There is an interesting potential lawsuit brewing in Ohio over a Holocaust memorial that will feature a prominent Star of David on the Ohio Statehouse lawn. The memorial, designed by Daniel Libeskind, has been criticized as violation by the separation of church and state by civil libertarians. The case could present a perfect vehicle to explore the meaning of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Salazar v. Buono in 2010 where a sharply divided court allowed a cross to remain on public lands as a memorial for the dead of World War I.
The Holocaust Memorial has been approved by the Capital Square Review and Advisory Board and will be built with $1.8 million in private funds. It is the Star of David that makes the design so controversial. Ohio Jewish Communities Executive Director Joyce Garver Keller, however, insisted that the symbol is a warning about the dangers of abuse in legislatures: “The Holocaust did not start in concentration camps. It did not begin with the ovens and smokestacks. It began in the halls of government, with laws being passed by a democratically-elected government that took away rights of Jews and others, and eventually let to the holocaust.”
However, the Freedom From Religion Foundation argues that there were at least five million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, including gays, Jehovah Witnesses, Roma Gypsies, and the disabled. They object to the need for a prominent religious symbol. Keller insists that while the memorial features the defining symbol of the Jewish faith, it memorializes everyone.
That rationale tracks the decision in Salazar v. Buono, where the Court voted that a cross placed as a memorial on public lands for soldiers who died in World War I. The Ninth Circuit has ruled the cross unconstitutional. The district court also found a violation but the Court narrowly ruled that the specific facts of the case allowed the cross to pass constitutional muster:
By dismissing Congress’s motives as illicit, the District Court took insufficient account of the context in which the statute was enacted and the reasons for its passage. Private citizens put the cross on Sunrise Rock to commemorate American servicemen who had died in World War I. Although certainly a Christian symbol, the cross was not emplaced on Sunrise Rock to promote a Christian message. Cf. County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 661 (1989) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]he [Establishment] Clause forbids a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall . . . because such an obtrusive year-round religious display would place the government’s weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion”). Placement of the cross on Government-owned land was not an attempt to set the imprimatur of the state on a particular creed. Rather, those who erected the cross intended simply to honor our Nation’s fallen soldiers.
It was a splintered decision with three different rationales and a narrow margin of 5-4 on the Court. However, unlike the Ohio case, the cross was not put on the property by order of the government and had been at the location for decades.
The Salazar decision signaled an effort at greater accommodation for religious symbols that are used for a broader meaning than an “imprimatur on a particular creed.” However, the Ohio dispute presents a closer question. There are various artistic expressions possible for the Holocaust, which extended to both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Yet, this Star of David is expressed artistically in the design. Yet, the fear is that such accommodation will create a slippery slope for other religions. For years, Christian groups have fought to add crosses to public areas. They could do so by calling such displays memorials. As other religions demand their own prominent symbols, we could be left with the dangerous selection of one religion over another.
Notably, the vote was 8-1 with Richard Finan, chairman of the advisory board and former president of the Ohio Senate, voting against it on separation grounds.
It is an ironic twist. Jewish groups have long joined civil libertarians to oppose Christian symbols on the basis of separation of powers principles. As some argue now with regard to the Star of David in Ohio, Christian groups insisted that the cross means more than just Christianity. Many Americans believe that the entanglement of government and religion is the greatest threat to liberty. This case could further lower the wall of separation of church and state if successful. It is an ironic twist given the purpose of reminding people of the threat of abuse of minority groups by the government. That symbol itself can only be maintained by expanding the ability of the government to erect religious symbols.
This case could have the elements missing in Salazar — a new memorial put up by the government through a direct approval and construction plan. The Court stressed in the decision that “Time also has played its role. The cross had stood on Sunrise Rock for nearly seven decades before the statute was enacted.” Time has played no role here. This may all play out in court and the result could have great implications for the line drawn of separation between church and state.
Source: NBC
Maybe a commission, no, a cabinet position, should be established to scour the U.S. and remove any religious symbol from anything on public land. Or, should it be only Judeo-Christian symbols? Or, only Christian symbols?
Uh oh. What if there are trees on the public land, and if a religion exists/existed in which trees were a religious symbol? Or, flowers? Or the bees and butterflies around the flowers! Holy Moly!! Are we down to grass & cockroaches? (and they DO bear more than a passing resemblance to scarabs)
Sure as heck water won’t make the cut. Do you think there’s a religion, now or in the past, that used dirt as a religious symbol? Eh, probably one of those “prison religions”.
randyjet,
I’ll agree with your second paragraph, the only historical reference to a government “planning” to distribute smallpox infected blankets was during the French-Indian War. It was rejected. There is evidence that individuals distributed infected blankets to NA’s, but not that there was ever a government policy embracing it.
