Following up on a story discussed on Plunderbund back in December, The Supreme Court yesterday ruled 5-4 to allow the Christian cross to remain on land that was given to the VFW by Congress when it was ruled that the cross could not remain on public land. It is now a tiny island of private land within a sea of public property.

An obvious attempt by Congress and the court to thrust religion upon those unwilling to accept it. From this point forward I want to hear precisely fuck all about “judicial activism” from those on the right. FUCK. ALL. The Supreme Court probably should never have even heard this case and left in tact the ruling of the lower court. A point made by Breyer in his dissent.

So just to review, private citizens erected a cross on public land. The cross was later challenged and a request was made to add a Buddhist Stupa on the same site. Instead of allowing this, the park said the cross would come down. Christofascists got panties in bunch and moved Congress to retroactively use a land transfer scheme to allow the Christan Cross to remain. The SCOTUS just ruled that this is all fine. Nice precedent.

Wingnuts, predictably, are overjoyed with this display of government sanctioned Christianism. Others not so much. had this:

The Supreme Court’s muddled decision in Salazar v. Buono threatens to further erode the wall of separation between church and state, allowing a cross to remain standing as a war memorial in middle of the government-owned Mojave National Preserve and opening the door for the display of more religious symbols on public property.

The Anti-Defamation League called the ruling disappointing:

We are disappointed by the Court’s action, but this is not a case destined to have much impact on religious freedom. The unique facts and the splintered, technical nature of the decision provide minimal guidance on the broader issue of the display of religious symbols on public property. This case will only add to the confusion surrounding what the First Amendment allows, requires and prohibits.

One troubling aspect of this decision is that the plurality drew far-reaching theological conclusions when it determined that the cross has some universal meaning beyond Christianity. This claim should be equally as offensive to Christians and non-Christians.

The use of the term “Latin cross” by Justice Kennedy is very telling when it comes to judging judicial activism:

?A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs,? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a plurality opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ?It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten.?

You see? It’s not a Christian cross! It’s a Latin cross that evokes many other tiny little Christian crosses on the graves of those Christians who died in combat overseas.

LOL. Bloody hell. To say that’s a stretch is plainly obvious. The land transfer was a reach and this “Latin cross” bullshit is yet another reach. Here’s an experiment. Take a white cross around and ask 100 people what it is and what it means. They’ll tell you what any dictionary does:

It is “a symbol of Christianity.” It is “the best-known religious symbol of Christianity.” It is “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” It is “an emblem of Christianity.” It is “the most familiar and widely recognized symbol of Christianity.” It is “the symbol of Christian faith.” It is “the cross of Christ’s crucifixion.”

This framing by Kennedy is offensive to those of other faiths and no faith who died in combat in defense of this country. Did the VFW abandon these soldiers? Maybe they should change their name to Veterans of Christians in Foreign Wars.

Now. Let’s remember the importance of elections and especially the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. There are real consequences.

Tagged with: