Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Buono v. Salazar, which I wrote about last week. This case is about a wooden cross erected as a war memorial in the Mojave National Preserve in California.
Ten years ago the Park Service denied a request to build a Buddhist stupa near the cross. Then an assistant Park Service superintendent named Frank Buono, a Catholic, objected to the cross as a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
Last week's argument brought out this exchange between Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Peter Eliasberg, representing the American Civil Liberties Union:
JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --
MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?
MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --
JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?
MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.
(Laughter.)
MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.
MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.
Justice Scalia has been soundly scolded by the nation's editorialists, both religious and non-religious. But his is an argument often made by American Christians who demand that the government show favoritism to Christianity. This argument says that Christianity is the generic religion that somehow represents all religion, in the same way "xerox" is used to mean "photocopy."
As Robyn Blumner pointed out in the St. Petersburg Times, there was no outcry when the Park Service turned down the request to build a stupa. But when Frank Buono raised the issue of the constitutionality of the cross, Congress jumped in and forbade the use of government funds to remove the cross. Then Congress designated the cross a national monument, even though in 1999 it hadn't been considered important enough to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
In another move to protect the cross, Congress transferred ownership of the acre on which the cross sits to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the organization that erected the first cross. So, strictly speaking, the cross now sits on a little doughnut hole of private land surrounded by many acres of a National Preserve, which may save it from removal. And one wishes Congress would show this much energy and dedication for real issues, like health care reform.
Columnist Leonard Pitts wrote,
Scalia's obstinate insistence that the cross is a generic symbol manages to simultaneously demean Christianity and deftly illustrate the sort of bullying the Constitution discourages. How easily and readily the majority embraces the myopic view that its symbols and norms represent us all.
As Leonard Pitts also says, the object of contention is a plain wooden cross, replaced many times over the years, in a remote and little visited location. It isn't really hurting anyone, and whether it stays or goes will make a difference to very few people.
But I think Justice Scalia's argument needs to be addressed, because he is arguing in favor of bigotry. When a religious, racial, or other majority is able to define itself as the "default norm," then bigotry against minorities also becomes the norm.
“And one wishes Congress would show this much energy and dedication for real issues, like health care reform.”
Amen.
To put it simply, the government should not allow religious icons as the norm in anything that is government run because it excludes others.
No bibles, no stupas, no crosses or stars. No nothing. You can do honor without the iconography.
I don’t want a damn cross to honor me. If I had to choose something, I would choose a peach tree. Much prettier and tastier than planks of wood.
This is another example of how partisanship has seeped into the legal system. Justice Scalia’s arguments do not appear to be of a legal nature. Instead, they appear to be a series of questions aimed at justifying a already held belief. The justices on the Supreme Court should be the final arbiters of law, not a group that pushes a personal or political ideology (e.g. “activist judges”).
When I read Justice Scalias comments, I was actually a little shocked. How can someone who purports to reason in such a fashion ever get onto the Supreme Court?
I don’t find it TOO surprising; I’ve never thought of Mr. Scalia as much of a jurist. As to the sentiment, I’m reminded of a story about a school in Texas forced to forego the prayer at the start of each football game and grousing about it. Someone was interviewing one of the cheerleaders, and she was going on about how it was unfair and violated her constitutional rights and such. However, when he asked how she would feel if a Wiccan gave the invocation, and she was totally scandalized! Religious freedom only means their freedom to only be exposed to their religion. Since the rest of us are obviously deluded, we really don’t count. I’ve seen the “I’m facing the reality of Christ while you’re just dabbling in Buddhism” attitude many times.
If this brings solace to my brothers and sisters who think differently then I am fine with it. If nothing else it is a good opportunity for me to work on my compassion for others. Nothing escapes impermenence. Nothing offends me unless I let it. If a group of Tibetan monks created a mandala in honor of the dead, but used large pebbles, instead of sand, or large stones, or bolders, or mountains…I would view it as neither a threat to other frames of reference, no matter how long it was preserved prior to it being washed away.
