stevenjamar at gmail.com
Fri Apr 23 09:25:03 PDT 2010
What is *not* at issue:
War memorials can be erected on public property.
War memorials with religious meaning and symbolism can be erected on private
property by private individuals or groups.
War memorials do not need to use religious symbols to serve their war
So, the issue is can the government put a giant cross in Washington, DC to
commemorate the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers in the two gulf wars and the
so-called war on terror? Let's locate it, say, near the tidal basin across
the street from the Holocaust Museum.
Is that not a violation of the establishment clause?
If it is, then does the age of the WWI memorial really make a convincing
Or is the cross so secular that it no longer actually would be favoring one
religion over another? Seriously?
Given the easy alternatives -- not using a religious symbol, why not require
the government to do so?
A crescent moon has a lot more secular meaning than a cross does. But what
if the symbol chosen were the crescent moon?
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof