Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 29, 2010, 02:54:43 AM
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/29/mojave-cross-can-stay-on-display-in-a-preserve/
By Valerie Richardson
An 8-foot cross honoring fallen soldiers in the remote Mojave National Preserve in California can stay where it is, because the Supreme Court said Wednesday that the Constitution nowhere requires the "eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the lead opinion in a 5-4 decision in which several justices wrote separate concurrences and dissents, compared the Mojave Cross to a hypothetical highway memorial marking the death of a state trooper to make the point that such displays "need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs."
"The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society," Justice Kennedy said in his opinion. "Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework."
Leading the dissenters was Justice John Paul Stevens, who called the war memorial "unprecedented" in its starkly religious tone.
"Congressional action, taken after due deliberation, that honors our fallen soldiers merits our highest respect," said Justice Stevens, who recently announced his plan to retire. "As far as I can tell, however, it is unprecedented in the nation's history to designate a bare, unadorned cross as the national war memorial for a particular group of veterans."
The justices didn't rule technically on the constitutional issue of whether the cross constitutes an establishment of religion. However, they declined to rule that the cross was a First Amendment violation, as asked, and the majority justices' language indicate a more benign view of religion expression on public lands.
Instead, the justices sent the case, Salazar v. Buono, back to a lower federal court and told the judge to look again at how the constitutional issues are affected by a congressional plan to transfer the federal land beneath the 8-foot cross to a veterans group. Lower federal courts had said the transfer was insufficient, a finding the justices implicitly rebuked.
Voting with Justice Kennedy in favor of keeping the cross was the court's conservative bloc, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Opposed were Justices Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Steven G. Breyer.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent at Mojave National Preserve, who said that the memorial offended him. The original cross was erected atop an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in 1934 by World War I veterans.
A federal court ruled in Mr. Buono's favor and ordered the removal of the cross, but Rep. Jerry Lewis, California Republican, inserted language into a defense appropriations bill declaring the cross site a national memorial.
Mr. Lewis also arranged to transfer the acre of land surrounding the Mojave Cross to the Barstow Veterans of Foreign Wars, thus placing the cross on private land.
The ACLU argued that the land transfer was a calculated effort to circumvent the court ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the land transfer "would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve."
But the lower court "did not acknowledge the statute's significance," Justice Kennedy said in his opinion.
"In belittling the government's efforts as an attempt to 'evade' the injunction, the District Court had things backwards," said Justice Kennedy. "Congress's prerogative to balance opposing interests and its institutional competence to do so provide one of the principal reasons for deference to its policy determinations."
The case was sent back to the lower court.
Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, said the organization would continue to argue that the land transfer failed to address concerns over the separation of church and state.
"Although we're disappointed by today's decision, we're encouraged that the case is not over," Mr. Eliasberg said. "The cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol, and it is wrong for the government to make such a deliberate effort to maintain it as a national memorial."
The Mojave Cross is now encased in a plywood box, hidden from view while litigation is ongoing. The original wooden cross has been replaced several times, and the current version is constructed of white metal.
"Congress has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly to protect the Mojave Cross as a memorial to veterans and those who have died to defend our nation, never intending it to be preserved as a religious symbol," said Mr. Lewis, whose district includes the desert area where the cross is located.
"I am gratified that the Supreme Court has upheld the right and authority of Congress to seek these solutions in memory of our veterans," he said.
The decision came as a victory for religious-freedom groups fighting efforts to eliminate religious symbols and references from the public square.
"A passive monument acknowledging our nation's religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion," said Joseph Infranco, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the cross. "To make that accusation, one must harbor both a hostility to the nation's history and a deep misunderstanding of the First Amendment."
Eric Rassbach, national litigation director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which also filed a brief in the case, applauded the ruling as "simple common sense."
"The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak and believe freely; it does not give busybodies the right to cut down religious symbols they don't like," Mr. Rassbach said.
At the same time, the ruling leaves unanswered several questions, such as what legal standard should be applied to religious displays on public property, according to the Becket Fund.
The cross supporters had feared that an unfavorable ruling would have jeopardized the nation's hundreds of cross-bearing roadside memorials, as well as other war memorials.
At least two other cross cases are in federal courts. One concerns a 29-foot cross at a war memorial on Mount Soledad near San Diego and the other the 12-foot roadside crosses that Utah uses to memorialize highway patrol troopers killed in the line of duty.
-
One concerns a 29-foot cross at a war memorial on Mount Soledad near San Diego and the other the 12-foot roadside crosses that Utah uses to memorialize highway patrol troopers killed in the line of duty.
If it was any state but Utah, I'd have to ask what provisions they have for troopers of other religions.
-
I would not have expected this. We need a pigs flying smiley.
-
i read it three times looking for a fail in my comprehension before i accepted it
-
Wow, the Supremes surprise me again. Good job on them.
-
I know JPS's heels are being nipped at by senility, but he might want to take a gander at the adornments of the building he works in before declaring something built in 1934 as "unprecedented."
-
I know JPS's heels are being nipped at by senility, but he might want to take a gander at the adornments of the building he works in before declaring something built in 1934 as "unprecedented."
Perhaps he is confused as to the definition of "unprecedented." As far as I can tell crosses have been used to honor dead people since christianity became a significant religion.
-
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent at Mojave National Preserve, who said that the memorial offended him. The original cross was erected atop an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in 1934 by World War I veterans.[/quote]
Shouldn't the lower court have thrown out the case stating he had no constitutional protection against being offended?
-
Aren't military cemetaries just full of crosses ???
-
Is Arlington National Cemetary considered to be government land?
-
Ah, the ACLU stroikes another blow for atheism as the official state religion... Errr, I mean freedom of religion... Errrr, I mean freedom from religion. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's in the Constitution. BoR? Some misquoted private correspondence from a Founder?
-
Aren't military cemetaries just full of crosses ???
Yea, but different symbols are available.
-
I'm glad that they're allowed to keep their cross on government property.
But remember, it ain't just the Christians dealing with this. Wiccans spent near a DECADE getting the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow pentacles on grave stones. Personally, if my spouse died defending her country in the US military, whatever symbol she wanted would be put on her marker if I had to lay down covering fire while properly attaching it.
-
I'm glad that they're allowed to keep their cross on government property.
But remember, it ain't just the Christians dealing with this. Wiccans spent near a DECADE getting the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow pentacles on grave stones. Personally, if my spouse died defending her country in the US military, whatever symbol she wanted would be put on her marker if I had to lay down covering fire while properly attaching it.
Yep. As it stands, I know of people in the service who would not be officially allowed to have a symbol representing their faith on the marker. Myself included, were I to serve. It isn't right. Unfortunately, the amount of red tape and deliberate stalling that takes place is insane.
-
I'd also point out that the ruling doesn't have anything to do with a cross monument on Federal lands (directly), that ruling was about the legality of the transfer of the memorial to a private group.
If the cross were to remain on Federal property they probably would have been forced to remove it. The case is where it is because they were told to remove it by the lower courts, then they came up with a plan to sell the land to a non-government entity to avoid having to take it down. That is the part that made it to the supreme court, the original issue of having it on Federal land was already decided by a lower court.
At least, that is what I get from the summary. I have not read the judgement in full.
-
I bet if that fella ever went to this place he'd have a freaking seizure...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-2.web.britannica.com%2Feb-media%2F86%2F47786-004-88E8F6CF.jpg&hash=fbdddc052d25c4f5e4d962109a2cf23aa66d2c7b)
-
I know JPS's heels are being nipped at by senility, but he might want to take a gander at the adornments of the building he works in before declaring something built in 1934 as "unprecedented."
Is he wrong? What are some other national war memorials that are designated with a cross? From the article, it appears the 1934 cross was the result of private action by veterans. What JPS is calling unprecedented is national designation of such a monument as a war memorial.
-
Is he wrong? What are some other national war memorials that are designated with a cross? From the article, it appears the 1934 cross was the result of private action by veterans. What JPS is calling unprecedented is national designation of such a monument as a war memorial.
This picture above is the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial. It's rather adorned with religious icons. If you'd like one a bit closer to home we could roll with Arlington instead, as it's both a cemetery and contains numerous memorials and again is rather prolific with it's religious icons.
