Yesterday, a diary was cross-posted from an ACLU website about Peter Eliasberg's argument before the Supreme Court
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Today Mr. Eliasberg argued the case, which involves, among other issues, a question of whether a cross marking graves of veterans is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or preferring one religion over another.
As the Court focused on various aspects of the case, Scalia honed in on whether it was a religious act to mark graves of Jewish soldiers with a cross:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Mr. Eliasberg argued that Jewish veterans would not wish to have their graves marked by what he described as "the predominant symbol of Christianity." According to the article, "Justice Scalia disagreed, saying, 'The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.' 'What would you have them erect?' Justice Scalia asked. 'Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?'"
Eliasberg responded that there are never crosses on Jewish graves. Scalia replied, "I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion."
Of course, this is not the first time Scalia has displayed his surly and sarcastic disrespect for others' concerns about religious issues. In 2006 Scalia flipped the bird at critics during church services when asked about whether he encounters questions about his impartiality on issues involving separation of church and state
http://209.157.64.200/... His failure to recognize the signifance of a cross on a Jewish grave is yet another flip of the bird.
As I looked for examples of why crosses might be considered offensive as markers of Jewish graves, I found an example in a letter written by a veteran who helped liberate a concentration camp during World War II. http://home.gwi.net/...
The writer questioned why Jewish graves would be marked with crosses. That soldier, at 19, understood what Scalia apparently cannot. He speculated that there were three possible reasons for the crosses on the graves:
"Now, after we had been to Wels, Steyr, And Seirning (about two weeks later) we came back over this road. There were many newly made graves. Evidently each had been buried where they had fallen. I especially noted each mound of dirt having a cross made of tree branches and/or wooden staves. This has had me pondering this for many years. Why would a Jewish Grave have a Christian Cross? Three possibilities. 1 : Local civilians from Wels were compelled to bury them. Being Catholic, and unaware the bodies were Jewish, the Catholic Doctrine prevailed and a cross was placed thereon. 2 : German soldiers were forced to bury them. Knowing they were Jews, a cross was placed as a final act of defiance toward both the American soldiers and the Jewish inmates. 3: The American soldiers, overseeing the burials and knowing they were Jewish,forced the Germans to erect crosses. I myself, a naive 19 year old didn't realize they were Jewish."
According to the writer, at least one of his theories as to why crosses were erected on Jewish graves was based on ignorance that those buried were Jewish. Another theory was that the placement of the cross was a final act of defiance toward the Jews.
What's Scalia's excuse?