Miscellany: 5/31/10: Memorial Day

Photo Courtesy of  Joseph Sohm/Visions of America/Corbis

Monica McNeal, mother of 19-year-old Lance Corporal Eric Ward
Died in Afghanistian, Feb. 21. 2010
Photo Courtesy Jason Reed/Reuters

Let us never forget that each courageous fallen hero left behind a family: parents, siblings, wife or girlfriend, children.. For each survivor, Memorial Day is not a one-day event, a day off from work, cooking burgers and hot dogs on the backyard grill. It's something they live through every day of their lives: a young child who never met his daddy; a little girl who will never walk down the aisle with her father on her wedding day; a wife  who somehow must live on, raise their kids and fights to keep his memory alive; a mother who still remembers bringing him home from the hospital, his first day of school, the last time she saw him, and struggles to get through each of his birthdays for the remainder of her life... Reuters published a photo (above) taken last Thursday of the grieving mother of a proud, fourth-generation Marine. I wouldn't say that I know a number of these families personally, although I do remember being friends with an Army brat, a die-hard Green Bay Packers fan, before his dad died in Vietnam. There's a good article in today's Chicago Tribune by Bonnie Rubin, which does a better job than I can about how these Gold Star families cope with their loss and what we can do to help them and honor the memory of their loved ones.

There are some organizations which provide emotional support for these Gold Star families (e.g., click here), but one way interested people can choose to assist our active-duty military families is through organizations like Operation Homefront and the National Military Family Association. For a more comprehensive listing of military-related charities and organizations, click here.


Quote of the Day
It is only by following your deepest instinct 
that you can lead a rich life, 
and if you let your fear of consequence prevent you 
from following your deepest instinct, 
then your life will be safe, expedient and thin.
Katharine Butler Hathaway


The Mojave Cross Revisited: 
Censorship of Public Displays
Intolerance of Religious Symbols

The decades-old Mojave Cross
as originally displayed

I previously noted my support of the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision where Justice Kennedy noted that the Constitution does not require prohibition of religious symbols in the public arena. My own personal view is somewhat nuanced based on the nature and extent of the religious expression: it should be brief, general, archetypal, symbolic, and/or inclusive. Whereas there should be no restriction on private or church expressions of faith, I believe that specific doctrinal differences (within or among religions) or context (e.g., substantive references to religious founders or principals, e.g., Moses, Christ, Mohammad, or the Buddha) are less suitable in the public arena.

The boxed cross
during court hearings

 I also recognize the concept of default and multi-use nature of certain symbols. This can be a more subtle distinction. The United States was founded primarily by Christians of various denominations, and Presidents and most national legislators have been Christian (although there are a few Jewish and one Muslim legislator). The First Amendment goes beyond the practice of Christianity. The cross represents the faith of most fallen heroes but as a general or default symbol was never intended to be interpreted narrowly, i.e., honoring only Christian soldiers. The cross can also represent traditional American liberties and values and the concept of sacrifice. (Christians believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a sacrifice for the benefit of mankind.) The American Red Cross does not promote specific religious dogma but broad humanitarian assistance, regardless of recipients' personal faith; the cross can also serve as a symbol of medical assistance and first-aid products.

Remaining bolts on Sunrise Rock
 from the original  location of the cross

The civil libertarians insist that the Mojave cross on public land as a default symbol constitutes a de facto state sponsorship of Christianity. In fact, the First Amendment during the early years of the republic simply restricted federal establishment of a national church. In fact, religious services were held in the Capitol, frequently attended by Jefferson and Madison, often cited by the present-day prohibitionists citing the separation of church and state. Connecticut and Massachusetts, in fact, several years into the nineteenth century, maintained state sponsorship of religion or enforced collection of religious taxes (on a denomination-neutral basis). It really wasn't until the aftermath of Fourteenth Amendment when we saw similar negative liberty restrictions on state and local authorities. Some states, for instance, have laws ruling atheists to be ineligible for public office, something the Supreme Court rightly struck down as unenforceable.

The Mojave cross was originally erected about 75 years ago by a military veteran group (i.e., not a Christian group) seeking to honor fallen WWI war heroes. Anti-memorial bigots have torn down, on multiple occasions, the original 8 foot cross and its replacements. In 1994 the land in question was put under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. In 2001, a former NPS employee, Frank Buono, a Roman Catholic, filed suit on church-state grounds against the memorial, winning key battles. Congress in 2003, in an attempt to preempt the issue,  then attempted to swap the relevant acre of land, enveloping Sunrise Rock, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for a 5-acre tract from the Sandoz family bordering the preserve.

The cross, since the early court challenges, had been boxed with plywood (see above photo) to placate anti-memorial activists. Within days of the landmark ruling, which among other things suggested that the reversed lower court reconsider its position on the land swap, the cross was stolen. An attempt to replace the cross was brought down by the "get-a-life" government on the grounds it was a replica and not the original boxed cross.

There are opponents whom point out that the Vietnam Memorial does not use religious symbols or whom oppose the use of a Christian symbol in the context of war. I'm not interested in the judgmental, morally self-superior rationalizations of others, believing as self-appointed judges and experts, they have the right to set the rules of what constitutes an acceptable memorial. This was erected by a secular group of veterans not affiliated with any Christian church; they don't have a hidden agenda of converting people from non-Christian faiths. What they wanted to do is to remind people, through the use of a single, powerful symbol, that the liberties we Americans have come to take for granted were bought and paid for by the lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Taking down the Latin cross is no victory for religious equality: it takes away one of the few monuments of common sacrifice in the history of our nation.

Political Cartoon

Nate Beeler reminds us that the ones we Americans are most indebted to aren't the Chinese,  the Japanese or other (including domestic) purchasers of Treasury bills but the hundreds of thousands brave American men whom have sacrificed their very lives to win and sustain our way of life.

Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)

#61, "Get Happy"



#62. "Beauty and the Beast"



#63. "Thanks for the Memory"



#64. "My Favorite Things"   one of my favorite things about the best movie of all time!