How stupid do you have to be to get your panties in a bunch about a cross that's been in place for 70 years in the middle of nowhere? Seriously? Get a life.

Of course, that stupidity is eclipsed by that required for the SC to keep taking these cases without really resolving any of them.

tonydavisnelson:

How stupid do you have to be to get your panties in a bunch about a cross that's been in place for 70 years in the middle of nowhere? Seriously? Get a life.

Of course, that stupidity is eclipsed by that required for the SC to keep taking these cases without really resolving any of them.

Yes, and those people worried about government officials tapping their phone lines should get a life as well. If they're not doing anything "wrong", they've got nothing to worry about.

You're right, though. What are we talking about here? Two boards nailed together in the middle of nowhere? Take the damn thing down and let's get on to more pressing issues, like naming desolate stretches of interstate after corrupt politicians.

Trebuchet:

They could have done the right thing and put the Buddhist shrine up and none of this would have happened.

Yes and then the mountain would be covered in symbols.

Oscar, not sure how you're drawing the relationship there. If you think a cross in the middle of nowhere erected decades ago is "establishment of religion", then you should probably check your wallet because the money in it is trying to convert your ass to Christianity.

tonydavisnelson:

Oscar, not sure how you're drawing the relationship there. If you think a cross in the middle of nowhere erected decades ago is "establishment of religion", then you should probably check your wallet because the money in it is trying to convert your ass to Christianity.

You're operating under the assumption that:

a. I'm not already a Christian; and

b. I have money in my wallet.

Anyway, refusing to allow the Buddhist shrine seems to be the issue here. I don't like religious symbols on public land. As a good citizen who is respectful of our form of government (if not the people who occupy the offices), I'm willing to let it play out before the Supreme Court.

Scalia in an oddly parochial manner thinks that a cross is a universal symbol for death and eventual resurrection. One would think that a Supreme Court Justice would understand the distinction between what he thinks is a symbol and what the rest of the world thinks is a symbol. Maybe he is just being snarky, which I believe is a requirement for a right wing fringe Justice these days.

But if they really wanted a universal symbol for war dead, then one clearly stands out. As far as I know, there is no symbol that is more easily recognized than a warriors helmet resting on top of their weapon thrust into the ground. This is not only a universal symbol for war dead, but the fact that this is a World War I memorial (a white cross? really? If you saw that in the middle of the desert without an explanation, would you really think WWI memorial?) wouldn't a WWI helmet on top of bayoneted Springfield?

I would know what that symbol was commemorating immediately. Wouldn't that be a real solution to this problem?