OUR FLOURISHING JUDICIAL BRANCH  2:19 pm October 8, 2009

Scalia Goes Nuts During Christian-y Court Case

by Jim Newell

The prettiest memorial of allOne of the very very important court cases the Supreme Court is tackling during its first week back is Salazar vs. Buono, about “whether a 5-foot cross on federal government land in the Mojave National Preserve violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.” This dumb cross is a memorial to World War I, specifically, and it is currently BOARDED UP because one religion or another got mad at the Christian religion. These people are all completely insane. But most insane is Antonin Scalia, who got all hot and bothered during Tuesday’s hearing!

Antonin Scalia has read this case and can only decide, WHAAAAA?

He looks particularly queasy when Peter Eliasberg—the ACLU lawyer whose client objects to crosses on government land—suggests partway through the morning that perhaps a less controversial World War I memorial might consist of “a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians.”

“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!”

Who knows how Scalia will vote!

Cross-Eyed [Slate]

 
Related video

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

{ 142 comments }

Gopherit October 8, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Fuck you Scalia, you dirty fucking papist. You probably want a crucifix with a gory Jesus or a statue of a priest fucking a young, innocent Antonin or something.

you cannot be serious October 8, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Then Eliasberg shocked the Scalia by stating that water is wet, fire burns, and wind blows. Like Scalia.

chascates October 8, 2009 at 2:27 pm

This is exactly why the Supreme Court sessions are not televised. Plus you’d see half the other justices rolling their eyes.

jagorev October 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Seriously, I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the fact that they whine and bitch about trivial shit like this makes me think twice about my support for them.

MMS October 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Typical Jew argument. Logic. Pfff.

Dr. Spaceman October 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Opus Dei commands him!

coolcatdaddy October 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm

May Zeus strike you down, Scalia!

My gods are older than your “God”.

blader October 8, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Andy went on to say, “besides, nobody would dare kill a jew in a war anymore, since now they got all that holycaust juju.”

Extemporanus October 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Shouldn’t that headline be: “Scalia Gets Cross During Christian-y Court Case”?

Also, the only government-backed monument ever erected in honor of all of the war dead was Dick Cheney’s faux-marble penis, back in 2003, for exactly 37 seconds.

HipHopOpotamus October 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

I can’t wait to hear Scalia weigh in on the new DC gay marriage bill.

I think I might create a drinking game for every time he splutters or uses expletive hand gestures.

Norbert October 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

The joke is on the ACLU & their client because I happen to worship rectangular boards.

Nohbdy October 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Clearly when Scalia passes on his tomb should be marked by a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

bitchincamaro October 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm

When Jocko the gerbel died, we buried him with full military honors in the backyard in Brooklyn and topped him off with a little cross. Nobody complained. Shoulda’ seen the little 21 gun salute. snffff.

Godless Liberal October 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm

I’m not advocating violence, but I will pay someone to punch Scalia in his stupid fucking mouth. I won’t pay anything extra for this, but if he sees Scalia getting hit, Thomas will step up to get one as well.

bitchincamaro October 8, 2009 at 2:33 pm

[re=429705]chascates[/re]: Not if they put the cameras under that big desk, which is where I want one!

kapish October 8, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Scalia is a psychotic moron.

hobospacejunkie October 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm

I’m too lazy & hare-brained to count ‘em all, but aren’t we dangerously close to a papist majority on the supreme court? Or are we already there? Opus Dei, indeed. Scalia’s probably a raging cunt all the time because he’s wearing barbed wire underwear as dictated by the fascist founder of Opus Dei.

Joshua Norton October 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Who knows how Scalia will vote!

True dat. I mean, he was brave enough to claim that merely being innocent should not be enough to prevent you from going to jail or being executed. I’m pretty sure he’ll be as equally open minded about the whole cross thingie.

Norbert October 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm

If the Vatican were to make him a cardinal and provide all the altar boys he can eat, would Scalia consider stepping down from the SCOTUS? We must have something the Pope wants, to make this happen.

Seanibus October 8, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I’ve been to the cross and I have a number of observations:
It is in absolutely the middle of goddamned nowhere.
It is small and old and shabby.
It is a really sad monument, no matter how worthy the cause.

The amount of attention this crappy old cross on a rock in a place that hardly anyone ever goes is getting simply boggles my mind.

magic titty October 8, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Scalia to Jews: Try to New Testament for once, Bitches.

Buzz Feedback October 8, 2009 at 2:38 pm

If they’d have offed Jesus KRS-One style the monument would fit. Bang Bang.

V572625694 October 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm

This is a Christian nation. Just look at those coins in your pocket. That proves it! Q.E.D., “Supreme” Court.