Now I disagree: The Trail of Tears is similar to the Bataan Death March, it was done as barbarically. The TofT was under Jackson, Jefferson hadn’t been President since March, 1809, his presidency has no bearing; we’d just as well talk about Clinton’s government by referencing Ford’s policies. Blaming it on Cherokee “traitors” is fine, but that doesn’t reduce the responsibility of the American Government. Anymore than blaming Quisling reduces the blame on the Nazis (1. that was not a comparison of Jackson to Hitler, 2. it did not violate Godwin’s Law.).
Your third paragraph leaves me cold. The Ottoman empire began killing Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and others while WWI was on, but continued it post WWI. They killed anywhere from 1 to 1.5 million Armenians and roughly 250,000 Assyrians (similar to the Roma deaths under the Nazis). Given that it straddled WWI-post-WWI, it can’t be attributed to “Thus the Ottomans decided to remove them from the war front”, they continued the policy long after that issue had ended. The Young Turks are as responsible as the Ottomans. It was a concerted effort by those in power to remove a troublesome(s) group(s). It was a genocide, an attempt to eridicate certain groups. It is in no way comparable to the Internment of Japanese-Americans (native-born, naturalized, or permanent aliens). It would be if our Internment camps were Concentration/Extermination camps, but they weren’t.
I’m with Randyjet on this one since the memorial is on State property, put up all of the symbols or none.
*
Just a thought but parsing the definition of “genocide” regarding indigenous Americans is incorrect. Here’s what the UN said a genocide is and indigenous Americans fall within those parameters:
“1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
*
Gene, knock off the blasphemy. He of the Glorious Noodly Appendages is not happy with the macaroni and cheese reference. Cheese sauce? You will spend eternity in a vat of hot Velveeta for disrespecting the Sanctified Red Sauce.
Ramen.
Nick will you describe White for me please? Then will you please describe Black? As long as I’m on a roll, will you describe Christian? … How about Asian? … I am dense, I can’t know the unique individual intrinsic value of human beings based on their color or their country of origin. I have not joined the I am of German & Irish lineage club. Therefor. I do not accept my whiteness. Am I a rebel against my heritage? or am I simply a struggling common Human being that breathes and experiences Joy and Pain,… just like every human being. Nick, the label White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, is the biggest bunch of BS. perpetrated on Humankind ever. Simply stated Nick. We all bleed. We bleed true Joy, and We bleed true pain. Then We die, and others continue. Life is everything, differing colors are beautiful.
Hate, prejudice, ignorance, are weeds I won’t choke others to be the shiniest flower in the box. Sincerely DB..
I re-read the Apocrypha and right there, after Tobit, Sirach, etc., there it was. The alternate creation story! Of course, my version denoted Kraft Mac ‘n Cheese, with a register trademark designation. Product placement I presume?
This is again why the Salazar’s case by case approach is the only way to go. If the Jews “own” the Holocaust, its because what we think of when we think of the elimination of humans via concentration camps is defined by the very purposeful killing of all Jews. And since “Jew” as defined under the Nuremburg Laws differed from our conception of a Jew, a significant percentage of Jews killed in the Camps were practicing (or called themselves) Christians. One could be born and raised a Lutheran, yet find yourself at a Death Camp because two of your grandparents were Jewish. Sometimes even one.
The definition of a Jew under the Nuremburg Laws accounts for a small number of soldiers, airman, sailors, and even a handful of men in high military positions, were “Jews”. A stroke of the pen could even make someone born & raised Catholic, but with 3 (maybe even 4, I’d have to check) grandparents, acceptable. Grant them a waiver, if you will.
There is no question, no dispute whatsoever, that a driving force behind the NSDAP was getting rid of Jews. When the situation was such that no conventional method existed to “de-populate” Europe of its Jews (buying their way out to Palestine via Eichmann’s Agency; toying with shipping all Jews to Madagascar, etc.), the German government turned to mass extermination.
I absolutely agree the Nazi regime sought to murder every Gypsy. I also agree the Croation liquidation of Serbs, along with their murdering of Jews, is sadly skipped over. The role of the Catholic Church in looking the other way or even direct, active support in killing Serbs along with Jews in Croatia, and killing Jews in Slovakia, is largely glossed over. Because of recent accommodations in Vatican-Israeli political relations, both the criticism of pro-German Pius XII, and the reactive efforts to push beyond beatification of the moral pygmy, have quieted down. Too bad, because the acts of the Roman Catholic Church in both Croatia and Slovakia deserve much more attention than they have received.