It is too bad that this case did not refeence a similar case in Eugene Oregon in the 1970’s where through delaying tactics, the supporters of a cross on public land used the subterfuge that it was a war memorial. Ultimately the Oregon Supreme Court deemed it illegal and the cross was taken down. The cross was illuminated but for the time it stood as a war memorial, it could only be lit on political holidays and not religious. Talk about demeaning the cross. Also the cross at Camp Smith in Hawaii is notable that the commanding officer took the cross down before there was a suit. This is a recent case.
Justice Scalia fulfills all the criticism directed to Justice Sotomayor and judicial activism in allowing his religious views to dictate the issues in this case. It is unfortunate.
Also the idea that this case is insignificant is like allowing the camel’s nose in the tent, soon to be followed by the camel itself. If the cross stands, you can imagine that crosses will pop up all over the place on public land with this as a precedent. It won’t seem insignificant at that time.
Oh, for crying out loud, people!
Don’t you have more important things to worry about? This country, and its Constitution and Bill of Rights, were created by individuals who were OVERWHELMINGLY of various CHRISTIAN denominations. And no, the majority of them were NOT Deists. I am NOT a Christian, but I am no more bothered by an expression of Christianity on public property than I am by an expression of Buddhism or Judaism or Sikhism. Even though the GOVERNMENT of this country is NOT a theocracy, the CULTURE is overwhelmingly of a majority Christian orientation, and that religious CULTURE is ALSO a large part of our HISTORY. Why should anyone, of ANY religion, be “offended” by the FREE expression of religious sentiment from the devotees of any other religion . . . unless the “offended” are insecure in their own beliefs? Free speech and free expression should be free speech and free expression REGARDLESS of whether they are on public property or not. Why should religious speech and expression be considered any different than ideological speech and expression? It is absurd to think that the government is favoring one religion over another simply because it ALLOWS the FREE expression of religious sentiment, by its own citizens, on public property. Get over yourselves! The cross in question was put there in the 1930’s by veterans who were honoring their own fallen comrades. The attempt by hyper-sensitive Buddhists to put a stupa right NEAR the cross . . . on that same general spot . . . was nothing more than a childish attempt at one-upmanship. Find your own spot, or buy a piece of land by the side of a highway in the same desert. Grow up!
If you are going to worry about “erosion” of the separation of church and state, why are you not worrying about the tax-payer funded establishment of footbaths, exclusively for Muslims, in a Minnesota public airport? Why are you not worrying about the taxpayer-subsidized establishment of a Muslim academy (indoctrination center) on PUBLIC land in Virginia? Are you naive enough to believe that ONLY Christians are trying to blur the line between church and state?
I must agree with LMO. We live in Wales UK surrounded by symbols including crosses (of many shapes) and pagan carvings. Whatever the symbolism to those partaking of the religion, to most of us they are a part of history and important for that reason. Whilst it is wrong for Christianity to be seen as ‘the’ religion, it should be remembered that in Europe thousands of people died horrifically as a result of arguements not disimilar to the Mojave Cross issue. If it has existed for a long time and was constructed with honourable intentions then let it be. Any attempt to build another structure is a matter for debate before it is constructed and quite different in context.
LMO, it sounds like you need to take a step away from the issue. Even though you claim not to be a Christian, your passionate tone sure makes me think otherwise.
Sure, Christian culture is prominent throughout society. But have you given any thought as to why that may be? Frankly, the Christian faithful have, throughout history, tried to erase many other religions and cultures through the use of violence and coercion. Examples are plenty: African colonialism, Asian imperialism, European Crusades and Inquisitions, and both North and South American wholesale slaughter of indigenous peoples. These actions were done by what were practically theocratic governments. My point is when you force a religion onto people, it’s no surprise why the religion becomes dominant in society. That fact deserves no honor. And to justify it by saying other religions did it also is a logical fallacy and does not hold water. If all the Jews jumped off a bridge, should the Christians too? Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.
To continue my point, the founders of the US realized that theocratic societies were contrary to freedom and sought to limit religious power in government. And they have succeeded, for the most part. But to have someone in one of the most powerful positions in the country marginalize a person’s beliefs by claiming that the prime symbol of a main religion belongs to every other religion is nonsense and definitely does not come from a viewpoint of freedom.
Simply put, any government favoritism of one religion over another is a violation of the Constitution. This cannot be argued, as it is explicitly stated within the document. To go against that on the bench is to engage in activism and is against the spirit of the law and freedom.
Have a good day!