It’s Not a Christmas Tree
Per Dahlia Lithwick, Justice Scalia tries to pour new wine into old wineskins, with unconvincing results:
There’s just one person at oral argument in Salazar v. Buono this morning who really wants to talk about whether a 5-foot cross on federal government land in the Mojave National Preserve violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. But Justice Antonin Scalia really, really wants to talk about it. He looks particularly queasy when Peter Eliasberg—the ACLU lawyer whose client objects to crosses on government land—suggests partway through the morning that perhaps a less controversial World War I memorial might consist of “a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians.”
“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!”
no legal expert but he seems to have his own interpretation of the separation of church and state. Could have sworn in graduate school that this was developed so that religion could be separate from and not state sponsored; thus, all religious expressions could grow and be tolerated rather than the church sponsored religions of the founders time period.
This separation does NOT mean that religion must be limited or eliminated completely so that government can’t be supportive of religion of its citizens; it just can’t control, decide, or make laws that declare one particular religion a state religion or give undue influence to one religion.
We have already seen the results of this extreme interpretation play out in ridiculous court cases around prayer at football games, 19th century statues, memorials located on state universities/capitols, etc.
Thanks for posting this…I have been chewing over this since I saw Scalia’s comments last night.
Interesting that in order to save a religious symbol you have to destroy the religiousness of the symbol.
I think a similar argument was made (by conservatives) for keeping “under God” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” on coins.
I don’t get Scalia here. At all.
As Christians, do we want the Latin cross ever to be anything less than “the predominant symbol of Christianity, …signif[ying] that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins”? If the SC were to adopt Justice Scalia’s reasoning, it seems to me that at least some of the religious significance of a Latin cross displayed in public would be diminished.
BTW, an irony in this case is that the suit was initiated when Frank Buono went to the ACLU complaining about the presence of the cross on federal land in the Mojave Desert. Unlike most plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits, who are often atheists or agnostics, Buono is a “practicing Catholic” who has crucifixes in his home.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/october-2-2009/mojave-cross/4424/#
Great post! Scalia gives a display of his logical mind. What are the qualifications for Supreme Court Justice?
This business of the cross is such a tired old argument by the same lame actors; the atheistic communists over at the ACLU. Why go around the nation snapping the crosses off war memorials? That fact is the majority of those buried in those cemetaries were Christian, most of them Protestant at that.
While the ACLU and other atheist groups always claim to be ever so worried about offending non-Christians, in fact one of their goals is to push all religious symbols out of the public square.
It is like the tiresome old Christmas song or Christmas decoration argument that comes around every year. Atheists do not like to see religious symbols, and so they try to say they are worried about offending Jews. In fact one would need to search far and wide for Jews who are offended by Christmas symbols. Certainly no Christian – especially no Catholic – should be offended by a Star of David, or by Islamic symbols and indeed very few are.
Yet, atheists always try to accomplish their goal by using minority religions and saying a Jew or Muslim would be offended by a Christian symbol. The fact of the matter is that atheists do not like religious symbols – period.
I like how old Chesterton described how the atheist will destroy almost anything if he thinks it will help bring down God and His church. To paraphrase; ‘after all the ranting and machinations of the atheist, the Lord is still in heaven and His church is unharmed. The atheist does not make heaven unpleasant; he only succeeds in making routine matters on earth unpleasant.’
;-)
Ken
You need to understand the establishment clause. Your are missing the point.
This Scalia guy is dangerous
Joe – see my comments above about “establishment”…..see Ken’s comments. It appears to me that having crosses in public buildings, cemeteries, etc. is not “establishment”. This approach takes the founders’ ideals to an illogical end.
Ken, I don’t think you are addressing the point of the post and Scalia’s arguments–you are arguing about the ACLU trying to banish religious symbols from the public square. Scalia is saying the Cross is not a religious symbol, or at least noty a sectarian one. Do you agree with that?
BTW, from all I’ve read it sounds like the court will take a fairly sensible (ISTM) minimalist route out that leaves the cross in place.
Just want to say that some of the most ethical and caring folks I know are atheists -so udsing the word as a smear term iborders on the infantile.
Scalia suffers from bth his own narrow views and an overestimated sense of his wisdom.
I’m with William. I’d much rather the Cross continued to be a symbol of Christ’s divinity and his sacrifice, rather than, in Scalia’s words, simply “the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead.” It’s always bizarre when the ones advocating the removal of religious symbols seem to be the only ones who’ll testify to their religious significance.
