…and this is a 
The Supreme Court just heard arguments in the case of Buono v. Salazar, a case which is challenging the use of a gigantic cross on federal land, which was initially erected to honor WWI dead but has now become a cause celebre for the wanna-be theocrats who want official endorsement of America as a Christian nation. This exchange with Scalia is simply stunning: the man is an incompetent ideologue who I wouldn't trust to rule on a parking ticket. Can we have him impeached?
Here's how he reacted when told that non-Christians might object a teeny-tiny bit to having their dead memorialized with a gigantic Christian symbol.
"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.
"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," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.
"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."
Eliasberg dares to correct him: "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."
"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"
Far less outrageous is the conclusion that religious symbols are not religious.
Since Scalia is such an open-minded syncretist, I suggest that when he dies, right after all the partying and celebration, we atheists pass around a hat and get a collection going to erect a huge Muslim crescent over his grave. Not only will it honor the dead man, but it'll let us do double-duty when we all line up to piss on it. Everyone wins!
Politics
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 8, 2009 11:15 AM
I wish I was surprised.
Posted by: felixthecat
|
October 8, 2009 11:16 AM
My wife's family has known the Scalia family for many years. Antonin has always been a thick-headed know-nothing jerk, and probably always will be. There is nothing redeeming about him as a human being or as a jurist. Still, he gives Fundies their nightly wet dreams, so maybe they're having less sex and therefore less little Fundies.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 8, 2009 11:18 AM
It is truly frightening that he couldn't make that connection. It points to the exact problem with this kind of religious creep into government - when crosses are used in every war cemetery in the US as the default, why would anyone stop to think about what the cross itself means and why it's used and why people might not like it? Argh.
Posted by: Bob
|
October 8, 2009 11:19 AM
I used to work with a guy (out of Duke) who thought that Just-Ass Scalia was a "legal genius." Needless to say, I no longer work there.
For what it's worth, Just-Ass Scalia's comments on originalism are also a little screwy.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 11:22 AM
At the risk of causing an uproar with a dissenting opinion:
I believe Scalia is being an unrelenting jackass, so that part I can agree with.
HOWEVER...
Is it really in the best interests of the nonreligious to attack EVERY SINGLE CASE of a religious symbol on public land? I can understand removing the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. I can understand keeping school officials, public officials, and other government employees from praying at public meetings and so forth. But do we really need to support tearing down an old war veteran's monument because it rests on public land, even if it IS a giant crucifix?
Can we, in order to gain a better public opinion, let it go once in a while? It would be different if they decided to put this up tomorrow, but I understand it has already been there for quite some time.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 8, 2009 11:23 AM
This is actually kind of interesting. It a weird way that does sort of weaken the symbolism of the Cross in my thinking. A long time ago Christians didn't use the cross that much, more often doves, lambs, or fish adorned their graves. Those have specific interpretations that have all but been forgotten by an awful lot of Christians in the US. If you start declaring that the cross is a universal symbol rather than a religious one the funny thing is that is exactly what will happen. The cross will lose it's meaning because the meaning of symbols and words is very maliable. People will and can forget that the cross has much if anything to do with Jesus.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
October 8, 2009 11:26 AM
Vaffunculo, Nino.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 8, 2009 11:26 AM
I wish you could edit comments. I really do. I always seem to see my glaring spelling and grammar mistakes just after I hit post.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 8, 2009 11:31 AM
Jparenti, it came up because there was a group that wanted to put up a similar memorial for veterans of their own religious meanings, and were turned down flat. Even if you want to argue the "it's been there for awhile" line (which is bogus in its own way), the point is that they're still actively maintaining the monopoly of this one religious symbol, which makes it a current issue.
Posted by: maddyhatter
|
October 8, 2009 11:35 AM
...what? I know he's an ideologue but I didn't realize he was fracking stupid.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 8, 2009 11:35 AM
Does the US military use crosses to mark the graves of all those killed in conflict regardless of their religious beliefs ?
Posted by: Bostonian
|
October 8, 2009 11:35 AM
I heard this exchange on NPR and was also shaking my head. Often I find Supreme Court oral arguments to be a pleasure to listen to, even if I disagree with the justices. One thing I enjoy about them is that supposedly "liberal" or "conservative" justices tend to ask questions one might normally associate with the opposite political pole, just to explore the legal issues (or perhaps to preemptively dispel accusations of bias - who knows what goes on in their heads).
In this case, though, I was floored by Scalia's assertions that crosses somehow represent Jews, the nonreligious and other non-Christians. It's almost as if no one told him until that very moment that some people are not Christian, and as if he'd never noticed the First Amendment's specifics beyond speech and assembly. His statements are a complete non sequitur given the arguments up to that point, and he wouldn't have sounded any stranger if he'd suggested the court should hear additional oral arguments from Jesus next.
The thing that bugs me most about Scalia is his audacity in calling himself a "strict constructionist" when his opinions are so severely politically aligned, and often at odds with the known original intent of the law. Frankly, if he's a strict constructionist, the term is rendered meaningless.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 11:36 AM
I don't think it's bogus. I think the problem is that every time I say I'm an atheist, they associate me with people who want to destroy the freedom to worship (or not) in the way of their own choosing. Which of course, I am not trying to do. What I'm trying to say is, why not deny all religious memorials on public land henceforth, and leave the old ones in place? It seems like that would keep everyone happy.
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 11:38 AM
I agree with Jparenti (#5). In the case of the dead, the cross has become a symbol seperate from christianity. the meaning of symbols can change over time, and symbols can have more than one meaning. the cross, to signify jesus OR as a grave marker, is an example. yes it originated as a symbol of jesus' death, but it is not ALWAYS what it means. if we go around trying to remove everything that reminds us that religion exists, our purpose will be diluted, our efforts spread too wide and thin to do any good in areas that matter like science education and religion in schools/government. I think that in this context Scalia is defending a war monument, although in a different context he may defend the same symbol based on his religious beliefs. by attempting to remove an old cross that honors people who died saving the lives of others or for some other greater purpose, we look like insensitive jerks who care about nothing except removing any reference to religion anywhere anytime. let's focus on whats important. this cross in a graveyard is not inhibiting any child's education, it's not preaching a belief system, and it's not inhibiting the free expression and exchange of ideas.
for example, some faculty at the university I attend have a cross or some other symbol on their desk or office wall. This is not a sign that the school endorses christianity or any other religion. I would be wasting my time trying to force them to remove it. My time is better spent with religious people handing out fliers or attending christian student groups, and trying to engage them in civil, open, and intelligent conversation. that often fails too, but it's not a waste of time.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 11:43 AM
#14: Exactly. What good will we do if all anyone remembers about nonbelievers is, "They're assholes who try to destroy all mention of religion"? We must pick our battles carefully, if we're ever going to make an impact on those who would listen when approached without contempt and sneering criticism.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 8, 2009 11:47 AM
Except for all of the families of the people who have died and are now "memorialized" by the symbol of a religion that wants to stamp them out and/or convert them and preaches that they're going to hell. But you know, no one gives a shit about them.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 8, 2009 11:47 AM
So why are Stars of David used to mark the graves of Jews, and Crescents to mark the graves of Muslims ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 11:50 AM
NOT
FOR
NON
CHRISTIANS
How hard is it to understand this?
Mooney is that you?
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 11:50 AM
#16: Well, you can't win them all. I personally believe the nonbelievers need a monument, too. It's something I've actually participated in discussing with an Army friend who is an atheist. There are plenty of families who are perfectly happy with a Christian symbol. For those who aren't, I am perfectly in favor with a nonreligious tribute. But I say don't take away the monument from those who are happy with it.
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
October 8, 2009 11:53 AM
He was selected by Ronald 'God Did It' Reagan, and he's a Catholic who worships Jeebus-crackers. Thank goodness the next 8 years Obama will be choosing Supreme Court Justices.
Do you really think being a cowardly wimp is a good way to gain a better public opinion?
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 11:53 AM
Obviously, I am a minority. But I'd like to point out that just because I don't believe in woo, it doesn't mean I have to be an asshole to those who do (unless the deserve it, of course, in which case I can be a scathing bastard).
Posted by: jbeck.myopenid.com
|
October 8, 2009 11:54 AM
Scalia is amazingly dense and draws some of the silliest conclusions. This is yet another instance of his vacuity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 11:55 AM
Part of the problem here is that another person wanted to erect a Buddhist shrine nearby and were denied.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 8, 2009 11:55 AM
Which explains perfectly why it's used so frequently in non-Christian countries. Most Buddhist temples have an altar with a cross where you can honor your dead. Really it's true. Errr... or maybe I'm lying. But whatever.
That being said I'm all for stripping the meaning from the symbol. I'll be the first in line for the repeat cross pattern emblazoned burqa with skull-bead fringe when it comes out. :D Besides, half my favorite bands use crosses. I mean a lot of times they have them facing the wrong way, but it's all the same right?
Posted by: Todd Ferguson
|
October 8, 2009 11:56 AM
Jparenti-and those who might agree with him:
Please familiarize yourself with the specifics of the case at hand. The lawsuit originated back in 1999 when a Buddhist wanted to place a Buddhist shrine nearby to honor the war dead. The federal government refused, despite the already present religiously-themed memorial. The man sued the government. Then congress, in an attempt to end run around the situation, made the cross an official war memorial, gave the land to a local VFW chapter, on condition that the VFW be legally responsible for the upkeep of the cross, because it was an official war memorial.
Also, keep in mind that this cross is the ONLY official war memorial that is explicitly and completely associated with one particular religious faith.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 11:57 AM
Abdul is that you?
Your problem is that you think standing up for equal treatment under the law and or protecting the establishment clause means someone is being an asshole to those denying their rights or trampling on the Constitution.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 11:58 AM
Being a cowardly wimp and not being an asshole are different things. I'm not suggesting we don't fight. I'm suggesting we not fight at the slightest provocation, at every opportunity, whether the situation warrants it or not.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 8, 2009 11:59 AM
Jparenti and Allen;
You would be right if the crucifix had truly become a non-religious, all-encompassing symbol for graveyards or the deceased in general but this is clearly not the case. The Cross is still aggressively promoted as an exclusively Christian symbol. Attempts to use the symbols of other faiths are blocked at every turn. Attempts to establish a-religious burial ceremonies for atheists often face opposition as well.
This is not about 'sticking it to the Christians' for it's own sake. There are no lions waiting in the wings here. This is about a Supreme Court Justice, a person whose vocation contains at it's very core the obligation to protect the constitutional rights of every American citizen irrespective of creed or the lack thereof, brashly dismissing the very idea that not everyone sees the Cross as a universal symbol of the resting places of the dead as an 'outrageous conclusion'.
The man essentially dismisses dissenting, non-Christian opinion as irrelevant at law. He seems incapable of comprehending how a person could even feel this way.
So long as non-Christians of all stripes remain essentially invisible to the officials of the law, that law is not fit for purpose. Since the silence of the disempowered is almost always interpreted as consent by the powerful, it is eminently reasonable to take a stand on such issues lest you are steam-rollered by an illusion of consenus.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 8, 2009 11:59 AM
Jparenti, the issue is that it's still a slap in the face to nonchristians, at least those who believe strongly in something else. You don't mind much because you see it all as harmless woo to begin with. But what about someone who is a passionate Muslim? To that person, it's a very big deal indeed. What you're suggesting is that the comfort of mainstream Christians is worth more than the offense and discomfort of everyone else.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 12:02 PM
Don't mistake a sword or some other cross-like depiction as the Christian cross. The big thing crosses have going for them is the support they provide for wreaths and other things you want to hang from them.Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 12:02 PM
#23 and #25: I admit freely that I was not aware of that specific point of the case. I withdraw my criticism of this particular case, but my previous statements regarding lawsuits stands. It's better to play nice and go on the attack when it's warranted than to be on constant attack. This appears to be a case where it IS warranted, and I humbly apologize for not Googling the case first.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 12:02 PM
You should read the comments in the Ten Commandment's thread from a few days ago.
There are damn good reasons to stand up to any violation of the establishment clause because not doing so opens the door to more widespread laxity on the enforcement of it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 8, 2009 12:04 PM
So asking that other religions be granted the same privileges as Christianity in this case is being an arsehole is it ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 12:05 PM
Provide me some examples of when it is not ok to go on the attack. Not hypothetical ones, but actual cases.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 8, 2009 12:08 PM
For the record I was being snarky. Don't take that comment seriously. I've never once seen buddhists use a cross!
Posted by: Bostonian
|
October 8, 2009 12:08 PM
I should add, there are a lot of other interesting facets to this case, including what the Bush Administration did in response to the original challenge. Quite in character, they didn't face the arguments against them and instead tried to squirm out by selling the parcel of land containing the monument to an interest group. Agree with them or disagree, they were slimy bastards when it came to avoiding accountability.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 12:09 PM
#33: Truthfully, NO religion should be granted any privilege. I didn't realize the specifics of the case. I assumed (incorrectly) that someone put up a cross, someone else saw an opportunity to bitch, and therefore, lawsuit time.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 8, 2009 12:12 PM
The problem with this is that most battles are small, not large. You never know when you may not be worth the effort to fight for.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 8, 2009 12:12 PM
That just means you will continually be shit upon.Sometimes you have to be loud and obnoxious to get peoples attention, like getting the attention of a toddler having a temper tantrum. Or a million people protest during the 'Nam war, saying "Hell no, we won't go!" We play loud here on purpose. Those who want to play "nice" can find more accommodationist atheist blogs.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 12:13 PM
Thanks for letting me know, Ol'Greg. My snark detector failed yet again.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
October 8, 2009 12:14 PM
JParenti, I think what is most disturbing about your position is that you are inventing all sorts of dire consequences about the ACLU asserting this.
I actually agree with you in a very limited sense, in that the white cross is an issue I have trouble working up much rage about. It's bullshit, but there's plenty of bullshit that really makes my blood boil, and this is not it.
But the ACLU is right, of course... and if they want to fight this battle, saying, "Stop making me look bad!" comes across as pretty disingenuous and whiny...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 12:14 PM
Maybe you should look into the details first before jumping into the accommodationist stance, I've been guilty of jumping the gun before and will be again. It happens.
Putting up a cross is just find on your own land and I doubt you'd find anyone disagreeing here (though I get sick and tired of the three ugly ass blue and yellow crosses on the sides of highways I see everywhere). But this is federal land along with all the other details of the case.
Now do you have any examples of where people went on the attack where it wasn't warranted?
Posted by: armchairdissident.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 12:17 PM
And who decides which is which? You? Because in this case you got it completely wrong, made false assumptions about the case, and concluded the guy bringing the case was an arsehole. Only when the full facts of the case were presented did you do a volte-face and belatedly conclude that the case had merit.
I second Rev. BigDumbChimp suggestion: provide us with a concrete example where, "play nice" was better than "go on the attack", because I am prepared to bet that, should you find such an example, the situation will invariably more complex than you initially assume.
Posted by: Chief
|
October 8, 2009 12:19 PM
Of course, we're talking about the same man who agreed with this:
And two months later, wrote this:
Those are some interesting ideas as to what comprises a "fair" trial. I like that "actually" is in quotes in that dissenting opinion. As though the first trial just had to be correct, since it was the one that ended in a guilty verdict.
Posted by: aduzik.myopenid.com
|
October 8, 2009 12:20 PM
Even though Scalia is completely, utterly and totally wrong and arguably not even acting in good faith with this line of questioning, what he's done is not grounds for impeachment.
It would be as idiotic for us to say that Scalia is being an "activist judge" (he is, by the way) and that that serves as grounds for impeachment solely because we dislike his opinion as it is for, to pluck an example out of thin air, certain family members of mine to argue that the entire Iowa Supreme Court should be impeached because they unanimously agreed that the Iowa Constitution prohibits denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
October 8, 2009 12:22 PM
How many times have people used "In God We Trust" on US currency as "proof" that the US is a Christian nation? If religious symbols are allowed on public land without a fight, then the existence of those symbols on public land will be used as a reason to force Christianity even further into our public life.
This isn't just some trivial cause. Even if this were a "minor problem", it is better to face and resolve the problem while it is still relatively minor before it festers into a much, much bigger problem.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 12:23 PM
I don't have any specific examples. But I know that when I saw the news talking about this particular case, I simply shrugged and said, "So what?" Maybe that's an accomadationist stance. Oh well. I support any and all attempts to prevent mandated prayer. I hate the giant Ten Commandments monuments. I think it's ridiculous to see every presidential speech end with "God bless America." I don't particularly like the tax-exempt status and privileges granted to churches in this country.
What I've found is that it's difficult to question religious belief when the most vocal opponents of religion are suing everyone and their uncle every chance they get. Then again, I don't much care for the litigious society I find myself in. As far as woo, I'm a hardcore debunker, a tireless opponent of religion, and usually a nice guy. If that makes me an accommodationist, then so be it.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 8, 2009 12:26 PM
And, I guess, you personally decide when it's warranted.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 12:27 PM
First you were implying this and now your are borderline asserting it. Please provide examples to back that statement.
There is a HUGE difference in suing someone over monetary issue and suing to guarantee that your rights and the law is being upheld. It's a pretty serious category error IMHO to equate the two.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 12:27 PM
#43: If I'm not allowed to change my mind, than what allows a believer to see the light of reason and logic and turn his back on religion? I was wrong. I didn't do the research and spouted off an opinion, and changed my mind. If I can't change my mind, if I can't admit I'm wrong without ridicule, then what, I ask, is the point of having a civil discourse?
Posted by: armchairdissident.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 12:30 PM
Whoah! At the beginning of your post you say, "I don't have specific examples [of where it was wrong to sue]", then you complain that vocal opponents of religion are suing to enforce their constitutional rights - but you don't have specific examples of where they shouldn't?
Does it not occur to you that the problem does not lie with people suing to protect their constitutional rights, but with the people being sued who seek to use the state to promote religion?
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 8, 2009 12:35 PM
Jparenti, it's fine if you aren't into litigation. As long as you don't try to stop other people from suing people they have a legal reason to sue, I don't mind. You keep on debunking woo, and the ACLU can keep on litigating. As long as it works and isn't immoral, I'm basically for it.
Posted by: armchairdissident.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 12:36 PM
My issue was not that you changed your mind, but that you recognised your error, changed your mind on this specific case, then carried on with the same argument anyway.
If you had just said, "Oops. Got this a bit wrong didn't I", then that's fine. What you said instead was, "Yeah, I know I'm wrong on this case, but I'm right in general anyway". That is a position just begging to be challenged.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 8, 2009 12:43 PM
Jparenti: but have you changed your mind simply on this one case, or on the issue in general? In post #47 it sounds like your position is still to dismiss every case you hear about as petty until you are spoonfed facts, and that you are okay with that. That sort of apathy can lead to a very slippery slope. As others have pointed out, if you give an inch they'll take a mile. They put "in God we trust" on the money a few decades back, and now they use that as evidence that this was founded as a Christian nation. Not long ago the Supreme Court "grandfathered" in some 10 Commandments monument, opening the door for others. We've lost too many of the small battles already to start in-fighting about where exactly the line should be drawn, about how egregious the violation should be before it's "acceptable" to raise our voices about it.
Posted by: Jparenti
|
October 8, 2009 12:43 PM
I give up. White flag and all that. I fear that I'm not making much sense, and the more I think about it myself, the more I realize that as well. I'm uncomfortable with lawsuits, so it's skewing my position, and I should admit that. Also, I'm quite tired of drawing attacks and feeling like a moron this morning, so never mind.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM
|
October 8, 2009 12:47 PM
I am all for returning the meaning of the cross to the original intent, a means of supplying a slow and painful death.
Posted by: mck9
|
October 8, 2009 12:47 PM
It may be of some relevance that Justice Scalia (like almost all of the current members of the Supreme Court) is Catholic.
As a rule, Catholics display crucifixes, i.e. crosses with Jesus still on them. Protestants display empty crosses, i.e. crosses without Jesus. So it may be that an empty cross doesn't arouse any particular feelings of piety in Scalia's tiny, wizened heart. If he were a Baptist, or if the monument were a crucifix, he might have come to a different conclusion.
Of course, his pigheaded stupidity is inexcusable in any case.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
October 8, 2009 12:53 PM
I believe this is an example of what's known to Intellectual Property lawyers as "dilution of a trademark", a process that can eventually render a trademark indefensible and therefore worthless. Apparently the Christian Church needs a better trademark counsel.
Posted by: Holytape
|
October 8, 2009 1:04 PM
Scalia is right the cross is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a iron age torture devise, and therefor a symbol of pain and torture. It is a symbol that when anyone gazes on it, they should be filled with the terror of the most inhuman actions that people are possible of. It should fill them with disgust. The cross is a symbol of how low the human species can sink.
Posted by: Natalie
|
October 8, 2009 1:19 PM
Matt Penfold @ 11 - (My apologies if someone already answered this - I didn't see a reply anywhere.)
National cemeteries do not use a cross as the default marker. The default marker is a rectangle with a curved top (I'm sure the shape has a name, but I don't know it). I did see one picture of a national cemetery with flat stones set into the ground, instead of the rectangle type. Considering the obvious age of the markers in some pictures I found, this has been policy for a while.
The veteran's family can have one of a list of approved religious symbols carved into the face of the marker if they want. Wikipedia has a picture of all the different religious symbol options - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USVA_headstone_emb-16.jpg. Note that there's an atheist symbol as well.
Posted by: Jeremy
|
October 8, 2009 1:25 PM
Regarding this history of this case (see #25):
The history becomes a bit more nuanced if you go back further. The memorial/cross was erected 60 years before the land became a national preserve, and has been privately maintained this entire time.
Given that it was a private undertaking erected 60 years before the formation of the park and that it occupies a remote 64 sq feet out of a 1.5Million acres purchase, I see no reason not to "grandfather" this particular instance. The key being that no one (until Congress in 2000) intended it as a loophole in the 1st Amendment.
Litigate away, but realize that all litigation has consequence for both parties.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 8, 2009 1:28 PM
Thanks Natalie.
I was pretty sure that was the case with the US, much like it is here in the UK. I know in the case of the UK the policy goes back to at least the Second World War as I have seen lists of the supplies taken to Normandy in 1944, and it include grave markers for various religions.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 8, 2009 1:39 PM
@Natalie
Your link doesn't seem to work, but I believe that this is what you were trying to link to (hopefully that link works).
Posted by: Walton
|
October 8, 2009 1:50 PM
I used to be a big fan of Scalia's hardline "originalist" philosophy of constitutional interpretation. However, having read more on constitutional law, I've gradually moved over to a more middle-of-the-road interpretive stance (which I'm happy to elaborate in-depth if anyone's interested, but it isn't really relevant to the topic of the thread).
However, calling for his impeachment is just foolish (unless Professor Myers was joking; I can't tell). Impeachment should not be used as a political weapon against one's ideological adversaries. It was stupid when Gingrich and other Republicans abused the process as a partisan weapon against Bill Clinton, and it would be equally stupid if liberals were to use it in the same way.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 8, 2009 1:59 PM
I've just emailed tips@wonkette with this story. If we can flood the tipbox of Wonkette and Gawker there's a chance Wonkette will run this story on its front page and a very, very small chance Scalia will be shamed enough to back down, or at least the other justices will want to distance themselves from him. (Wonkette itself is a humor site, but this stuff gets around.)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 8, 2009 2:11 PM
Understanding that you've run up the white flag, jparenti, and without trying to pile on... let me toss my two cents in on this:
The establishment clause is a vitally important part of the constitution and is the only thing preventing this country from being a full on theocracy. Seeing as how the court system is the sole means available to the citizen to make sure that the clause is upheld, and that we remain a non-theocratic society, I can not think of any instance of violating that clause, in whatever way small or large, too frivelous to pursue vigilantly with whatever means are available. My freedom, and the implicit freedom of every other citizen to be governed in a non-theocratic manner is far more important to me than making people squeemish over being overly litigious or offending the christian majority.
I would raise a lawsuit (in addition to one hell of a public stink) if a teacher in my daughter's public school class put a 3 inch cross on the blackboard. Because it's the right thing to do, dammit.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 8, 2009 2:13 PM
It is not beyond the bounds of hope that maybe one day...in the not to distant future... that the cross will be regarded as such not unlike the swastika.
Both symbols of tyranny widely regarded as a signpost for hatred persecution intolerance and gross ignorance.
And a fulsome reminder that history of the human species has had some pretty hard vicious times to justify.
That they both have origins well before Xian or Nazi associations means not a jot...that those images can be equated together and universally regarded as repressive and evil in their own right is the cliff to climb.
One has already achieved that notoriety...it will not be easily to so pigeon hole the other in a similar vein...but we live in hope.
Scalia is the last of a long line of religiously blinded republican sympathized fools...there will be others no doubt...there always are.
Let us hope that a possible eight years of 'Barry' might dilute the religiously fouled cesspool of both government and the law with a refreshing and cleansing dose of rationale with hopefully the inclusion of more non-aligned bunnies that prefer evidence to doctrine.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 2:16 PM
And probably happy to elaborate even if no one is
;)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 8, 2009 2:16 PM
Those silly xtians! All along they thought it was the torture device that their man-deity was crucified on (along with many thousands of others).
Furthermore, it begs the question: Who's buried in the middle of the Mojave then? Who's "resting place" is there? Is there a grave yard there?
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 2:17 PM
I don't have the patience for the whole fucking thread, but for those of you Scalia apologists higher up, the idea that the cross has become a secular symbol honoring the dead is bullshit. Only someone who has suckled at the normative Christian teat from birth could be so stunningly ignorant. Those of us who are not christian do not accept your largess in offering to share your jesus death stick. I am one generation---one---away from my family graves in Europe which have been defaced, destroyed, and otherwise dishonored. Personally, I'm happy if when im dead my body goes straight to my medical school and no monuments are raised, but most of my peeps aren't down with that, nor are the down with having the jesus death stick thrust upon them to "honor" them in the ground.
In sum, fuck you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 2:19 PM
Pal MD's post succinctly states why this is an important issue.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 8, 2009 2:22 PM
OK. That was great.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 8, 2009 2:23 PM
Impeachment should not be used as a political weapon against one's ideological adversaries.
No, it shouldn't. It should be used as a tool to remove grossly incompetent, or malfeasant, people from office.
like it should have been used to remove GW, who was indeed incompetent.
like it WAS used against Nixon, or would have, if he hadn't resigned in the face of it.
It indeed was abused by the republican party during Clinton's administration.
Oh, look! Scalia is grossly incompetent.
...
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 8, 2009 2:29 PM
@jparenti
Well, jparenti, that would be an excellent and appropriate question if American Atheists had brought the lawsuit. As it is, your comment is nothing more than a threadjack.
From my very superficial skimming of this issue in the papers over the last three days, it looks to me like:
a) This dispute started when some Buddhists asked if they could put up a "me too" monument and were rebuffed.
b) The lawsuit was brought by a Roman Catholic ex-Park Ranger,
c) And it being pursued by the ACLU.
As a non-religious person, you seem to have forgotten that religious people do NOT see all religions as equal. Seeing some other, ridiculous creed promoted over their own really sticks in their craw! And secondly, of COURSE the ACLU should be fighting for the first amendment. That's what they do! That's why they exist!
Finally, a member of the RCC was the one who stood up to be counted. There are still some RCC members who remember their American history. This is a secular issue, not an atheist issue.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 8, 2009 2:31 PM
I'm fairly confident I speak for almost everyone here when I say NO - no one's interested.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 8, 2009 2:33 PM
The thing that bugs me most about Scalia is his audacity in calling himself a "strict constructionist"
I think I've seen that term on the little cards that get left in 'phone booths in central London, advertising "personal services" ;-)
Posted by: JiminKy
|
October 8, 2009 2:38 PM
I'm with Chiroptera. I would have less objection to grandfathering such displays if every example of exceptionalism was not soon thrown back as supposed proof that this is a "Christian nation."
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 8, 2009 2:45 PM
allen quoth:
Assertion without proof.
Go to Japan and tell me that. No, I mean visit a real Japanese cemetary, don't forward me stills from End of Evangelion. Just because crosses, Kabbala, and Buddhist mysticism are seen as "cool" and are incorporated in animated fantasy TV programs aimed at adolescents does not mean that the cross has become a universal symbol for the dead.
What about India? Do you think they use crosses to symbolize the dead there? Or China? It seems to me like crosses are used where people are born into the Christian religion.
Posted by: Not My God
|
October 8, 2009 2:45 PM
How does someone that dense and/or deceptive get to be one of the most prominent people in U.S. government? That is truly scary. It looks like Scalia is using the good ol' ply of denying something is religious to sneak it into the secular world, but like so-called intelligent design people do.
Oh, and I like the part about pissing on his grave. And felixthecat's wet dream comment... delish.
Posted by: slcrane
|
October 8, 2009 2:54 PM
Re: impeachment
Thomas Jefferson was a huge fan of impeachment, particularly for federal judges who couldn't / wouldn't do their jobs. He wanted to turn the Supreme Court chambers in the US Capitol into impeachment chambers. I think in this case, he'd be annoyed enough to call for Scalia's impeachment.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 8, 2009 2:55 PM
I used to be a big fan of Scalia's hardline "originalist" philosophy of constitutional interpretation.
Thing is Walton, it is a goddamn lie to say that he ever genuinely subscribed to, or has once ruled on the basis of, "originalist" jurisprudence. Scalia may well be the most ideologically motivated jurist ever to sit on the SCOTUS, and it's an ideology utterly foreign to that held by any of the delagates to the Constitutional Convention. I mean, glad to hear you don't buy into the idea, which is a terrible and sort of self-defeating approach to jurisprudence, which always and ever has to grapple with a living, changing world in which the law must be interpreted and applied. But don't kid yourself that Scalia is anything but a demogogue.
Impeachment should not be used as a political weapon against one's ideological adversaries.
How neat and tidy that all sounds, until you ask yourself, what if my ideological adversaries are guilty of impeachable offences against their office and the people of the US? Should they be protected from the consequences of that because people notice, become outraged, and embrace ideologically adversarial positions? Hard to see how impeachment could ever be effected, since one's ideological allies are hardly likely to initiate the proceedings.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/openidiot#56c23
|
October 8, 2009 2:56 PM
I don't know what the big deal is about this cross and why it has any importance as a symbol. After all, it is simply an instrument of enhanced interrogation.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 8, 2009 3:00 PM
@18
I guess some gentiles are astounded that there are non-gentiles in the world. Cultural supremacy through the back door, I say. The gentile atheist stating that all religions are stupid, so why doesn't everyone follow my cultural traditions?
Okay, let me tell an anecdote. My FIL is a German Jew. His parents were Holocaust refugees. His father, for example, spent the war in a work camp in Switzerland, and only managed to make it to die Schweiz because his father had been declared community leader by the Nazis and fought for about a year with the Gestapo to get his son a student visa so he could get out of the country. Had he been less persistant, Opa most likely would have been sent to Theresienstadt and from there to a death camp.
FIL's first wife was my wife's mother. They were both Jewish and non religious. They then divorced. FIL's current wife started their marriage as a convinced Southern Baptist who was determined to deliver her husband from Satan's clutches. She's a Unitarian now and "can't recall" ever having said such a thing. (Hey, it's great that her views have evolved.) Anyway, their two kids have been raised in a secular manner with little knowledge of/connection to their Jewish heritage although they do celebrate Passover.
FIL talks about celebrating Christmas. He likes the whole hoopla, doesn't give a s*** about the religious aspect, and it makes his wife and kids happy. My wife is of two minds. She doesn't adhere to the Jewish religion (although she is a theist) and likes the idea of Christmas trees for their symbolic winter festival value. However, Santa Claus and other trappings really get her broiling! When her dad starts talking about Christmas she starts steaming and as soon as he's out of earshot she starts ranting about the Holocaust, and I don't really blame her.
It has nothing to do with religious claims. FIL's christmas has nothing to do with Baby Jeebus, and my wife, while she is a monotheist, pretty much parts ways with Judaism after rejecting the divinity of Jesus. It has to do with notions of cultural hegmony (gentile) and cultural survival (Jewish). "They tried to kill us. They failed. Let's eat," is one of her favorite phrases.
So there you go. Even a non-religious Jew can feel oppressed by non-religious Christian cultural hegemony.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 8, 2009 3:06 PM
Jparenti
If you feel that way, you'd be better off addressing the ACLU with your concerns, as they are the main group that brings these lawsuits. The other main group is the FFRF. Their websites go into detail about their reasoning and the history of these cases.
Their funding comes from donations from members of the public like yourself.
Posted by: Natalie
|
October 8, 2009 3:09 PM
Science Pundit @63 - thanks. The software decided the period at the end was a part of the link.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 8, 2009 3:17 PM
Oops, I see others have said better what I wanted to say anyway. Note to self: skim thread before spooging.
PalMD: I deleted a bunch of paragraphs expanding on exactly what you just said. How quickly they forget.
Posted by: Jeff Bell
|
October 8, 2009 3:22 PM
It would be interesting to go back through the "Piss Christ" testimony and see how many times Jesse Helms mentions the war dead.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
October 8, 2009 3:26 PM
shatfat wrote:
Success! Wonkette is covering it.
Posted by: Bob L
|
October 8, 2009 3:29 PM
jparenti @"Is it really in the best interests of the nonreligious to attack EVERY SINGLE CASE of a religious symbol on public land?"
Did you missed the bit about it was the Buddhist and the Jews were driving this lawsuit. By erecting that cross the theocrats are trying to pretend the US was this 110% white Christian paradise up until the faggot liberals screwed it up by letting foreigners in the '60s. Atheists an't the only target for the Right.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 3:29 PM
zero
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 8, 2009 3:30 PM
I don't think it is at all in our interest to "play nice" and ignore the display of religious symbols on public property. They constantly point to such symbols as evidence of religion being a universal thing, demanding conformity from us. In fact, outside a legal setting they freely acknowledge the relgious significance of these symbols and defend them with phrases such as "this nation was founded by Christians", "this is a Christian nation", etc. Historicity is only mentioned when they are trying to weasel their way out of a lawsuite.
Posted by: Jud
|
October 8, 2009 3:34 PM
Of course it's not a sign that the school endorses religion, it's a sign that the faculty member does. And what if you're a non-Christian (say rather obviously non-Christian, e.g., you wear a yarmulke or veil to class) who's just received a bad grade from that prof on an essay that your Christian friends aced? You walk in, see the cross on the wall, and now aren't you a bit fearful, uncomfortable and angry about where your grade really came from?
Why should the government be allowed to impose the analog of this sort of discomfort and anger by forcing the icons or rituals of one religious sect, albeit the majority sect (not only crosses - are you familiar with Mormon post-mortem "baptisms into the faith" of Jewish dead?) onto religious or non-religious others?
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 3:42 PM
Hmmm...i don't think a small, personal expression of faith for a publicly-employed professor is an establishment clause violation. It may make you uncomfortable, but its a mutlicultural society. While your point is understood, you are wrong about it being legally or morally problematic.
Posted by: Jud
|
October 8, 2009 3:44 PM
Oh and BTW, PalMD @ #70, I am lost in admiration.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 3:53 PM
Thank you. I'm cranky.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 8, 2009 3:55 PM
I'm a member of the FFRF and have had correspondence with other members who are more involved with the organization, and I can tell you that the FFRF (and probably the ACLU too) does pick its fights. They are flooded with complaints of religious monuments in public places and city councils that start their sessions with sectarian prayers, etc. They have limited resources and must allocate them wisely. Their decision whether to get involved in a lawsuit depends on a series of factors ranging from the breadth of the offense to whether there's somebody with the proper standing to bring suit as well as several other factors.
My point is that this idea that "we're going after every single case" is demonstrably wrong, and appears to be based on nothing more than just reading the headlines.
(While this is a response to shatfat's comment #84, it's not directed towards him.)
Posted by: Jud
|
October 8, 2009 4:00 PM
If it's me at #92 you're referring to, no, I don't think my point was completely understood (perhaps I didn't put it completely understandably:).
I agree with you that someone having symbols of his or her faith in a faculty office should be no more legally or morally troubling than other personal mementos such as family photos. It's only when the power of the state is quite evidently behind an establishment or restriction of religion that a legal question is raised, and only if personal religious faith motivates bad deeds (for instance, if the prof in my example above really had assigned a bad grade out of religious motives) that a moral issue is created.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 4:05 PM
I understand better, thanks.
I still have a hard time with the clarified point, though. If the professor acts in a discriminatory manner, yes, the U is partly responsible, but I still don't see it as an Estab. problem but as a discrimination problem.
An establishment problem (although perhaps not a huge one) would be, say, re-scheduling the final exam to fall on yom kippur or eid. Perhaps you signed up for the course understanding it would not violate your ability to perform your religious obligations, but the seemingly-arbitrary change, er, changes everything.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 4:15 PM
On further consideration, I don't like my example so much.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 8, 2009 4:15 PM
I have to disagree, PZ. Scalia is quite competent in pursuing his ideology. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that he's the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 8, 2009 4:25 PM
Not My God at #79,
Today's edition of three-word answers:
Appointed. By. Reagan.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 8, 2009 4:25 PM
If the college allows it on their property it is a violation.
That is precisely what happened in Olympia, WA last December. Allowing a religious display opened the door to the display of the FFRF sign saying religion is fiction.
You can't have it both ways. If you allow religion, you have to allow irreligion as well. What violates the non-establishment clause is discrimination. Allowing one but not the other (and this case is specifically about that).
The only solution is not to allow either.
Posted by: condignaction.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 4:35 PM
The Department of Veterans Affairs initially refused to accept the Wiccan symbol even after the widow of a soldier killed in Afghanistan filed for recognition; he even had WICCAN on his dog tags. A little media attention got the symbol approved. The Satanist pentagram (5-point star pointing down) has consistently been refused despite requests from family members applying on behalf of a soldier killed in combat. About dog tags, I understand offering "none" as religion gets you tags with PROT NO DEM but you can get ATHEIST if you demand it. But then, they are issued in boot camp; you are being herded like cattle, your head has just been shaved, some sergeant fellow is barking orders and screaming at you... might not be the right time to make a commotion. About crosses, in my part of town it's commonly emblazoned on goth attire; vampires and the middle ages and such.
Posted by: condignaction.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 4:40 PM
About crosses vs. crucifixes, found this on wiki: "As of 2009, Justice John Paul Stevens is the sole remaining Protestant on the Court."
Posted by: BdN
|
October 8, 2009 4:43 PM
You see, that's exactly the problem with your line of reasoning. There was THE SAME argument yesterday about removing the Ten Commandments from a town hall, like here or here..
But you think removing it was alright while this is not. You see the problem ?
Posted by: Coriolis
|
October 8, 2009 4:46 PM
What's funny is this guy is supposedly one of that mythical species of "intelligent conservatives" that you may disagree with but at least he isn't stupid. IIRC Obama said something along those lines as well about him.
Well, so much for that.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 8, 2009 4:55 PM
- Antonin Scalia
All you need to know about this turd. Obviously, he's never had to face a "mere" death sentence while being innocent. Can anyone have their morals any more fucked up?
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
October 8, 2009 5:04 PM
We brainwash people into believing that war is noble.
Then we brainwash people into thinking that some deity is standing behind all that carnage and mayhem, guaranteeing a quick fix for death.
The only thing memorial war crosses honor is human stupidity.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 8, 2009 5:07 PM
Ultimately this is and should be all he is remembered for. The murder judge.
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
October 8, 2009 5:09 PM
If the Constitution is no guarantee that a clearly innocent person won't be executed, then what good is it?
Posted by: armchairdissident.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 5:12 PM
I think Scalia is just daring the Pope to up his game.
Posted by: condignaction.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 5:17 PM
kinda off topic...
I'm reading Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States on wiki and it states: "Nor has an avowed atheist ever been appointed to the Court..."
Is avowed atheist a pejorative? As in, "He's an atheist; he even admits it!" If you are raised Lutheran but convert to Judaism as an adult are you an avowed Jew or is Osama bin Laden an avowed Moselem?
Just wondering. If noting else it's a hackneyed expression... or maybe it's trite. What's the difference between hackneyed and trite? LOL
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 5:27 PM
Wow. If I haven't misinterpreted this, wow. That's crazy. A public institution cannot allow it's agents to have their own private religious expression? Like, my prof can't wear a crucifix?
That's high-octane crazy.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 5:32 PM
And BTW, is it my imagination or are several folks implying that the Catholic nature, rather than the conservative nut-job nature of the supreme court is the problem?
The problem is not the ratio of jews/catholics/protestants, it's that several justices have a terrible understanding of the Constitution and the way being born into a relative majority can affect your thinking.
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 5:37 PM
Well, I must ammend some of my earlier statements. I didn't know the history of this case, and I agree that the only answer when any ideology has been discriminated against is to remove all ideological references. As far as my position about symbolism, I see that my opinion is not shared widely. I do not automatically think of jesus every time I see a cross, and I was raised in a christian church. The first example I think of when I think of non-religious crosses is as a grave marker. Actually that's the only example I can think of immediately. That is not to say that all grave marking crosses are non-religious, of course many or most of them are religious symbols. And I don't know about crosses on graves in other cultures, I was speaking strictly from my own experience, which is the only position any of us can speak from.
I guess what I fear is the slippery slope argument. What if we learned that after the men erected the flag as immortalized in a statue, they knelt and prayed? Would we want to now remove that statue because they were in a religious frame of mind? Where do you draw the line?
It seems to me that our efforts are most necessary in the areas that affect our future, not things that have happened in the past. And please don't accuse me of not caring about history. I'm just saying we can't change it, but we can change what memorials are erected in the future, what is taught in schools, and what preferential treatment religious organizations get from the government.
As far as the symbols of faith of any kind on a university campus - they don't bother me much because the atheist student group I am a member of has the same rights and privileges as the religious groups on this campus when it comes to handing out fliers, setting up a table, or holding a meeting. If I were in favor of limiting the rights of religious groups or people, I would be a hypocrite because I exercise those same rights. I'm actually writing this opinion from a university computer.
And the comment about test scores vs. religious preferences - that would bother me. But I haven't seen it happen to myself or my peers. Many of my instructors are from outside the u.s., and I'm sure some of them hold different beliefs than I do. But my experience in academia is that professors are more interested in education than conversion of faith. In the case of an exception, there has been a failure that needs to be dealt with.
One more question that comes to mind, more out of curiosity than anything, is: What do you think of Arlington National Cemetary? Do you believe that is a religious symbol? Would you have it torn up, all the crosses burned? It seems to me that the temporary sense of victory some would gain from that would be outweighed by the negative public image, let alone the impression that atheists don't care that people have died in war, sometimes truly protecting others who can't protect themselves. (Yes, I know that this is not the reason we are usually at war, but once in a while it is.)
In conclusion, I think the most promising course of action for the atheist movement is through education, especially of children, and through political organization. All the cross removals and ten-commandment bannings are great, but these acts are just decoration on the fringe of the cause - they have no substantive value in influencing the future.
Posted by: ryk
|
October 8, 2009 5:39 PM
@ condignaction #103
The first set of dog tags come from the info right off your paperwork, if someone puts 'no preference' for religion, the get dog tags with 'no preference' on them.
After boot camp, the individuals are responsible for getting their own tags. Most bases have some store or other just outside (and probably inside as well) that will stamp out a set of tags pretty cheaply, and you can get pretty much whatever you want put on there, though you will likely get in a bit of trouble if you deviate from the standard format or put incorrect info on there (last name, first initial, blood type, social, branch of service, sex, religion).
However, 'no preference' is pretty much interpreted as protestant christian; I was occasionally 'assigned' to various churches for ceremonies and what not (no problem ducking out or skipping or whatever). Eventually got sick enough of it that I changed my religion to 'atheist' on the paperwork (don't think I bothered with the tags though)
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 5:43 PM
FTFY
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 8, 2009 5:44 PM
'Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached'
I am having a tad of trouble getting around this dog inspired dropping!
If the dude/dudess is factually innocent then the death sentence is and has been improperly reached!
tis quid pro quo surely..or does that not matter..well in Scalia's sad excuse for a mind obviously not....but still!
this is just trying to shore up the creaky justice system that has the main rules of engagement as...
Rule No:1 The Justice system is always right.
Rule No:2 Should it occur that the justice system be proved to be wrong....Rule No:1 applies automatically!
That is really barkingly insane...just like the jeebus lusters...oh wait....got it now!
Posted by: otrame
|
October 8, 2009 5:47 PM
Someone needs to send Mr. Justice Scalia to this website, which lists the "emblems of faith" that may be put on the generic national cemetery headstone. There are about 39 of them, of which 23 (59 percent) have nothing on them that could be considered a cross.
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 8, 2009 5:50 PM
James Sweet #41
It's the red cross and its derivatives which prove him wrong !
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 8, 2009 5:59 PM
You got me wrong paulmd. Of course anyone can wear a relgious symbol or in place it in their private space. But if is allowed on public property, and symbols belonging to other religions are not allowed, it does become a violation.
