Memorial Day becomes religious battleground

[rug]

Posted at 10:18 PM ET, 05/27/2012
By Brad Hirschfield

&feature=player_embedded

Monday, May 28th is not only Memorial Day, but the day when the Liberty Institute will ramp up the fight over religious symbols in military cemeteries and memorials. Monday will see the official release of a new song and accompanying video called “Don’t Tear Me Down” and once again, Americans motivated by some quite honorable desires, will tear each other down at a moment we should be building each other up.

The catchy tune and touching images of veterans’ faces, are actually pretty moving, however one feels about the ongoing battles over the Mt. Soledad Veterans’ Memorial, or any of the other battles The Liberty Institute has been waging in the courts, for years, with the both ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The latter two organizations want to see the symbols and statues removed, and the Liberty Institute has fought for their preservation.

Unfortunately, neither side seems terribly concerned about the real impact of their actions on those who don’t share their beliefs. For the ACLU and FFRF, that has meant a headlong march to strip religious symbols out of locations where their presence brings great comfort and meaning to the families and friends of thousands of fallen heroes. No, not to all, but to many and probably to most.

Don’t get me wrong, the principle of separation of church and state for which the ACLU fights, and the right of people to be free from religious coercion of any kind, are not simply good ideas that also happen to appear in our Constitution. They are bedrock principles without which America would not be America and its citizens would not enjoy the life we do. They are principles which must be defended as much as any border which defines our sense of who we are as a nation. But the question is how that defense is mounted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/for-gods-sake/post/memorial-day-becomes-religious-battleground/2012/05/27/gJQAKKzRvU_blog.html

[Goblinmonger]

1. Oh, I don't hate the fight for separation of church and state, but...

I especially love the way it makes it seem like the FFRF wants to take religious symbols off of individual graves.

[struggle4progress]

2. It's a rather disgustingly dishonest piece from Hirschfield,

who can't seem to distinguish between the ACLU and the FFRF, and who disingenuously drags in the Mt Soledad cross

[JNelson6563]

3. +1

[rug]

4. There's all sorts of groups lining up on either side of this.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/mount-soledad-memorial-association-v-trunk/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/03/oh-now-thats-really-crafty/

[struggle4progress]

5. "... Much lore surrounds the Cross and its history. But the record is our guide and, indeed, except

for how they characterize the evidence, the parties essentially agree about the history. A cross was first erected on Mount Soledad in 1913. That cross was replaced in the 1920s and then blew down in 1952. The present Cross was dedicated in 1954 "as a reminder of God's promise to man of everlasting life and of those persons who gave their lives for our freedom. . . ." The primary objective in erecting a Cross on the site was to construct "a permanent handsome cast concrete cross," but also "to create a park worthy of this magnificent view, and worthy to be a setting for the symbol of Christianity." For most of its history, the Cross served as a site for annual Easter services. Only after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s was a plaque added designating the site as a war memorial, along with substantial physical revisions honoring veterans. It was not until the late 1990s that veterans' organizations began holding regular memorial services at the site ...

Simply because there is a cross or a religious symbol on public land does not mean that there is a constitutional violation. Following the Supreme Court's directive, we must consider the purpose of the legislation transferring the Cross, as well as the primary effect of the Memorial as reflected in context, history, use, physical setting, and other background ...

In particular, we do not apply an absolute rule of neutrality because doing so would evince a hostility toward religion that the Establishment Clause forbids. Thus the Court in McCreary approvingly cited Justice Harlan's observation that "`neutrality' . . . is not so narrow a channel that the slightest deviation from an absolutely straight course leads to condemnation" by the First Amendment ...

In sum, the uncontested facts are that the cross has never been used as a default grave marker for veterans buried in the United States, that very few war memorials include crosses or other religious imagery, and that even those memorials containing crosses tend to subordinate the cross to patriotic or other secular symbols. The record contains not a single clear example of a memorial cross akin to the Mount Soledad Cross ...

The question, then, is whether the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial, when understood against the background of its particular history and setting, projects a government endorsement of Christianity. We conclude it does. In so holding, we do not discount the fact that the Cross was dedicated as a war memorial, as well as a tribute to God's promise of "everlasting life," when it was first erected, or that, in more recent years, the Memorial has become a site for secular events honoring veterans. We do not doubt that the present Memorial is intended, at least in part, to honor the sacrifices of our nation's soldiers. This intent, however, is insufficient to render the Memorial constitutional. Rather, we must inquire into the overall effect of the Memorial, taking into consideration its entire context, not simply those elements that suggest a secular message ...