Maybe it's my apathy, but I'm just not feeling all worked up over a cross being a national memorial. The constitution states that the congress shall not make a law regarding the establishment of religion. As I under stand it, "establishment of religion" regards the creation of a state religion, much like the Church of England. I don't see how having a cross on a national memorial (an icon used across numerous religions) in any way conceives a state religion.
-
Individual grave markers are not the same, especially when soldiers can choose their religious (or non religious) marker.
-
Whole lotta Federal buildings with religious iconography on them need to get torn down post haste then, lest the poor oppressed irreligious get deterred in their efforts as establishing their religion as the official state religion. And let's get that damned In God We Trust off currency, everyone knows religious beliefs are irrational. And opening Congress and military services with prayer?!?!
-
Whole lotta Federal buildings with religious iconography on them need to get torn down post haste then, lest the poor oppressed irreligious get deterred in their efforts as establishing their religion as the official state religion. And let's get that damned In God We Trust off currency, everyone knows religious beliefs are irrational. And opening Congress and military services with prayer?!?!
I'm still surprised the In God we Trust stuff has stuck around.
-
The original cross went up in 1934. I'm pretty sure that the cross there now is not the original wooden one, but a cross has been there since 1934. The Mojave Preserve was established in 1994. Seems like a no brainer to me.
-
Did anyone notice that, usually, the shrillest voices stretching the "separation of church and state" into the most ridiculous contortions, are the same people who don't mind the government intruding into our lives in every other way?
-
Did anyone notice that, usually, the shrillest voices stretching the "separation of church and state" into the most ridiculous contortions, are the same people who don't mind the government intruding into our lives in every other way?
Very true.
-
Is he wrong? What are some other national war memorials that are designated with a cross? From the article, it appears the 1934 cross was the result of private action by veterans. What JPS is calling unprecedented is national designation of such a monument as a war memorial.
I found a few in 5 minutes:
http://ctmonuments.net/?p=723
Civil War memorial. But it gets a pass, since it includes a black American war memorial, and [condescending_liberal]we can;t expect them to understand it is wrong to put any religious symbol on gov't land[/condescending_liberal].
City gov't land.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/argonne-cross.htm
Memorial to the men and women of the World War I American Expeditionary forces who died in the Argonne Forest region of northeast France.
Fed Gov't land.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/photo_gallery/6-15-09.html
Canadian Cross of Sacrifice...in honor of the American citizens who served in the Canadian Armed Forces during World War I and lost their lives.
Fed gov't land
[Seem to be a BUNCH of non-issue cross-type memorials at Arlington]
http://www.nps.gov/came/planyourvisit/index.htm
Cape Henry. Not a war memorial, but a memorial cross.
Fed gov't land
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzpaths.com%2Fimages%2Fcrossatgettysburg.jpg&hash=25caff124e7bd1384f1c3109069be31411d8a112)
Gettysburg 142 Penn Inf
Fed Gov't land, IIRC
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzpaths.com%2Fimages%2FFtMcCordmonumentnearChambersburgPA.gif&hash=16034c910e285330ecc8e5eae109d204b16fa74b)
Ft McCord
<A buttload of war memorial crosses on non-gov't land. A very popular way of memorializing those who died fighting in war.>
-
A cross seems to have become a universal grave marker in western culture, regardless of religion.
Then there are all those street signs! :O
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/11/thieves-steal-mojave-desert-memorial-cross-nighttime-heist/
The 7-foot-tall metal cross that has stood in California's Mojave Desert for 75 years and withstood a hard-fought battle in the Supreme Court was ripped down and stolen Sunday night, according to park officials.
"This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people's graves," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Institute, which represents the caretakers of the Mojave Desert War Memorial. "It's a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed."
The National Park Service says someone cut the metal bolts holding the metal-pipe cross to the top of Sunrise Rock and made off with it Sunday night or before dawn on Monday.
Veterans groups are outraged at the theft of the memorial symbol that was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor World War I dead.
"To think anyone can rationalize the desecration of a war memorial is sickening, and for them to believe they won't be apprehended is very naïve," said VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell Sr. in a written statement.
So, unsurprisingly, this is what happens when people like this lose in the courts. They just break the law to get their way.