Or as Homer Simpson put it, “Christmas is that time of year when Jews and Muslims and Christians come together to worship the one true God: Jesus.”

Servo October 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm

The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead.
You may want to brace yourself, Justice McCheese.

SkoalRebel October 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Sometimes I think Scalia’s secretly trying to help liberals by making conservatives seem so batshit insane. If it weren’t for him, I’d probably be with ‘em on this one. It’s a cross, in a box, on a stick, in a desert. Some war vet stuck it up eighty years ago. Call it historic and leave it at that.

One Yield Regular October 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Ergo, Scalia must conclude that it would be perfectly alright to replace the monument’s cross with a star of David.

Personally, I would have had no problem had the now sadly defunct Bibleland, formerly out on I-10 near the beginning of the Mojave, been incorporated into the park system as a National Monument of Exceptional Kitsch.

WadISay October 8, 2009 at 2:40 pm

He must have had the cilice a little too tight that day.

Extemporanus October 8, 2009 at 2:42 pm

[re=429720]bitchincamaro[/re]: I’m sorry for your loss.

In honor of Jocko, I’ve contacted the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and requested that they posthumuously re-batize him in the Mormon faith. It’s what he—and his former lover Richard Gere—clearly would’ve wanted.

My fish died on Tuesday. His name was “Alpha”, and you’re welcome to doing anything to his soul that you wish, if you can find it. (And good luck with that. Fin-face was a real fuckin’ asshole.)

house of the blue lights October 8, 2009 at 2:42 pm

He’s kidding right? Christians DO understand that the cross has NO MEANING, (other than perhaps, say, millenia of bloody persecution), for non Christians?

norbizness October 8, 2009 at 2:43 pm

I agree, Jag. The ACLU should focus on why those AIRLINE MEALS ARE SO SHITTY. And WHAT’S THE DEAL with baggage handling fees?

Extemporanus October 8, 2009 at 2:45 pm

[re=429724]hobospacejunkie[/re]: Chief Justice Pope is in effect, yo.

SayItWithWookies October 8, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Well, Catholic does mean “all-encompassing.” Thus the cross doesn’t symbolize a religion so much as it does the entire state of humanity, as it is warmly embraced by Catholics. It’s just a pity all those Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist and other Catholics still cling to their little parochial social groups that they like to think of as religions, beliefs or worldviews. But they’ll learn when they meet their omnibenevolent Creator, right before he tosses them into Hell.

mardam422 October 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm

[re=429728]Seanibus[/re]: It’s called precedent.

spalding October 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm

there are 6 RC on the court. Thats a super-majority

Voyou Charmant October 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Is there some way to just have Scalia be removed from all of Planet Earth? I don’t mean dead by any means, just not on Earth. Maybe we can just let him live on the moon with nothing but the moon buggy (lucky!) and a space suite that looks like his judge dress thing.

Once in a while we can send him cases to adjudicate and then televise his ruling, he’ll feel important and we can all just laugh at the obvious onset of his space madness as he explains that the defendant is not only a ham sandwich but should be free to replace the entire population of Canada with who and whatever he sees fit.

Terry October 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm

[re=429705]chascates[/re]:

Actually, I’d pay to see footage of half the other justices rolling their eyes at Scalia.

mardam422 October 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm

[re=429734]One Yield Regular[/re]: Ahh, but they don’t. That’s how this started. Someone wanted to put up another monument with a religious symbol that wasn’t Christian. They were not allowed. They sued.

Here we are.

Lazy Media October 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm

[re=429724]hobospacejunkie[/re]: Oh, we’ve got a veto-proof 2/3 majority of papists on the court now, if you count Ms. Wise Latina Crypto-Muslin, and Thomas, who is a convert. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

Is there anything lamer than someone who decides, as an adult, that the faith they were brought up in just isn’t loony enough, and they need to worship the Pope, Xenu, or Joseph Smith’s Electric Technicolor Planet Builders Inc.? I’m looking at you, Glenn Beck.

PrairiePossum October 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm

If we’re going to have Christian symbols to memorialize war dead, only Christians should be sent to die in wars. The Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and devil-worhsipping wonketteers get a “Get Out of War Free” card.

hobospacejunkie October 8, 2009 at 2:54 pm

If someone puts a fucking cross over my grave I’m going to resurrect & kick that person’s ass. After I kick that person’s ass for burying me instead cremating.

JSDC007 October 8, 2009 at 2:55 pm

A douche of a case made mildly entertaining only by the flumoxed blubbering of a douchebag of a Justice.

Atheist Nun October 8, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Hey, Scalia just invented a funny little game!

“What? The Bible doesn’t honor Atheists?” Scalia asks, stunned.

“Huh? NAMBLA doesn’t represent all married heterosexual men?” Scalia asks, stunned.

