Supreme Decision: The VFW gets its Mojave acre

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

When one of these monuments begins to exert coercive forces which limits the expression of freedom of religion or lack thereof of the public, then I will be suitably concerned.

When one thinks of all the things which government has the capacity (historically) to do to screw you over, to be concerned or worried over the effect an inanimate object will have over you and the damage it might do to your liberties seems a might bit misplaced.

Ostensibly, one could conceive that a monument bearing a swastika would be more onerous to more people, and yet being a secular symbol, not run afoul of the principle with which the plaintiffs choose to make their case. Yet neither a monument featuring a cross nor a swastika in such cases has any further capacity to cause demonstrable harm than the other, at least of the type which is argued most in these cases.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

When one of these monuments begins to exert coercive forces which limits the expression of freedom of religion or lack thereof of the public, then I will be suitably concerned.

The monument is not the problem. The whole thing started when Buddhists asked to put up a monument nearby, and were denied. They moved the cross to VFW's hands to avoid an equal protection challenge.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Eh, then they should have been allowed to put one up as well. What exactly was wording of the question the court was tasked to answer in this case?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Not certain. I know there were two issues: a 1st Amendment freedom of religion issue (whether gov't, by allowing the monument, was promoting one religion over another) and a 14th Amendment equal protection issue (whether gov't was denying equal protection to the Buddhists by denying their memorial).