CE Week #6: “Unconstitutional isn’t necessarily wrong” Oct. 12th
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Christmas is probably unconstitutional.
I’m no lawyer, but the logic seems unassailable to me. Consider: Santa Claus aside, Christmas is an explicitly Christian holiday and the only holiday of any religion to be observed by the federal government. Which would seem to violate the First Amendment edict that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Yet to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, no one has ever sued Christmas before the Supreme Court.
Not that I’m trying to give any ideas. No, I’m only trying to tease out an opinion I can live with in a case the court heard last week, about a cross in the Mojave Desert.
The original cross (it has been replaced a number of times over the years) was erected in 1934 as a tribute to the dead of World War I and sits in a remote corner of what is now the Mojave National Preserve. Its legal troubles began 10 years ago with a former employee of the National Park Service who sued because he thought the cross an improper display on federal land in that it celebrated one faith over others.
It’s a contention Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disputed last week. “It’s erected as a war memorial,” he said. “I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead.”
To which Peter Eliasberg, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union, shot back: “I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”
Scalia was unconvinced: “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”
But Eliasberg’s conclusion was, of course, perfectly valid, and Scalia’s obstinate insistence that the cross is a generic symbol manages to simultaneously demean Christianity and deftly illustrate the sort of bullying the Constitution discourages. How easily and readily the majority embraces the myopic view that its symbols and norms represent us all.
That said, I keep wondering what good can come of this.
The plaintiff is said to be a devout Catholic, so we can take it on – ahem – faith that he is motivated solely by principle. For the record, the principle is one I support.
You need only look at Iran to know the separation of church and state is a good thing. You do not post the Ten Commandments in court for the same reason you do not mandate prayer in schools or require Bible study to get a job: There is a coercive effect that is wholly unfair to those of other faiths or no faith at all.
But I have trouble seeing the coercive effect of a cross in the middle of nowhere.
I submit that this is a battle poorly chosen. Yes, the argument arguably has legal merit, but you have to ask yourself: What’s the point? Is someone really injured by a cross in the desert? Or is this not about validating principle at all costs – even public peace and common sense?
Indeed, by the same reasoning, one might sue cities that allow crosses to be planted at roadsides where traffic fatalities have occurred. Except that if it comforts some grieving family and your only “injury” is to glimpse it while driving by at 65 mph, why would you bother? Principle absent human compassion is just intellectual masturbation.
So forgive me if I am unimpressed by the argument that a cross in the middle of nowhere is unconstitutional. Understand: I think the argument may well be correct.
But that’s not the same as being right.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His e-mail address is lpitts@miamiherald.com.
A. After discussing this article in class last week, I was intrigued. I had never heard of this memorial cross erected in the Mojave Desert. I’m sure many people, like me, have only heard of it because of the recent attention it is getting in the news. The issue at hand is whether the cross unconstitutionally promotes the Christian faith or not? I know that church is separate from state. I also know that in school we have a winter/holiday break and it is not formally called a Christmas break. We also have the 1st amendment which guarantees us freedom of religion and speech.
B. I find the whole situation ridiculous. First off, the cross is basically in the middle of nowhere. Like I said before, most people have probably never heard of the memorial until after reading this article. The argument that the cross may only honor the Christian war dead can easily be fixed. The Jewish religion could place the Star of David in the Mojave Desert. I agree with the author when he says that he thinks the argument is correct but it is no the same as being right. The whole issue seems unnecessary and as if someone was just trying to pick a fight. After all, we are a Christian nation, what do people expect? I don’t even think the cross is about promoting a religion. It’s about honoring the nation’s war dead.
C. If the plaintiff is Catholic why would he even bring up something like this, especially since it seems like it came out of nowhere?
D. Extension: I wanted to learn more about this topic and see what’s happening lately. I found that the cross is now covered by slabs of wood. The war veterans are working hard to preserve the memorial and Representative Jerry Lewis wishes to transfer the land to a private veterans group. Another interesting thing is that Buono (the plaintiff) now lives in southern Arizona, almost 500 miles away from the cross. Many wonder if he still even has a real stake in the case. So now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/october-2-2009/mojave-cross/4424/
Kaylie-
Well it might not make sense to make a huge fuss about this Christian memorial, but the fact is its still unconstitutional. The constitution lays down the ground rules for our country. People can’t go around deciding what is good and bad for themselves. Outlandish! If this small unconstitutional matter was ignored other larger issues could be at risk. Take burning the flag for instance. How tragic would that be if people couldn’t use their freedom of speech because the majority deemed it “wrong”?
If the plaintiff is Catholic why would he even bring up something like this, especially since it seems like it came out of nowhere?
Perhaps he felt in his heart of hearts that it was his patriotic duty to report this unconstitutional memorial. Or maybe he just felt like stirring up trouble, getting some attention not unlike the Heene family and their balloon boy.