Thanks for the compliment, though.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 5:59 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a cross used as a non-religious grave marker. A cross grave marker may not reveal a specific proportion of Christian belief once held by the deceased, but it does suggest some form of Christian belief or culturally Christian adherence.
I keep looking for all the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery and coming up blank. Is it possible you have the national cemetery mixed up with some other cemetery? Or did they switch out a bunch of crosses with gravestones recently?Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 8, 2009 5:59 PM
allen #115
Congratulation* allen, this statement is definitely in the running for Strawman of the Year.
First of all, you've obviously never been to Arlington National Cemetery or even looked at pictures of it. There aren't any crosses there.
Secondly, if the next of kin wants a religious symbol put on a gravestone, they should be able to have that done. If you follow the link in Science Pundit's post #63, you'll see there are many gravestone symbols including an atheist symbol. Symbols on gravestones pass the Lemon Test (look it up).
Thirdly, this lawsuit is about one particular cross. If you had read the thread (something I doubt you've done), you'd see the lawsuit was brought by a Catholic who objected to a specific religious symbol on public land and the refusal to put another religious symbol nearby. Nobody is trying to tear up Arlington.
Lastly, your concern is noted.
*You only get one.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 6:04 PM
Totally misread you, damned dirty ape. thanks for clarifying.
Posted by: hexag1
|
October 8, 2009 6:12 PM
I posed this earlier, but it seems to have vanished...
anyway this Scalia incident is nothing, check out this
Dershowitz smackdown of Scalia
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/scalias-catholic-betrayal/
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/08/20/dershowitz-challenges-scalia-on-death-penalty-catholocism/
Posted by: charlied
|
October 8, 2009 6:40 PM
re: condignaction @112
I think avowed could be read as openly atheist. It is possible that there have been atheists on the court who were not open about their non belief, but that no one who is openly atheist has ever served. I wonder when we will get an atheist President or Supreme Court Justice?
Posted by: condignaction.wordpress.com
|
October 8, 2009 6:43 PM
You skipped a post. Someone conjectured that from Scalia's perspective as a Catholic the CROSS (vs. crucifix) is not a particularly religious symbol. About catholic nature vs conservative nature, it's reasonable to assume that both one's political ideology and one's supernaturalist beliefs would color one's perspective.
Justyn Martyr (100–165) in Dialog with Trypho the Jew argued that Christianity was a philosophy and proceed to compare and contrast his religion with the popular philosophies of his day. I happen to agree with Justin; in that religion is a philosophy or ideology PLUS supernaturalism. Similarly, if all but one SCJustice were a self-professed Libertarian Utopianist it would be notable. On the other hand, if you think an atheist on this forum is implying a specific disdain for "papists" then yes it is your imagination.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 7:00 PM
Thanks. I don't really care what kind of sky fairy someone believes in as long as they stop assuming it to be the default human state.
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 7:30 PM
Ok, I was wrong about the Arlington National Cemetary. Which one is it then, that has all the white crosses? I may be wrong, but isn't it a war veteran's cemetary? That I was wrong about the title of the place (and no I have not been there) does not change my viewpoint that many people seem to get their satisfaction and sense of accomplishment from tearing down others rather than trying to make a positive difference.
Further, it seems to me that these opinion posts function great as a venue for the exchange of ideas. It is disappointing that many people waste space on here insulting each other rather than encouraging each other to learn more about a topic we are all evidently interested in. I'm sure someone will find something in these two paragraphs to use to insult me in some way, but at least I'm expressing an opinion and reading others with an open mind willing to learn instead of just picking other people apart.
Posted by: slcrane
|
October 8, 2009 7:37 PM
Re condignaction.wordpress.com @ 104:
There have been some rumblings this past week that Stevens may be retiring at the end of this SCOTUS term, as he has only hired one clerk for this term. This is not heartening news - it could be good, but considering Obama's appointment of Collins as head of NIH, I don't hold much hope.
Posted by: Josh
|
October 8, 2009 7:38 PM
Accurate, but you can also order a new set the second you get to your unit. They're dog tags--two little wafers of aluminum hanging on a chain. They're an expendable item. My current set reads "Grunt" in the offending space. You can get what you want.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 7:39 PM
There is the Arlington West Memorial ( http://www.arlingtonwestsantamonica.org/), a non-profit organization. There is also plenty of propaganda falsely conflating graveyards of white crosses with the national cemetery.
We did learn from your mistake. It isn't a hard mistake to make, you know.Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 7:42 PM
That didn't link correctly: >>> Arlington West Memorial <<<
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 7:46 PM
Thank you aratina (#132). That is the image I had in my mind, and now I see why I confused it with Arlington National. I feel slightly less ignorant now (laughing at self).
Posted by: Anri
|
October 8, 2009 7:55 PM
Possible check literary reference: In Flanders Fields.
That's not in the US.
As far as insulting people go, feel free to call me on that if and when I do it. Not to ask a stupid question, but if someone said to you that you were such a horrible person that you deserved eternal, unrelenting torture, would you consider that an insult?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 8, 2009 8:01 PM
WTF? Why is moving type giving me windows in some language I don't know? I can only guess that it's either Spanish or Portuguese.
Anway, back on topic, normally I'd say count me in for the giant crescent peeing post except that there's no point in putting it on Scalia's grave - the dead really don't give a shit. We could dig up Scalia's rotting corpse and piss on that and he wouldn't mind one bit.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 8, 2009 8:04 PM
allen #129
So you're one of these people, like George W. Bush, for whom the Constitution is only good for wiping your ass. Gotcha. That little bit about the First Amendment isn't important. We understand your point. You don't want to upset those nice Christians like Justice Scalia who only want to make this country a theocracy. Thanks for explaining.
Now fuck off.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 8:07 PM
@allen
If you feel insulted or uncomfortable, that may be a whiff of what many of us feel when people assume that religion/a certain religion are in some way the default state.
For many, many people, the thought that a cross could be a secular symbol is laughable to the point of wondering if someone may be cognitively impaired---but the truth is that if you grow up in an insular environment, you might not realize that there is nothing secular about crosses, etc.
This is not about "tearing down" but about clarifying this experience for those who might not get it. For some of us, being a minority is fascinating, but at times very frustrating and alienating, as people like you (or more properly, people like you but less kind) see us as abnormal, "oversensitive", etc.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 8, 2009 8:09 PM
PalMD @ 70,
Awesome.
Havent read the whole thread, but it seems that some of those justices in the US have a little understanding problem regarding their own constitution.Well, not only the justices .
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 8, 2009 8:16 PM
allen,
You might find the parts of this film that deal with the military of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttmsjx7tSec
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 8:20 PM
Yes Tis that is precisely what I was saying. I actually buy photocopies of the constitution by the pallet load, specifically for wiping my ass, and the ass of anyone else who will let me wipe theirs.
I thought I was pretty clear in an earlier post about my desire to protect the free speech rights of all groups on my campus, because I also exercise those rights. And I don't mind upsetting someone with my beliefs. I just don't find it productive to set out with the intention of pissing people off, thinking that somehow telling them to fuck off will get them to think like me. I find it much more productive to have a civil and intelligent discourse, and when I'm wrong taking that opportunity to learn. When I'm right, I take that opportunity to teach. And I'm fine doing a lot more learning than teaching.
Posted by: PalMD
|
October 8, 2009 8:31 PM
Allen, here's the thing about your argument for civility: for someone like you, who is so steeped in a particular mythology that you actually think someone like me could view a cross as "secular", it seems unlikely (and there is empirical evidence) that anything short of a typewritten grabbing by the scruff of the neck and showing you a pile of your own cognitive feces will suffice.
Civility is for those who always get their way and assume everyone else should follow.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 8, 2009 8:35 PM
I'm trying to move this post to its proper place. (Or at least, type it again on the proper thread.) The system might not let me. Here's hoping . . . .
P.Z. Myers:
On religious issues, yes. Not on every issue. Scalia at least has a method of interpretation that yields some predictability. And speaking as a criminal defense attorney, there are actually times when his rulings better preserve defendants' rights than those to his left and right.
For bribery, treason or a high crime or misdemeanor, sure. ;)
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 8, 2009 8:44 PM
slcrane:
Not to mention that Justice Ginsburg's health is probably failing.
I've always had concerns about the kinds of justices Obama would appoint. And these days, the president's pick is pretty much rubber-stamped after farcical Senate hearings that serve only for Senators to perform for their respective constituencies. In other words, we will never know who's next on the Court until s/he has been there a while.
So, I reserve judgment on Sotomayor, and so far, while I have my concerns, she's made some comments that have been encouraging. So, who knows? Stevens is the last of the old guard liberals, but he certainly wasn't the most progressive of them.
Sad how our Court is these days. The RATS are insane, though, Scalia (in my admittedly iconoclastic opinion has some redeeming qualities); Kennedy has no discernible methodology at all; Breyer's no judicial prize; the remaining two lefties have one foot in the grave; and the one I kinda liked just quit.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 8, 2009 8:49 PM
Allen @ 115
Oh, they influence the future, all right. The demands to remove religious displays from the public square defies the theocrat's sense of entitlement. How old are you? I was alive when these pricks presupposed "everyone" should and would follow the party line.
Telling them to keep their symbols to themselves is another way to say "You are not in charge".
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 8, 2009 8:56 PM
Scalia (in my admittedly iconoclastic opinion has some redeeming qualities);
His grave is one I'd eventually love to dance on.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 8, 2009 8:57 PM
allen at #141,
Those are noble sentiments, and the kind of noble sentiments best expressed in their doing. That is to say, you will nobly uphold those sentiments by undertaking them yourself.
However, to insist that everyone else must conduct discourse in the same mode is the same kind of insistence that demands of those neither acclimated nor amenable to cruciform symbolism to not make a big deal of the symbolism. Further, a potent quality, in addition to the desire to learn, is recognizing that there are times when so-called "civil discourse" is either a farcical exercise dressed up in the impotent mask of politeness, or is no longer effective; in either case, those circumstances may then pass into the realm of circumstances that require shouting. Shouting can take many forms beyond actual increase in vocal decibels. Shouting can be powerful speeches by individuals, viable and effective financial action (boycotting), concerted and collaborative peaceful demonstration, intelligent and capable legal effort. Sometimes, though, shouting needs to be, well, shouted, because some people, particularly people ensconced in power and so embedded in institutionalized complacency that they can't even see it, otherwise won't WAKE. THE. FUCK. UP.
Another way of saying this is, if you can't stand the verbal heat in the kitchen of discourse, then perhaps you should depart forthwith. You don't have to use the confrontational style yourself, but you had best produce good evidence why your method is better if you enter a room alight with diverse modes of expression and insist that the others are doing it wrong.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 9:05 PM
ER Doc got swung out onto the wrong thread (link to ER Doc's comment) but had a nice photo of a Star of David surrounded by a sea of crosses used as military tombstones somewhere (see AAI: Evolutionary Genealogy thread).
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 8, 2009 9:05 PM
MAJeff, OM:
Oh, don't misunderstand me . . . I will join the jubilee when his tenure on the Court is over.
When he's wrong, he's so over-the-top, balls-out, blithering idiot wrong, and his command of rhetoric often manages to convince his fellow justices to go along with him.
But I also think his methodology is misunderstood. In a way, I have more respect for his reasoning than Justice Breyer's, even if I ultimately agree more with Breyer's conclusions.
