This is a fairly distressing case. Buddhists were denied a request to put up their own monument, making this a strong example of government promoting a particular religion over another.
Justice Kennedy's view that the cross is not only a Christian symbol, but also carries some other sort of meaning to honor and respect heroism is pure bullshit. The only Jew I know of who wouldn't mind a cross being used to honor and respect their heroism is Jesus Christ himself. The Buddhists who wanted to put up their own monument clearly don't find it to be a universal symbol. Justice Stevens's dissent stated outright that he doesn't find it to be a universal symbol.
Are there other options here besides removing the cross? Sure-allow other religions, like the Buddhists, to put up their own symbols. But pretending that the cross is not a reference to Christianity is pathetic at best, and an attempt by Roman-Catholic justices to claim that their religion is the Universal one.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 14:08 (UTC)Justice Kennedy's view that the cross is not only a Christian symbol, but also carries some other sort of meaning to honor and respect heroism is pure bullshit. The only Jew I know of who wouldn't mind a cross being used to honor and respect their heroism is Jesus Christ himself. The Buddhists who wanted to put up their own monument clearly don't find it to be a universal symbol. Justice Stevens's dissent stated outright that he doesn't find it to be a universal symbol.
Are there other options here besides removing the cross? Sure-allow other religions, like the Buddhists, to put up their own symbols. But pretending that the cross is not a reference to Christianity is pathetic at best, and an attempt by Roman-Catholic justices to claim that their religion is the Universal one.