Maybe the good judge will explain himself more fully when he writes his dissent.
Unagidon: My bet is Scalia is with the majority (7-2) but writes a separate opinion. Do I get odds?!
No, no odds. If it goes as you say, Scalia will probably be smart enough to hide in the trees on this one.
While I disagree with Joseph Jaglowicz’s comment that “Scalia is dangerous,” I also disagree with Scalia. The last thing I want to see is the cross eviscerated of all its Christian significance. A sign that can stand for anything stands for nothing.
This also reminds me of a line in a book edited Leslie Woodcock Tentler (“The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholicism Since 1950 in the United States, Ireland, and Quebec”) which includes a great line. It closes the section on the Church in Quebec in which a horrified American shreaks when he or she(can’t remember) sees a large crucifix hanging in the legislative chamber in Quebec City. The tour guide calms the person down and says in reference to the crucifix: “That is history.” I would hate for the cross (or the crucifix) to become a symbol that just points to the past rather than something that is vibrant, alive and challenging
Please Joseph G.; the establishment clause is quite clear and straightforward. This is case is serious, but the matter is not complex.
This case involves a memorial that was constructed in the early-mid 1930’s in honor of WW1 soldiers. At the time this sort of thing (religious decorations in war cemeteries) was not controversial. The cemetery is in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Now, seventy-plus years after the fact, we are discussing whether we should leave it there or tear it down.
In fact the atheists involved in this case are so hysterical and the government officials so limp, that pending the outcome of the supreme court decision, because it was deemed such a threat to the republic, the cross has been covered by a plywood box.
Apparently some think this cross – less than 10 feet tall and part of a memorial located in a war cemetery in the middle of the Mojave desert on a plot of land that the Feds traded to the VFW, a cross that has there quietly for over 70 years – some think this is such a dire threat to the survival of our constitutional republic that it must be torn down.
If we say we can no longer have images of crosses or other religious symbols (no Star of David, no Crescents, etc.) on any public land, I want to be the guy who sells Arlington all the new headstones sans crosses, stars or crescents!
This case is straightforward enough.
(And Joseph J – I trust you are joking.)
Moreover, some Ameircans mistaken think they have a right to not be offended; they do not.
The constitutional relevance aside, is what Scalia said really that ludicrous? All across the country, around dangerous curves on the nation’s highways, there are frequently makeshift memorials erected for those who’ve died in car accidents. Most of the time, these memorials possess a picture of the victim and a cross, or a cross along with the victim’s name and age. When my eye catches these crosses, my first thought is that someone has died in a car accident and their family and friends are commemorating that person’s loss — and not primarily intending to communicate the family’s belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or attempting to convert drivers to believe in the same.
I suspect I’m not the only one who feels that way when driving past those road-side memorials. Thus, I don’t think it’s implausible to believe that the Cross can, and in many cases has come to, symbolize something broader than what Christians believe.
Matt,
If what you say is true then you confirm Anthony’s worst fear, that in memorials of the dead, the cross has no real meaning. I suspect that the use of the cross in roadside memorials of traffic deaths indicates that the person who died was a Christian. That having been said, the example misses the point because those who died in WWI were not all Christians. Even of the majority of the war dead were Christians not all were, and so in the case of the Mojave desert memorial the numbers of Christians who died cannot trump the number of non-Christians who also died. That is the crux of the argument, that Ken just does not get. The example of Arlington is off point because there the memorials symbolize the faith of the dead and witness to the diversity of those faiths, whereas the cross in the Mojave desert does not.
Alan – if your point is correct, it raises the trend that any historical marker, etc. that is identified with any one faith (not denomination but religion), can not be located on public land.
This has been raised in case law before in terms of Ten Commandments in a state capitol; crosses or statutes of Christians in public buildings. This would basically override and discard hundreds of years of our history (yes, cultural bias; practices that we may no longer support; etc.)
In some ways, it parallels the court cases that:
a) want all signs of the Confederacy removed – flags, banners, statutes, etc.
b) want all mascots, etc. of native Americans stopped by universities, colleges, schools, YMCA, etc.
Are these all the same legally?
Scalia’s reasoning is rather extreme, if it isn’t simply disingenuous. It seems to me that the Quebec story is the best analytical framework in which to understand this particular monument — it’s a historic marker that was (I believe) originally erected on private property. It’s okay for approximately the same reason we don’t require San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, etc. to change their names. Although each of these names has clear religious significance, in context, the name matters more as a historical marker, and virtually no one would be crazy enough to think that these places are promoting religion by using a religiously inspired place name.
The memorial is a closer call, in my view, because the average person who sees it will have much less context in which to understand or interpret its significance. But the federal government did not erect it (much as the federal government didn’t choose the place names in California) and clearly isn’t maintaining it as a religious symbol. Basically, it is a religious symbol that is being used in service to a secular cause (the war dead — what Scalia got wrong was to generalize the entire phenomenon, which is clearly offensive).
But if someone were to suggest that this monument be built today on federal land, it should clearly be illegal.
Since this is a (putatively) Christian site, rather than a constitutional law site, one might ask the question of what the Cross means from a Christian perspective?
Is the Cross meant only for Christians? Did Jesus die for Christians only, or did He die for everyone?
And if He died for everyone, such that the Cross is meant for everyone, what would be the intent of someone who put up a Cross to honor the dead? Would the intent be to honor only Christians? or would the intent be to honor everyone?
Understanding the meaning and import of Justice Scalia’s question really is not all that hard.
**some think this is such a dire threat to the survival of our constitutional republic that it must be torn down**
As a factual matter, given the many years that it has stood, it is true that there has been no evidence whatsoever of any actual injury to anyone as a result of the presence of the cross.
As a legal matter, if there is no injury, if you cannot prove that you personally have been injured in some way by the conduct at issue, you lack standing to sue.
As a constitutional matter, no injury, no constitutional violation.
OK Before we go off on Scalia’s “reasoning” a few things should be noted. First, this is a series of questions in oral argument. Not an opinion. While such questions might reveal some of what a judge is thinking, they don’t always, and Scalia is known for pushing lawyers with probing questions and statements.
Second, you can’t blame Scalia for probing the religious meaning, content and context of the symbol Like it or not, the pinheaded law developed by the Warren and Burger courts in this area requires it. Scalia has long decried the court’s establishment decisions for exactly some the reasons all the posters here are complaining about. If you want to criticize someone for putting Santa and Frosty in the creche – blame Ruth Bader Gisnburg.
Finally, the editorializing by the Slate writer ought to be taken into account – Scalia’s “stunned” comment. Anyone who has listened to Scalia knows he’s a dramatist – he always sounds stunned, or indignant, or sarcastic – it may have nothing to do with what he finally decides. It is just possible that he poking at the stupidity of the courts jurisprudence that require inquiry into the relative size of the Christmas Tree and Menorah.
The worry expressed by several persons that the cross might become an empty symbol is all too real. In France the countryside has medieval churches, crosses, and shrines all over the place, but most people see them as historical artifacts, not as still currently pregnant with religious meaning. And some time ago in France I saw someone wearing a chain a cross and she told me that, no, she was not religious, she just wore it because she found it “pretty”. Argh!
Is that principle somewhere in “Bender on Constitutional Law”?
Constantine destroyed the meaning of the cross when he decided to confiscate Christianity. “In this sign you will conquer.” Regaled for centuries in Christendom. Then Helen becomes famous because she found the cross. She is a saint for that? Amazing fantasies. Most likely this cross in question is the true cross…………..
Barbara, it is well established in US law that in order for one to be granted an award of some kind, they first have to demonstrate they have suffered a loss or injury.
The difference in this case is that nobody is claiming injury or loss, but instead that they are somehow offended by a religious symbol, by a cross in a cemetery.
And so while under our laws it is clear that if one suffers injury or loss, they are entitled to just and reasonable compensation, and it is clear via the Establishment clause that the state shall not establish any particular religion as “the state religion”, nor shall it prevent the free exercise thereof, it apparently is less clear to some whether a cross in a cemetery constitutes the establishment of a state religion or, in the case of someone finding something on public or private land that offends them, if that symbol ought to left alone and the person told to adjust themselves to reality of the society in which they live, or if in order to avoid offending atheists, we must as a people truly set about a national campaign of purging our society and especially our public square, of any and all religious symbols.
We reference God on our currency, many of our cities and towns reference the holy saints and in some cases even Christ Himself (e.g., Corpus Christi, TX), many flags and banners used by cities and states have crosses. Even the stationary used by governors might be imprinted with that state’s seal, which might contain a religious symbol – oh my! We have a chaplain invoke God’s blessing on Congress before each day’s business, and of course our founding documents reference the Almighty, as do many of the writing and speeches of our presidents e.g., Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and his second inaugural address.
And so the question is before the court. Is a cross that has been standing for over 70 years in a cemetery honouring WW1 soldiers such a threat to the republic and to our way of life that it must be removed? So great was the outcry by the atheists involved in this case that to date, in order that none may see the offending cross, it has been fitted with (hidden by) a plywood box.
