NPR's commentator suggested that the Supreme Court might rule that an individual did not have standing to initiate court action simply because they were offended. It appears that the questioning did not go down that path - but what a fantastic blow for reason that would be... "You're offended? Tough - get over it... Now get out of our courtrooms..."

We can hope...

NPR's commentator is an idiot. The litigant plainly has standing because their religious display was disallowed while another was permitted.

Actually, Nick, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts, in a series of 5-4 rulings, have pretty much already established that, as law. Which, as prominent federal appellate judge Richard Posner has pointed out, in establishment clause cases effectively nullifies the establishment clause, at least in most instances.

what a fantastic blow for reason that would be... "You're offended? Tough - get over it... Now get out of our courtrooms..."

but what a "fantastic blow for reason" it was when Rosa Parks took offense at being told to move to the back of the bus . . .

No, that’s a different “standing” issue. Under the current Supreme Court’s extremely narrow interpretation of standing, that person would have standing to argue that unless every denomination is allowed to place a monument there if they wish, the cross should not be there either. But that’s different than having standing to argue that the display of any religious symbol by the government, or with the government’s imprimatur, at any veterans’ cemetery violates the establishment clause.

cogitorum

I amnot sure I accept the analogy. I think your scenario is more like Parks bringing a case because she discovered that there had once been a bus that had been chartered by the city that only had white people on it.

I'm claiming no expertise in constitutional law - my posting is based on having heard part of an NPR clip. If it is legally BS, so be it... it has a certain appeal though.

I have not researched anything but the facts as laid out in the Slate article inidicated that the Cross was erected before the Land became part of a government owned national park, therefore the government did not establish a christian memorial, it inherited one.

The question then becomes, does seperation of church and state require the purging and elimination of historic artifacts that have a religious conotation? I do find that that prospect as disturbing as I would find the prospect of any one group getting permission to build a church/monument etc in an existing national park.

Not even close. I didn't hear who the commentator was - but it sure sounds like a conservative who is trying to justify continued preference for christians by the government.

Its perfectly acceptable for me to be offended and ignored by the government IF and ONLY IF my offense is at a government action that is Constitutionally authorized (say declaring war and invading another country).

But when what offends me is The Government acting in a manner that it is either NOT authorized to act in, or in this case EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN from doing, then my offense is sufficient demonstration of harm to get standing.

Degs -

Agree that the analogy is not good. I'll try to dream up a better one...

Nevertheless, Parks was not just offended, she was constrained. Being offended - ocasionally, even frequently - should be an expectation, not something that one has a right to be protected from.

PS: by the way, the commentator was that well-known Neocon, Republican mouthpiece etc.... er... Nina Totenberg, of NPR.

Fair enough on the commentator. But again in this case, when The Government advocates for one particular religious sect by endorsing its symbols public land and prohibits others from doing the same, then there is very real harm being caused.

Parks' Am 14 rights were being constrained. I this case your, my and everyones' Am 1 rights are being constrained.