• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SCOTUS Rules First Amendment is Constitutional

grunion

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
11,498
Meanwhile, in other SCOTUS news, we may finally see a huge eyesore removed from the California landscape. Now we can find out if the state has the political will to follow it through.

The justices rejected an appeal on Monday by the Obama administration and by an association that erected the cross arguing the government should not be forced to take down the memorial cross that stood atop Mount Soledad in San Diego since 1954 to honor veterans.
(This happened Monday but I didn't catch it until now.)
 
Sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure the Jewish, Atheist, etc. veterans won't know that their right to a giant cross has been violated .
 
Sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure the Jewish, Atheist, etc. veterans won't know that their right to a giant cross has been violated .

Hey, I don't know about you, but when I see a giant cross erected by the road, the first thing I think about is the sacrifices of our veterans.

Or not.
 
Hey, I don't know about you, but when I see a giant cross erected by the road, the first thing I think about is the sacrifices of our veterans.

Or not.

A giant M-1 bayonet in the ground, a giant helmet atop the stock.

THAT would be an awesome war memorial.

Like the image, but huge;
 

Attachments

  • 1917gravemark1.jpg
    1917gravemark1.jpg
    40.2 KB · Views: 10
A giant M-1 bayonet in the ground, a giant helmet atop the stock.

THAT would be an awesome war memorial.

Like the image, but huge;

Nitpick: that's a Springfield 1903 rifle with a WW1 US-adopted English tin hat.

But I agree, it would be awesome.
 
Hey, I don't know about you, but when I see a giant cross erected by the road, the first thing I think about is the sacrifices of our veterans.

Or not.

The first thing I think about is "This road is brought to you by the letter T."
 
The first thing I think about is "This road is brought to you by the letter T."

"Faster than a rolling O, stronger than silent E, able to leap capital T in a single bound! It's a word! It's a plan! It's Letterman!"

(watched too much Electric Company growing up)
 
Nitpick: that's a Springfield 1903 rifle with a WW1 US-adopted English tin hat.

But I agree, it would be awesome.
Both wrong. M1917 Enfield. Americans carried more of those than M1903s in WWI. More of them are still useable today. They did not have the tendancy to burst at the reciever that the M1903 developed late in the war.

As for the giant cross, it is a pretty poorly-concieved idea for a memorial to anything other than Christ unless immediately recognizeable imagery related to the miulitary is added, which then become kind of blasphemous.
 
FWIW, I think their decision today on the Stolen Valor Act (U.S. v. Alvarez) also upholds the First Amendment. Basically there is no state interest in enforcing respect for medals that outweighs (or at all?) the right to free speech.

Indeed the problem of people lying about having earned such medals is not less, but more free speech--just point out that they're lying.
 
Both wrong. M1917 Enfield. Americans carried more of those than M1903s in WWI. More of them are still useable today. They did not have the tendancy to burst at the reciever that the M1903 developed late in the war.

As for the giant cross, it is a pretty poorly-concieved idea for a memorial to anything other than Christ unless immediately recognizeable imagery related to the miulitary is added, which then become kind of blasphemous.

Just a nitpick lefty but I dont think Ben was 'wrong'. He never said that was the gun he mentioned and I believe he posted the picture as an example of the artistic concept, not an accurate representation of the pieces.
 
Just a nitpick lefty but I dont think Ben was 'wrong'. He never said that was the gun he mentioned and I believe he posted the picture as an example of the artistic concept, not an accurate representation of the pieces.

Yes, that was the intention of the illustration. I wasn't sure I had described it well enough to visualize.
 
Yes, that was the intention of the illustration. I wasn't sure I had described it well enough to visualize.
Now that I look back at it, it was just Polaris' nitpick that was wrong.

But then we come back to people looking at stuff and not recognizing what it is or the intent of the creator of the stuff.

A cross that is not clearly identified to the passerby as a military memorial is just another religious symbol in most people's minds.
 
Now that I look back at it, it was just Polaris' nitpick that was wrong.

But then we come back to people looking at stuff and not recognizing what it is or the intent of the creator of the stuff.

A cross that is not clearly identified to the passerby as a military memorial is just another religious symbol in most people's minds.

Yes, and what I propose is such an iconic image that it cannot fail to be recognized for what it is.
 
I lived in San Diego for ten years and witnessed this battle through a decade of rulings, appeals, challenges to appeals and political machinations so thick that we never thought we'd see the end of it. Contrary to the linked article, the cross isn't in the wilderness somewhere, it is in metro La Jolla, and alongside one of the most heavily-travelled California highways. Originally it wasn't even a War Memorial, but something of a pilgrimage site for local Christian groups to hold prayer meetings. At one point the state sold the 5 X 5 patch at the base of the cross to a local group for resale to a Veteran's Memorial group so they could say that it was a private, not public religious display. Local atheist and First Amendment groups were unable to enter into competitive bidding for that land, and a Vietnam Vet brought a lawsuit against the state, and the sale was ruled illegal by the Circuit. A number of machinations were tried by both sides; it was even brought to a public vote in 2004 - Californians love to vote on these silly things - in which 59% of the population thought the First Amendment was a Communist Plot. The ACLU and Jewish War Veterans Association again successfully sued, and the Bush Administration tried to claim the land as Federal Property under eminent domain. Finally, in 2011 the Circuit Appeals found it an unconstitutional violation of seperation of church and state, and with SCOTUS now deniying cert, it looks like the conclusion of the saga has (finally) been reached. There is some kind of accommodation in the works to transfer the cross to a nearby Episcopal Church, so it will still be visible along the same road.

Interesting that although San Diego does have its Fundie population, the strongest voices for keeping the cross there over the years have been the neocons. Apparently an issue of freedom from state intervention. The logic of the position escapes me.
 
Interesting that although San Diego does have its Fundie population, the strongest voices for keeping the cross there over the years have been the neocons. Apparently an issue of freedom from state intervention. The logic of the position escapes me.

No mystery. They need a reliable voting block that will stay with them regardless how clear the scientific evidence that a neo-con experiment has failed. All they have to do is keep repeating the mantra that homos and abortions are bad for the country and the fundies are right there in formation.
 
As for the giant cross, it is a pretty poorly-concieved idea for a memorial to anything other than Christ unless immediately recognizeable imagery related to the miulitary is added, which then become kind of blasphemous.

You nailed that. I'd go for the memorial with the soldier and the gun, too.
 
As for the giant cross, it is a pretty poorly-concieved idea for a memorial to anything other than Christ unless immediately recognizeable imagery related to the miulitary is added, which then become kind of blasphemous.

True. The anti-separationists, though, reason based on the tacit premise that we are in fact a Christian nation. If that were the case--that everyone in the country were Christians-- then a cross would just symbolize death. For example, in a video game, when a driver crashes, a cross springing up just means he bought the farm. (I was going to use an example from a '60s era cartoon, but it'd take longer to describe.)

But of course, their premise is utterly false.
 
"SCOTUS Rules First Amendment is Constitutional."

Well, that's a relief. I thought we might be facing THIS:
In another opinion, Justices Thomas and Souter took a third approach:
The First Amendment is unconstitutional.

For the past twenty years, this Court has expanded the role of government as it pertains to religious expression, and has curtailed the rights of the people. The government has been permitted more and more latitude to tell citizens what to believe, how to believe, when to worship, and what to say when worshipping. Instead of pretending that that First Amendment guards religious liberty and forbids the establishment of religion, we should simply strike down the Amendment and be done with it.
If you check this linked thread, please note the tags and the date.
 

Back
Top Bottom