Maybe, but it doesn't really relate to the point of the analogy, which is that someone in each case is assuming the wrong motive for the crime. I have seen no allegations anywhere that this memorial was vandalized/stolen simply because it was a WWI memorial.
Where did I say it's okay to steal?
If there's a lot of media attention about (unbacked, paper) currency being illegitimate and a desire by lots of people to return to the gold standard, and there's a monument to capitalism far inside some national park with a $20 bill, and that monument is stolen at some point, is it reasonable to assume that the thief stole it to fund his crack addiction, or because he's an anarchist? Or, perhaps, should we conclude that the thief probably has nothing against currency per se, and no specific need for the $20, but is instead protesting (albeit illegally) the lack of backing of paper money with some commodity?
Lots of things are illegal, but on the scale of annoyances to high crimes, this rates pretty low IMO. Vandalizing a bona fide WWI memorial without religious adornment, particularly one in a place where people actually visit regularly, would rate a lot higher IMO.
( http://volokh.com/2010/04/28/mojave-cross-decision-salazar-v-buono-handed-down/ )
That's hardly the epitome of a legitimate WWI memorial, regardless of what Congress has declared. And yet people have the audacity to claim that the vandalism somehow reflects on its status as a war memorial rather than its status as a silly government-sanctioned cross in the middle of nowhere, its main claim to fame being that it's used for Easter mass?
You missed the entire point of both the argument and the alternate analogy and misconstrued them to be putting words in your mouth.
The argument isn't that one crime is less wrong due to a moral
opinion held by the person committing it. The argument is that while someone may disagree with some action or occurrence on constitutional grounds, the supreme court made a decision, and (in all probability) those on the losing side of the court decision decided to deal with the matter
extrajudicially. In case anybody missed that, the persons didn't like the court's decision so they went and committed a crime.
Just as I can't go take the paper money out of your wallet simply because I think a central bank is illegal under the constitution, these persons can't go cutting down a war memorial because they think the design of it is illegal, especially after Congress repeatedly voted to keep it in place, the supreme court just ruled against them and even more so
after the cross and the land it sat upon was transferred into private hands! Whether you personally think they were in any way justified or that Congress was wrong in approving this as a memorial to begin with is also irrelevant. Due process was followed, the Supreme Court was petitioned, a decision was made and a solution found.
Further, using one of the Justices comments about a missing plaque or the current visitation and use of the memorial is also without merit considering all parties were made well aware that this was in fact a war memorial constructed by veterans of the First World War, with the
repeated consent of Congress, and was now no longer residing on public land. Trying to claim "well we thought it was just a religious shrine on public property" as a defense after all these facts have not only come out, but been hashed over in the highest court of the land and announced on national media is studiously asinine.
The simple fact of the matter is someone, or multiple someones, vandalized and stole something that was both a war memorial and at that point private property because they disagreed with a court decision. From a logical standpoint no moral opinion will make this action any more or less illegal. From my emotional argument standpoint as a veteran and the Adjutant for my VFW post, I can think of few things more egregiously despicable than the defacement of a symbol of national recognition to the sacrifices of the some 22,477,500 soldiers who bled and died on the allied side in the Great War.