Our country was firmly founded on basic Judeo-Christian values. Regardless of various Catholics’ deep (and not un-important) musings about the meaning of the cross, as a practical matter I hope our supreme court has sense enough to allow our cultural history (most of which frankly, has been Deism and/or Protestant Christianity) to be reflected in our civic institutions, to give our ancestors a seat at the table. In other words I hope and pray that common sense prevails.
I worked on the first floor of a federal building for nearly 9 years for the U.S. Civil Service Commission/Office of Personnel Management. Our primary customers were federal personnel officials and the job-seeking public. I worked in the HR offices at two VA medical centers during the second half of my career. Our primary customers were clinical and administrative managers with jobs to fill, employees interested in promotion, and outside folks wanting to work at these hospitals. In both the federal buildings and the medical centers, we responded to congressional inquiries regarding matters brought to legislators’ attention by their constituents.
I would never have thought of placing a cross/crucifix on the wall of my offices. I don’t recall if GSA or VA had any policies on this practice.
Any case law here?
Is every psychological offense caused by a symbol an injury? If so, it would seem that every insult on every blog is legally actionable.
Or is it only unjust offenses caused by symbols that would be legally actionable? And how to tell the difference between a just insult/offense and an unjust one?
It boggles the mind to even start to consider the question, though it the use of swastikas and Confederate flags by some involve this question and have been considered by the courts. Further, some court cases are clearly matters of hurt feelings (e.g., humiliation).
Complexity, complexity.
Another constitutional scholar:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40825.pdf
Standing under establishment clause cases is somewhat complicated. It’s not the simple “no injury in fact” that we all know and love in other kinds of cases.
To interject some levity on this question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/anntelnaes/
You might also want to go to BeliefNet and Seklow’s column – he has three posts esp. about the establishment clause; the catholic who filed this suit; and the standing of the filer.
When I wrote that Scalia is dangerous, I was not joking.
I had in mind his interview on CBS “60 Minutes.” Some of his comments disturbed me (sorry, my mind right now prevents my effective recall of what he opined as well as the topic/s on which he opined — perhaps the death penalty and/or torture?).
Just because a cross has been on public land for 70 years, is its placement on said land still appropriate? Although the Establishment clause was intended to prevent the government from creating/designating an official church, I think a reasonable corollary in an increasingly pluralistic and “wired” society would be the prohibition of any sectarian display on public lands and in public buildings. I have in mind here “Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile”. If I were a Jew or Sikh or Muslim or Baptist, I might not have wanted to walk into Mr. Jaglowicz’s federal office and seen a (Catholic) crucifix on the wall.
This discussion reminds me of the old expression “Out of sight, out of mind.” In the case of this cemetery cross, for instance, most folks were likely unaware of it 70 years ago, and society was perhaps “more Christian” than it is today. On the other hand, what might a Jew or other non-Christian have felt if s/he had taken the time to drive out to the middle of nowhere to visit a gravesite and have seen this cross? A sense of anger? A sense of resignation?
While we may not respect (in the sense of ‘adhere to’) the other person’s religious beliefs, can we not respect the other person including his or her feelings in this context? Are we so preoccupied with our own public display that we ignore how it might offend the sensibilities of the other person — especially, perhaps, when that person belongs to a minority group?
What is wrong with some degree of neutrality in this situation?
I have trouble seeing this dispute as anything but the typical arrogant disrespect of the majority religion for the sensibilities of anyone outside the fold.
Ken, if a Muslim veterans’ organization were to argue that a crescent displayed in a Muslim-majority area, say Bagram or Baghdad, was perfectly appropriate to represent all those killed in a particular conflict, would you be comfortable with that even if the dead included a substantial number of Christians? If you can answer yes to this then you are consistent in your own arguments.
How about the very recent practice in Utah public school of sending non-Mormons to “study halls” while the majority received their religious instruction? Surely as Catholics surrounded by a Protestant (and increasingly evangelical) majority, we can understand issue. I’m no lawyer or theologian but I thought the whole point of the Establishment Clause was to keep religious minorities from feeling bullied into conformity. As a Catholic I do not feel personally represented by a crescent or an aum or a Star of David and it is disrespectful, to say the least, to expect non-Christian and secular Americans to identify with a cross.
The Cross and Crucifix have meaning for me and I am not comfortable having them hollowed out by a legal fiction. I live in a county that was settled by Franciscan missionaries, and which used to have a cross on the county seal as a recognition of that history. The church and the the local polity have not been harmed by the redesign of that seal.
A resolution that makes the site genuinely private seems likely and desirable.
You make a good point and your final sentence may be the actual resolution. On the other hand, not sure that the “establishment” clause was meant for us to try to be 100% neutral – memorials, symbols, etc. are part of our history and our history is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. To forget our history is to forget where we came from, who we are, and thus where we are going.
It would be an argument to outlaw all German schools from teaching about the Holocaust – use of religious symbols. It would be an argument to outlaw all Japanese schools from teaching about their warrior class/mentality that led to millions of brutal deaths because this was part of a religious expression.
As a nation and as a people, we are diminshed when we do not show tolerance towards our multi-pluralistic melting pot….this is more than just culture, race, etc. It includes our history.
Bill: there are those who argue that, rather than a melting pot (in which the result bears no resemblance to the constituent parts), this country is more like a salad, in which each part is distinct and keeps its own configuration, but contributes to the salad en toto in an equally important manner.
Jimmy Mac – have repeatedly been admonished on your metaphor vs. mine by priest friends and the president of MACC. Agree but that would not change my point above. In fact, I still remember my grandmother talking about her experience in WWI when, as German-American cotton farmers & Catholic minority) were strongly discouraged from using their German language, remembering their history, all times with German relatives were severed, etc. She felt a real loss especially around feasts such as Christmas – but she continued to sing Silent Night in German to all of us grandkids (41 of us) every Christmas when we gathered.
But, I do feel that two things happen:
a) first and even second immigrant generation is more a salad;
b) then, the third and following generation becomes a melting pot via education, movement up the economic ladder, inter-marriage, etc.
I do think that the US has been diminished by not emphasizing both the continuity and maintenance of their original culure/nationality while at the same time encouraging these new immigrants to learn english, get an education, etc.
Joseph J says “When I wrote that Scalia is dangerous, I was not joking. I had in mind his interview on CBS “60 Minutes.” Some of his comments disturbed me (sorry, my mind right now prevents my effective recall of what he opined as well as the topic/s on which he opined — perhaps the death penalty and/or torture?).”
Now this is getting good Joseph. You were so “offended” by Scalia’s comments that you don’t even remember what his comments were – ha, ha! Now certainly, you must be employing some sly humor?
Dorothy – I would in fact not be offended at all by a Muslim Crescent or Star of David. Why would I be? You keep thinking in such a theoretical and non-practical manner, and you won’t need to wonder or mull about the meaning of a cross in public areas; there will not be any.
Those who want to remove all symbols of religion from public view and sterilize our culture of all religious references in art and speech are very practical and do not spend time mulling over deep thoughts. Indeed, so far have been able to run circles around not only American Catholic thinkers, but also around the Christian majority in this nation.
Now, please, do not jump up and tell me that “we Catholics are Christains too.” I realize that and I realize my error.
I meant to say that militant secularists have “…run circles not only around American Catholic thinkers, but also around the Protestant majority in this nation”.
Bill, you wrote that my argument would militate against teaching about the Holocaust (no religious symbols) and the Japanese warrior class mentality (part of religious expression). I doubt it. If not mistaken, I believe it is constitutional for public schools to offer classes in comparative religion, not to mention world history. The focus in the former is on both differences and similarities in religious belief. The focus in the latter is on important world events including their causes (human motivations, socioeconomic conditions, etc.). In neither case is religious indoctrination involved. In neither case is religious symbolism used intentionally or unintentionally to highlight a dominant/majority religious belief.
Ken, as for my not remembering the specifics of the Scalia interview, all I can say is I am not a “court watcher,” and I generally hiccup at Scalia’s comments (they generally strke me as rightwing fringe in nature:). Perhaps I tend to not remember the unpleasant :)
As to your concern about folks “want[ing] to remove all symbols of religion from public view and sterilize our culture of all religious references in art and speech,” I think there is a matter of judgment here. I remember seeing a big electric cross atop a state TB hospital in Louisville years ago at Chrismas time. It was turned on each and every holiday season for years and years. The last time I drove by at Christmas, it was gone. Either somebody complained, or somebody in state government decided it had to go. Right or wrong? Good or bad? As a Christian, I was not offended by its annual lightup; indeed, I didn’t give a second thought about its presence on government property.
We live in a pluralistic society, and I suspect we are making “accommodations” that we Christians would not have given any thought to making just a few decades ago. People (and I note the increasing growth in minority folks among our midst) are more aware of these traditionally accepted practices, and Christians are increasingly aware of the need to be sensitive to the feelings of non-Christians in our midst. As a Kentuckian, I am also aware of some folks in these here parts who are trying to post the Ten Commandments on public property for obviously sectarian purposes.
CLARIFICATION: I wrote at end of first paragraph, “In neither case is religious symbolism used intentionally or untentionally to highlight…” I meant to write, “…to promote…”
Would you think it wrong then Joseph, for a city or town with a predominantly Muslim population – for example some towns in Michigan have great populatons of Muslims – can they have symbols of their religion here and there within their local public square?
I live in a small city in California that is almost half Mexican. Consequently images of the Virgin Mary and the cross and Juan Diego abound. Aztec imagery also is not un-common. Should our local public square be scrubbed of all these?
In addition to Latinos, we also have a fair number of Pakistani Muslims and a large mosque, and I have never ever heard any Muslim complain of Christian symbols. Likewise, I have never in my entire life heard a Jew or a Hindu or a Buddhist complain about religious symbols – at all.
No Joseph, folks who hold a religion in their hearts are not the ones complaining about religious symbols in the public square. It is folks who do not like to be reminded of God who so strongly object to them and who prfer not to see them.
I would not support Muslim or any other sectarian symbols in a local public square (assuming that the land is publicly owned). On a related note, I have misgivings about local authorities allowing symbols of several religious traditions to be posted on government-owned property. I’m not opposed to such displays, but I think they can be open to abuse if not handled carefully.
I don’t think we should predicate our decision to display (or continue showing) religious symbols on public property on whether or not members of minority religious groups complain or do not complain. To me, it’s a mattter of respecting the reality of our increasingly pluralistic society and showing consideration for the feelings (and potential welfare) of others, i.e., those different from us.
I disagree with the idea that only folks who don’t want to be reminded of God are the ones who do the complaining. I’m far from the only “believer” who opposes religious/sectarian displays on public property.
I am not sure I understand you Joseph.
Sound and/or music are often art forms. The Islamic daily call to prayer is a rather loud, distinctive sound, but Muslims find it comforting and in any case, as the number of mosques in America increases, it is becoming more common. Would you object to that in your town? Do you object to it in my town? I certainly do not object to hearing that sort of thing.
From your post, it seems like rather than accepting and respecting the symbols and/or artistic expressions of the various religions that grace our land, your “solution” is silence and an empty public space.
Rather than trying to purge our culture and public discourse of religious symbols and art, I think it better if make room for various faiths, and respect those who hold them.
It is always best if we have respcet for, and at least try to understand one another.
Obviously, next on the agenda is an ordinance against the ringing of church bells. Ken, there is a big distinction between displays placed on “public property” and displays on private property that are highly visible to the public at large. No one has ever tried to outlaw the latter, except perhaps based on zoning law or public nuisance grounds (e.g., obstructing traffic or impeding views). Moreover, it is clear to me that when someone to moves a creche or whatever on public property they are frequently motivated by a desire to validate their religious tradition and mores, and that this is understood by most other religions, because their adherents either object or move to get a similar display (e.g., a menorah) placed alongside the other one — so as not to be “outdone” in public validation.
Thus, the Muslim call to prayer isn’t going to be outlawed — however, a Muslim insistence that a rug placed in a lounge that was used for prayers be off limits to female students and employees at a public university is a non-starter.
Yes, this really happened, and the university, understanding the significance of the problem, told them that it couldn’t enforce their religious rules for them — and they couldn’t enforce them either so long as they were on public property. I assume they rolled the thing up and brought it out as needed.
Ken, I did not (and do not) have in mind sound and/or music per se.
Indeed, if non-Catholics can tolerate our Marian and Corpus Christi processions through city neighborhoods as well as our ringing of church bells, I think we can tolerate the Muslim call to prayer, etc. (provided it does not violate any neutral decibel test applicable to the public at large). I do see room for reasonable accommodation here.
Therefore, I disagree with your assumption that my views would logically entail a ban on all audible and/or visual forms of expression. Our discussion began, if you remember, with the display of a Christian cross on land that is disputably private. I also mentioned the display of the Ten Commandments on public property.
I do respect people of various faith traditions. Indeed, two very dear friends are a young Muslim couple who once lived next door to me. Knowing them as I do, I doubt they would want any call to prayer to be a nuisance to their non-Muslim neighbors.
(And I offered these comments before I read Barbara’s posting with which I totally agree.)