ext_6933 (
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2010-04-28 04:32 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Supreme Decision: The VFW gets its Mojave acre
Here is a Greenwire article about the recent Supreme Court decision to side with the Dept. of Interior on its transfer of an acre of land to the VFW in order to preserve a religious icon. This is a pretty mundane issue, but some purists may agree with the minority that this is a support of a specific cult. It may seem strange that the VFW chose the symbolic tree of state killing to commemorate WW-I deaths. At least they don't set it on fire like the guys in that white supremacist organization.
I feel sorry for all of those families of war dead who are not members of the cult in question. I don't have any immediate family who participated in that conflict. If I did, I would not feel that the VFW represented those members.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the VFW monument in the national park, especially since they will own the land under the monument. What are your esteamed opinions on the matter?
I feel sorry for all of those families of war dead who are not members of the cult in question. I don't have any immediate family who participated in that conflict. If I did, I would not feel that the VFW represented those members.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the VFW monument in the national park, especially since they will own the land under the monument. What are your esteamed opinions on the matter?
no subject
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.
no subject