iaamoac wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26255-2004Jun8.html
>
> The ACLU is at it again, ruling that crosses may not be used as
> Memorials to our war dead on Federal Land. According to the "logic"
> of this ruling, at minimum the US cemetary in Normandy is
> unconstitutional, and very arguably the headstones at Arlington are
> also unconstitutional.
It seems that as long as the families of soldiers buried in a cemetary
have the option of picking other symbols besides a cross, that there
should not be a problem. The problem arises when a symbol of one
religion is given preference over that of others. (It IS a
religious symbol, right?)
...
> "The [9th Circuit] said this case is really quite simple. Using a
> sectarian religious symbol is not permissible on federal land," Peter
> Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California,
> said. "Sometimes you just have to hit them over the head three, four
> or five times."
I'd be surprised if this is exactly what the decision said. I
believe that the rule is that what is not allowed is giving
preference to one religion above others. (Which is what happens
when you have just one symbol in a memorial.) People certainly
think it is constitutional to have religious items like the
ten commandments on Federal property, as long as they are part
of a general display on legal history.
---David
Not a lawyer, but happy to argue law. : )
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
