Don't Cross Me!

The US Supreme Court ruled April 28 in Salazar vs Buono that the US District Court for Central California must review its 2005 ruling that the transfer of land in the Mojave Desert bearing a metal Latin cross from the federal government to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) was unconstitutional. The land was given to VFW by Congress in 2004 because the Court had ruled in 2002 that the placing of the cross on federal land by VFW in 1934, to honor American soldiers killed in World War I, was a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. The Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals had upheld the decision in the case brought by Frank Buono, a former employee of the National Park Service.

Speaking for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, " Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles..." Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

In a dissent joined by Associate Justices Ginzburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the government "cannot lawfully (honor fallen soldiers) by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message." (1)

The court should have applied the famous "Lemon Test" (2) to this case. In this 1971 ruling, the Court held that every valid law must have a "secular legislative purpose." Since the Court did not reverse Lemon in the Buono decision, the Court must have considered the transfer of the land bearing the cross to the VFW to have had a "secular purpose;" in the words of Justice Kennedy, to evoke the crosses on American military graves.

The trouble with his reasoning is that not all of these graves bear crosses; Jewish soldiers have died in every major war that America fought since the Civil War, and recently Muslims have also perished in combat for the USA. The graves of these soldiers bear the Magen David or the Crescent. Moreover, a large (but unknown) number of fallen American soldiers held no religious beliefs at all. (3) The cross, which symbolizes the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, is the logo of Christianity, and of no other religion or system of philosophy. As such, it should never be used by the federal government to honor the sacrifice of fallen soldiers, many of whom were not Christians.

Those who oppose the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of Americans should deplore the Buono decision, since the promotion of any particular religion is clearly outside the proper role of that government. This is my view.

It is particularly noteworthy that the only justice appointed by President Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, voted to affirm the ruling of the district court that the cross must go. Readers will recall that the central reason given by the Glazerbeam to prefer Obama over John McCain for president was that Obama was more likely to appoint judges more supportive of civil liberties and the separation of church and state. (4) Justice Sotomayor has confirmed this expectation in this case. Had the election gone the other way, I believe the vote cast by the newest justice would also have gone the other way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Associated Press, April 29, 2010.

(2) Lemon vs Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971).

(3) I would suggest the Question Mark (?) as the symbol for agnosticism. However, agnostics are not organized enough to get together and adopt a symbol.
Empty space might be a good symbol for atheism, but I cannot draw or model it.
For Wicca, how about the Broomstick?

(4) See "Reject McCain and Palin", October 6, 2008.

Moore in the Middle

The US House of Representatives voted 403-11 to support a bill banning the shipment of gasoline to Iran to protest that nation's refusal to allow international inspection of its nuclear reactors. Two of the votes against the bill were cast by the two women representing Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin of Madison and Gwen Moore of Milwaukee. (1) Readers will recall that Rep. Moore was one of only five members of Congress to oppose a resolution supporting Israel in the conflict over Gaza in January, 2009. (2)

Hoping to find out why my representative has taken these often lonely positions, I attended a town hall meeting with Rep. Moore and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) at the Laborers Union building Sunday morning, April 25. The meeting was hosted by the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County and Peace Action Wisconsin. Although the location was in a very integrated part of the city (63rd and Appleton Avenue), the audience (not including the congresswoman's assistant) was about 99% white and mostly middle-aged or older. Demographically, the audience looked like a Tea Party crowd. (See if the media ever mentions that about peace-rallies!)



Most of the discussion was about the war in Afghanistan, to which Kucinich was totally opposed and Moore was more ambivalent. Kucinich mentioned that his father had served in World War II, but later said that "war doesn't work." I did not get a chance to ask him whether anything but war would have worked against Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. Although the audience was always polite to Rep. Moore, it's heart was clearly with Kucinich, who received tumultuous applause for his many strident declamations.



After one questioner contended that Israel had committed crimes against the Palestinians, Gwen Moore mentioned that she had voted against the resolution supporting Israel in the Gaza war because Israel had committed "overkill." However, she noted that she had also voted to shelve the UN Goldstone Report on the conflict because it was so totally one-sided against Israel. For example, the report said that Gaza police should have been treated as civilians, even though they were (some of the time) fighting alongside Hamas soldiers. Moore said she had been lambasted by her friends in the peace movement for that vote, some implying she had caved in to AIPAC. "But check my financial records," she added, " I don't get much Jewish money! (With these votes) I managed to (expletive)-off both sides! (3)....Nobody (in the Middle East) has clean hands!" Moore noted that she was opposed to building Israeli housing in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.



Kucinich said that the creation of Israel in 1948 was "great", but he disapproved of much that the country had done since the 1967 take-over of the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike Rep. Moore, Kucinich was proud to have voted to endorse the Goldstone Report, which he found balanced and factual. The crowd loved his remarks, while giving only tepid approval to those of the congresswoman.



After the public meeting I asked Gwen Moore why she had opposed trade sanctions against Iran. She told me that since China and Russia would continue to trade with Iran, the sanctions would do no good. When I asked her what measures, if any, she would support against Iran, my representative (cued by her assistant) cut-off our conversation to meet with reporters.



I think she is exactly wrong about Iran-----sanctions are the only step short of war that have any chance of dissuading the Tehran regime from pursuing nuclear weapons. The US should do what it can, even if other nations do not follow. Defeating sanctions (as her vote would have done) would have undercut the efforts of President Obama to get Russia, China and others to pressure Iran.



Apparently, Rep. Moore has chosen to take a middle position on the Israel-Arab conflict, sometimes siding with one side, sometimes the other. She knows that she does not need either the Jewish community or the peace activists (who are overwhelming sympathetic to the Arab cause) to get re-elected. Her base of support is Milwaukee's large black population, far more numerous than the Jews and the peaceniks combined. Since she is politically invincible, no one has her vote in their pocket.



I would prefer a representative more like Henry Reuss, Jim Moody or Tom Barrett, all of whom supported Israel consistently. But Gwen Moore is not going anywhere except back to Congress for the foreseeable future.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 25, 2010, page 19A.



(2) See "The Gaza 5" January 18, 2009.



(3) Although she denied being influenced by Jewish money in her congressional votes, she never mentioned that her own brother (Atty. Gerald McKinney) considers himself a convert to conservative Judaism and was married to a Jewish woman. Some of her nieces and nephews are Jews. Wouldn't that connection to the Jewish people influence her more than campaign contributions? Maybe not!