Our Supreme Court Justices are very learned people. They come from the finest schools and study for years and years to master the law. They work their way up through the legal system, and these "best of the best" reach the pinnacle of their profession in order to decide the most difficult and pressing legal issues of the day…
Like whether a cross should be allowed to stand on a rocky outcrop in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free.
The ACLU says no, and lower courts have agreed. I guess one painted cross in the middle of nowhere means we are a theocratic state, like Iran. The ACLU thinks such things because they are such reasonable people.
Here's a photo of the offending cross. (Warning – the religious content may cause small children to go blind or start speaking in tongues.)
I apologize for subjecting you to such offensive imagery, and I sincerely hope it caused no permanent scars. I wish I could have shown you a Mapplethorpe crucifix in a jar of urine instead, something, you know, "artistic."
The offensive cross pictured above is so offensive that it's been covered up for the last few years. Here's what the offensive cross has looked like recently.
There, that's better. Now the cross looks more like a billboard. Nothing is more American than a billboard (which reminds me, please keep shopping to help us out of the recession.) Maybe we can get a Mapplethorpe-like "artist" to paint a picture of a cross in jar of urine on the blank billboard-cross that stands in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free. The ACLU wouldn't object to that. The ACLU would defend that. That's because the ACLU is filled with very reasonable folks. They are looking out for your freedoms by, um, censoring stuff.
The problem with the offensive cross is that it is on federal land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert. Because federal land is not like regular land, federal land has certain conditions. I know federal land looks just like regular land, consisting of dirt, rocks, bushes, and stuff, but it's not. Federal land is very special land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free. You can tell federal land is not the same as regular land because it has the word "federal" attached right to it. That makes it sacred land. Strike that. The word "sacred" is also probably offensive when speaking of federal land. Federal land is too special to be referred to as sacred.
We can't allow this one cross to remain on very special federal land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free, because it could have very serious negative consequences, like this:
The above offensive crosses are on federal land at the Arlington National Cemetery. Somebody better alert the ACLU to this outrage. Personally, I can't wait for the ACLU to try to take on Arlington. Why they are messing around with one trivial cross in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free is beyond me. Why go for that one cross when the motherload is right outside of Washington D.C. ? C'mon ACLU, man up. Go after Arlington. I dare you.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
King,
You have suggested one of the worst cases the ACLU has taken up. What possible damage can that cross do to sensitive Muslim travelers? Very few people go there unless they want to see that cross so I would think that PC has no part in it.
I am looking forward to the day that they go after the Christian crosses and those with the Star of David on them. I don't think they can come out of that one ahead of the game. In the first place, who would they get to foot the bill for replacing all those crosses with less terrible appearing monuments for the American heroes buried there. We won't be able to afford replacement with all the new social programs like socialized medicine so I guess they would want to see just cross removal. I wonder what judge or Congressional member would be willing to vote on something like that. We may have become a nation of sheep but I don't think that a majority of us would allow that to happen.
I loved your suggestion of what the NEA would be able to provide to replace that cross.
No Congress critter is going to vote for removing those crosses. They have to get re-elected, and doing that would end them. The Men And Women In Black, however, that's a different case. They are in for life, and aren't answerable to anyone.
Federal land is owned by the public, at least theoretically.
If that cross in the desert were an Islamic crescent, would that be perfectly fine?
You are correct in pointing out the contradiction in Arlington. But actually, Arlington's crosses are much more offensive. The intent of those crosses in Arlington is to equate military sacificial deaths with the mighty-mythical sacrifice of the Christian Jesus.
That type of thing is exactly why the 1st amendment was written the way it was. Blurring the lines of religion and state was what the Founders were seeking to prevent.
I don't get exercised about religious symbolism on public grounds, religionists do. They think they are entitled….I have no idea why. It could be because they think they're getting away with something.
What's odd about American Christian-nationalists is how they continually bash those crazy Islamics who insist on Islamic government rule, you know, complete with Islamic symbolism.
My prediction is that the radically conservative Roberts Court, ever handpicking cases to advance the extremists cause, will chink away at the prohibition to establish religion. The Roberts Rogue Court will unleash more guns, and more dangerous guns, into society under the fig leaf of an abominable rendering of the 2nd amendment. And, the Court will undoubtedly give corporations more power over us by striking down McCain-Feingold….reminding us, I'm sure, that money equals free speech and a corporation is a person, just without any accountability.
It'll be great.
Rev asks, "If that cross in the desert were an Islamic crescent, would that be perfectly fine?"
Yes.
Rev says, " I don't get exercised about religious symbolism on public grounds, religionists do. "
No, wrong. The ACLU does, obviously. They are the ones bringing the lawsuit. Duh.
Rev says, "What's odd about American Christian-nationalists is how they continually bash those crazy Islamics who insist on Islamic government rule"
Um, the Christians in America aren't asking for a theocracy like the Islamists have. I assume you are just very confused.
Rev says, "My prediction is that the radically conservative Roberts Court, ever handpicking cases to advance the extremists cause, will chink away at the prohibition to establish religion. "
I knew you had to work in a conservative bash somehow, but……….how does one cross in the Mojave desert nullify the constitutional requirement against establishing a state religion ? You always lose me at that part. Regardless of the cross, we still have religious freedom in this country. Duh, part II.
And why are you talking about guns ? Do you plan to shoot down the cross in the Mojave, or what ?
If corporations aren't made up of people, what are they made up of ??????
Always interesting talking to you. And by "interesting," I mean really odd.
The ACLU is defending the Constitution from theocratic attack….however insignificant the case may seem.
If you don't think millions of evangelical American Christians want to establish a theocracy in America…then you really aren't paying attention.
Permitting a Christian symbol on public grounds, and only a Christian symbol, is establishing the Christian religion and only the Christian religion. If the Roberts Court rules with the theocons, it will be establishing the Christian religion. Is there a reason why that is not clear? Religious freedom is only one side of the amendment, freedom from religion is the other half.
I was talking about the Roberts Court agenda for this year.
But this….
"If corporations aren't made up of people, what are they made up of ??????"
…is an eye opener. Here's what I said…
"….reminding us, I'm sure, that money equals free speech and a corporation is a person, just without any accountability."
According to Supreme Court precedence, a corporation, the legal entity….as far as the law is concerned….is the equivalence of a human person. That old ruling, still standing, is a total abomination.
What the Supreme Court has done to the religion clause of the First Amendment, shouldn't happen to a dog. They have so twisted its meaning and purpose that the founders would hardly recognize it. Thus, it should not be surprising that some of the statements made by the Reverand echo this confusion. The Reverand's juxtaposition of the recent Second Amendment decision by the Supreme Court with his exposition of First Amendment jurisprudence, on the other hand, is simply silly.
Let's start with the text. The opening clause of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof…." The Second Amendment reads, in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a clear and concise right that, by all appearances, is absolute on its face. There was nothing "abominable" in the recent decision of the Court stiking down legislation in the District of Columbia that "infringed" this right. What is abominable is the tortured logic of the dissenters to avoid the plain meaning of the text. That some of these dissenters could find constitutional rights to abortion and sodomy, which are not even mentioned in the Constitutional text, yet fail to recognize an individual right to "keep and bear arms" which the Constitutional text specifically recognizes as belongiong to "the people", is what is especially abominable.
Now turn to the First Amendment, and ask what religion is being "established" by the act of erecting a cross on government land in the desert to honor those who took up arms to protect this country? Does the mere sight of this cross force anyone to convert to Christianity? Is anyone forced to support any church by the erection of this cross? Does the Mojave cross mean that the government has now adopted an official religion?
Next consider that at the time the First Amendment passed several states had "established" religions. Yet no one saw any contradiction with the First Amendment, since it prohibited only Congress from establishing a religion. (How the First Amendment came to be applied to the states is a story for another day.) Note that no such limitation is contained in the Second Amendment.
Finally, as King so eloquently demonstrates, in the case of Serrano's "Piss Christ" Congress not only allows the depiction of religious symbols, it funds them. Provided that such religious symbols are mocked and desecrated.
