On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Central California US District Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled that a veterans memorial monument that the city of Lake Elsinore proposed placing in front of the city’s minor league baseball stadium showing a soldier kneeling in front of a cross was unconstitutional because it violated both the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the Establishment and No Preference Clauses of the California Constitution.
The original design had only a cross. During discussions about the design, some people objected to the religious symbolism of the cross and the City Attorney also said it might be a good idea to not have it. But some city council members present felt that it was time to “take a stand” for religion and keep it in. The five-member city council eventually approved the final design (now with a Star of David added in the background) by a unanimous vote in November 2012.
The American Humanists Association sued to stop the city and got a preliminary injunction in July 2013. After a full trial, they won the case. In his opinion, the judge used the Lemon test (based on the 1971 US Supreme Court ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman) to arrive at his verdict. As I have written before, to pass muster under the Lemon test, any governmental action must pass all three of the following tests:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose (the ‘purpose’ prong)
Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (the ‘effect’ prong);
Finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” (the ‘entanglement” prong)
The judge ruled that the image on the memorial, the history of its adoption, and the statements made by its supporters showed that it violated both the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon Tests.
The judge refreshingly reverted to the older and stronger standard that neutrality under the Establishment Clause applies not just between religious sects (as some argue more recently) but also between religion and nonreligion, saying “If objects associated with religion are instead displayed primarily for religious purposes, the government sends the impermissible message that certain religious groups are favored over others, or that religion is favored over nonreligion.”
It’s also ugly as fuck.
Well, that’s the price you pay for freedom. I mean, just read it!
PS -- I hate, hate, hate, hate those “freedom is never free” our “noble warriors” and “sacrifice” memes. They’re not noble warriors, they’re mercenaries and idealists who’ve been propagandized into being willing to die to keep a bunch of venal old men in power. And freedom? Lolwhut? At bayonet-point the US has replaced our oligarchs with other oligarchs, or swapped our oligarchs for another set of our oligarchs, but anyone who talks about “freedom” in a political context is such a naif that it’s hardly even worth trying to correct them; they don’t even know what “freedom” fucking means.
I’m tempted to put together a memorial. It’d have a kneeling soldier, with the body of a dead civilian and another dead soldier. And it’d have a McDonald’s logo and an Exxon logo in the background. And words to the effect of:
“They died, to open
new markets, in service
of militarism and lies.”
It’s not only in your face blatantly religious, it is sort of cuckoo.
I missed the history parts where US soldiers were fighting for xianity.
They weren’t. They were fighting for a variety of reasons, some good, some pointless. Iraq was the mistake to make the world safe for cheap unleaded gasoline and a dismal failure.
Vietnam was for nothing rational and we lost anyway.
WW II was in self defense.
@raven -- you forgot Korea. Korea was fought to preserve a buffer state created to keep Russia and China’s pants bunched up.
Actually, I think a good memorial statue would be to get Rodin resurrected and have him sculpt the scene from Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et decorum” where they’re hauling the soldiers dying of the gas attack in the farm-cart. And, of course, the poem.
Or his “Parable of the Old Man and the Young” (it’s even religious, sort of).
^ what Marcus said!
Yeah it is.
It’s trite and cliche-y. And too busy. And not really visible unless you look real hard.
And it is supposed to be a war memorial to US soldiers killed fighting for whatever they get sent out ot fight for. So why is that soldier kneeling before a cross? It doesn’t make sense either.
Oh well, it’s Htichen’s rule again. Religion poisons everything. Including public monumental art.
Don’t forget, Because George Bush was an idiot. And to protect America’s oil supply.
I left out a lot of them. I”m not even sure what the why was about for many of them.
Somalia and former Yugoslavia under Clinton Lebanon under Reagan, another failure but a short one anyway.
Grenada and Panama. Kuwait and Iraq I. Haiti. The banana republic ones early in the 20th century.
Marcus Ranum @3:
Keep it simple. A hanged child, à la Enemy at the Gates. And “Dulce et decorum”, for sure.
Their big war, WWII, was fought in part to protect themselves and for huge trade concessions / payments from Britain. It had the effect of liberating Jews who had been persecuted by a Christian.
Bwa-ha-ha!
Yeah, right.
It’s a good thing it’s not about religion!
Another favourite war poem (Bukowski’s target was probably wider than war, but it works).
a challenge to the dark
shot in the eye
shot in the brain
shot in the ass
shot like a flower in the dance
amazing how death wins hands down
amazing how much credence is given to idiot forms of life
amazing how laughter has been drowned out
amazing how viciousness is such a constant
I must soon declare my own war on their war
I must hold to my last piece of ground
I must protect the small space I have made that has allowed me life
my life not their death
my death not their death…