“Eh? The Supreme Court doesn’t only rule in favor of rich elites?” Scalia asks, stunned. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion!”

desertwind October 8, 2009 at 2:56 pm

I been there! (very beautiful, except for this stupid fuckin’ cross.) There are many patches of privately owned land in that area, but supporters don’t wanna move the damn cross because then it won’t be on this main road any more. With their stupid Easter Sunrise services & god knows what else.

rmontcal October 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm

[re=429718]Norbert[/re]: HAHAHAHA Nice.

Fox n Fiends October 8, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Does Fat Tony get all angryfied at the constant childrape machine that is the catholic church? or is that an outrageous conclusion?

hobospacejunkie October 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm

[re=429744]Extemporanus[/re]: Ha! We are so screwed, 5 papists to 2 Jews to 1 protestant to 1…Episcopalian? Episkopoi aren’t protestant? I know next to nothing about Xtianity (not out of hostility but rather boredom) but I would fail that SAT question. Aren’t all the non-catholics protestant (xcluding the weird stuff like white mormonism?)

bitchincamaro October 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm

[re=429737]Extemporanus[/re]: Thank you.

*Knitting magic underwear for a dead gerbel*

PAbitter October 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm

[re=429755]Lazy Media[/re]: Thomas was a convert? Really?
Uggh. Explains a lot. Born and raised Catholics are bad enough, but it’s a well-known fact that the converts are the looniest ones of them all.

Anonymous Office Zombie October 8, 2009 at 3:02 pm

“There is a reality that exists outside of my own head with other people who think and believe differently than me,” thunders Scalia. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion!”

Advocatus_Diaboli October 8, 2009 at 3:04 pm

I guess I’ll change my plan to simply dance on Scalia’s grave when he finally dies
(not that I’m advocating violence, but in a just world he will die before me); I think
I’ll hold a full-on wiccan voodoo hindu judo ritual on his grave.

PAbitter October 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Oh, I say this as a born and raised Catholic/ex-Catholic.

PoignancySelz October 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm

There are no atheists in foxholes….
just a lot of rats, and gangrene, and dead catholic comrades and shit

hobospacejunkie October 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm

[re=429755]Lazy Media[/re]: It’s like you’re reading my mind, man. Nothing lamer, though I’d give the lame prize (dinner with joe lieberman) to adult-convert mormons, as xenu people are obviously mentally ill & catholic converts are either OCD & need some ritual or are into BDSM (or is it BSDM?) Or they’re fascists.

McDuff October 8, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Wonder what Scalia thinks of the plaintiff in this case — a Mojave park ranger who is a practicing Catholic and who keeps several crosses on the walls of his house (saw ‘em on the Brian Williams Being Ernest Report last night).

jetjaguar October 8, 2009 at 3:07 pm

GAWD why won’t they televise these things? I swear I would watch it more than redtube

bamaboy October 8, 2009 at 3:07 pm

[re=429721]Godless Liberal[/re]: I’ll double it if it is a donkey punch.

hobospacejunkie October 8, 2009 at 3:11 pm

I would pay good money to someone who could plant child porn in Scalia’s home in a convincing enough fashion for him to be convicted. If that’s even necessary. For all I know a simple search warrant would suffice.

RoscoePColtraine October 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Scalia: It’s not how you people perceive it, it’s the intention I had in mind as I was ramming it up your ass that matters.

schvitzatura October 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, meh…

RoscoePColtraine October 8, 2009 at 3:16 pm

I think Scalia might be trying to impress the new girl. He was taunting her and pulling her hair at recess, which means he likes her.

Cape Clod October 8, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Wait until the nazi Pope hears that Scalia doesn’t think a cross is the symbol of Christianity. He’ll cast his soul into the pit of infernal ones.

iantenna October 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm

[re=429708]jagorev[/re]: i agree with you up until the point where one of the justices of the f’ing supreme court refuses to acknowledge that the cross is a xtian construct. at that point it stops really being about the triviality of the issue at hand and more about all those trivial issues adding up to a massive xtian bias in this country.

Accordion-o-rama October 8, 2009 at 3:22 pm

[re=429751]Terry[/re]: Ginzburg, Breyer, Stevens and Sotomayor would be rolling their eyes because of the lameness of the argument. Thomas would be rolling his eyes because he was jerking off.

assistant/atlas October 8, 2009 at 3:22 pm

[re=429773]hobospacejunkie[/re]: According to Mike Huckabee, Mormons are not Christians. And he should know, since he’s a Baptist preacher and they’re like, infallible or something.

Guppy06 October 8, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Next he’ll deny that paintings of the Virgin Mary holding baby Jesus with his crown and his holy hand grenade are the least bit Catholic.

Let’s outlaw the consumption of meat on Fridays, for public health concerns!

SomeNYGuy October 8, 2009 at 3:29 pm

[re=429818]assistant/atlas[/re]: they’re like, infallible or something.

I think you misspelled “inflatable.”

Spiro Agnew October 8, 2009 at 3:30 pm

[re=429716]Extemporanus[/re]: That’s rich

Spiro Agnew October 8, 2009 at 3:31 pm

[re=429734]One Yield Regular[/re]: Go big or go home man, make it a Muslim crescent.

Gorillionaire October 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm

[re=429708]jagorev[/re]: Same here – it worries me that the ACLU will sometimes waste a piece of their limited resources to persue a case like this. But then on the other hand, we live in a country where even SUPREME COURT JUSTICES have to be reminded from time to time that the Constitution wasn’t written by Jesus with a magic lightning bolt.

Aloysius October 8, 2009 at 3:38 pm

I question whether the person who wanted to erect a Buddhist shrine next to (and this next part is totally for Scalia) an “alleged” Christian shrine is actually Buddhist. No, really, hear me out: unless you were just looking to stir up an ant hill, why would you want your religious service to be anywhere near the services of a group of people who, in spite of the tenets of their church, are notoriously intolerant of others? I say this as a Christian (a Baptist, no less), we dunkers aren’t overly tolerant of our own kind, much less tolerant to those who have yet to bring Christ’s majesty into their lives.

Yes, Scalia is a douchbag, and no, it hasn’t been quite two millenia of persecution by Christians just yet as the first hundred years or so the Christian cult wasn’t all that legal, and yes, I do pray to nine-pound-five-ounce Holy Huggies wearing Baby Jesus that SCOTUS would have something better to review than whether or not Jesus Freaks and Moonies can chew peyote buttons on some rock in the middle of fucking nowhere. At any rate, this protest doesn’t seem awfully consistent with the tenets of either faith, come to think of it. Fuckin’ passivists my ass. Maybe the ACLU can have its own annex on Moonbase Scalia?

hiphophitler October 8, 2009 at 3:41 pm

[re=429720]bitchincamaro[/re]: Most gerbils are actually Jewish. You can tell by their little hooked noses.

Lionel Hutz Esq. October 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Little known fact, Justice Scalia thinks that a burning cross celebrates black people, which is why you always find one in their front yard.

Jim89048 October 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm

[re=429773]hobospacejunkie[/re]: The Episcopalians claim to be “Protestant, yet Catholic”. Yeah, made sense to me, too.

Guppy06 October 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm

[re=429844]Aloysius[/re]: “unless you were just looking to stir up an ant hill, why would you want your religious service to be anywhere near the services of a group of people who, in spite of the tenets of their church, are notoriously intolerant of others?”

Better to let the insult, the slur stand unchallenged? Either you acknowledge that not everybody the US sent to go die in the Hapsburg family feud wasn’t a God-fearing, pope-hating Protestant, or you implicitly agree that every last ethnic Chinese draftee who died in uniform was a sekrit Jesus lover.

takes12no1 October 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

[re=429783]Advocatus_Diaboli[/re]: Just be careful you don’t knock over that cross while doing your voodoo dance.

Lascauxcaveman October 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

[re=429783]Advocatus_Diaboli[/re]: I’ll join your dance and voodoo rituals at Scalia’s gravesite, and bring a backpack full of cold 40-ouncers to encourage copious urination.

Guppy06 October 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm

[re=429861]Jim89048[/re]: Ehhh, they did ditch the pope before Protestantism was all cool and all the young kids were doing it. And really, if you’re gonna act all Catholic-y, Betty Windsor is probably the better choice in head boss than some Nazi.

One Yield Regular October 8, 2009 at 3:54 pm

[re=429834]Spiro Agnew[/re]: Actually, I’d been thinking Wiccan pentagram.

mocowbell October 8, 2009 at 3:56 pm

I’m just surprised Scalia is in favor of anything at all being “erected.”

Flanders October 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm

No, not all lawyers are like this…

sweetcharity October 8, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Go to hell, Sacalia…take that from a Catholic.

JooJoo Bee October 8, 2009 at 4:03 pm

So….Judgey McJudgerson thinks Christian crosses are about deth? Well, yeah, actually, sorta. But they’re also about, you know, A STATE FUCKING RELIGION! Or religion fucking the state. No matter how you slice it, somebody gets fucked. Better the dead than us.

MortSinclair October 8, 2009 at 4:03 pm

[re=429708]jagorev[/re]:

Seriously, you’re a dolt, then. What don’t you get about crosses and Christians? Loser.

