During World War II, if a soldier did not list any religion he was buried beneath a cross. Jewish soldiers were much less likely to be religious, even then. So many of them were buried with crosses, giving the impression that far fewer Jewish soldiers had died than actually did. Some Jewish GI's protested that "Ginsberg" and "Shapiro" would probably not have wanted crosses above them,but the rule stood...

However, in this Mohave Desert case, I would say that the cross is a historical artifact. On that basis, IMHO it should be left alone.

I might agree with your contention that it's historical, if it hadn't been explicitly stated in the article that the original cross had been replaced several times.

I think the fact that this memorial has been the site of a sunrise Easter service each year for the past 70 years is definitive proof that this cross has become a religious shrine and is not merely an historical artifact. There is nothing wrong with religious shrines, of course, but they should not be on public land.

If this war memorial was truly non-denominational -- and the US has many -- then you'd expect that other religious groups including Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists would also gather for their observances as well. They don't. Apparently, some Buddhists wanted to establish their own site, but the National Park Service denied their request. When Congress passed the law to transfer the land to the VFW and insisted that the cross be preserved as a condition of ownership, they certainly weren't looking out for the interests of all Americans regardless of their religious affiliation.

It is hard to imagine that Congress would have acted similarly if the the memorial instead consisted of a huge star and crescent visible for miles in the park.

It is convenient to leave all the Christian crosses and Decalog (Ten Commandments) alone and call them "historical artifact.

But it doesn't seem unreasonable that a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wikken or Athiest to demand equal treatment, to respect the (non) establishment clause.

Scalia is outright wrong and the jewish people buried beneath a cross is a canard. _I_ consider the cross to be rather noxious as a symbol - a celebration of the roman habit of vicious punishment. Add in the fact that this is a location of a regular annual easter service (and the associated consecration of altars), there is little question this is a religious shrine and Scalia is just showing his usual activist spots.

Frankly a reasonable alternative solution is to let this stand, and let us atheists to deal with it by regularly getting rid of the cross until the property reverts.

I don't find the cross noxious but I do find it highly repugnant that a justice of the US supreme court could be self-deluded enough to not recognize the cross as a Christian religious symbol. What other, similar, delusions has his guy based his judgments on?

bsharporflat:

I don't find the cross noxious but I do find it highly repugnant that a justice of the US supreme court could be self-deluded enough to not recognize the cross as a Christian religious symbol. What other, similar, delusions has his guy based his judgments on?

There is more than on eChristian religion. Many Christian Religions use the form of the cross as a symbol others like Jehovah's Witness do not (they consider it idolatry).

The point of this whole discussion is missed here however. The Question should be Did Congress pass any law respecting the establishment or religion or the free exercise thereof?

If congress did not make such a law than there is no point to the case.

We are not discussing the merits of the case in this thread. We are discussing the blind, biased, terminally twisted power of judgement which resides in Antonin Scalia. But Texas Pete, I think you can sympathize. I mean, really Texas Pete, is there any decision that Scalia has ever made which you disagree with?

bsharporflat:

We are not discussing the merits of the case in this thread. We are discussing the blind, biased, terminally twisted power of judgement which resides in Antonin Scalia. But Texas Pete, I think you can sympathize. I mean, really Texas Pete, is there any decision that Scalia has ever made which you disagree with?

For the most part Scalia is an originalist and I do agree with most of the opinions of his that I have read. However In this case he is asking the WRONG Questions. All he needs to know is did congress pass a law putting it there. If not then there is no violation.

Agreed, he is asking the wrong questions. Why would he do that?

TexasPete:

bsharporflat:

We are not discussing the merits of the case in this thread. We are discussing the blind, biased, terminally twisted power of judgement which resides in Antonin Scalia. But Texas Pete, I think you can sympathize. I mean, really Texas Pete, is there any decision that Scalia has ever made which you disagree with?

For the most part Scalia is an originalist and I do agree with most of the opinions of his that I have read. However In this case he is asking the WRONG Questions. All he needs to know is did congress pass a law putting it there. If not then there is no violation.

I'm not sure if you're asking this question rhetorically or pointedly, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. There is a long line of constitutional jurisprudence that holds that the 1st Amendment has been incorporated into the states and their subdivisions by the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to settle the idea of what states can and can't do after the Civil War. A state can no more declare a state religion than it can jail you for writing a letter to the editor of your town's newspaper.

"We are not discussing the merits of the case in this thread. We are discussing the blind, biased, terminally twisted power of judgement which resides in Antonin Scalia. But Texas Pete, I think you can sympathize. I mean, really Texas Pete, is there any decision that Scalia has ever made which you disagree with?"

For the most part Scalia is an originalist and I do agree with most of the opinions of his that I have read. However In this case he is asking the WRONG Questions. All he needs to know is did congress pass a law putting it there. If not then there is no violation.

The 14th Amendment dosent change anything in the first Amendment CONGRESS shall make no law. Allowing a Manger scene on the town square does not abridge any rights I'm not sure it is even a law. Allowing a cross carved on a monument of war dead at a state capitol dosent stop sombody from worshiping satan or Allah. Recognising the overwhelming majority by allowing a generic non-denominational christian prayer at a football game does not violate a muslim student's rights not to participate.

I think if we passed a law saying you had to pray everyday at 2pm there would be a problem even if the law left it open st to what religion you were practicing when praying. but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about local and state government being forced to ignore its people.

Wrong on pretty much all of it

For the most part Scalia is an originalist and I do agree with most of the opinions of his that I have read.

This latter should warn you that he is not an "originalist" but rather an activist conservative. MOST of Scalia's rulings are NOT "originalist" but instead Scalia's activist beliefs wrapped up in clever and misleading (and sometimes dishonest as in this case) arguements that conservatives CLAIM as "originalist" simply because it is politically expedient to do so.

However In this case he is asking the WRONG Questions. All he needs to know is did congress pass a law putting it there. If not then there is no violation.

Wrong here as well. You don't seem to understand the concept of "transitivity". Congress passes a law empowring the Interior Dept to regulate this land. By transitivity, all subsequent regulations and dealings done by Dept Int. is Constitutionally "congress making law" by delegation.

Since Dept Int is making rulings about the cross being there, and denying the rights of others to similarly place religious shrines on the same location Dept Int. IS "making law" that "establishes" (prefers) one religion ahead of others.

NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.

What conservatives/the government are trying to weasel-word is that by selling the land they transfer the creation of that shrine to private speech. But because there is a clause that REQUIRES THE MAINTENANCE of the shrine or priviledges are lost - then it is clearly a case were Dept Int is granting priviledges (establishing ) to one religion ahead of others.

The 14th Amendment dosent change anything in the first Amendment CONGRESS shall make no law. Allowing a Manger scene on the town square does not abridge any rights I'm not sure it is even a law.

Wrong on ALL THREE assertions here:

1. Am 14 "incorporation clause" definitively resolves whether or not Am 1 limits apply to ALL levels of government. They do
2. Thus Am 14 rewrites Am 1 to preclude ANY government from local on up, from "establishing a religion"
3. Allowing a Manger while denying a simultaneous shrine to Baelzebub or Kali or the secular atheists - is demonstrating preference (establishing) for one sect over another.

We are talking about local and state government being forced to ignore its people

Yes and? If the people want to torture someone, or violate their 4th or 5th amendment rights, they can't do that either. And?

degsme:

Wrong on pretty much all of it

For the most part Scalia is an originalist and I do agree with most of the opinions of his that I have read.

This latter should warn you that he is not an "originalist" but rather an activist conservative. MOST of Scalia's rulings are NOT "originalist" but instead Scalia's activist beliefs wrapped up in clever and misleading (and sometimes dishonest as in this case) arguements that conservatives CLAIM as "originalist" simply because it is politically expedient to do so.

However In this case he is asking the WRONG Questions. All he needs to know is did congress pass a law putting it there. If not then there is no violation.

Wrong here as well. You don't seem to understand the concept of "transitivity". Congress passes a law empowring the Interior Dept to regulate this land. By transitivity, all subsequent regulations and dealings done by Dept Int. is Constitutionally "congress making law" by delegation.

Since Dept Int is making rulings about the cross being there, and denying the rights of others to similarly place religious shrines on the same location Dept Int. IS "making law" that "establishes" (prefers) one religion ahead of others.

NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.

What conservatives/the government are trying to weasel-word is that by selling the land they transfer the creation of that shrine to private speech. But because there is a clause that REQUIRES THE MAINTENANCE of the shrine or priviledges are lost - then it is clearly a case were Dept Int is granting priviledges (establishing ) to one religion ahead of others.

The 14th Amendment dosent change anything in the first Amendment CONGRESS shall make no law. Allowing a Manger scene on the town square does not abridge any rights I'm not sure it is even a law.

Wrong on ALL THREE assertions here:

1. Am 14 "incorporation clause" definitively resolves whether or not Am 1 limits apply to ALL levels of government. They do
2. Thus Am 14 rewrites Am 1 to preclude ANY government from local on up, from "establishing a religion"
3. Allowing a Manger while denying a simultaneous shrine to Baelzebub or Kali or the secular atheists - is demonstrating preference (establishing) for one sect over another.

We are talking about local and state government being forced to ignore its people

Yes and? If the people want to torture someone, or violate their 4th or 5th amendment rights, they can't do that either. And?

Degs the first amendment was not repealed by the 14th amendment. Any claim that the 14th amendment upsurps the first and changes its meaning cannot be taken seriously. Congress is still congress the state is still the state there is no disparity of treatment if the state does something not forbidden by the constitution. No where in the constitution is the state frobidden the only plece it is found in in case law and the constitution should trump any case law.

Unless you can show me where the first amendment has been repealed by the 14th amendment in plain language stating so there is no way you can convince me.

Since I have already read the text of the entire constitution and understand it provably better than you there is no point in furthering this conversation.

What repeal of the 1st Amendment?

Congress is still congress the state is still the state there is no disparity of treatment if the state does something not forbidden by the constitution. No where in the constitution is the state frobidden the only plece it is found in in case law and the constitution should trump any case law.

As far as I can tell from this gibberish of an arguement, you are making the claim that because the 1st Amendment prohibits only Congress from establishing a state religion, that the Executive, the Courts, and even the States or township may do so.

That is an arguement that SOME have made - but it is hardly uncontroversial. From the outset Hamilton and Madison did not support this sort of "sovereign states" notion. Jefferson did, but again Adams did not, nor Jackson. So from the outset your claim was somewhat of a minority view.

Am 14 does not "repeal" the 1st Amendment, it enhances it. The "incorporation clause" essentially guarantees that the liberties explicitly protected at the federal level are similarly protected at the state level. This isn't "only []found in case law" - it is in the text of the 14th Amendment. So it IS in the Constitution. And thus The Constitution DOES trump case law.

Since I have already read the text of the entire constitution and understand it provably better than you there

ROTFLMAO!!!

We are all still waiting for you to provide citations that support your claim that Am 10 imposes a hierarchy of state sovereignty over individuals. You have yet to even support that brain dead claim.