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 9:06 PM
PalMD - I can see how you would make that statement based on my first post about symbolism, but I thought about it and read others thoughts, and corrected myself in a later post to say that I was only speaking from my own experience when saying that I didn't automatically think of jesus when I see pieces of material arranged perpendicular to each other. Someone mentioned earlier "trademark dilution", and I think that was a much more succinct way of expressing the idea that I convoluted. I disagree with your statement about civility though. I agree that sometimes civility is not an appropriate response, but for the most part I think hostility causes people to shut us out rather than listen. That is not to say my way is the right way for everybody. I'm not always civil, nor am I always intelligent, but I usually wish that I had been.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 8, 2009 9:13 PM
condignaction.wordpress.com:
Perhaps they mean "openly atheist?" As in, we would bet good money that one of the hundreds of judges who have sat on the Court has been an atheist, but surely would not risk admitting it to the country.
Posted by: mck9
|
October 8, 2009 9:17 PM
PalMD #114:
I believe you are referring, at least in part, to my post at #57.
My point about Scalia was that his sensitivities about religious matters are inevitably influenced by his own religious background and beliefs -- as would be true of anyone else. His Catholic heritage may have contributed to a bit of a blind spot about the symbolism of an empty cross, as opposed to a crucifix. Someone of a different religious persuasion would likely have a different collection of prejudices.
That said, his Catholicism neither explains nor excuses his purblind conservatism on all matters of public controversy. Nut jobs are a problem, whatever their creed.
It does bother me that the Court is so heavily dominated by Catholics, but not because of any disdain for Catholics in particular. I would be equally bothered by a Court stuffed with Presbyterians, or Jews, or -- or even Atheists, though I don't expect that to become an issue in my lifetime. The Court's decisions should be informed by a broad diversity of backgrounds.
I shall just have to resign myself to the fact that the Court will always be full of lawyers.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 8, 2009 9:18 PM
Is avowed atheist a pejorative?
When have you ever heard of someone being called an avowed christian?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 8, 2009 9:18 PM
allen #141
Do you have a clue about about the First Amendment to the Constitution is about? It doesn't say "Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, as long as that doesn't upset anyone." People do not have a right not to be offended.
Your concern for not upsetting goddists is noted. Now, as I said previously, fuck off.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 8, 2009 9:21 PM
Bostonian:
No, he does not call himself a "strict constructionist." The media calls him that, because it assumes that that's what conservative judges are and because the term has entered the American political lexicon. In daily usage, it is largely a meaningless term.
Actually, Scalia disavows both "strict construction" and the doctrine of "Original Intent." His methodology is "Text and Tradition." While he loathes Living Constitutionalism, he concentrates on Original Meaning/Understanding, and when that's not available, he looks at the common law traditions even dating back to pre-colonial times.
I actually think his method is partly legitimate. I consider myself a Textualist, rejecting both Original Intent and Living Constitutionalism. Original Meaning, on the other hand, has merit. I also reject Scalia's resort to "tradition" when we had a bloody revolution to reject a lot of the tradition on which he relies.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I will indeed rejoice when Scalia leaves the Court.
Posted by: Paul Murray
|
October 8, 2009 9:35 PM
Well ... the cross *is* a symbol of death. Specifically, the long-lower-arm cross, which is an inverted phallus. It symbolises death, certainly, but also renunciation as such. Disengagement with human, productive activity.
Not difficult to see why christianity adopted it.
The equal-armed cross symbolises the sun, usually. Completely different. And the christian "fish" is the traditional "gate of life" female symbol, which you will also see in the traditional "folding the hands in prayer" posture.
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 8, 2009 9:39 PM
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 8, 2009 9:50 PM
Blockquote error - only the first sentence of 157 was a quote, the rest was me.
Posted by: allen
|
October 8, 2009 10:15 PM
Desert Son - you make some really good points, thank you. i haven't spent much time in opinion posts or blogs, i spend a lot of time in conversations in person about ideology or the lack there of with other atheists and with people of different religions, and in person people are normally much more polite if they want to get along. i guess i was kind of offended that some people i didn't know were telling me to fuck off. i spent a long time doing some horrible things to people that spoke to me like that and that seems like a different life now, so i was kind of taken aback. but you are right that in a conversation with people from around the world or from around the block, not everyone will have the same values or intentions, and to take part in this conversation i need to be aware of that. again, thank you.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 8, 2009 10:26 PM
looks to me like the WWII American Cemetery in Normandy.Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 8, 2009 11:06 PM
allen at #159,
I'm not telling you to stay or go, but I do think it's fair warning to note that when I think of the atmosphere of engagement at Pharyngula, I am reminded of a quote from a television program that I consider to be exemplary among the art form:
"Welcome to fuckin' Deadwood! Can be combative!"
-Al Swearengen, HBO's Deadwood
I would add that I think that makes Pharyngula a good place, actually. Not that I like confrontation, because I don't really. I'm lousy at it, and it upsets me; further, I was raised in a home that stressed utmost, upper-class-Victorian-style politeness, and it has taken me a long time to realize that sometimes politeness is a legitimate mode of fruitful interaction, sometimes politeness is a veil for real meanness, and sometimes politeness is used as a cover for advocating some kind of foolishness ("I say, it's awful impolite to disagree with my assertion that the earth is 6,000 years old, old chap. Why are you atheists so hurtful?"). I still have to reassess my understanding of politeness from time to time; some people have really good bullshit detectors, and mine, sadly, is an inferior model, but I'm ever working to upgrade.
Further, reality dictates that conflict and confrontation are a part of existence. They don't always have to be decisions I undertake as agent, but they will come to me at some point regardless. It remains within my power (for the most part; I have a hard time overcoming, for example, my flight response when I encounter deep water owing to psychological factors left over from a near-drowning incident many years gone) to react to those circumstances as they arise. Further, the confrontations that occur at Pharyngula I find to be quite productive: they teach me things, I get new information, I find I learn to navigate certain modes of discourse better, I get insights I hadn't previously considered, I am presented with opportunities to express myself (or not) and assess how I feel about those opportunities and subsequent expressions, and so on. Some of the things that conflict at Pharyngula helps me determine are occasions when it really is time to speak out on something, when it is time to abandon politeness in the service of authentic expression against an injustice. Another thing conflict at Pharyngula helps me remember is not to take myself too seriously, and also to remember that not every time someone tells me I'm an idiot means I'm an idiot, but sometimes, I am, actually, an idiot. I wish I could say I'd lived a live free of idiocy, but that would peg me a liar as well as an occasional idiot.
Long before I started posting at Pharyngula, I read Pharyngula. I got a little feel for the "lay of the land," recognizing, of course, that it isn't always easy to determine when the interface is purely text.
May I humbly suggest you steel yourself should you ever visit a large, dense urban environment, or venture to drive on, well, pretty much any modern thoroughfare of moderate-and-higher automobile congestion. Sometimes, the world we don't know, tells us to fuck off. Sometimes we can analyze possible reasons why the world told us that. Was it something we did or said? If so, what, and if so, are those hurling the epithet also explaining why they think me worthy of the insult? If so, what are they saying about what I did or said?
To me, the larger issue in this is what Carlie posted at #157, and which I'll quote, as I think it worth repeating (and another example of why she is overdue for the Order of Molly award):
Carlie's point builds on the points so many others have made, like PalMD, and 'Tis Himself, to name but two. There is a worthy thing to stand and declaim in the situation described, and sometimes, politeness on our part might get us somewhere, but we must also be aware of those moments when the only place politeness gets us is condescended to or ignored, or (and how I wish it were not so) worse.
Thank you for your kind words of thanks, allen. There is a great deal in this thread of posts alone worthy of attention. In the end, not everyone here is going to be your friend, but I'd be willing to guess that, given time and a good showing of integrity and honesty, just about everyone here is going to give you a measure of respect: the kind of respect that means not treating you like a child, or with kid gloves.
I'm worried now that I have been condescending in this post. I apologize if I have. I should consider bed regardless, as tomorrow is an early, and long, day.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Stogoe
|
October 8, 2009 11:25 PM
Tearing down evil and injustice is a positive contribution. Fuckwad.Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 8, 2009 11:42 PM
That's one of the reasons Pharyngula is so refreshing: you can cut through the bullshit of being reprimanded for tone as a way to win an argument versus actual content. You also don't have to be on guard about self censoring. Any adult who can't endure blue language needs to toughen up - although I admit there are inappropriate places for such candidness.There's also the alienation effect of a blog versus face to face that won't result in actual violence.
You have to get a thick skin very quickly or you'll be perpetually cowed and humiliated. Humiliation is part and parcel of any blog hotbed discussion really, it's just more obvious here. (have you met TruthMachine aka Nothing Sacred? I'll probably have to go to prison once I track his ass down.;D)
This is not a false middle of plurality group. Non-overlapping magisteria doesn't overlap for a reason - one is evident empirically the other requires belief in what is immeasurable by definition.
Remember: no matter how innocently, earnestly or facetiously you state something, someone is bound to misinterpret it, tear off your head and shit down your neck. If you promote irrationality/magical thinking, expect much worse.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 8, 2009 11:44 PM
SC OM #140
Constantine's Sword was a powerful film. Thank you for pointing me to it. Bill Donohue must have shit a brick when that film came out because of how it blatantly portrayed the Roman Catholic Church's prelude to and complicity in the Holocaust, even turning a blind eye to its own members as they were silenced at Auschwitz for sounding an early warning of what Hitler would do.
It also provided a vivid image of the smug viciousness of Ted Haggard before he was outed and reminded me how disappointed I was when Obama promoted Ted Haggard II (Rick Warren) from day one. Like Carrol said in the film (paraphrased), "If they had been dropping contraceptives in Vietnam, the Church would have condemned the war. But they didn't. They dropped napalm. And the Church said nothing."
Posted by: iasasai
|
October 8, 2009 11:53 PM
I'd act surprised and shocked, but then I'd have to learn how to act.
And people wonder why I spell it america and not America...
Posted by: JHS
|
October 9, 2009 12:02 AM
"Since Scalia is such an open-minded syncretist, I suggest that when he dies, right after all the partying and celebration, we atheists pass around a hat and get a collection going to erect a huge Muslim crescent over his grave. Not only will it honor the dead man, but it'll let us do double-duty when we all line up to piss on it. Everyone wins!"
I think that would indeed qualify as an epic win. I was listening to an NPR report on some SCOTUS goings-on the other day, and every time they read part of Scalia's transcript, I wanted to scream, how did this caveman get on the Supreme Court?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 9, 2009 12:05 AM
IaMoL @ 163,
That is an ,ehm, interesting thing to say.
There is that.
;)
Posted by: Pacal
|
October 9, 2009 12:19 AM
Well Scalia isn't the only wingnut on the US Supreme Court. I can't say I take Thomas seriously either. But as an example of Scalia's wingnuttery consider his opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas case. I'm referring to Scalia's crap about the majority of this decision could lead to overturning of laws against bigamy, same sex marriage, incest, but also adultery, prostitution, fornication. I don't know about you but some of those laws are just plain stupid and Saclia seems to think that they ar worth upholding, even though they are intrusive to truly absurd extent. What for the life of anyone is the sense of laws against fornication and adultery!! Scalia actually seems to think such laws are alright! And by linking those three with prostitution, incest, you know were he is coming from. As for same-sex marriage isn't it nice that he thinks it is similar to incest and prostitution.