For most of its life, the Memorial has consisted of the Cross alone. The Cross is the third in a line of Latin crosses that has stood on Mount Soledad since 1913. Mount Soledad was chosen as the site for the first cross because it was considered "a fitting place on which to erect an emblem of faith." The earlier crosses were not dedicated as war memorials, but served as the site of intermittent Easter sunrise services. When the Cross was erected in 1954, it was dedicated "as a lasting memorial to the dead of the first and second World Wars and the Korean conflict." There was no physical indication that the Cross was intended as a war memorial, however, until a plaque was added to the site in 1989, after litigation over the Cross had begun ...

The Cross was dedicated on Easter Sunday in a ceremony that included a Christian religious service. The Cross was dedicated not only to fallen soldiers, but also to Jesus Christ with the hope that it would be "a symbol in this pleasant land of Thy great love and sacrifice for all mankind." The program for the ceremony referred to the Cross as "a gleaming white symbol of Christianity."

After the Cross's dedication in 1954, the Association held Easter services at the Memorial annually until at least 2000, and other religious ceremonies have been held there since. The annual Easter services included readings from the Bible, a Christian prayer and benediction, and songs such as "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" and "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name." Until the early 1990s, the program for the annual Easter service recounted the Cross's history and described it as "a gleaming white Cross" that serves as a "reminder of God's Promise to man of redemption and everlasting life." During this same time period, the Cross was referred to as the "Easter Cross" on local maps.

In contrast to this ample evidence of religious usage, the record of secular events at the Memorial is thin ...

The fact that the Memorial also commemorates the war dead and serves as a site for secular ceremonies honoring veterans cannot overcome the effect of its decades-long religious history ...

As it turns out, the record indicates that the first questions about the constitutionality of the Memorial arose in 1969 or 1970, less than a decade after La Jolla real estate was opened up to Jews (and other minorities). This sequence of events lends support to the argument that the discriminatory housing policies of La Jolla may have stifled complaints about the Memorial early in its lifetime ...

Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla. These factors cast a long shadow of sectarianism over the Memorial that has not been overcome by the fact that it is also dedicated to fallen soldiers, or by its comparatively short history of secular events ...

Accordingly, after examining the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial in context — having considered its history, its religious and non-religious uses, its sectarian and secular features, the history of war memorials and the dominance of the Cross — we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause ..."

Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2011)
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Trunk_v_City_of_San_Diego_629_F3d_1099_9th_Cir_2011_Court_Opinion

[rug]

6. Why do you think the DoJ is trying to overturn this decision?

[Goblinmonger]

7. There's an election in November?

[struggle4progress]

9. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen the Solicitor General's brief

[longship]

8. Indeed, Mt. Soledad is a non sequitur

Thanks for your response.

[struggle4progress]

10. Liberty Institute actually released "Don't Tear Me Down" in early February:

... On Feb. 9, Liberty Institute launched a national campaign to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross and other similar memorials that contain religious imagery through their "Don't Tear Me Down" campaign ... In addition, they produced a song by the same name by singer-songwriter Jon Christopher Davis ...
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-government-joins-in-chorus-with-vets-saying-dont-tear-down-mt-soledad-cross-142635286.html

So this article's claim

Monday will see the official release of a new song ... called “Don’t Tear Me Down”

seems to be a bunch of hooey

[rug]

11. Does that matter?

[struggle4progress]

12. The fact creates a certain impression in my mind regarding

the motives, professionalism, and veracity of the columnist: I begin to suspect him of journalistic laziness or of shilling for rightwingers

[pokerfan]

13. The Cross Honors All Dead, Regardless Of Their Religion

-Justice Antonin Scalia


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/scalias_stance_that_cross_hono.html

[Fumesucker]

14. According to Lenny Bruce so does the electric chair..

[Goblinmonger]

15. Oddly, that's not the thing I disagree with him the most about

Oh, it's high on the list, but it's hard to pick just one thing from that gas bag.

[MineralMan]

16. Scalia is a moron.

A very well-educated moron, but a moron all the same. The cross symbolizes a single religion, and that is all. It symbolizes a minority religion, worldwide. To make it the dominant symbol at a national cemetery that holds the bodies of people of all faiths that have served in the military is a disgrace.

As the USAF enlisted man who was one of the first, and may well have been the first, to have "atheist" inscribed on his dogtags, way back in 1965, I insist that all faiths and no faith be represented anywhere military personnel are, alive or dead. Anything less is a disgrace.

So, sucks to your asthmar, Scalia.

[laconicsax]

17. Weren't people arguing the same thing in this very group a couple weeks ago?