What do people think the Constitution requires as to Americancross medals?

[Jonathan Miller]

I suspect that some of this discussion is confusing nativism and
reassertions of religion with a dilution of Puritan opposition to use of
religious symbols.  I am not a historian, but I suspect that this
discussion is so focused on finding when religious symbols came to be
used by government that it is forgetting that there would have been
enormous reluctance by many Protestants in 18th and 19th century America
to allow public use of religious symbols that would have been seen as
"Catholic" blasphemy.  Given the austere nature of Puritan churches and
attitudes towards religious icons, I suspect that at least some of the
phenomenon of increased use of religious symbols in American public life
has nothing to do with law and constitutional attitudes, but only
changing majoritarian religious preferences that now prefer greater use
of symbols  - I yield to the professional historians on this point
though.

 

Jonathan M. Miller

Professor of Law

Southwestern Law School

3050 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90010-1106

Tel. 213-738-6784

 

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
<paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:24 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: RE: What do people think the Constitution requires as to
Americancross medals?

 

The Navy Cross was esablished in 1919 and fits right into the discussion
-- part of a Post WWI nativism that wanted to reclaim America of
Protestants.  It fits with the rise of the KKK in the Oregon and Indiana
(leading to Pierce v. Soc. of Sisters); the 1921 and 1924 immigration
acts with discriminated against Catholic and Jews

 (I could raise the refusal of the US to allow Jews to land to avoid
holocaust here as one of the results but then I would be acused of
raising the Nazi card).   It is also part of the Red Scare of 1919 and
the American response to "godless" communism.  

 

Finally, aruging in the alternative, is is worth noting that none of
these crosses are in the shape of the religious cross, because the
horizontal and veritcal bars are the same size.  One would not look at
this and think Christian Cross because it is not.  It is also worth
noting that the Air "Cross" is actually a propeller from a plane. I
append links to pictures of the Air and Navy crosses.  

 

 

http://www.homeofheroes.com/medals/pages_wh/2n_ncross.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Flying_Cross_%28United_States
%29

 

*************************************************
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 <http://www.paulfinkelman.com/> 

*************************************************




________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
[VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 12:56 PM
To: 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: What do people think the Constitution requires as to American
cross medals?

               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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100423/7ab7a9b0/attachment.htm>