The Supreme Court held 5-4 today in Town of Greece v. Galloway that sectarian prayers at government meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause. I'm sure that James Madison (Father of the Bill of Rights) and Thomas Jefferson (author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom) are rolling over in their graves.
Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion in Town of Greece: "Legislative prayer
has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive
idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the
recitation of ‘God save the United States and this honorable Court’ at
the opening of this Court’s sessions.” Slip op. at 19.
Unbelievable. Not true.
Absolutely false. No. No. No.
As co-counsel with Mike Newdow in Newdow v. Roberts
(challenging the religious practices of the 2009 presidential inaugural
ceremony) -- representing over 250 nonbelievers -- I can
say with certitude (just as Peter Eliasberg said during oral arguments
in Salazar v. Buono (2010) that you won't find a Christian cross in a
Jewish cemetery) that recitation of Christian prayers is NOT part of the
heritage of nonbelievers and other nonChristians.
From this (and other decisions of the Court), I
conclude that the Town of Greece decision is a fraud perpetrated by the
five conservative Roman Catholic justices in furtherance of Christian
dominion. They ignore the Establishment Clause at our peril.
Showing posts with label Salazar v. Buono. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salazar v. Buono. Show all posts
Monday, May 5, 2014
Friday, December 13, 2013
Judge orders Mt. Soledad cross removed; Stays decision pending appeal
Pursuant to a remand from the 9th Circuit, U.S. District Court Judge
Larry Burns issued a permanent injunction enjoining the display of a
43-foot Latin cross atop Mt. Soledad in California. Judge Burns stayed his
decision pending appeal. The decision/order in Trunk v. City of San Diego (S.D. Cal. December 12, 2013) is here and the ACLU's announcement here.
This case has been going on forever. Almost. Philip K. Paulson a filed a law suit in 1989. Paulson, who died in 2006, has was succeeded by Steve Trunk as the lead plaintiff. Also in 2006, Jewish War Veterans and others filed a separate law suit. The two cases have been consolidated.
The problem with a religious symbol as the predominant part of the memorial is quite simple. The giant Christian cross is inappropriate because it does not represent the faiths or nonbelief of many veterans who have honorably served our nation.
I vividly recall Peter Eliasberg's response to Justice Scalia's statement during oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono that the Mojave Desert Christian cross was "erected in honor of all of the war dead." Eliasberg responded: "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. [Laughter.] So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians." (Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472 (October 7, 2009), transcript, at pp. 37-38.) Justice Scalia's face turned bright red in embarrassment.
Echoing Justice Scalia's insult, a plaque near the cross states: "Dedicated in 1954, as a tribute to all branches of the armed forces of U.S.A. servicemen and women." (Emphasis added.)
While the facts of Trunk (this case) differ from (1) Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), (2) American Atheists v. Duncan, 616 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir., 2010) and (3) American Atheists v. City of Starke, 509 F.Supp.2d 1221 (MD FL 2007), in all four case courts found that the government's display of a Christian cross -- the preeminent symbol of the majority religion -- constituted a governmental endorsement of Christianity in violation of the First Amendment. (Note: In Buono, the 9th Circuit found the display to be an endorsement of Christianity. The issue before the Supreme Court was what affect was to be given to a land transfer to a private party.)
The bottom line is that the display of a religious symbol unique to one religion -- such as the Christian cross atop Mount Soledad -- has the purpose and effect of advancing one religion over others, and religion generally over nonbelief in violation of freedom from government sponsored religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, which established a national government of limited powers, gave Congress and the President no powers in matters of religion.
Importantly, the removal of a cross from government property would not be an act of hostility towards religion but rather an act resulting in neutrality towards religion and nonbelief.
This case has been going on forever. Almost. Philip K. Paulson a filed a law suit in 1989. Paulson, who died in 2006, has was succeeded by Steve Trunk as the lead plaintiff. Also in 2006, Jewish War Veterans and others filed a separate law suit. The two cases have been consolidated.
The problem with a religious symbol as the predominant part of the memorial is quite simple. The giant Christian cross is inappropriate because it does not represent the faiths or nonbelief of many veterans who have honorably served our nation.
I vividly recall Peter Eliasberg's response to Justice Scalia's statement during oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono that the Mojave Desert Christian cross was "erected in honor of all of the war dead." Eliasberg responded: "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. [Laughter.] So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians." (Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472 (October 7, 2009), transcript, at pp. 37-38.) Justice Scalia's face turned bright red in embarrassment.
Echoing Justice Scalia's insult, a plaque near the cross states: "Dedicated in 1954, as a tribute to all branches of the armed forces of U.S.A. servicemen and women." (Emphasis added.)
While the facts of Trunk (this case) differ from (1) Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), (2) American Atheists v. Duncan, 616 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir., 2010) and (3) American Atheists v. City of Starke, 509 F.Supp.2d 1221 (MD FL 2007), in all four case courts found that the government's display of a Christian cross -- the preeminent symbol of the majority religion -- constituted a governmental endorsement of Christianity in violation of the First Amendment. (Note: In Buono, the 9th Circuit found the display to be an endorsement of Christianity. The issue before the Supreme Court was what affect was to be given to a land transfer to a private party.)
The bottom line is that the display of a religious symbol unique to one religion -- such as the Christian cross atop Mount Soledad -- has the purpose and effect of advancing one religion over others, and religion generally over nonbelief in violation of freedom from government sponsored religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, which established a national government of limited powers, gave Congress and the President no powers in matters of religion.
Importantly, the removal of a cross from government property would not be an act of hostility towards religion but rather an act resulting in neutrality towards religion and nonbelief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)