I really shouldn't be surprised anymore when some Christian tries to claim that the cross is a not a religious symbol, but hearing that kind of bullshit come from the Supreme Court still floors me. I can accept that sometimes religious symbols aren't meant to invoke religious devotion, but they can never be claimed to be universal symbols, devoid of religious meaning. Telling me that a cross is meant to honor my dead Jewish grandfather who fought in the war is just ridiculous. It would be like me erecting a giant can of coke on the national mall and claiming that it is meant to honor the wisdom of the Supreme Court Justices.

Erm....impeach Scalia?

mrburack

I would think a very small can of worms would be sufficient...

Scalia makes specious arguments to support his right-wing philosophy. I do not hear enough from Thomas to get a real read on his thinking, if indeed he does; but Scalia seems to measure each issue by his ideology first and then looks for support in the law, absent that he goes to his “logic” and that is what he is reduced to in this case. That the cross is not a predominately Christian symbol is to say that a menorah does not represent the Jewish faith. Ridiculous on its face.

The broader issue regards whether allowing a cross to remain on public land is in violation of the “establishment” clause. Only in the broadest possible context would I concur with that interpretation. However, I recognize it as a step, albeit a tiny step, in that direction.

While this country was founded by predominately Christian people many were here escaping religious persecution and other more subtle discrimination of their faith. To protect against that the establishment clause was added. Unfortunately we are not able to accommodate all religions in our daily, public lives so we eliminate all religious speech, actions or symbols. We would be much better off if we embraced all legitimate religions rather than none. Of course the briar patch comes into play when we are forced to define “legitimate”….

Years ago after reading a bio on Scalia I was impressed.Now I am abhorred by his antics.

He is a right wing nut Christian.And his questions and answers are sooo disingenuous.He should recuse himself for bias and Thomas should ask for time off to visit the graveyards of the South and see if he finds a lot of Star of David memorials in black cemeteries.

Give us all a break and let the feds pay to remove the cross to non federal land.

Leo Harold

"While this country was founded by predominately Christian people many were here escaping religious persecution and other more subtle discrimination of their faith."

My response is not in contention with what you posted but I would like to think whether any Native North Americans, the Finders of our nation, would be allowed to erect any of the symbols that depict their myriad of beliefs.

Sometimes we all have the tendency to forget what the good, civilized Christians did in their triumphant march across this continent in the name of Manifest Destiny. And they called the Natives "uncivilized"? Ha.

I really shouldn't be surprised anymore when some Christian tries to claim that the cross is a not a religious symbol, but hearing that kind of bullshit come from the Supreme Court still floors me. I can accept that sometimes religious symbols aren't meant to invoke religious devotion, but they can never be claimed to be universal symbols, devoid of religious meaning.

You are refuting yourself. Crosses mean lots of things Red Cross, Iron Cross, Blue Cross, etc. Crosses also existed prior to Christianity. I think Scalia was hamfisted about it, but one cross on a rock placed 75 years ago that 90% of the population didn't know existed isn't exactly establishing a region. Think of it in terms of intent- the cross was intended to honor the dead- not convert them to be Christians.

Like all establishment cases both sides are over-reaching.

LP

I'm sure the Mojave tribe has plenty of religious symbols within the park. It is, after all, named after them.

And as for Manifest Destiny, we did no worse than they were doing to each other or any other conqueror in history did to the vanquished. If the Pilgrims had stayed in England, would that have made you happier?

Aren't the crosses you mentioned all different shapes compared to the iconic crux immissa?

The Red Cross' symbol is 1:1, heavy lines and red.

Blue Cross' symbol is also 1:1, heavier lines, blue with a circular symbol at the crux.

The Iron Cross, also 1:1, has wider tips and tapers in toward the crux, and is frequently are shown in two color.

If the claim came from someone else, perhaps it wouldn't invoke outright laughter. But coming from him, it does.

Did you read Scalia's comments? What a tool. He spit out the descriptions of Jewish and Muslim symbols like they were something so vile and useless.

Dude's a creep. And wrong. The cross, lose it.

Refuting myself? I don't see that. When a symbol takes on additional meanings it does not lose its original meaning - it can be both. While you can argue that the meaning may get diluted to the point of meaninglessness, i don't think that will wash here. Your Red/Blue Cross (why is the Red Crescent used in some places?) and Iron Cross (trace it back from modern bikers and you'll end up at the crusades) examples may be debatable, i think you'd have a very hard time convincing anyone other than Scalia that the form of the cross in this case has lost lost its Christian meaning. (Just take a look at the picture.) Many have suggested "grandfathering in" things like this, but that's just disguising bias as laziness. The cross itself has already been replaced several times, so it's hard to claim that the actual artifact holds special significance. They should therefore replace it again, but this time with a monument that is not a blatantly religious symbol. As far as intent goes, i think my somewhat facetious example covers that. If your result does not match your intent then you have a problem.

Coke can sans pubic hair perhaps? Touche!