Quote# 66684

[Justice Scalia debates lawyer Peter Eliasberg during the case Buono v. Salazar, regarding a cross on federal land.]

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of ... of ... of the resting place of the dead."

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, The Washington Monthly 44 Comments [10/25/2009 9:18:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 62
Submitted By: emau99

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


"Eliasberg dares to correct him:" not found in article

10/24/2009 12:33:00 AM


Er, we're like a week behind the Colbert Report now?

/his bit was funnier

10/25/2009 9:37:42 PM

It's actually a totally legitimate conclusion, supported by fact and observable reality.

10/25/2009 9:42:14 PM

Professor M

Yup, it's totally legitimate to insult people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) by erecting a sectarian monument "in their honor". Why, I should be grateful if a group of theocratic Christians curse me by putting their symbol over my body!

10/25/2009 10:20:01 PM


I wonder though. For the non Christians. Such as myself how would we feel being buried under a cross? I wouldn't want it and the soldiers fight so we have the freedom. Should be their choice.

10/25/2009 10:31:24 PM


I think it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

10/25/2009 11:03:50 PM


I don't think Justice Scalia has ever set foot in a non-Christian cemetary.

10/25/2009 11:16:32 PM


Mind if i correct you?

10/26/2009 12:00:46 AM


Because theirs absolutely no way to honor the dead besides the symbol of Christianity. Fuck those statues and the wall with all the names, the only possible way to honor the fallen soldiers is to erect a huge cross of a religion that has, at some point, treated their religion like shit. Scalia apparently thinks replacing the cross is to much effort to avoid pissing on the beliefs of the men who died defending him, just leave it up and let'em rot.

10/26/2009 12:02:04 AM


What a dumb sunvabitch, no wonder Americans complain about their judges if they act like this.

Seriously its not hard to make a war memorial without going to religious iconography. Our war memorial in Aus uses symbols like "the undying flame" and Red Poppies, admittedly the unknown soldier's tomb resembles a church, but that's only because of the stained glass windows depicting our armed forces (a soldier, a nurse, a pilot and a sailor).

Also our Prime Minister's office window faces the War Memorial "Lest we forget" the seriousness of going to war.


10/26/2009 12:02:20 AM

Antonin Scalia: Yet another consequence of the Bush administration, here to drag the county down (even further) for the next thirty years.

The attorney should have asked Scalia what Jesus would have thought of his position against allowing a Jewish star to be added for the Jewish soldiers.

10/26/2009 12:50:20 AM

Nathan the Wise


Jewish war grave. (A German one: yes, the Kaiser's army was a bit different to Hitler's). Notice absence of cross.

10/26/2009 1:01:46 AM



10/26/2009 2:10:06 AM

The L

Well, considering the percentage of Christians who served at the time, I'm not sure what the issue is. Does the use of a cross assume a whole hell of a lot? Yes.

Is it disrespectful to take down a memorial to our soldiers? Yes.

It's a Catch-22. You can't do anything about the situation without being disrespectful to somebody.

10/26/2009 4:13:31 AM

Table Rock

Here's a list of symbols Arlington National Cemetery allows on their tombstones. Notice the abundance of non-cross symbols.


10/26/2009 5:22:14 AM

Mister Spak

Behold the retardation that is conservatism.

10/26/2009 5:28:20 AM


@The L: It's only disrespectful if nothing gets put up to replace it. They could just alter it, so that it's not specifically religious in nature or so that it represents the Jewish soldiers as well.

10/26/2009 6:17:39 AM

The first time I read this my jaw dropped. Seriously? Seriously?! *facepalm*

10/26/2009 6:20:45 AM


And this man is on the fucking SUPREME COURT. Fuck my life.

10/26/2009 7:22:12 AM


First, let me say that I completely agree with the total separation of church and state. However, I think that people who set up these types of monuments do honestly believe that they are honoring all the dead...although it likely really never occurs to them how many were not Christians.

10/26/2009 8:43:39 AM


@Orion: Unfortunately, the wails you hear about the American judiciary are from people who wish ALL judges were ignorant fundietards like Scalia.

10/26/2009 8:47:28 AM


I think it outrageous that Antonin Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice. It's not just the ignorance, it's the stupidity.

10/26/2009 9:10:00 AM


Lucilius said:

@Orion: Unfortunately, the wails you hear about the American judiciary are from people who wish ALL judges were ignorant fundietards like Scalia.

Ehhh no...

The US so called "justice" system is far from one. USA has a punishment system not a justice system and which is why USA have 25% of the worlds prison population but only 5% of the worlds population.

I don't even know the political leaning of a single supreme court justice back home since it is not a political position but a professional position you can have for a maximum of 2 x 8 years and politics have no place in a professional court.

I wouldn't want a copy of the crappy US system instituted in any other country, it's detrimental to the populous.

10/26/2009 9:17:45 AM


I really see no reason why this cross should be taken down, actually . . . especially considering it's a nearly 80 year old WORLD WAR I memorial.

10/26/2009 9:27:12 AM



Go back to the source article- some buddhist group was denied the ability to put up a Buddhist shrine, and thats why it is being taken down.

You need to allow everyone, or no one.

10/26/2009 10:08:43 AM

1 2 | top: comments page