Crosses: Hypothetical v. Actual

[Robert Sheridan]

http://tinyurl.com/2dxr3f4

(Mt. Davidson, supra, Wiki).

Suppose I believe that the FA guaranty that government should 
'establish' no religion, meaning to prefer one to another, is correct.  
Further that some of my religious friends have the notion that the 
symbol of their faith should be erected on my public land.  What does 
that make me?  After all, in America, I have the right to my own beliefs.

And what does that make them?

What is it that urges someone to build, or to propose that government 
build for him, a cross that is 103' feet tall, on a mountaintop, 
elevation 900+', overlooking the city, out of concrete and steel, to 
hold Easter services, and to get the president of the U.S. (FDR, in the 
case of the Mt. Davidson cross), to illuminate the cross?

What is it that impels someone to (a) institute prayer in the public 
schools, (b) object to their removal, as in Engle v. Vitale, and (c) 
resort to subterfuge to permit such banned prayer by promoting the 
alleged right of students to say their private prayers in public on the 
pretext that these are private actions not attributable to the 
government running the public schools, or by promoting a moment of 
silent prayer?

Courts and lawyers are supposed to be good at analyzing seemingly 
complex matters for what they really are.  A sham deed can be no more 
than a security instrument, for instance.

What seems to be the difficulty in recognizing certain things for what 
they are?  Prayer to whom, or what, for example?  Obviously the 
promoters of school prayer and public monuments of a religious nature 
have something in mind.  We can be reasonably sure that they are not 
promoting the erection of a 103' tall concrete and steel seated Buddha, 
or a 103' tall concrete and steel mezuzah, on a mountaintop, although 
there is the old gag that this is not a cross, it's a mezuzah with 
handle-bars, possibly invented by a former yeshiva student tired of the 
all the fooling around.

If establishing the cross on public land for the public to see is not a 
step in the direction of government establishment of religion, why not 
then augment it with other harmless activities such as prayer in school 
and the placement of Ten Commandment icons in civic buildings?

If you doubt that this is religious activity, see who objects to their 
removal.  Avowed Christians of one ilk or another.  Suddenly government 
cannot support them in their efforts to proselytize others.  Is this not 
a commandment of their religion?  Isn't this why we see such things?

Isn't a great deal of the legal hair-splitting we're discussing merely 
an effort to distinguish away what is there in plain sight for all to 
see?  A 103' tall concrete and steel icon that people of a certain faith 
pray before in mass ceremonies?  It's not as though they don't have the 
right to hire a stadium to conduct mass, as a private matter, such as 
when the pope visits NYC and the privately owned Yankee Stadium is 
secured to accommodate thousands of participants.

What I see in such controversies is an exercise in self-centered 
arrogance, the feeling that my faith-needs come before yours, so to hell 
with you.

My right to be left alone (Brandeis's most fundamental right, in 
Olmstead, the famous wiretap case) is being infringed upon by the claim 
of a right by religious others to shove their faith down my unwilling 
throat.  I hadn't thought that they had this right in the U.S., but 
since we keep arguing about it, apparently they do.  And so the fight 
continues, destined not to subside any time soon.

One of the striking things about the argument in such cases is the 
evasion practiced by those seeking to uphold their claim of right to 
engage in the school prayer, the cross-building, and the public displays 
of religious symbols, theirs, in city halls, public buildings such as 
courthouses, public parks, etc.  These good folk seem to have an 
aversion to stating their motives, their motivation, their intent.

What is their intent?  To satisfy what urge?  To say that "My religion 
enjoys government approval and support while yours doesn't, nyah, nyah, 
nyah?"

To invoke the alleged blessings of their god on people who may not 
necessarily think that their god, as interpreted by their religious 
leaders, is all that wise, powerful, and benevolent?

I see a failure to engage, in this debate, on the issue of what is 
really going on.

If, hypothetically, one of the other religious groups moved to erect, 
out of concrete and steel, 103' tall, a religious work on a mountain 
overlooking a city, but they claimed that it wasn't really a religious 
symbol but a work of art or history or an emblem of either a common or 
universal culture, wouldn't you expect the cross-building types to ask 
what is really going on here?  Wouldn't they say that we ought to be 
able clearly to see through such claims as window-dressing, sham 
arguments to get the thing built and to keep it there in the face of the 
policy that government is not supposed to be in the religion business 
and vice-versa?

It would certainly be interesting to see why the proponents of such 
public religious observances feel that they are not religious at all, 
you see, but fight like hell when asked to please cut it out, they're 
infringing on the right of people who don't share their views to be let 
alone.

Is there something about addressing this question that is taboo?

I say let's break this taboo.

After all, this is America and we ought to be able to speak of such things.

rs








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100430/e31aa211/attachment.htm>