-
here's one vote for drafting the thieves.
-
here's one vote for drafting the thieves.
I could see a judge imposing a sentence much like that one #*% hat in Florida who wore a Medal of Honor he didn't earn. That particular dweeb had to write an apology letter to each of the current living MOH recipients, a couple hundred folk. Imagine having the guys who jacked the memorial write an apology to each current living vet. Last I checked, there was some 2 million of us, that's a lot of writer's cramp right there.
-
"To think anyone can rationalize the desecration of a war memorial is sickening, and for them to believe they won't be apprehended is very naïve," said VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell Sr. in a written statement.
This is where it breaks down. The thing Mr. Tradewell thinks was stolen is not the same thing that the thief or thieves stole.
One thought it was a war memorial marker. The other thought it was (primarily Christian) propaganda inappropriately recognized by congress as a war memorial.
-
This is where it breaks down. The thing Mr. Tradewell thinks was stolen is not the same thing that the thief or thieves stole
One thought it was a war memorial marker. The other thought it was (primarily Christian) propaganda inappropriately recognized by congress as a war memorial.
It doesn't matter that they "thought it was (primarily Christian) propaganda." Congress accepted it as a war memorial 75 years ago and when recently challenged the highest court of our land upheld it. Some jack-hole(s) didn't like the verdict so they went and willfully committed vandalism and theft. The only break down here is the rule of law.
-
This is where it breaks down. The thing Mr. Tradewell thinks was stolen is not the same thing that the thief or thieves stole.
One thought it was a war memorial marker. The other thought it was (primarily Christian) propaganda inappropriately recognized by congress as a war memorial.
So because the vandals (presumably) thought it was more of those eeeeeevvvvvviiillll Christians oppressing the poor widdle athiests, they are in the right to desecrate a war memorial? Interesting. And if they were to goto a .mil cemetary and knock over the tombstones marked with crosses, you'd be ok with that as well?
-
Some jack-hole(s) didn't like the verdict so they went and willfully committed vandalism and theft.
I'm thinking that pretty soon it will be replaced and will be guarded by a constant watch of cranky old men with guns.
TC
-
i think a remote cam and a switch lighting it up with 50k volts would be fun
-
So because the vandals (presumably) thought it was more of those eeeeeevvvvvviiillll Christians oppressing the poor widdle athiests, they are in the right to desecrate a war memorial? Interesting. And if they were to goto a .mil cemetary and knock over the tombstones marked with crosses, you'd be ok with that as well?
When did merely pointing out a difference in perception become an endorsement of behavior based on that perception?
-
Theft is theft, vandalism is vandalism, but Mr. Tradewell is naive in thinking that the heightened moral gravity he attaches to this particular theft (that is, theft/defacing of a war memorial) has any relevance to the crime itself.
Here's a rough but workable analogy, I think.
In ancient times, suppose someone had an amulet they wore that had extreme sentimental value. Everyone else knew that it had sentimental value. However, it turns out this amulet was radioactive -- low-level but substantially above the level of background radiation. Suppose a few people had started to understand radioactivity, and were generally laughed at by the rest (invisible rays that may or may not cause far-future harm? lol!). One day someone steals the amulet, igniting fury and outrage by many... and they claim it was stolen to traumatize the owner.
-
So, unsurprisingly, this is what happens when people like this lose in the courts. They just break the law to get their way.
How do we know the thief is a liberal?
It could have been stolen for metal.
Down here people rip out the metal candle fixtures from people's gravestones for this.
Part of why I visit my sister's grave every few months.
-
Theft is theft, vandalism is vandalism, but Mr. Tradewell is naive in thinking that the heightened moral gravity he attaches to this particular theft (that is, theft/defacing of a war memorial) has any relevance to the crime itself.
Here's a rough but workable analogy, I think.
In ancient times, suppose someone had an amulet they wore that had extreme sentimental value. Everyone else knew that it had sentimental value. However, it turns out this amulet was radioactive -- low-level but substantially above the level of background radiation. Suppose a few people had started to understand radioactivity, and were generally laughed at by the rest (invisible rays that may or may not cause far-future harm? lol!). One day someone steals the amulet, igniting fury and outrage by many... and they claim it was stolen to traumatize the owner.
That analogy is a fallacy because it's attempting to compare an item that is inherently causing physical harm with another that a person finds distasteful by opinion.
Since this is a constitutional matter, how about this one instead...
The constitution proscribes central banks. Since the money in your wallet is issued by a central bank, and I find it to be "illegal money" even though it has been accepted by our government, am I in the right to steal it from your wallet in the middle of the night or is it still simply theft?
-
How do we know the thief is a liberal?
It could have been stolen for metal.
Good point....need to let the investigation run its course.
But, if it is one of the anti-monument types, the punishment should be severe....and doled out before they're taken into LEO custody....
-
How do we know the thief is a liberal?
It could have been stolen for metal.
Liberal and metal thief are about as mutually exclusive as water and wet.
-
Liberal and metal thief are about as mutually exclusive as water and wet.
What about my point do you not understand?
-
What about my point do you not understand?
Why you won't get a hat to cover it.
-
That analogy is a fallacy because it's attempting to compare an item that is inherently causing physical harm with another that a person finds distasteful by opinion.
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.
The constitution proscribes central banks. Since the money in your wallet is issued by a central bank, and I find it to be "illegal money" even though it has been accepted by our government, am I in the right to steal it from your wallet in the middle of the night or is it still simply theft?
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.
Contrary to Alito’s apparent fact finding, he notes that the record actually reveals that (1) the cross was illegally erected, (2) it was seen by more rattlesnakes than people, (3) the signs designating it as a war memorial have long disappeared, and (4) it is now viewed by the only folks the record reveals as regularly visiting the cross, folks who congregate at the cross for an Easter mass, as a religious symbol not a war memorial (there is no evidence of Memorial Day gatherings).
( 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?
-
There's such a thing as an 'illegitimate' war memorial?
-
A cross seems to have become a universal grave marker in western culture, regardless of religion.
Then there are all those street signs! :O
Cough. Uhm. No?
Whole lotta Federal buildings with religious iconography on them need to get torn down post haste then, lest the poor oppressed irreligious get deterred in their efforts as establishing their religion as the official state religion. And let's get that damned In God We Trust off currency, everyone knows religious beliefs are irrational. And opening Congress and military services with prayer?!?!
I am not a constitutional scholar, but... My understanding that under the law, you're welcome to slap up any religious icons you wish. However, you cannot grant preferential treatment. This isn't "establishment of religion", as most folks spend an inordinate length of time on. It's the Fourteenth. Due process and Equal Protection Clauses.
You can have crosses, "In God We Trust", et al. As much as to your hearts content and you can enact. Go right on ahead. Now, the second someone says "We'd like religious icon X of more or less equal nature to be put right alongside already accepted religious icon Y" and they are denied... Then it starts getting hairy. Under the constitution, Christianity and Pastafarianism are equal. And darn well should be. You may not believe so, and that's well within your rights as well. But the government cannot grant unequal treatment under the law.
I get honked off when someone sues to get a religious icon torn down. I'd be even less pleased if someone allowed "In God We Trust" to be carved into some section of government property and forbid "In FSM We Trust" to be put nearby. Separation of church and state is an immensely wise idea, because it side steps "treating everyone equal, every time" which is the Constitutional mandate when it comes to this sort of thing. Notice, I said wise idea, not "Constitutionally mandated" because it is not.
If you want preferential treatment for any particular religion, that's fine. Repeal the 14th amendment and you can do so.
-
I'm not really seeing your point there Rev. I suppose if Jews had tried to get a Star of David war memorial put up and been denied or something, that'd be relevant. But the situation under discussion has nothing to do with your post.
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.
;/ You aren't worth arguing with.
-
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.
-
Piff, everyone knows war memorials mean less when those icky religious folks put their evil oppressive symbols on them.
-
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.
blah, blah, blah, RULE OF FRICKIN' LAW, blah blah blah...
=D
-
blah, blah, blah, RULE OF FRICKIN' LAW, blah blah blah...
=D
Excellent summary, you work for Cliff's Notes don't you? :laugh:
-
Excellent summary, you work for Cliff's Notes don't you? :laugh:
It's all my fancy book-learnin' coming out.