Potater October 8, 2009 at 4:05 pm

[re=429708]jagorev[/re]: Religious liberty is not trivial. We are not a Christian government, and it specifically states in the Constitution that there shall be no establishment of an official religion in the halls of government.

loupgarou October 8, 2009 at 4:11 pm

i bet hearing the name Salazar makes Scalia’s heart race–Antonio de Oliveira Salazar was a fine fascist Catholic dictator.

JooJoo Bee October 8, 2009 at 4:13 pm

[re=429873]One Yield Regular[/re]: Wiccan pentacles (bit of a difference, but let’s not split hairs) have been approved for use on the markers at Arlington Cemetery as appropriate. They dug their heels in about the bonfires and drumming, though. Pussies.

Holy Cow!! October 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Scalia is such a douche bag. I say burn the damn thing and make Scalia watch while eating a bag of dicks.

DangerousLiberal October 8, 2009 at 4:18 pm

[re=429838]Gorillionaire[/re]: I hate it when the ACLU wastes its time on trivia, too. Like on the Eastablishment Clause. In the First Amendment. To the Constitution of the United States. Jeezus. Next thing you know, they will get all up in the court’s grill over the speech and press clauses. Or the fourth and fifth amendment. When will it all end? All these technicalities, and I still don’t have a McMansion with an SUV. Epic system FAIL.

McDuff October 8, 2009 at 4:18 pm

[re=429888]Potater[/re]: Scalia sez: Ah, you said no religion in the “halls of government.” This cross is OUTDOORS, not in a “hall.” Ergo, epso, facto, my way or the highway, it’s legal!

AnnieGetYourFun October 8, 2009 at 4:23 pm

[re=429737]Extemporanus[/re]: I’m sorry for YOUR loss. Was Alpha a beta?

SomeNYGuy October 8, 2009 at 4:24 pm

I guess it would be too much to ask the “Christian” judges to recuse themselves from this case due to the obvious conflict of interest. So how about just the justices who follow a Nazi Pope?

IonaTrailer October 8, 2009 at 4:28 pm
WIDTAP October 8, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Ah, Anton. Just a little fact check here. Isn’t a simple slab the most common grave marker in the US? Just saying. Doesn’t need a cross or a star of David or anything on it, either. Just name, dates and the epitaph “He lurved his trucknutz”.

One Yield Regular October 8, 2009 at 4:33 pm

[re=429905]JooJoo Bee[/re]: Oops. My bad. Anyway, here’s the rather awesome list (with graphics!) of approved symbols. Maybe the Supreme Court could order this carved on a granite monument to put an end to the case:

http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp

WendyK October 8, 2009 at 4:35 pm

If I had to rank the Supreme Court Justices based on which ones I’d fuck, I’d rather gag on a Thomas pube than get down with Scalia.

imissopus October 8, 2009 at 4:35 pm

It doesn’t make a shit’s bit of difference if this cross was erected eighty years ago; the simple fact is that it is a religious symbol on public land, thus implicitly an endorsement of one religion over others, and that is a big no-no in America, and I’m glad the ACLU is taking this on. Of course they probably didn’t count on a Supreme Court justice who’s dumber than a bag of hammers.

bitchincamaro October 8, 2009 at 4:39 pm

#16 has a starbursty penis for “atheist”, for which I am grateful.

proudgrampa October 8, 2009 at 4:41 pm

[re=429720]bitchincamaro[/re]: That was heartbreaking!

ph7 October 8, 2009 at 4:50 pm

In fact, Scalia has a cross ready to plant on Justice Ginsberg’s grave when she passes.

proudgrampa October 8, 2009 at 4:52 pm

[re=429921]AnnieGetYourFun[/re]: We have a beta named Mo. He Mo Beta!

chascates October 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm

[re=429929]IonaTrailer[/re]: In that photo he has the paraclete on his shoulder.

Extemporanus October 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm

[re=429921]AnnieGetYourFun[/re]: Alpha the Beta Eta Pi made with spoiled Rho which sent him to the Great Delta in the Sky.

**Psi…**

Aloysius October 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm

[re=429865]Guppy06[/re]: “Better to let the insult, the slur stand unchallenged?”

So if I’m offended by something, it’s automatically okay for me to sue to get rid of it? Let’s say that pr0n insults me, and let’s further assume that I think that the WPA bas-reliefs in DC are pornographic. By your logic, I should be able to tell the government take down all of the commie porno murals. Even though I don’t live in DC, for some reason I want to put up my own permanent shrine to the American worker to offset the murals that offend me. The Feds tell me no, so you’re saying that I should tie up valuable Supreme Court time and taxpayer money to argue that either my found-items sculpture of Jimmy Hoffa gets federal display, or the muscle-mag WPA figures need to go?