So there you have it. A cross in a remote desert, meant to honor those who served in the armed forces, must be removed under a tortured reading of the First Amendment because someone of a non-Christian religion might be offended. But a cross immersed in a vat of urine, which is clearly meant to offend Christians, is not only tolerated but is entitled to receive government funding because some federal bureaucrat considers it "art". Such is our First Amendment jurisprudence.
actually quidpro, the Second Amendment says….."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." You left out the part about a well regulated Militia. Where does that fit in?
from the story……"He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well."
from the story……."Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disagreed. "It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead."
the Cross is a symbol of those who died in war? That's the first time I ever heard of that.
maybe the World Nazi Posse could repackage the swastika as sybolism for green beans and short ribs
very learned people like Antonio Scalia would buy that steaming pile of crap
Walter,
Please reread the last sentence of the second paragraph of my post. You will see that I cited the Second Amendment in its entirety.
That introductory clause is subordinate to the right expressed in what follows. Which right, "to keep and bear arms", belongs to "the people". And it is not to be "infringed".
It seems pretty straight forward to me. The individual right to keep and bear arms enjoys Constitutional protection. If you read it differently, then please explain.
"That introductory clause is subordinate to the right expressed in what follows.'
So the well regulated Militia…….. you just toss that out?
Instead of fighting over eliminating crosses why dont we just change the meaning of the cross.
It can be the symbol for that which protects us,provides for us, and leads us down the path of becoming a better person. Yes folks the symbol of the STATE.
So what is your point, Walter? Do you hold that there is no individual right to bear arms? If so please explain how that follows from the text of the Second Amendment.
Quidpro,
Very eloquently stated. The subversion of the Establishment Clause has been nothing but sleight of hand. To say religious freedom is being squashed by a cross in the Mojave is so silly that it wouldn't even be worth responding to if not for our activist courts.
On the Second Amendment, we should ask walter how that militia can be formed if the right of the people to bear arms IS infringed. It can't be, therefore, the right to bear arms is retained by the people. Obvious, I know, but certain folks can't figure it out.
just asking about the well regulated Militia part……the writers put it there for some reason.
Rev says, "If you don't think millions of evangelical American Christians want to establish a theocracy in America…then you really aren't paying attention."
It actually doesn't matter if millions of Christians want to establish a theocracy in America, or if millions of Muslims wanted to establish a different theocracry in America. It's unconstitutional. That's why it has never happened, and never will. We will have religious freedom in America. It is not being threatened. What has happened, as Quidpro so eloquently pointed out, is that the Establishment Clause has been perverted in order to censor religious expression in America. Censorship doesn't sound very American to me. Maybe you have a different idea.
King, I see nothing in the Second Amendment that suggests that people have a right to bear arms JUST IN CASE a need arises for a well regulated militia. I read it as people have a right to bear arms BECAUSE of a well regulated militia
what are the chances there will EVER be a well regulated militia?
Walter, the clause that seems so important to you is called "precatory language", meaning it's not essential to the main thought of the sentence. If Scrooge leaves a will that says, "To my nephew Bob so that he may by new crutches for his children, I leave 5000 pounds…", Bob may take the money and spend it on whatever he wants. The clause about a well regulated militia might be taken as indicating that the states have a right to regulate their militia – even to the point of telling its members when they may or may not bear arms, or even of requiring membership in a well regulated militia as a prerequisite to keeping and bearing such, but the Supremes have yet to decide that. (I believe there is a case pending.) Depending upon how they decide that, the states might or might not have the power to forbid or more severely restrict ownership, so that some states probably would outlaw handguns and other things deemed too dangerous for adults to play with. Most states are a bit more responsive to their voters than the Federal Government anfd won't touch such a thing. It would be interesting if some states abolished or curtailed and others did not; we could track the respective crime rates and decide the argument one way or another.
What is the "militia", Walter? It is the armed citizenry, "the people" in the language of the Second Amendment, as idstinct from professional soldiers. The citizens cannot be armed if "the people" do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
I wonder how many here, especially walter, realize that in the latter 18th century the US had very few professional soldiers. In fact, most fighting was done by state and colonial forces until the early years of the 19th century. How hard is it to see that those people were actually talking about the fighting forces that existed then. Of course, things have changed but the 2nd Amendment does say that the right of people to keep and bear arms is a right and not a privilege.
Come on guys, those old boys couldn't see far enough into the future to realize that we would have to have standing armies to defend ourselves which they did not have, at all.
The only part of Amendment 2 that I argue about is that they didn't know about automatic shooting irons back then so I don't think they meant that the states had to allow people to carry automatic weapons. Whole different time but they just couldn't see beyond the point that everybody brought his own weapon to the war. That kind of thing ended during the Civil War when there were too many different bores to be satisfied so the government began buying the weapons as is still done.
Quite a bit of wrongheaded commenting…and some good stuff too.
First, Quid…
"Now turn to the First Amendment, and ask what religion is being "established" by the act of erecting a cross on government land in the desert to honor those who took up arms to protect this country?"
The Christian religion. For 20 centuries the cross has been the Christian symbol. During the great and mighty Crusades the cross was on the flag of those mighty Christian warriors. I don't think you are arguing that the cross is not first and foremost, a Christian symbol.
"Does the mere sight of this cross force anyone to convert to Christianity? Is anyone forced to support any church by the erection of this cross? Does the Mojave cross mean that the government has now adopted an official religion?"
Your first question here, sorry, doesn't apply to the discussion. Whether someone can be converted by viewing a cross is not germaine here. Second question….collectively, because it's on publicly owned land (which is the bone of contention) all Americans are participating in the establishment of the Christian religion because of the cross being planted on those public lands. Third…."adopting an official religion" is also not being argued here, although only erecting a cross on public lands could be interpreted as adoption of one state religion.
"A cross in a remote desert, meant to honor those who served in the armed forces, must be removed under a tortured reading of the First Amendment because someone of a non-Christian religion might be offended."
That is a red herring. It isn't that someone might be offended….that isn't it. It's illegal. It is a clear violation of the 1st to make a law establishing religion. The 1st doesn't say "because someone might be offended."
You also accuse others of a "tortured reading" of the 1st. Fair enough. People disagree about stuff. At the same time, it does seem like you only appreciate the freedom of religion part of the 1st while significantly downplaying the meaning of the government shall make no law establishing religion part. King does this too, here…"What has happened, as Quidpro so eloquently pointed out, is that the Establishment Clause has been perverted in order to censor religious expression in America."
No one….is censoring religious expression in America. That is a ridiculous thing to say. America has more forms of religious expression going on than any country. The federal government has bent over backwards, even allowing child abuse, in their honoring of religious freedom of expression. I know you guys know this.
What the 1st defenders argue, rightfully, is that government cannot pass laws (erecting crosses on public land) establishing religion. The government is mandated to stay out of the religion-promotion business.
Religionists can do whatever the hell they want to do on privately held turf. They just are not allowed to coax the government into doing any of it on public land. That's the argument.
Now…on the 2nd amendment.
This is an interesting method of framing….
"That introductory clause is subordinate to the right expressed in what follows."
That may be your view, but nothing in the amendment lends itself to your understanding.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
My frame….Q & A method….Q: Do the people have a right to bear arms and if they do, should the government be able to infringe on that right? A: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Q: For what purpose do the people have this right? A: Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The milita part is not subordinate to the rest….it's integral.
"There was nothing "abominable" in the recent decision of the Court stiking down legislation in the District of Columbia that "infringed" this right."
Once again, that is your opinion. Here's my Roberts Court D.C. decision framed in Q & A form….Q: Do the people have a right to bear arms without government infringment? A: Yes. Q: For what purpose do the people have this right? A: For self defense.
The ruling in the D.C. case was abominable, because like Stephens (I think) said….the majority found words in the 2nd amendment that simply aren't there. That's what activist jurists do.
In a comment I mostly agree with, even N.E. Frye says this…." the clause that seems so important to you is called "precatory language", meaning it's not essential to the main thought of the sentence."
Do you actually believe that the Framer's simply threw in "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" for the hell of it? Of course you don't. If words mean anything…it does seem perfectly clear that the justification for Americans bearing arms was because of the necessity of a free state to have a well regulated militia. I mean, right?
roybot sez….."Come on guys, those old boys couldn't see far enough into the future to realize that we would have to have standing armies to defend ourselves which they did not have, at all."
I think you are right…….the Founding Fathers would never have envisioned that the United States would spend $658 BILLION per year to police the planet. I don't think that they would want that.
