Recently in Religious Displays Category

Jay,

It was a pleasure seeing you, too. I always am up for a great photo-op, too.



As you know, I'm heading to New York right now to appear on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight to discuss this very case. But here are some of my thoughts in advance.

To me, the most shocking comment of the day came from Justice Antonin Scalia. He actually said that this cross represents all veterans, even those who are not Christian. He said it was an "outrageous conclusion" that the cross is a symbol of Christianity and claims it is symbol of a "resting place."

Is Scalia seriously arguing that the cross is no longer a religious symbol? Now THAT is an outrageous conclusion. I believe our veterans deserve to be honored just as much as you do, Jay. But why do we need to use a Christian symbol to do that at the expense of excluding those of different faiths?

Barry, it was good to see you today.  I always enjoy an opportunity to sit next to you during oral arguments at the Supreme Court - especially with a case like the one we witnessed today. 

As we both know, this case is closely watched and involves the display of an 8-foot cross on a mountain top in California's Mojave Desert - a memorial honoring war veterans.  The case is Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono. (08-472)

Like most of these cases, the Justices were divided on this issue.  And, Justice Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in these church/state cases, said little to reveal how he will vote on this case.

 

In a shift in right-wing "prayer" policy, the Liberty Counsel is now urging supporters to "adopt" a "liberal" and pray for that person to change his or her political and moral beliefs. The campaign allows people to "adopt" one of 11 named "liberals" or anybody else who might be a "liberal." See below:

I was delighted to see that I was the only non-government official offered up for adoption.  I am right in line with President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and (I'll admit this is my favorite) Arnold Schwarzenneger.

As some of you know, I have been the target of several "imprecatory prayer" campaigns recently, where Pastor Wiley Drake and former chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt have been praying for my death.  The new approach seems a lot more civil.

Jay, a few thoughts:

The Ten Commandments, as you and Judge DeWeese seem to believe, don't represent an "absolute," any more than the allegedly "relativist" proposals which seem to upset you. It's impossible to claim the Ten Commandments aren't open to interpretation.

For example, would there be an exception to "Thou shall not kill," for those who do so in self defense? What about "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"  Should we give it the Twenty-First Century meaning, or revert to its original meaning: sex with a married woman (single women OK) or by a married woman? Our mutual friend Alan Dershowitz has done some wonderful writing about this over the years.

What the Ten Commandments does is provide us with a generalized sense of right or wrong . But there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue. It's just as morally "absolute" or "relative" as the Humanist Manifesto.

Barry, we've discussed this before, but I wanted to bring you an update on our filing at the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the case of Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono, we have filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government's position - and on behalf of 15 members of Congress - asking the high court to uphold the long-standing cross display in Mojave Desert in California.

In our brief  we make a strong argument that this challenge has no place in federal court. 

"This case is only the most extreme example of a phenomenon that has plagued the federal courts for the past three decades," the brief asserts.  "Ideologically motivated citizens and public interest groups search out alleged Establishment Clause violations, almost always in the form of a passive religious symbol or display of some sort, and make a federal case out of offense at the display."

Barry, you're missing the point of memorial crosses like those at the Mojave National Preserve,  Mount Davidson, Mount Soledad, and thousands of other places across the country. They are not designed to honor God but rather to memorialize the fallen...

Yes, Jay, there will be a major battle about the Mojave National Preserve cross next term in the Supreme Court. In fact, it is really two battles in one.  The first is whether the plaintiff in this case is even...

Barry, we're preparing to file an amicus brief in a matter of weeks in a case that I know you are closely watching at the Supreme Court.  The high court agreed in February to take the case of Salazar v. Buono,...

Well, Jay, the Supreme Court got it partially right yesterday by conceding the obvious: that when a city accepts any monument from a private party and puts it up as a permanent display in a park, that represents "government speech."...

Barry, the Supreme Court today reached the proper conclusion in a case we argued in November.  Without dissent, the Justices issued what I believe is a landmark decision clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of its choosing...

So, the Supreme Court has accepted the case of Salazar v. Buono involving cross erected on public land.The first and foremost point which we must not lose sight of in this case is that this cross was a religious symbol when...

OK, Barry, it took a while - more than a few posts - but I am pleased you finally articulated your opposition to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. I only hope you can agree with me on this one. The...