That’s fucking stupid, as is this case. It only now occurs to me that Scalia’s idiotic, mackerel-smacking, knee-jerk response was utterly appropriate. The only fathomable reason for the “Buddhist” plaintiff to file this case was because he wanted the cross to go away, not because he gave two shits and a whistle about American Buddhists in WWI.

tiger October 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Die please.

Mr. Tusks October 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Seriously, if the general public wasn’t so ignorant of how their law is made, Scalia would have been assassinated by now.

ScaredShitless October 8, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Here’s how fucked up our country is: it’s run by unapologetic idiots to whom one has to patiently explain that a cross is a symbol of Christianity. And then the moron just won’t accept that. Instead, like a baby that’s just been spoon-fed creamed spinach, he grimaces and wails. “The cross is a Christian symbol? I won’t accept that, young man. What’s your source for that information?”

Honestly, these people make The Onion superfluous; they come with satirical parody already installed.

Jukesgrrl October 8, 2009 at 5:13 pm

[re=429737]Extemporanus[/re]: I’ve got the Buddhists chanting for him. If the Dalai Lama can still be nice to Obama, they won’t care if your fish was a “fuckin’ asshole.”

Joshua Norton October 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm

The Episcopalians claim to be “Protestant, yet Catholic”.

That’s because Henry VIII wanted to run the Church of England, but keep Catholicism’s rites and rituals. And when the king says “you’d better do it or be burned at the stake”, you tend to be like “whatever, dude”.

Flanders October 8, 2009 at 5:22 pm

[re=429733]SkoalRebel[/re]: You aren’t the “real” skoalrebel. What have you done with skoalrebel??

S.Luggo October 8, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Atonin is right. It’s merely a contemporary fashion accessory.

http://m.profilelayouts.com/pl/ss/3580.jpg

S.Luggo October 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm

[re=429989]ph7[/re]: Tony has other plans for the cross. http://www.westernwoodcrafts.com/online_store/images/vcst01032309.jpg

Bruno October 8, 2009 at 6:00 pm

[re=429708]jagorev[/re]: Tell me about it. I’m all for separation of church and state, but there have got to be bigger civil liberties issues to tackle first. Why won’t someone stand up for my god/constiutionally given right to own anti-aircraft guns?

RoscoePColtraine October 8, 2009 at 6:01 pm

According to Scalia, it’s the secret, well-hidden beliefs the founder’s held but did not specifically write into the Constitution that need to be maintained.

Jim89048 October 8, 2009 at 6:43 pm

If everyone would just leave this shit alone, it would go away on it’s own. No, really–shit disappears down in the desert all the time!

sezme October 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm

[re=429708]jagorev[/re]: Any time they can make Scalia blow a fuse, it’s totally worth it.

AnnieGetYourFun October 8, 2009 at 6:53 pm

[re=430010]Aloysius[/re]: Agreed. And as much as I might disagree that this symbol is being used to represent a resting place (it’s only used to represent a resting place when it actually IS over a resting place), but there are bigger fish to fry and I doubt that this was anything but a challenge for the sake of a challenge.

AnnieGetYourFun October 8, 2009 at 6:54 pm

[re=429718]Norbert[/re]: Also, win. That fucking rocked.

loquaciousmusic October 8, 2009 at 7:54 pm

This could only get weirder if Scalia broke out his guitar and started singing “Jesus was a Crossmaker” in the middle of oral arguments.

Weirder — but not much weirder.

Click October 8, 2009 at 7:57 pm

[re=430010]Aloysius[/re]: “So if I’m offended by something, it’s automatically okay for me to sue to get rid of it?” If you’re asking whether it’s permissable for you to sue – that depends. Apparently in this particular case they were disallowing other religious symbols – making it a case about religious discrimination which our Constitution protects against.

supremecourtjester October 8, 2009 at 8:10 pm

But Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court already ruled that you can’t have a creche in a courthouse lobby, and you know why? Because it’s unconstitutional to have three wise men in a courthouse, and it’s no place for a virgin, either !

Click October 8, 2009 at 8:11 pm

[re=429718]Norbert[/re]: The ACLU isn’t bothered by the fact that you worship rectangular boards. They’re bothered by the attempt to disallow others the privilege of worshipping their own religious symbols. Personally, I wish Jesus had been crucified upon a really cute naked guy.

zhubajie October 8, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Does he defend peyote use by the Native American Church?

Zhu Bajie

pinko-commie October 8, 2009 at 8:26 pm

Why can’t all the bible thumpers be content to have crosses in their own homes and churches and cars and around their necks and on their underwear or whatever, and just leave the rest of us questioners or non-believers in peace?

This little anecdote just goes to show how terribly out of touch Scalia is. I wonder if he looks at a publicly displayed Star of David and thinks, isn’t that so nice of the Jews to think of and include me?

Finally, a long time ago, Peter Eliasberg asked me out on a date and I turned him down. If only I had known that he would one day argue a case in front of the US Supreme Court… I still would have turned him down, but I would have felt a lot more smug about it.

zhubajie October 8, 2009 at 8:27 pm

[re=429773]hobospacejunkie[/re]: Be glad they aren’t all Fighting Fundie Prots, Pentecostals speaking in tongues and assuming every wild hair up their asses is a message from G-d, etc. Imagine George Bush or Pat Robertson on the SC. :-(

zhubajie October 8, 2009 at 8:33 pm

[re=429818]assistant/atlas[/re]: ACcording to Baptists, Catholics aren’t real Christians, either.

He’s much forgotten, but the only real military dictator the US has ever had was Oliver Cromwell, Baptist.

Zhu Bajie

zhubajie October 8, 2009 at 8:35 pm

[re=429948]WIDTAP[/re]: Civil War era gravestones had name and dates and unit. No religious symbols on the ones I’ve seen.

Zhu Bajie

zhubajie October 8, 2009 at 8:52 pm

[re=430193]Click[/re]: YES! Otherwise, there’d be a lot of unemployed lawyers!

zhubajie October 8, 2009 at 8:57 pm

Christians definitely did NOT use the cross for a symbol! They used the Good Shepherd or a peacock or something non-identifying like that.

Ancient Greeks, the inventers of democracy, sometimes marked graves with Giant Penises!

Zhu Bajie, ancient historian

chascates October 8, 2009 at 9:58 pm

[re=430232]zhubajie[/re]: Da fish symbol! They used da fish so’s not to be obvious. But then, that’s back when women could lead the Christian cells,’ it was about personal devotion, totally unlike today’s thing.

commiegirl October 8, 2009 at 10:55 pm

[re=429724]hobospacejunkie[/re]: Yeah, but there is absolutely nothing about Sotomayor that seems like she LIKES being Catholic. She’s weddings-and-funerals-only, pretty much like the rest of now.

Neilist October 8, 2009 at 11:52 pm

[re=429912]DangerousLiberal[/re]: But what about the really IMPORTANT Amendment? You know, the Second? The one that guarantees the right to worship guns, while searching for some asshole to shoot in a cruel and unusual manner while freely speaking rap lyrics?

Guppy06 October 9, 2009 at 1:29 am

[re=430010]Aloysius[/re]: “By your logic, I should be able to tell the government take down all of the commie porno mural”

Only if the gubmint first denies you the ability to bitch about the nudie art, or denies federal money to art projects that don’t involve naked people (as cool as that might be). Their first response wasn’t to try to get the cross taken down, it was to try to set up their own shrine taking advantage of the scenic area. The lawyering didn’t start until the feds said “Crosses only.” Start suing when they won’t let you display Justice in a burqa at some federal courthouse.

Let’s say this wasn’t a cross, but rather the Nathan Bedford Forrest Memorial in this federal park, and instead of annual Easter mass, there’s an annual screening of Birth of a Nation. But then some minority comes along and wants to set up a Frederick Douglas memorial not too far away. Some asshat Supreme Court justice is incredulous at the idea that Forrest isn’t viewed as a universal symbol of the struggles of the Civil War and Reconstruction. So the Douglas fans sue, same Amendment, since the feds seem to be promoting pro-Forrest, anti-Douglas speech. Would you still doubt the sincerity of the pro-Douglas litigants? Would they just be trying to pick a fight rather than leaving well enough alone?

And before I’m accused of being flippant for using racism as an analogy, this is supposed to be a memorial for people who died for Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Did they die for democracy and national self-determination, or were they cynically sacrificed to help ensure that governments like France could continue to impose their Christian rule on Buddhist Indochina? Oh, wait…

This lawsuit was started by people with high-minded idealism and the only guaranteed result is that nobody will be satisfied, doing nothing to quell long-simmering feuds. Truly this is the greatest World War I memorial we could imagine.

gjdodger October 9, 2009 at 6:31 am

How about if we leave the cross, but just submerge it in a giant bottle of urine? It’s dry out there, so the cross would probably like that.

zhubajie October 9, 2009 at 7:51 am

[re=429812]iantenna[/re]: If he were to truly deny the cross is a Xtn symbol, surely all the Xto-fascists would turn on him??

zhubajie October 9, 2009 at 7:57 am

[re=430099]RoscoePColtraine[/re]: The Founders were seriously hostile to what they called “enthusiasm”! That’s why the born-agains of the day damned Jefferson up one side and down the other. (None of them had the courage to take on Washington.)

zhubajie October 9, 2009 at 7:59 am

Shy not add a mezuza to the board? It’s not too rare for non-Jews to use mezuzoth for their own purposes. One Catholic fundie I know has one on his door to keep away Mormons and JWs.