Walter, You are a total idiot. The founding fathers fought against a tyrannical government and taxation against representation. Their idea of a militia was having a weapon at home. Your argument that police and standing armies provide that service, now, holds no water. The founding fathers were opposed to that. By the way, the Ohio Constitution sopecifically grants the INDIVIDUAL to bear arms for protection, and BANS standing armies during times of peace. Essentially, the Ohio National Guard is technically operating illegally during peace time.
Either way, I am confident that the government will not be infrining on those rights. It would be bloody.
Rev. re the subord. clause. Go tell it to the Supremes – except somebody already did and they didn't buy it.
It means what the Supremes think it means.
balkinize……..wtf are you talking about?
"Their idea of a militia was having a weapon at home." how do you know that?
"Your argument that police and standing armies provide that service, now, holds no water." So you think the Founding Fathers DID envision that the U.S. would spend $658 BILLION per year to police the planet?
Reverand,
Let's focus on the First Amendment. The prohibition against the "establishment of religion" is a prohibition against the establishment of a state church, such as the Lutheran church in Sweden or the Church of England. That is what the words mean and that is what the words were understood to mean at the time the First Amendment was adopted.
Furthermore, the prohibition of laws respecting the "establishment of religion" is to preserve the "free exercise" of religion which is mentioned in the next phrase. After all, if the US had an official religion (which it does not), then the right to free exercise would be impaired, at least for those who did not follow the "official" religion.
Yes, the cross is a symbol of Christianity. But the erection of a cross on government land does not "establish" Christianity" as the official religion of the US. No one is required to bow before the Mojave Cross. In short, it does not impair anyone's right to freely exercise their own religious beliefs, whatever they may be.
Frye and Balkanize have covered the Second Amendment. There is no need to repeat their points.
Rev,
On the Establishment Clause, you have it all wrong. Here is what it actually says, one more time, since you ignored it the first time it was posted.
""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Does a cross in the Mojave Desert represent Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion ? No, it doesn't. It's just a cross out there in the Mojave. It's not a law. Nobody's freedom to practice their religion is being trampled upon because of a cross in the Mojave. I'm sure you know that. The Establishment Clause doesn't say anything at all about religious symbols being prohibited, because the writers of our Constitution would never have thought that to be improper.
Quidpro,
I wrote my last comment before I read yours, and I pretty much made the same point you did. I apologize for being redundant.
from the L.A. Times story………
"A decade ago, it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby."
King sez….."The Establishment Clause doesn't say anything at all about religious symbols being prohibited, ….." Except of course Buddist symbols.
walter,
I have no problem with Buddhist symbols. In fact, in the Mojave cross case, I thought the real legal issue, if one exists, is why the Buddhist statue was denied, not whether the Mojave cross was permissible. There is a possible religious discrimination case to be made there. I was wondering if anybody was going to mention this. Kudos to you.
"….a possible religious discrimination case…." That is exactly what this is all about
Clearly, thru the Establishment Clause, the Founders wanted the government to be religious neutral. How do we achive this neutrality? You and quidpro seem to suggest that to achive this neutrality the government should allow ALL religions to promote their beliefs on federal lands. I suggest the way to achive this religious neutrality is for the government to NOT allow ANY religion access to federal land to promote their beliefs.
Not allowing any religious symbols on federal land may be your opinion, walt, but it's not what the Establishment Clause says. It just says Congress may not make any law establishing or prohibiting a religion.
so it is your suggestion that ALL religions should have access to federal lands to promote their beliefs. Is that what you are saying?
so along comes King wanting to settle this discrimination case. He says sure, let Buddists erect a temple on federal lands and that would end discrimination. Then along comes the Hindus and they feel discriminated against because of the Buddist temple.
And King says sure.
It would appear to me that King and quidpro think the way to end this discrimination is to add on to it. I would end this discrimination by NOT discriminating in the first place
If you go to Arlington National Cemetery (on federal land), you will see crosses, stars of David, non-religious headstones, etc. All religions and non-religions have access. That is as it should be. For further clarification, look again at the actual text of the Establishment Clause that has been pointed out earlier.
again from the L.A. Times story…….
"A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional…."
We are talking about a stand alone display