Justice John Paul Stevens rejected that view. “The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice,” he wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. “It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith.”From here: (Emphasis mine)
The disagreement recalled perhaps the most heated exchange of the term, from the argument in the case in October.
Peter J. Eliasberg, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said many Jewish war veterans would not want to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity,” one that “signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.”
Justice Antonin Scalia responded that the symbol in the context of a war memorial carried a more general meaning. “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead,” he said.
Mr. Eliasberg said, “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew.”
Justice Scalia, who is usually jovial even in disagreement, turned angry. “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,” he said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”
Following World War I, a board of officers composed of Assistant Secretary of War J.M. Wainwright, Army Chief of Staff General John J. Pershing and Quartermaster General Harry L. Rogers adopted a new design to be used for all graves except those of veterans of the Civil and Spanish-American Wars.Looks to me as if Justice Scalia doesn't know his history. What a shame.
This stone was of the slab design referred to as "General" type, slightly rounded at the top, of American white marble, 42 inches long, 13 inches wide and four inches thick. The inscription on the front face would include the name of the soldier, his rank, regiment, division, date of death and state from which he came.
For the first time, a religious emblem was adopted for use on government headstones. The religious emblem was authorized for use at this time only on the General type stone. The choice of emblem was limited to the Latin Cross for the Christian faith and the Star of David for the Jewish faith.
A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs... It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles
To begin with, the predicate for any injury he might assert—that the VFW, after taking possession of the land, will continue to display the cross—is at this stage merely speculative.3 Nothing in the statutescompels the VFW (or any future proprietor) to keep it up. The land reverts back to the Government only if “theconveyed property is no longer being maintained as a war memorial,” Pub. L. 108–87, §8121(e), 117 Stat. 1100, which does not depend on whether the cross remains.4Technically it's true! Oh, I love it. And then there's this catty bit from Alito:
Finally, I reject JUSTICE STEVENS’ suggestion that theenactment of the land-transfer law was motivated by anillicit purpose. Id. at 24. I would not be “so dismissive of Congress.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 70) (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The demolition of this venerable if unsophisticated,monument would also have been interpreted by some as an arresting symbol of a Government that is not neutral but hostile on matters of religion and is bent on eliminating from all public places and symbols any trace of our country’s religious heritage. Cf. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 704 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment)posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 11:16 AM on April 29, 2010
At oral argument, respondent’s counsel stated that it“likely would be consistent with the injunction” for the Government to tear down the cross, sell the land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and return the cross to them,with the VFW immediately raising the cross again. Tr. of Oral Arg. 44. I do not see how it can make a difference for the Government to skip that empty ritual and do what Congress told it to do—sell the land with the cross on it. “The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867).posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 11:18 AM on April 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
scalia couldn't find his old puckered asshole with a marine recon team and eight eagle scouts so
[...] Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU disagreed, contending that what might be permissible for a monument in place for 70 years would not be for a relatively new monument.posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 12:35 PM on April 29, 2010
"I don't see this as any type of broad pronouncement," Eliasberg said.
University of Michigan law professor Douglas Laycock, who filed a brief urging the court to uphold the order to dismantle the cross, noted that Wednesday's ruling did not resolve the big question waiting to be answered: whether the government can itself place a religious symbol on government land.
"The real issue, whether it's crosses or any other kind of display, is postponed until the next case," said Laycock, adding that he is "not optimistic about how the next case is going to come out."
1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.There's more...
2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.
3. I am a Veteran.
« Older HP buys Palm for $1.2 Billion.... | Past Thinking about Earth-Like... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Behemoth at 9:17 AM on April 29, 2010 [3 favorites]