that a rigidly secular government offers the best environment for Christianity to thrive.
RightOFLeft on April 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM
They fall under “otherwise.” I don’t know if there’s a standard atheist tombstone. Now that you mention it, I’ve never really thought about what kind of headstone I’d have. Something spooky, I guess.
RightOFLeft on April 28, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Thanks. We’ve been saving for some time, and Texas isn’t really hurt too badly by the economy, not compared to most anyway.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 5:36 PM
You’re an idiot.
Blake on April 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Badger40 on April 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Badger, you are a breath of fresh air and I bless you. I just cannot countenance any more people who have helped this nation get to the point that we have a “man” in the WH who would love nothing more than to destroy us in the tradition of Mao and Stalin. It’s a little off the subject, but I can’t stand hearing Hannity and others talk about a “nanny state” and “soft European socialism”. There is nothing of “soft” socialisim about the monster in WH. Look at who he surrounds himself with. Those who follow the path of forced sterilzation, abortion, and rationing the blue and red pills. Case in point: Attempting to rape our consciences by forcing participation in payment of abortion, nationwide, at penalty of loss of property and freedom. You see, people like Jimbo3 are the foot soldiers of this tyranny and horror. I will continue to call him as he is.
tigerlily on April 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM
I’d assume it’s just one that has no marker for religion (which is where I’d think the problem would be, as atheists would be the only ones without one). Most that I’ve seen don’t. But then even getting a full tombstone, instead of just a grave marker, is pretty expensive.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Never thought about that, either. Maybe a little wooden marker in the shape of pi would work.
RightOFLeft on April 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Could work. Though I always find it a bit amusing that science is generally considered a replacement for religion. I would think it would be whatever you truly care about most, realizing they could be one in the same.
Esthier on April 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM
All those plus signs honor the only true goddess, Mathematics. She surely resents the usurpation of her symbol by others but is all forgiving.
Annar on April 28, 2010 at 5:59 PM
I was speaking to context. What did people consider establishment, appropriate church/ state relationships, etc?
And no, I don’t think there would be anything technically unconstitutional for a state to officially endorse a religion on a state level IMO, but I wouldn’t expect it.
Should be some pretty interesting fireworks if, say, Tennessee decided that the Southern Baptists were their official church.
cs89 on April 28, 2010 at 6:41 PM
I’m going to create religion where I am the deity and whose identifying symbol is the absence of the ten commandments. Therefore, any place that does not have the ten commandments shown is a site of worship to me. Let the lawyers chew on that for while.
pedestrian on April 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM
1 Cor 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Inanemergencydial on April 28, 2010 at 9:21 PM
We are one Supreme Court vote away from the country turning upside down on it’s head.
Never. Vote. Democrat.
scotash on April 28, 2010 at 9:25 PM
The first amendment is hanging by a thread. The same four people who do not understand freedom of speech do not understand establishment of religion. The Tea Party people should be worried since they may go after the right of the people to peaceably assemble next.
Jasper61 on April 28, 2010 at 11:07 PM
The statement that “this is the national World War I memorial” doesn’t hold water anyway. There is no designated national WWI memorial, as the excerpt cited by AP points out. There are different local WWI memorials all across America, and this cross actually isn’t even one of them. It was put up originally by WWI vets in memory of the “dead of all wars.”
Congress is considering designating one or the other of a couple of existing WWI memorials as the national memorial. One is in DC and was put up by the citizens of the District. The other is in Kansas City (MO). The Sunrise Rock cross doesn’t appear to have ever been considered for the national WWI memorial.
J.E. Dyer on April 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM
I am glad to see the court is showing its honorable side. There is hope when the argument is based on logic not emotion.
MSGTAS on April 29, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »