Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
U.S. vs. Trunk
Topic Started: Mar 17 2012, 02:35 PM (906 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:13 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
Nothing odd about it.
No it really is odd, a symbol can have religious significance even without being directly associated with 'activities'. (although the cross is associated with 'activities' as well as other things'.


Quote:
 
You think it should be removed because it violates some idea of government sponsorship of religion, correct?


Something like that, though let us not dissect the word 'sponsorship', that was your word not mine.

Quote:
 
You also claim it cannot be understood in the wider context of a cultural symbol. (Yet, of course, the cross far predates Christianity as a cultural symbol since it is a cosmic symbol comprised of the axis mundi and the path of the sun -- the Roman use of the cross for crucifixion was because it was a symbol of the political and civic order).


I suppose the cross erected on Mt. Soledad could be willfully misunderstood that way. Is that what you propose to do?

Likewise the swastika on the arms of Aryan Nation fanatics could be willfully misunderstood to mean solidarity with Jainism. But I don't think many would be fooled.

Quote:
 
do you think that all religious art should be removed from all museums that get government funding in any manner?


No.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You would not ask this question if you knew anything about the court's decision.
I'm asking Jon what his principles are. You really need to learn to keep up.
Yes, dear, I'm slow. I thought we were discussing a legal decision that no one in this thread, obviously, was acquainted with. It's OK. Carry on with this frolic of your own.
You must be addressing Jon then, since he is the one who is advocating that this not advance to the Supreme Court. Do you think that the case law is sufficient to make a dispostive judgment that somehow protects any other religious cultural artifact held on public land?
Edited by ivorythumper, Mar 18 2012, 12:28 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
1hp
Mar 18 2012, 09:23 AM
This fight has been going on forever. I only wonder, if the cross has to come down, what will happen with all the graveyards......staring with Arlington.

Posted Image

Posted Image


Not to mention places such as the Normandy American cemetery, which is managed by the US Government:

Posted Image

The solution there is simple: Allow the deceased (or his/her estate) to decide what symbol to put on his/her plot, be it a Christian cross, a Muslim crescent moon, a Jewish six-pointed star, a pagan/Wiccan pentagram, a Buddhist wheel of karma or reverse swastika, a Taoist tai-ji diagram, an atheist whatever ... as long as all believes are honored as directed by the will of the deceased (or his/her estate), there would be no Constitutional issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
1hp -- would you please resize the cemetery photo smaller?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:26 PM
You would not ask this question if you knew anything about the court's decision.
I'm asking Jon what his principles are. You really need to learn to keep up. [/quote]Yes, dear, I'm slow. I thought we were discussing a legal decision that no one in this thread, obviously, was acquainted with. It's OK. Carry on with this frolic of your own.[/quote]You must be addressing Jon then, since he is the one who is advocating that this not advance to the Supreme Court. Do you think that the case law is sufficient to make a dispostive judgment that somehow protects any other religious cultural artifact held on public land? [/quote]OK. Since you will not take the time to learn what the Court had to say, I'll post a few useful bits:

Quote:
 
We are not faced with a decision about what to do with a historical, longstanding veterans memorial that happens to include a cross. Nor does this case implicate military cemeteries in the United States that include headstones with crosses and other religious symbols particular to the deceased. Instead we consider a site with a free-standing cross originally erected in 1913 that was replaced with an even larger cross in 1954, a site that did not have any physical indication that it was a memorial nor take on the patina of a veterans memorial until the 1990s, in response to the litigation.


Quote:
 
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. Although we conclude that Congress did not harbor a sectarian purpose in establishing the Memorial in 2006, the resolution of the primary effect of the Memorial is more nuanced and is driven by the factual record. We do not look to the sound bites proffered by both sides but instead to the extensive factual background provided in the hundreds of pages of historical documents, declarations, expert testimony, and public records. Here, a fact-intensive evaluation drives the legal judgment.


Quote:
 
this war memorial-with its imposing Cross-stands as an outlier among war memorials, even those incorporating crosses. Contrary to any popular notion, war memorials in the United States have not traditionally included or centered on the cross and, according to the parties' evidence, there is no comparable memorial on public land in which the cross holds such a pivotal and imposing stature, dwarfing by every measure the secular plaques and other symbols commemorating veterans.


I agree with Turley that this is a very well written opinion, and I think it was fairly decided, based on the court's view of the relevant line of cases. The court clearly distinguishes this situation from Arlington and the like and certainly from religious art in museums. If the Brooklyn Museum had a big cross on top, then it would be relevant. It is anyone's guess whether the Supremes will take it on appeal.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:30 PM
1hp -- would you please resize the cemetery photo smaller?

It belongs to Ax on this page.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 12:25 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:13 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
Nothing odd about it.
No it really is odd, a symbol can have religious significance even without being directly associated with 'activities'. (although the cross is associated with 'activities' as well as other things'.

But like all symbols, they are multivalent -- you are ascribing a monovalent reading to a symbol, effectively treating it as a sign. And you ignore the point that religion requires some form of activity. The whole basis of the First Amendment ("respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is about practice.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You think it should be removed because it violates some idea of government sponsorship of religion, correct?


Something like that, though let us not dissect the word 'sponsorship', that was your word not mine.
That was the sense of the article and the legal challenge : "which said the landmark was unconstitutional because it signified government support of a religion on public land, has to be reviewed." If you have a better term, please proffer it.
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
You also claim it cannot be understood in the wider context of a cultural symbol. (Yet, of course, the cross far predates Christianity as a cultural symbol since it is a cosmic symbol comprised of the axis mundi and the path of the sun -- the Roman use of the cross for crucifixion was because it was a symbol of the political and civic order).

I suppose the cross erected on Mt. Soledad could be willfully misunderstood that way. Is that what you propose to do?
It would not be a willful misunderstanding -- but rather a deeper understanding. And I am always in favor of deeper understanding -- aren't you?
Quote:
 

Likewise the swastika on the arms of Aryan Nation fanatics could be willfully misunderstood to mean solidarity with Jainism. But I don't think many would be fooled.
You actually have that backwards. By your reasoning, the Jains could not use the swastika because of an adverse association.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
do you think that all religious art should be removed from all museums that get government funding in any manner?


No.

Why not? You must have some mechanism to distinguish between a "historically significant war memorial" a cross as a cultural artifact and Robert Campin's Mérode Triptych which was actually fabricated as a devotional piece specific to the Catholic religious practice.
Edited by ivorythumper, Mar 18 2012, 12:59 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Copper
Mar 18 2012, 12:47 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:30 PM
1hp -- would you please resize the cemetery photo smaller?

It belongs to Ax on this page.
It belongs to both -- both are shown on my one page.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
The logistics of responding to your points is getting difficult, since we're now at 4-5 mini threads.

Re 'activity', as I said before, its not relevant for the constitutional issue. Also your suggestion that no activities are associated with the cross is simply false.

Re 'sponsorship' - its not the word I would choose. Maybe 'promotion' or perhaps even 'putting this in my face'.

Re 'willful misunderstanding'. You answered my question as I thought you would, though indirectly.

Re the Aryan Nation and the Jains - no, I had it right. The analogy is precise.

Re where to draw the line, I would need to give ti some thought. Where has the supreme court drawn the line, do you know?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I should add at least its just an easter cross. Around here you get subjected to the image of the dead jew on a stick every few blocks. Part of the italian heritage of this neighborhood that gentrification has not yet addressed.


(this is a major tangent, since its not the state that hangs them)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 12:58 PM
The logistics of responding to your points is getting difficult, since we're now at 4-5 mini threads.


Yes, it would help if you actually elaborated your principles for discrimination. Since you haven't, I have to rather laboriously try to draw them out.
Quote:
 

Re 'activity', as I said before, its not relevant for the constitutional issue. Also your suggestion that no activities are associated with the cross is simply false.

What specifically religious activities are associated with this cross? It is disingenuous to impute to me "that no activities are associated with the cross" when I am specifically asking about religious activities. Surely, any Constitutional grounds for prohibiting something related to the Establishment clause should speak plainly to actual religious activity, no? Otherwise, ANY religious imagery of cultural significance is liable to the same problem.
Quote:
 

Re 'sponsorship' - its not the word I would choose. Maybe 'promotion' or perhaps even 'putting this in my face'.
It existed long before you were alive. Should we eradicate all sorts of things that you or anyone else find objectionable, even if they are culturally and historically significant landmarks?
Quote:
 

Re 'willful misunderstanding'. You answered my question as I thought you would, though indirectly.
I am sorry that you have such a two dimensional understanding of culture and symbolism. Oh well.
Quote:
 

Re the Aryan Nation and the Jains - no, I had it right. The analogy is precise.
No -- the Jain use predates the Aryan use. Like the ancient Roman use predates the Christian use. The Christian use is firmly grounded in the ancient Roman use -- the Aryan Nation use is not grounded at all in the Jain use. Your analogy is flawed.
Quote:
 

Re where to draw the line, I would need to give ti some thought. Where has the supreme court drawn the line, do you know?
AFAICT, they haven't drawn the line, which is why I think it should go to SCOTUS for determination. You said it shouldn't.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Oh, I see your point. THe christian usage of the cross incorporated the meaning it had at the time in Rome. Fair point.

Having said that, the idea that when the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was erected and dedicated to 'our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ', that they didn't consider it a religious symbol, doesn't seem very likely to me.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

Quote:
 
1hp -- would you please resize the cemetery photo smaller?


Ax will have to copy the link to the smaller image and edit his post.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

I thought the comment from Justice Kennedy was spot on:

“The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society....."


I don't know of many in San Diego who feel/want the cross removed. Frankly, I think this sort of thing should go to the polls and let the majority of San Diego city voters decide.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Y'all remind me...if I get appointed American Hitler, the first order of biddness is to shoot every lawyer working for the ACLU.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Funny, the Demjanjuk thread reminded me of a Ukrainian-American friend I had (parents were DPs in the war, he was born in Chicago).

His family was extremely anti-soviet, anti-communist. But one thing he would say, with a bit of a laugh, was, "the one thing the communists got right, is they put the priests and the lawyers up against the wall".

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2