What do people think the Constitution requires as to American cross medals?

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I don't get it:  "[S]ymbols like the Iron Cross ought to be enough for a Democracy to reject the Cross as a symbol of military service," presumably because the Iron Cross is religious cross enough.  But our actual crosses that we use as a symbol of military service are not religious crosses enough.  Really?

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Finkelman, Paul <paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu>
> [mailto:Paul.Finkelman at albanylaw.edu]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 AM
> To: Robert Sheridan; Volokh, Eugene
> Cc: 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
> Subject: RE: What do people think the Constitution requires as to American cross
> medals?
> 
> as I noted in another post; they are not religious crosses; look at them.
> 
> 
> *************************************************
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
> 
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
> 
> paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> *************************************************
> ________________________________________
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]
> On Behalf Of Robert Sheridan [rs at robertsheridan.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:23 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene
> Cc: 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
> Subject: Re: What do people think the Constitution requires as to American
> cross   medals?
> 
> The problem with changing the design for these medals and decorations
> now is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling need. Jews and Muslims
> are not demanding action as a matter of religious freedom, unlike, by
> comparison, the case of the appearance of a cross above a city.
> 
> Perhaps a calculation has been made by potential objectors that they
> don't have standing, not being a medal winner, or that the politics of
> the moment are not ready or ripe. The plaintiff in the Under God case a
> few years ago may have had doctrine on his side, but he didn't have the
> momentum seen in cases of anti-Black and anti-Gay forms of
> discrimination. Plaintiffs are entitled to pick their battles with care
> and would be well-advised to do so.
> 
> Nevertheless, I suspect that if military decorations were first being
> instituted today, there would be greater sensitivity to the plural
> nature of the country, and hesitation, before using the cross as the
> symbol of the nation's recognition, honor, and gratitude.
> 
> rs
> 
> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> >
> > The recent discussion makes me ask this - does the Establishment
> > Clause require the U.S. government to change the design and the name
> > of the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, and the
> > Distinguished Flying Cross? Or is the history of those medals
> > sufficient to justify retaining them, even if it were impermissible to
> > create them today?
> >
> > I'm not asking what we think the government ought to do, as a matter
> > of sound policy (which would of course require it to consider the
> > interests of non-Christians who might object to the medals, as well as
> > those people, Christian and not, who might object to a change away
> > from tradition). I'm asking what, if anything, the government should
> > be /required/ to do by the courts, based on their understanding of the
> > ban on laws respecting an establishment of religion.
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.