Paul Kengor: Religious symbols & the Ruth Bader Ginsburg standard | TribLIVE.com
Paul Kengor, Columnist

Paul Kengor: Religious symbols & the Ruth Bader Ginsburg standard

Paul Kengor
1359618_web1_1318913-bf4e16a14252408c917eab47bd5cedb8
In this Feb. 13 photo, visitors walk around the 40-foot Maryland Peace Cross dedicated to World War I soldiers in Bladensburg, Md.

I wrote a few weeks ago about one of the major Supreme Court decisions due up in the current term — the Bladensburg cross case, in which secularists demanded the tearing down of a large cross that serves as the centerpiece of a veterans’ memorial in Bladensburg, Md., erected in 1925 by Gold Star mothers in honor of their fallen boys who paid the ultimate sacrifice in World War I. The secularists wanted the cross bulldozed because it’s a religious symbol on government property.

Even more offensive was the suggestion of the judge who ruled against the cross. During oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Judge Stephanie Thacker asked the attorney defending the memorial: “What about … my suggestion of chopping the arms off?”

Yes, slice the arms from the cross and it could stay.

The case went all the way to the high court. Mercifully, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of the cross. Half of the court’s liberals (Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan) joined the court’s moderates and conservatives. The two who dissented were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

The ruling is a victory for tolerance, decency and common sense, and against anti-religious hostility. But what I found most interesting about the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, and the minority opinion, written by Ginsburg, is this:

I had written in my column that if these secular forces want to establish a standard of taking the wrecking ball to large religious symbols on government property, they better be careful what they wish for. Sure, they had a cross in their crosshairs, but the Christian cross isn’t the only religious symbol on public property. I asked: Are there any large Stars of David on government property that we should now express outrage over? Should we launch a nationwide search to put them on the chopping block?

Interestingly, the court majority pointed to such examples, notably a Star of David monument erected in South Carolina to commemorate victims of the Holocaust, as well as the Philadelphia Monument to Six Million Jewish Martyrs, which depicts a burning bush, Torah scrolls, and a blazing menorah.

Hmm. What about those, Justice Ginsburg? Going by your standard, it’s time to remove these monuments, too, or at least cut out the religious portions.

Bear in mind that such an action would be sickening, an outrage, and I’d personally stand in solidarity with a group of rabbis chaining myself to the memorial. But, hey, this isn’t my standard.

“As I see it, when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content,” wrote Ginsburg, in a flatly erroneous assumption of mistaken intent in the Bladensburg case.

Let’s apply Ginsburg’s logic to the Jewish memorials in South Carolina and Philadelphia: “As I see it, when a Star of David is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content.”

Do Ginsburg and Sotomayor still feel that way now that it’s a Star of David we’re talking about?

One genuinely wonders if Ginsburg and Sotomayor and their secular-left friends actually realize what they’re doing, if they’re cognizant of the standard they’re establishing, wittingly or unwittingly.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.