The State Of Church

The Cross in the Desert and the Whipping Cane in Malaysia.

Todays front page of the Washington Post has an interesting article on the church-state non-establishment first amendment issue as it pertains to a large white cross planted on federal lands in the Mojave desert by WWI vets. It has been there for eons standing tall against desert winds until someone decided it was inappropriate on federal lands (Mojave Federal Preserve) and so now it is covered up. A quarter million Jewish vets also served in WWI so where's the equal time with the Star of David? And would planting a Star of David then make it all better? Should all federal property be totally devoid of any reference to the inspirations that motivated and formed the country in the first place? Stay tuned for a Supreme Court ruling on whether the cross has to be taken down. Those favoring historical approaches want to classify it as a Historic Monument- why not- it's older than all the Justices on the Supreme Court bench. It signifies the urges and inspirations of at least a majority of people who fought the first global war in the 20th Century. If the WWI vets wanted to plant a Star of David and it had survived desert predators and poachers for a decade we would be classifying that too a Historical Monument, wouldn't we?
Lest you think these issues are constitutionally "slam dunk" the trickier extreme poses itself in smaller print in today's Post about a story in Malaysia. There is a tiny reference to a story of a woman who did something so tragically scandalous it made its way into Western Journalism in America's capital's prime paper. Are you ready for it? She drank a beer. The problem is that this is a Muslim country and a woman drinking a beer because of the confluence of Sharia and State Law in Malaysia this is a "caning" offense- meaning she gets beaten, whipped with a cane. It aint Miller Time in Malaysia.

So when do we think it objectionable that any particular religion gets too tight with "the authorities" or the political power infastructure in any country? The genius of our American experiment is that we have at least attempted to separate any established religion so that all may flourish. But morality is always incorporated into public laws. That is what law is based upon; morality and ethics. So whose morality and ethics is always something that is never religion neutral.

So far it hasn't ruffled any church-state separation feathers that a full color guard and four or five supreme court justices worship at a "Red Mass" at Saint Matthews Cathedral in DC (next Sunday, and every year before the opening of the Supreme Court to bless the Judicial system in the US by the Catholic hierarchy), nor that Congress opens with a prayer or funds chaplaincy offices as does the military, nor has it been deemed any sort of church-state separation problem that federal funding goes into the Holocaust Museum. So clearly every expression of religion mixed with state observances or funding is not a First Amendment violation.

The fact of the religious observances and beliefs of Veterans prompted them to give thanks to their creator by planting a cross is a historic fact.

The fact that a woman gets caned for drinking beer anywhere in the world is just ridiculous.