Although I think my Chinese door gods work just as well for that!

zhubajie October 9, 2009 at 8:03 am

[re=430273]chascates[/re]: One of the typical pagan complaints about Xtns was that they were stupid, because they were mostly women, children and slaves.

Another was that they were atheists.

They also accused Xtns of kinky sex and cannibalism, but those were just routine insults.

Traveler October 9, 2009 at 9:52 am

[re=429756]PrairiePossum[/re]: And what about the agnostics? Do we get a pass too? Or do we get rear echlon posttings?

Aloysius October 9, 2009 at 10:53 am

[re=430343]Guppy06[/re]: In Nashville, there was (and probably still is, I haven’t been back in a couple of years) an equestrian statue of Nathan Bedford Forest on a rearing charger right beside I-65, just south of 440. Flanking the statue in a semi-circle were flagpoles with the state flags of all the original confederacy complete with a Confederate naval jack underneath each one (the CSA battle flag is a perfect square; the CSA navy had a rectangle; insert joke about closeted redneck sailors here). It is the most god-awful tasteless display I’ve ever seen, as it is an offense to both history and humanity. That, and the way Bedford is sculpted makes him look like the Underwood Deviled Ham version of Satan. If someone were to request permission to put up a Frederick Douglass Memorial on public ground in the rough vicinity of this display (and granted, this one is on private property–unfortunately), I would still question the motives of the Douglass Memorial folks.

Another example: here in Dallas, the local LULAC chapter is pushing to get a street named for some dead white guy renamed for Cesar Chavez. Yes, there are plenty of streets named for dead white guys, and yes, we did rename a couple of streets for MLK and Malcolm X, but those streets had generic names like Boxwood or Larch or Creekwood or something like that. Renaming Industrial Street after Chavez won’t satisfy LULAC because they’re dead set and determined to have This Street and No Other. It’s a power play, and much less about naming a street after someone (anyone) who did something for Dallas as it is getting Chavez’s name on a sign–as if there are no other historically important Hispanic/Latino folks other than Chavez.

I’m not questioning the legitimacy of the case on the grounds of religious persecution, I’m questioning the motives of the folks wanting their shrine to be neighbors with the cross in the first place. This is less about “I want to wang my flapdoodle in public,” and more about “Let’s cause a row.”

Moreover, it’s a waste of time for the SCOTUS to be hearing this. Having to listen to Scalia spout this particular brand of horse shit wears on the soul as well as the intellect. We’re losing about as many IQ points debating Scalia’s words as we would watching one of those “Inside Hollywood” TV programs.

“Truly this is the greatest World War I memorial we could imagine.”

I utterly and completely agree with your sentiments here.

Click October 9, 2009 at 11:42 am

[re=430593]Aloysius[/re]: “….I’m questioning the motives of the folks wanting their shrine to be neighbors with the cross in the first place. This is less about “I want to wang my flapdoodle in public,” and more about “Let’s cause a row.”
I would hope that this IS more about making a statement. I wouldn’t back it for a second if it were just about another group wanting to display their own particular brand of crutch. If this is a war memorial, then let’s create a symbol of our human struggle for survival and power and erect that. If this is a religious shrine erected in honor of fallen soldiers (and to insinuate that they died for a “higher cause”) then we have to be careful which representation we use, don’t we?

“Having to listen to Scalia spout this particular brand of horse shit wears on the soul as well as the intellect.”
Since I don’t believe in the idea of a soul, perhaps it is simply wearing on your patience. Small price in my opinion.

IceIceBaby October 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm

[re=430157]AnnieGetYourFun[/re]: Yeah, except the Constitution doesn’t say that the government shouldn’t do anything to establish a religion…except if it’s in a really out of the way place that some people wouldn’t think is a big deal, and hardly anyone goes there and it’s only a “little” establishy and really, the cross is pretty small, in which case then it’s okay. So it’s not really a case for the sake of filing the case, it’s a case to prevent the government from acting unconstitutionally. And if you ignore a constitutional violation because it’s small, you’re going to end up with a very large number of small violations, which makes it difficult to argue that it shouldn’t happen.

Oh…and Scalia sucks giant moose cock. I fuckin’ hate that guy.

Zadig October 9, 2009 at 1:50 pm

[re=429732]Servo[/re]: I mean, seriously? Even down here in the Bible Belt, where anyone who isn’t Jeebus’s friend is basically denied burial, probably 70% of graves in cemeteries are just the little oblong slabs of marble or granite or fake marble/granite or whatever. The cross isn’t even the most common grave marker for Actual Christians.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: