Just when I thought the anti-religious, anti-First Amendment left couldn’t get any more base, any more insulting, I read this:
The Freedom from Religion Foundation wants the proposed Statehouse Holocaust memorial changed by removing what it sees as the Jewish religious symbolism of the Star of David.
In a June 14 letter to Richard H. Finan, chairman of the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board, two foundation officials said they have no objections to a Holocaust memorial at the Statehouse. However, architect Daniel Libeskind’s design includes a cut-out version of a 6-pointed star, usually interepreted as the Star of David, a symbol associated with Judiasm. Arguably, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state set out in the U.S. Constitution, the foundation said.
We’ve all seen this regressive leftist fringe group in action before; after all, these Freedom from Religion bullies are the same group involved in the Mojave cross lawsuit and controversy as well as in numerous other lawsuits against public schools, courthouses, and other public buildings and properties.
This whole concept of “freedom from religion” is regressive to its core, and as such, is not only unAmerican but also tyrannical. We’ve watched this group (and the ACLU) sue to have the ten commandments removed from public buildings, to have prayer removed from school meetings (even those held after school hours and with no “impressionable” students present), and to demand that high school football teams and cheerleaders not pray or make any reference to God. All of this is an outrageous affront to all that I stand for, that I believe our country stands for, but to demand that a Star of David not be permitted on a Holocaust memorial simply goes too far.
To deny the Star of David’s presence is to whitewash and rewrite history, and that is not acceptable.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I have no idea what the first amendment means anymore. I always thought it meant that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Where was Congress in this discussion?
Nine judges decided to take it out of the scope of Congress apply their revelation of the meaning of the 1st amendment where the founding father’s said it didn’t belong.
The irony is not lost that Germany sought to remove those who wore the star they were forced to wear because of their faith.
This is a memorial to remember what the star stood for and how it was abused.
The Star is a Historical Fact and Artifact of the Holocaust.
These people are off-kilter extremists and should be completely disregarded.
The problem is that the Star of David only represents 60% of those killed by the Holocaust, but 100% of the visible symbols seen by those viewing the memorial at a glance.
It is appropriate to have the Star of David on the memorial. It is not appropriate to only have it in a place of prominence — not on public property.
OK, that’s the doctrine of inclusion, based on the 14th. I’ve reluctantly come to believe in that. But the establishment clause was written in a fudged matter, so I’m not sure the people who wrote it knew what it meant; of course they never meant to apply it to the States.
But it has been taken WAY out of proportion, in order to create an Establishment of Atheism.
It has always bothered me that the Supreme Court took one sentence from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church in Connecticut and made that the meaning of the first amendment. The Supreme Court just decided that what every other authors of the first amendment thought, just didn’t matter.
Congress isn’t anywhere in this discussion. The current controversies (there are at least two at last count) are being held in Columbus, Ohio – site of the proposed memorial. Mr. Finan resigned his post this past week because of dissatisfaction with the way the board he chaired was, in his opinion, being misused. He did not feel that it was appropriate to place the memorial on the grounds of the Ohio Statehouse.
There is no Constitutional right to Freedom FROM Religion.
The demand to never have to encounter or have to tolerate another’s expression of faith is just plain extreme intolerance and is contradictory to what this nation is all about.
These people’s demands is like the Islamists’ demands that no one be allowed to cook bacon where they have to smell it or that all women’s bodies be covered to prevent them from feeling lust.
They problem is with the one making demands on the entire population because of their own skewed and rigid beliefs and perceptions of the world.
Typo: *The* problem is with the one making demands….
A Star of David on a Holocaust Museum violates separation of church and state, which is not even defined in the Constitution?
Do I have a first amendment right to horse whip idiots?
Because I should.
In San Francisco, you do have exactly that right, though they must be (1.) over 18; (2.) consenting, to the point of signing any required waiver; (3.) wearing the obligatory ball gag; (4.) holding a major credit card or a wad of cash.
My point is concerning anything that the Left deems freedom- or tolerance-related must be allowed by all of us, but if the shoe is on the other foot, then it is prohibited by the Constitution.
As an atheist who thinks that atheists are right to oppose the many evils of religion including the Jewish religion, I think this is ridiculous. The Jewish people were the largest group targeted for the Holocaust by the Nazis (although they weren’t the first: that would be mental patients). The Star of David was a very intentionally-chosen symbol by the Nazis.
What the Freedom from Religion foundation should have done instead was to campaign for acknowledgement at the Holocaust Museum that atheists were among those murdered, as well as people from non-Jewish religions.
As a Christian who is profoundly against atheism and the mass slaughters that atheists have been responsible for down through history, I, too, find this last gambit ridiculous.
I have never heard that any Holocaust Museum has ever denied that non-Jews were slaughtered by Hitler and his pagan Nazis.
Moreover, none of the other groups losses was anywhere comparable to that of the Jews. When your population is already small and you are systematically slaughtered, it sort of stays in your memory. Your sort of want to say NEVER AGAIN.
There are still Romany. There are still homosexuals in vast numbers–something about 2% of each country’s population, plus those who are drafted into it via the education system. However, I do not believe the population of global Jewry is yet 7,000,000.
So, what does that mean for the Holocaust Memorial? The other groups lost some people. Jews were almost entirely annihilated, Faith. Culture. Language. History. People. Identity.
Tell that to the surviving family members, or the person getting a bullet in the neck or gas in the lungs or no food in the belly.
Where did you get the crazy idea that they didn’t? All Holocuast museaums do;. Unfortunately, the Atheist Soviets often did NOT mention that the main vicitims were Jews; they were pretty good at killing Jews themselves. Of course, undoubtedly a lot of Jewish atheists were also murdered, and they also wore the Star.
(Since the Homosexuals have cheapened the star by referring to the pink triangle, which is a camp marking, not something people were forced to wear in the street, I will point out that certain Christians (Witnesses ?) were marked in the camps with a Blue triangle. The yellow badge, of course, was forced upon Jews for centuries by Christians, although the first people to make Jews wear a distinctive marking appear to have been Moslem.)
The irony is that the Shield of David is a rather recent Jewish symbol. No-one really knows how it came about or is sure what it means, although it seems to refer to God’s Omnipresence (N/W/S/E plus up and down).
They might have fought for more prominent acknowledgement. I’m simply saying that would be a legitimate thing for them to at least try to do.
Taking off the Star of David from a Holocaust Museum is silly.
Afterthought: Indeed, the rate of atheism is fairly high in the Jewish community.
I’ve changed my mind after due reflection. 1 human life lost to murder is as tragic as another. 40% of 11 million is tragedy on a mass scale.
They deserve easily-visible representation too on a memorial on government property. It shouldn’t just be one group however much they were wronged.
Perhaps some other artistic symbol could be put at the top of the memorial.
Compare and contrast the demanded erasure of Jewish symbology in a Holocaust museum with the demanded inclusion of reverential Islamic symbology in the Flight 93 Memorial in Shankesville, PA.
If you don’t remember the details about the design of this memorial, start with the following 2007 post, which was the first of many posts on the subject by this blogger:
http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-book-exposes-planned-flight-93.html
I am a self-described libertarian and agnostic (leaning toward athiest) and even I think this is stupid.
Freedom From Conscience would have to destroy the evolved universe since “the heavens declare the glory of God.”
How puerile can you get?
How puerile can I get? Hopefully this puerile: “I’m telling you the truth, “Jesus said. “Unless you turn inside out and become like children, you will never ever enter the kingdom of heaven…”
America is a secular nation. I agree with you. Destroying religious symbols on public property – what does that do for you?
In any case the Kingdom of God was inaugurated here on earth when Jesus was born, lived the Kingdom life on earth for 30 years, died and then rose again. Destroy all symbols. The Kingdom of God is here to stay – like it or not.
Yes!
Refers to the original comment, not the silly comment upon it.
These fools (such is the name of those who say there is no God) don’t just want to deny the devastation the Holocaust created among the Jewish population in particular, they deny the entire Judaeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization. They seem to fight with us but their so deep and abiding hatred is reserved for their Creator God.
It nothing to do with the absence of there being any gods. There were millions of Non-Jews killed in the holocaust. It’s not a Jew only museum. Secondly, we are a secular nation, whether you can read and comprehend the constitution or not. As such the First Amendment applies to ALL government entities. Which means, they cannot favor one religion over another or over no religion at all.
Perhaps you could use the ACTUAL text instead of some made-up, self-defined, out-of-your-ass interpretation of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Where exactly does it say anything close to the drivel you just spewed? Only an extremely activist bench, and people such as yourself, equates the Star of David in a Holocaust memorial or a cross anywhere on public property as establishing a religion—which IS NOT the same as showing favoritism, as you put it.
You have the gall to call someone “puerile” when those of your ilk throw a temper tantrum anytime they see anything that might be construed as a religious symbol. I am so effing tired of many my fellow atheists thinking their mission in life is a big F-You to those who hold a different world view. Live and let live
Well, it sounds like this “Freedom From Religion” group is pressuring the government to favor the “no religion at all” choice.
“Jew-only”? Interesting expression.
Maybe you should go back and tell the Nazis and the Iron Guard not to make the Jews wear a yellow or black star on their clothing? There was no other group so marked in the street. (The pink triangle is a camp marking; some Christians had a blue triangle.)
Including a Star of David in a Holocaust museum doesn’t exactly establish Judaism as the official religion of Ohio. It doesn’t elevate Judaism above all other religions. It’s not going to prohibit you from chowing down on Lobster or bacon. In other words, it doesn’t restrict your rights in any way, shape or form.
Hear, hear, Thomas.
What a whiny article by something, not even a human, called Fuzzy Slippers. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Can you see how they are spelled differently? They mean very different things too.
There were millions of non-Jews killed in the holocaust. It is inappropriate to suggest otherwise. Secondly, this is government land and money paying for this and the First Amendment does apply to states, just check the SCOTUS files. Grow up!
Having a Star of David implies all others that were persecuted are not represented? Sounds like SCOTUS rationalization. You know, the one that found a woman’s right to privacy in the constitution to allow abortion but can’t find that same privacy to throw out marijuana laws.
What if there was a symbol or discussion about the homosexuals that were also persecuted? Would that imply others weren’t persecuted too? Does a symbol of a religion promote that religion?
That’s right, the US is not the atheist theocracy (like the USSR) you seem to want to shove down our throats.
Jews were forced to wear the star. That’s all.
P.S. The US is a federal democratic republic, not a democracy. In the early US, several states had established religions. And it is not “secular” in the sense of stealing money from religious people for secular purposes, so that they do not have enough left for religious ones (aka the public schools).
Yes, you are quite right, I am actually a pair of fuzzy slippers–pink ones, actually, with inexplicable ears poking out on each side of my lovely arch. I do love to feed the trolls (it’s a secret penchant amongst we inhuman slippered-Americans, you intolerant . . . um, person).
You wrote:
“What a whiny article by something, not even a human, called Fuzzy Slippers. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Can you see how they are spelled differently? They mean very different things too.
There were millions of non-Jews killed in the holocaust. It is inappropriate to suggest otherwise. Secondly, this is government land and money paying for this and the First Amendment does apply to states, just check the SCOTUS files. Grow up!”
To which one can only respond, um, no. We–including the slippered-Americans–live in a Constitutional republic, not a democracy. In fact, our founders specifically wrote our Constitution to ensure we were NOT a democracy (they thought of democracy as it actually is: mob rule).
Spelling does matter, and I think, too, that you would do well to look up the actual definition of theocracy. Hint: it’s not America, it’s every Islamic nation.
As others have noted throughout this thread, and quite rightly, there is no such thing as “separation of church and state” in the United States’ Constitution. There is no freedom “from” religion, only freedom to express religion. Congress shall make no law . . . . period. The days of atheists dictating American mores and religious expression are, thankfully, at a close. And you, my friend, would do well to troll where only actual nonhumans write. Oh, wait, is there such a place?
“The days of atheists dictating American mores and religious expression are, thankfully, at a close.”
One caveat, my furry-footed friend. There are numerous regular atheist commenters on LI who have never and would never ‘dictate American mores and religious expression’, on LI or in the real world. I was posting here near daily for over a year before anyone knew I was an atheist, so overbearing am I with it. Anyone who forgot it in the year and a half since had good reason.
We discriminate between generic Dems and leftist moonbats as well as between moderate Republicans and John Birchers. 95% of atheists are not organized, nor wish to be. Only the 5% activist, oppose-religion-at-every-turn atheists are organized and almost all of them are progressive liberals. A small percentage are libertarians. It is their political agenda that goes after religious mores and expressions – they seek to assault the familial structures of the conservative opposition and unpin them from the American culture. Their assault on religion is one battle in the larger progressive liberal war.
Please let’s not lump all atheists into one-assessment-fits-all, and let’s leave bloc-ish identity politics to the liberals.
Nicely done. Nicely stated, Fuzzy. I often think of Ben Franklin’s(and I quote loosely)little story of democracy and Liberty: Democracy is 2-wolves and a sheep sitting down to supper. Liberty is the sheep coming fully armed and prepared to contest the meal.
Baa-Daa-Bing. Me and mine will take Liberty over the Equality & Fairness Mob any time.
My my, so much hysterical snot being tossed about here. Promises to be a most entertaining topic. Speaking as someone who doesn’t give a hoot either way about this particular incident, I’d say that the 1st Amendment is the issue. Judaism, 20th century history, etc are all well and fine but it’s not clear that they trump the 1st A. if we’re talking about government property or taxpayer funding. I’ll stick with the 1st, myself, and relegate the others to private property and funding. There is, of course, considerable room for interpretation of the 1st, starting with the concept of “separation of church and state” (which, as we all know, is not a phrase which appears in the text of the amendment). Coherent arguments should probably start with that.
Oh, so first amendment prohibits teaching about anything connected with religion? Once again, Jews were forced to wear a star on all of their clothing, whether of not they believed in Judaism.
I think common sense trumps everything else. This is what we are talking about; a war on common sense.
And yes, I think taking down all of those crosses is sick and a violation of the first amendment.
[…] Continue reading → […]
For the record, I’m another atheist who is not bothered in the least by stuff like this, and I only killed like six or seven people.
Face it: the problem with this application of “law” as well as many others is the high percentage of Democrat-appointed judges on the federal bench.
Elections matter. Republicans also suck, but they generally appoint judges who are more qualified and less predisposed to flights of judicial fancy.
“….Arguably, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state set out in the U.S. Constitution, the foundation said…..”
Funny how that intertwining of church and state doesn’t seem to bother people on the left when they demand that our government LEGISLATE a religious sacrament…….like marriage between people of the same sexual orientation.
Technically, our Constitution doesn’t state separation of church and state, it states no establishment of a national religion–for example, Islam.
Can you imagine what the American government and political system would do to a religion it controlled?
Where there is a separation of church and state, it is the church which benefits. It remains free.
It is a legitimate — no, an important — concern.