Scalia also in this opinion uses the phrase "Homosexual Agenda", and talks about Gays in such a way that indicates that he takes at least some of ravings of the fundamentalist Christians concerning the "Homosexual Agenda" seriously.
So Judge Scalia clearly wants and desires that people be allowed to discriminate against Homosexuals and deeply resents people being prevented from doing so by the courts. (I note he he puts "discrimination" between quotes therefore indicating that such discrimination is in fact so-called i.e., not real discrimination) His subsequent protestations that he has nothing against Homosexuals and nothing against them trying to democratically change things rings most hollow against the coded way he is so clearly speaking. Of course Scalia talks a lot about the case being about the right to commit sodomy, when it is in fact about privacy rights. But then Scalia doesn't seem to think there is any such rights.
Thomas' dissent is also illuminating in that Thomas bases it on his belief there is no general right to privacy. Thus accepting that there is a general right of the state to interfere in people's most private matters and to criminalize any activity it so chooses.
Nice to know that theocons like Scalia want to send us back to the darkages.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 9, 2009 12:33 AM
Pacal,
You're exactly right. Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case is just rabid bigotry. And yeah, he thinks that all such laws are, if not "all right," Constitutional. Gladly omitting the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments -- which pretty much all conservative judges who scream about enforcing the Constitution "as written" are happy to do -- his philosophy would allow the government to make any laws it pleases unless it violates an explicitly enumerated right.
And Thomas is no better. In fact, Thomas is worse. He's on record claiming that the Establishment Clause should not be Incorporated onto the states. Yes, that's right, he believes that each state has the rightful power to establish its own local religion.
But hey, liberal judges come up with dangerous idiocies as well. Breyer doesn't think the right to a trial by jury is necessarily fundamental, and he's supposed to be one of the good guys. And Stevens isn't a great friend of the Fourth Amendment.
I kinda had high hopes for Kennedy when he rendered Lawrence. The majority decision is potentially revolutionary in its method of protecting civil liberties. Alas, it turns out he's not pro-liberty. Just pro-gay.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 12:40 AM
You're exactly right. Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case is just rabid bigotry.
His dissent in Romer wasn't much better. There needs to be a gay orgy on the motherfucker's mother's grave.
I kinda had high hopes for Kennedy when he rendered Lawrence. The majority decision is potentially revolutionary in its method of protecting civil liberties. Alas, it turns out he's not pro-liberty. Just pro-gay.
Thing is, Lawrence has its roots in Griswold and Roe--it's a privacy case. In some ways, O'Conner's concurrence in Lawrence was more pro-gay in that it dealt with equal protection and the Texas law attacking gay folk and only gay folk. The pro-gay aspects of Lawrence seem more rhetorical than legally substantive in my reading (and, keep in mind, I'm a sociologist who studies sexual politics and queer movement. I'm not a lawyer.)
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 9, 2009 12:52 AM
MAJeff, OM:
Rooted, yes, but its reasoning shifted from deriving privacy from the Due Process Clause, and presumed the liberty to practice sodomy. It never explicitly mentioned whether it was using Rational Basis Scrutiny or Strict Scrutiny, and simply said that the government has not met its burden of proof that there is any legitimate reason to interfere with people's liberty in the way it did.
That's what was potentially revolutionary. It could have led to a new legal paradigm. But no one has really picked up on it save for a few Libertarian scholars. (No, I'm not a Libertarian, in case anyone is concerned.)
I expected the Court to use O'Connor's reasoning. Equal Protection was the easy route to go in order to expand precedent. But the outright majority went with Kennedy's unprecedented liberty-based reasoning. I was happily stunned, but disappointed that the case just sits there as a gay rights victory and nothing more.
Oh, I agree. What I meant was that Justice Kennedy himself does not seem inclined to apply the legal reasoning he used to validate gay rights to anything else.
Hey, no worries. The RATS are lawyers, and they don't understand a thing about the Constitution. :)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 12:57 AM
Hey, no worries. The RATS are lawyers, and they don't understand a thing about the Constitution. :)
It's one of those weird things that since I've spent so much time on queer movement and LGBT rights (esp on marriage, but not exclusively) that when the In re Marriage cases decision came down, I was texting friends, "OMG! Suspect Classification!!!!!!!"
total geek.
Posted by: Sanction
|
October 9, 2009 1:23 AM
Yes, he is worse. Thomas would allow a school administrator to strip-search a 13-year-old girl based on a mere claim of another student that she had non-prescription drugs.
Even Scalia didn't agree with Thomas on that one. Thomas is a total asshole. A complete disgrace.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 9, 2009 1:25 AM
Yes, he is worse. Thomas would allow a school administrator to strip-search a 13-year-old girl based on a mere claim of another student that she had non-prescription drugs.
"Now where's that Coke can?"
Posted by: Sanction
|
October 9, 2009 1:29 AM
Pubic hair, indeed.
Posted by: allen
|
October 9, 2009 1:49 AM
You know, I've been reading P.Z. for a while, but not very often the comments. Today's discussion, with 3 or 4 members in particular, has been somewhat enlightenening. I consider myself and a few close friends open minded individuals, but of course this is a much more open venue than anywhere or anything I could experience in person. Two things happen when I encounter a situation like this: I feel very humble, and I recognize an opportunity to learn and possibly modify my points of view.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
October 9, 2009 3:37 AM
Interestingly here in the UK war memorials are most commonly in the form of obelisks, for the smaller communiities (you can't get many names on an obelisk). Otherwise they are big slabs of stone. Sure there will likely be a cross in their somewhere, sometimes a star of David too along with all sorts of other symbols. Seems we skipped back to something out of an ancient necropolis and right over xianity. It's probably Grassic Gibbons' fault.
Posted by: Jud
|
October 9, 2009 7:47 AM
PalMD wrote:
Sorry I couldn't get back to you in more timely fashion on this (a treasured old friend I hadn't heard from in a while called last night), so don't know if you're still following the thread, but FWIW here's the reply.
My scenario with the prof was meant to convey to allen @ #14 the types of emotions the "secular" symbol of the cross can call up in someone who isn't Christian. I then wanted allen and others to understand that when non-Christians are told this "secular" symbol is honoring their dearly departed (or, for example, that the deceased have been baptized and thus joyously accepted into the Love of Christ post-mortem), similar emotions might be engendered.
So it was an emotional, rather than a legal, understanding I was seeking from allen and others, and that seems to have been the source of the confusion.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 9, 2009 7:52 AM
Interestingly here in the UK war memorials are most commonly in the form of obelisks - Peter Ashby
An obelisk is very much like a lingam - so maybe all these memorials are honouring Lord Shiva, the Destroyer, which would be quite appropriate.
Posted by: Roger
|
October 9, 2009 8:09 AM
I just added Scalia to the list of people whose death I will celebrate. He is a nasty piece of work who shouldn't be judging watermelon seed spitting contests, much less Supreme Court cases.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 9, 2009 8:10 AM
Here's what Scalia actually wrote:
[my emphasis]
I don't agree with Scalia (in what case should we be more willing to grant the benefit of the doubt than in a case where the irrevocable step of execution -- taking everything from a defendant?) but let's quote him correctly.
Posted by: Jud
|
October 9, 2009 9:30 AM
JBlilie writes:
Sure, let's do that:
So putting the innocent in jail or even killing them is OK, because Heaven forfend that we should "expend[] substantial judicial resources" on such irrelevancies, eh?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 9, 2009 9:35 AM
So basically, you think secularists should stop filing lawsuits that you have no evidence they are currently filing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 9:40 AM
Dam uppity Jews with their non cross having graves.
Get with the program.
Posted by: MelJ
|
October 9, 2009 4:10 PM
What amazes me about Justice Scalia is not that he is irrational,
but that so many other seemingly rational people think he is rational.
As this item about asognostics shows, it doesn't take that much for the
human brain to come to some silly conclusions with the input it's
given, so I can understand Scalia not being able to think straight.
But how can so many other people think that Scalia bases his legal
reasoning on facts and logical reasoning when he co-authored a book
about how lawyers should dress and act to win their case before a judge.
He can't even let the fact that a lawyer is wearing his hair in a
ponytail from influencing his decision.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 9, 2009 4:52 PM
allen,
Perhaps it was a bit harsh of me to tell you to fuck off. You were merely expressing your opinion that we if play nice with other boys and girls then they'll play nice with us.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in the real world. There are fundamentalist Christians who are upset that atheists even exist. Ex-president George H.W. Bush (father of George W.) once said: ""I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." I've been hearing that sort of thing for most of my life (I'm 61).
There's the further point that nobody has the right not to be offended. If goddists don't like people bringing legal cases in support of the First Amendment, then that's too bad. I don't like them erecting crosses on public land but I have the advantage that the law is on my side (unless assholes like Scalia have their say).
Anyway, welcome to Pharyngula. To quote the late A. Bertram Chandler: "This is Liberty Hall. You can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard." And I withdraw my previous comment so unfuck off.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 9, 2009 5:35 PM
A few law-student thoughts, re comments made above about Scalia's philosophy and about his alleged use/abuse of the judicial process to pursue political objectives. (This post will probably be boring to those who aren't passionate about constitutional law, so feel free to skip over it.)
In the end, the nature of the US Constitution is that it entrenches certain abstract principles of political philosophy - such as freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the laws - as a fundamental part of the legal order. Since the aim is to protect these rights even against the democratic will, it therefore necessarily falls upon judges, in applying these abstract principles to the concrete facts of individual cases, to make evaluative moral judgments and to weigh rights against the public interest. This is an intrinsically value-laden exercise, and so a judge cannot avoid taking into account his or her own constitutional and moral philosophy in interpreting what the Constitution requires. (See Ronald Dworkin, Freedom's Law, - an interesting book on this topic, though I certainly don't agree with much of Dworkin's legal philosophy.)
Scalia chooses to exercise this process in a very restricted way: by trying to divine "what the framers of the Constitution intended", and to give constitutional rights a narrow, restricted interpretation based on what he thinks their authors intended them to mean. I think he's wrong. If the authors had intended the provisions of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, say, to be narrow and restricted in their effect, then they could easily have drafted them differently. As it is, for instance, the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring states to guarantee "the equal protection of the laws" to all persons, is drafted very broadly, and I would argue that it is perfectly legitimate to give these words their natural, expansive meaning, rather than setting artificial limits to them based on some quasi-historical notion of "original intent".
The difference between my philosophy and Scalia's is easily illustrated. For instance, I think it would be a perfectly natural and legitimate reading of the Fourteenth Amendment to hold that, prima facie, it requires states to guarantee the same substantive rights to gay couples as to heterosexual married couples. On my reading of the amendment, the onus is on the state to justify treating any class of persons differently from others. Thus, unless the state can furnish an objectively coherent reason, in the public interest, for discriminating against gay couples - which it can't - it should be required to guarantee the same rights to gay couples as to straight couples (either via same-sex marriage, or via civil union arrangements that include the same legal rights as marriage).
Scalia, by contrast, would entirely disagree with my interpretation. He'd say - if I understand his philosophy correctly - that because the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly didn't intend it to protect gay rights (indeed, in the culture of the time, they would never have imagined such an interpretation), it should therefore be read restrictively and in light of the framers' intent. He'd argue that, in the absence of an express constitutional provision, it is for state legislatures, as they are accountable to the people, to weigh up competing considerations of individual rights and the public interest, and come to their own decision. Although this line of argument is coherent, I also think it's totally wrong. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment probably didn't intend it to protect interracial marriage either - anti-miscegenation laws were pretty much universal in 1868, IIRC - but only the most insane reactionary would now propose reversing Loving v Virginia.
In the end, Scalia's view of constitutional interpretation is fundamentally reactionary and populist, and threatens to undermine the whole notion of liberal-constitutional government. His construction of fundamental rights is so restricted and anaemic as to essentially render the Bill of Rights toothless, and give the majority unlimited power to oppress the minority.
Does this make him a bad jurist and a bad legal philosopher? In my opinion, yes. But is it grounds for impeachment? Certainly not. There is a reason why the US Constitution guarantees lifetime appointments to judges; they are meant to be independent of partisan politics, and removable only for corruption or for criminal and unethical conduct. It's part of the balance of powers. Judges interpreting the Constitution are entitled to - and, indeed, must - have some kind of interpretive philosophy as to how the Constitution's abstract provisions should be read and applied. The fact that I don't agree with Scalia's philosophy, and that I don't think he's a particularly great constitutional scholar, are not grounds for impeachment.
Sorry for the insanely long and rambling post.
Posted by: mtgap.wordpress.com
|
October 9, 2009 10:24 PM
Crescents are way cooler than crosses. Six-pointed stars are the best though.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 9, 2009 10:40 PM
Walton, part of #75 did you not understand?
***
BTW, Scalia in 2002 (actually, was just reading about it in Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers) - "God's Justice and Ours":
http://www.prisonerlife.com/articles/articleID=41.cfm
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2009 10:50 PM
Since the aim is to protect these rights even against the democratic will
i noticed you emphasized "even against".
why does the tyranny of the majority surprise you, given that you claim to be a law student?
Did they never have you read Mill's essay?
Posted by: Walton
|
October 10, 2009 1:18 PM
Ichthyic,
Quite frankly, you can fuck off. You clearly didn't bother to read or understand my post. If you had done so, you would see that I clearly and accurately explained, and endorsed, the concept of protecting individual rights against the tyranny of the majority. Indeed, in many of my comments in the past - and in the most recent post on my blog - I have made absolutely clear that I do not support unrestrained populism, and that I believe in the protection of civil liberties via the judicial process. Indeed, I've strongly advocated the introduction of an entrenched written constitution in the UK.
But, of course, instead of actually addressing my points, you decide to quote-mine my post, dishonestly misrepresent my views and claim that I was saying the exact opposite of what I was actually saying, and call my integrity into question by implying that I'm lying about my background.
I understand that you despise me and everything I stand for. That's your privilege. I've tried to be conciliatory and polite in the past, but to no avail, since your intransigence and arrogance evidently know no bounds. I've had enough of you misrepresenting my views, insulting my intellectual abilities, and now questioning my honesty (without providing any evidence whatsoever for your allegation). If you don't want to read my posts, then don't fucking read them; killfile exists for a reason.
Posted by: frankosaurus
|
October 16, 2009 3:45 AM
Some people just don't get it, eh Walton?
But some necessary corrections on Scalia. To my knowledge, he's an originalist in the sense of interpretting the constitution not by the original intentions, but original meaning. So the test isn't the strict construction you are applying by saying "they could have drafted x to be more clear" but rather saying the test is what a reasonable person of the time would have thought it meant. Naturally there is some divination involved, but Scalia usually digs deep on these matters and finds dictionaries of the time, etc. I'm not too sure where he stands on burden, but I'm guessing it would be up to the party asserting the right to show why it accords with the original meaning if it doesn't prima facie. And as you say this approach avoids the problem of saying that if they had meant to ban homosexual marriages, they would have said so -- because probably they hadn't the faintest clue people would insist on them, and no reasonable person at the time would have thought so either.
But like I mentioned elsewhere, the issue of marriage as a civil right isn't in the constitution at all, so the originalist would object to the presumption of the activist judiciary in the first place to cook up that it is, before even entertaining the notion whether the 14th amendment applies. I think civil rights would be more narrowly confined to life, liberty, property and equal protection as set out - the fundamental rights. As marriage doesn't fit easily into any of these, then put it to a vote - being as it is a more private matter, it should be in the hands of more local governments. This, as you observe, is a consistent response.
Does this make the bill of rights toothless? I wouldn't think so if you are, as you say, a libertarian. What it does is lessen the scope of marriage of being one of "negative" liberty, but rather "positive" liberty - the government has not sworn its position by written constitution, but recognizes these things are attendant upon the climate of the time - curtailed by populist pressure but not imprinted for the ages. Secondly, you of all people should realize that rights are met with reciprocal duties. The government has recognized basic rights in property, so upholds contracts and ownership and what-not. The government recognizes the right to life, so maintains police services and militaries. The government recognizes liberty so maintains process and a judiciaryrights. And you can see that, in the case of marriage, there is no corresponding duty to make sure people are happily married - that's up to them. That's how an originalist would understand it, and I think Libertarianism fits nicely as well with this approach.
Maybe what undoes this approach is that even if marriage isn't recognized as a right, from the originalist perspective, in the constitution, that as soon as it is passed into law, by limiting to heterosexual partners of the same race, it violates the "equal protection" aspect of the 14th. (BTW In Canada, we have a notwithstanding clause that can potentially do away with these concerns (though it is rarely trotted out) so we can basically, in theory, do away with almost bill of rights measure as long as we say that's what we're doing). The question is then whether there are any circumstances that this right can be diminished from its absolute form. I am unfamiliar with American constitutional jurisprudence on this matter, but my hunch is that there is, being as I frequently invoke the "insurance" example - policy concerns of having a properly functioning rating system in insurance overrides the equality guarantee. Now this is just spitballing, but it seems to me that Scalia would say if there were policy concerns to override a right, then legislative deference is more the key than not, seeing as they have more access to debate, research, public accountability, etc. So again, move the issue to the democratic will.
Finally, you also say Scalia's interpretation is fundamentally reactionary. I would say it's at base very Catholic, seeing the constitution, as with the Bible, as an "enduring document." Maybe reactionism accounts for why originalism suddenly sprouted in the past few decades? I guess that's another discussion. Undoubtedly he would deny it.
So I think you're libertarian approach is consistent with the analysis you gave with two important corrections. First, that you pegged Scalia's originalism as the intent rather than "meaning" variety, which is wrong. And secondly, that you assumed rights were there that weren't and, which from a libertarian perspective, probably shouldn't be there. Unless you can give a sound reason why a libertarian would suggest a government consider marriage a civil right?
Ichthyic:
Mill lets a person smoke pot. As a result, I don't think he is taken up with much earnest in the law schools.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 16, 2009 4:13 PM
Good comments. Franko you seem to be outwarming your welcome in other places, but you seem to be making reasonable analyses here. Hope no one minds if I weigh in...
First of all, Scalia is not a populist and/or a proponent of majoritarian rule. He is neither. In fact, I think that he goes out of his way to express his faith in limited government and the constitution's central role in ensuring the survival of a free society. He also opposes the type of "moral reading" put forward by Walton on the grounds that it threatens the really fundamental rights and will ultimately lead to majoritarianism. This is really what many liberals don't get (and why Walton has a hard time wrapping his head around it) as it is essentially a "paleo" view of liberty and limited government. (Saying it is paelo is certainly not the same thing as saying that it is in any way "reactionary" regardless of whether Scalia himself is).
As Scalia points out, if the courts are free to write the constitution anew they will most likely write it the way the majority wants. This is a consequence of the highly political confirmation process. You will note that increasingly the "individual rights" championed by the courts - i.e. women's rights, homosexual rights, minority rights, etc. - are those that are favoured by the polical and policy making classes. This, as Scalia notes, "is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning [under the "moral reading" approach] will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority." In this sense, the attempt to make the constitution a "have it all"
document we render it essentially meaningless as a tool of limited government.
I will give one brief example that Scalia often relies on. The USSC now allows "vulnerable" children to testify in the absence of the accused. However, the Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witneses against him." There is no doubt what confrontation meannt then or now. However, as people and politicians alike do not care much for those who harm children they have not opposed the court's "reading out" of this constitutional right. Here majority opinion has triumphed over individual liberty.
One more point. I hope that the above in no way indicates that Scalia is a libertarian. He is not. In fact he favours a very active executive. What he believes is that certain rights or legal principles are essential to liberty. Among others these include life, liberty, etc. as well as equally important rights such as those to own weapons, be free from the burden of quartering troops, etc. I think that Scalia would say that so long as you guarantee such foundational rights you will be free regardless of what else the government does. For example, the government may pass a law saying that any type of sodomy is illegal. It cannot however infringe upon an individual's rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. An individual will therefore remain quite free to engage in such behaviour.
I am sure that Scalia would concede that this view of liberty is not perfect. It is however based on the solid foundations of clear legal rules and the separation of powers. If it is faithfully defended a nation will remain free regardless of its perceived moral failings.
However, if it is abandoned in favour of an abstract and overly moralistic approach then we are in trouble as moral standards do have a tendency to change. For Scalia, this is a concern. For people like Dworkin and Walton and others here it is not as they are essentially utopians.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 16, 2009 6:32 PM
What he really said was
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
source: http://news.lawreader.com/?p=1958
Posted by: frankosaurus
|
October 18, 2009 3:06 AM
thanks Sean. great insights.
Posted by: mcrotk | October 21, 2009 12:09 PM
Looks like Colbert covered it in "The Word":
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/252639/october-13-2009/the-word---symbol-minded
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 21, 2009 12:27 PM
If he uses this as an argument to say such evidence shouldn't be considered, he's Lawful Evil.
Posted by: bigterguy | October 21, 2009 1:12 PM
For all of those who would tear down that cross: I suppose you cheered loudly a few years ago when the Taliban blew up the huge 1,700 year old Buddhas carved into a cliff.
So tolerant. So respectful of our heritage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1326063/After-1700-years-Buddhas-fall-to-Taliban-dynamite.html
I agree we should not permit religious symbols in public places as we go forward, but to destroy an item of our heritage - a significant memorial - is simply asinine.
That is why I am often ashamed of saying I am an atheist - so many atheists are a-holes.
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
October 21, 2009 1:25 PM
bigterguy, #198: For all of those who would tear down that cross: I suppose you cheered loudly a few years ago when the Taliban blew up the huge 1,700 year old Buddhas carved into a cliff.
Oh yes, I did because you know that removing a couple of boards nailed together and erected by some guy a few years ago because the government must be neutral in regards to religion is exactly the same as blowing up an ancient and historically significant artifact because the government wants to strictly impose one religion over all others.
-
That is why I am often ashamed of saying I am an atheist - so many atheists are a-holes.
Personally, I have doubts that you are an atheist. But maybe you are.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 21, 2009 1:26 PM
OK bigterguy, in that case, let's erect monuments to Zeus at every government building in the land. What are you going to do about it? You wouldn't want to be compared with the Taliban, would you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 21, 2009 1:43 PM
No, what is asinine is not seeing the only legally correct position. Either every religion can erect their shrine on that land, or no religion, including the already in place cross, can be there. Anything else smacks of selecting Xianity, since Xians are almost always there first, and would always fall under the grandfather clause. But then, you knew that. Which also makes me doubt you are an atheist. Or, if you truly are an atheist, that makes you even worse, an accommodationist...