On second thought

I agree with Justice Scalia.  In regard to the Christian cross at the Mojave National Reserve, which honors war dead from World War 1, he had said, "I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead."

In regard to the case itself, Salazar v. Buono, which has to do with whether or not the cross should stay or go, Scalia argued that the cross should stay because it is a "universal" symbol rather than a sectarian one. 

In the exchange which followed that comment, Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU made the point that the cross "does not honor the non-Christians who died in the war."  Scalia responded that the cross is a common symbol of the "resting places of the dead."  He seemed surprised at the thought that it might not be the "common symbol" in Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish cemetaries.

The account in the link above makes it sound like Scalia then responded in frustration or pique or something, and then said this:  "I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead." 

I don't know if he quite understood what he was saying, or the links which brought him there, but that statement, as it stands, is absolutely true.  Does he not reconcile all things?  (Colossians 1: 15-20)  While I certainly agree with the Christian theology expressed in Justice Scalia's statement, that is a point of theology, not of constitutional law.

My own view is that Christians ought to have better things to do than insist on putting their symbols on things.  "Love does not insist on its own way," said St. Paul (1 Cor. 13).  You want to make Jesus happy, then do something to help the poor.  That's my philosophy.

Comments

[Hypatia]

You would think in this day and age people would think better of this sort of gratuitous and thoughtless offense, but you'd be wrong.

[John Petty]

Scalia seems immune from the "gratuitous and thoughtless."