There was unquestionably a major effort by Nazi Germany to murder every Jew in Europe. Although every-day people helped and even risked their lives to hide Jews, far more were active in helping the Nazis. Large numbers of Ukrainians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc., etc. actively assisted in the eradication of almost 6m. Jews. No way the Germans could have done it by themselves! Only two countries, Denmark and Bulgaria (also to some extent Finland, and at least through 1944, Hungary. While certainly antisemitic, Horthy blocked transport of Hungary’s Jews), stand out as having made official, national efforts to prevent the killing of Jews.
A major national effort to kill civillians based on religion, perpetrated on a massive scale. The use of private funds. The desire of OSU to have the monument. And a powerful, clear cut symbol of those killed. To me it all adds up under Salazar as an “OK” situation. Similarly, the next one will have to be judged on its facts.
Warspite, Your argument applies to the Gypsies as well as Jews since they along with Jews were among the groups which suffered the most proportionately compared to all others. The Serbs come in for a close third in terms of percentages murdered. So by using only ONE symbol, it leaves out the MAJORITY of the victims of the Holocaust. That is wrong historically, morally, and finally legally given the fact that you cannot use government property to establish religious preferences.
By using only one symbol and leaving out all the majority of people killed in the Holocaust, it misses the point that needs to be made about that event. It did NOT just apply to Jews. It was first and foremost a crime against all people who opposed or could oppose the Nazis. So while I can sympathize with Jewish sentiments on this, it still does not make this right. I have offered a much better thing to write on the memorial which cannot be beat, and that is Neimoller’s quote which conveys the primary lesson of the Holocaust. I would hope that those who are for excluding the suffering of the majority of the victims, would think about this. I hope that they will have learned the real lesson of the Holocaust. It was not only about Jews, but all persons who are different from the majority culture in politics and religion. This is a lesson which needs to be disseminated in the USA, so I do not have to tremble for my country falling into a similar horror.
This monument is entirely appropriate. The Star of David is representative of the group of people that Hitler hated. Did he hate other groups as well? Yeah, but if private funds are putting up $2 million for a very attractive monument that accurately draws attention to the plight of the Jewish people, and the only public cost is allowing the monument to be put on Capitol Square, I fail to see what the objection might be.
The separation of Church and State is suppose to be about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Too many people get mixed up about this concept. Thomas Jefferson coined the term “separation of church and state” and he attended church regularly in the U.S. Capitol Building. If Jefferson can allow for and attend church on government property, surely this monument can be placed on government land.
Thanks, Mike.
Gene,
That story was photoshopped, sorry.
I have to agree with gene H on this one. 454
I think jonathan hughes went to hell on his own since reading the news.
s.a. by the way pope when are you going to unass my throne. you have MY books and did not stop that train or bike, and because of benny I had to hide some letters, because satan-hinn trys to translate before and after the incident or writing. and the people want to know if the prince was born with two teeth. ( under the wrong sign ) the answer is you don’t know, because the things that happened in traverse city michigan, years ago, were denied to the second coming, and the pope reads that, ” EYE ” will destroy the…
… I am not off some where kissing kids! …
… when the church is beyond it’s own promises to exist…
sometimes you feel like anut and sometimes inuit, and some cant, and read
till their own purpose-says, sew, somethings lead to the other, hoping the other cant find…
it’s only supernatural… . wanna borrow been-knees jacket before the corn-her popee-pooh, you should hear what benny really tells the trinity in secret, that he is going to kick my effinass. and all the fasses s.a. the same thing in private, or is the phrase, we are only human, going to be your only
epitaph!
all some-one had to do was stand in front of that train with a rail-cross and some holy water that would be in great abunn-dance, and pray to god that the driver likes you. he was obiviously blind too something. france took an oath to the church, to nevr leave it, and nostradamus said they are screwed. and! to honor god in heaven alone, …
Gene,
You guys should be thankful that we gals crave you fellas…every now and then.
Elaine,
You gals and your cravings ruined everything!
What most people don’t realize is that there is an alternate creation story found in one of the lost gospels of the Bible. It tells a story where man causes the downfall by eating the Macaroni & Cheese of Knowledge. It’s in the Book of Larry the Cable Guy.
True story.
Memorial to The Holocaust (first letters capitalized). Hitler was ecumenical. Hell the last Pope belonged to Hitler Youth. To be fair and balanced they should put symbols up of all the groups Hitler and his merry band of gentlemen killed. Maybe post a number for the number of each group killed. Maybe mention some of the American Nazi organizations floating around until the war started.
Jonathan Hughes 1, July 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Had the Jews not rejected Jesus not perverting scripture regarding one teaching namely hell the holocaust would have never occurred.
*****
Heck, if Eve hadn’t tasted the forbidden fruit, Earth would be a paradise today. Let’s put the blame where it really belongs!
Wrong, Eve and Adam got contaminated with the mind of Satan. They did not act like a dog when they were chastised. They pointed their finger at either the serpent or Adam blaming Eve,
You are playing the same Game Adam and Eve played. Look to Jesus to get charity into you.
Nal,
I never knew that… Thanks…..
Nick,
Thanks….OS…. Thank…..
Mike S.,
There are fools everywhere…. Johnathon proves that as well as Joy…. If Jonathan knew his history….. Jesus was a Jew…. Peter was a Jew…. It wasn’t until the 3rd Century that they were rejected….. It’s a select and denounce agenda….
While I found Prof. Turley’s article interesting, I found the discussion FAR more fascinating. Oh, and Joy, time for your Lithium, dear. Your last dose is wearing off. .
If I had an imaginary God, my God would Bless all the people in the world.
My God would appreciate his human children and promote respect and human dignity among all. My imaginary God would not respect chalk line borders as a measure of human value.
PS. He would not be a Capitalist either. …. Imagine that!! :o)
Guess what? God is already in you not rejected by you.
My very finite God is in me Jonathon Hughes. My God ends when I do. What you think and how you commune with your God Is your choice. You do not know my God if you think my god hates. If your God hates I don’t know your God.
I know this sound contradictory to you, but it is true. He that is infinite is in you. I know God that is in you. I see him. God is the apposite to us. You hate what God hates. KJV, Pro, 6: 16,These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Your soul will live on. Can’t you stand having good words spoken to you?
You can’t go by me on this issue. Ever since I first heard about Lynch v. Donnelly, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) and Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), I thought such displays were simply an invitation for excessive entanglement. The subsequent case law is proven that to be a correct assessment with the courts handing down rulings that go all over the place. Private displays on private property simply avoid the issue altogether. I’m with raff that such displays on public property should just be disallowed but I’d add an exception that grandfathers in older permanent monuments such as the WWI memorial mentioned above.
I am with Gene H on this one. I would hope that Niemollers quote would be put on the monument instead.
Joy,
That is a disgusting statement. I lived and worked in Skokie, IL with survivors of the concentration camps. Once I saw the numbers on their arms, it changed my life forever.
Mike, Thanks for your thoughts. Here is one of many qualities that has always impressed me about Jews. The word “Jew”, like the Star of David, was manipulated as you stated, w/ a stroke of evil genius. The word “Jew” in Nazi Germany dripped w/ pure hatred. However, as I grew up, the Jews my family knew called themselves, “Jews”..”I’m a Jew.” However, it wasn’t just a term used because of familiarity. I would hear Jews and Gentiles use the word “Jew” w/ absolutely no negative connotation. As I got older and became fascinated w/ WW2 and the Shoah[I’ll start using that term more often], I was so impressed that Jews never allowed that word be manipulated. They were Jews, proud of the fact and the name. They were Jews before the Shoah, during it, and after. Hitler was not going to take that away from them. Of late, I have noticed a gradual shift toward “Jewish” instead of “Jew.” Now, in some context it’s grammatically appropriate. However, when I ask someone the simply informational question, “Is he/she a Jew?” I often get corrected, “Do you mean are he/she Jewish?” The Jews w/ whom I have a personal relationship don’t do that. And, some of the people who look @ me like I’m an anti-Semite @ worse, or just politically incorrect @ best, are both Jews who don’t know me, as well as Gentiles. Have you noticed this? If so, what is your take.
On a somewhat similar topic, we have seen the term for black folk go from colored, to Negro, to black, to Afro-American to African American and/or person of color. Malcolm X said “We are black.” IMO Malcolm had the message and I put on the brakes @ “black.” It’s the term I use and will always use.
Nick,
I call myself a Jew. You’ll note I try not to use the term semitic because it came from the 19th Century eugenicists thst influenced Hitler. I use Shoah because it is a term that Jews made up. As for some people preferring Jewish, I get their reasoning but am not a fan of their precision. I’ve always loved being a Jew and have always been proud of it. It’s a matter of temperament and which came first the underdog lover, or the eternal underdog?
As far as African Americans go I use the term Black as Malcolm did.
On the Armenian situation in 1915, all I can say is that anyone who equates the killing by the Ottomans (i.e., Turks) of at least 500,000 Armenians, and maybe as many as 800,000 (unlike the Germans, the Ottomans sucked at record keeping), with the Cherokee “Trail of Tears” is horribly misguided.
Its a bit on the insane side to compare genocidal acts, but anyone familiar with the situation of the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire, the religious and cultural differences, and the Ottoman political situation at the time, would never compare the treatment of the Cherokees with what occurred regarding the Armenians.
Because of the significant background knowledge necessary to discuss and understand the 1915 Armenian Genocide, I will merely suggest the analogy is fundamentally wrong, and it would be helpful for the individual to read up on the Armenian Genocide. I recall a well received book being published within the past few years.