Wednesday’s “Bearing the cross” editorial was reactionary, unlettered, and demagogic–but it also began with a clear-cut chunk of plagiarism. Comparing the first three paragraphs of said article with a New York Times article entitled “Justices Decline Case On Highway Crosses” from Monday, it is woefully obvious that the author lifted the first three paragraphs of background information and applied a shameless touch of light editing. Clearly he imagines his audience dull and credulous.
Immediately following the third paragraph, the author states that it was a positive ruling to let the crosses stay firmly planted on government property. This betrays a baffling, willful ignorance. Had he read the rest of the NYT article, he’d have learned that the polar opposite occurred in reality. The Supreme Court denied an appeal to review a 10th Circuit of Appeals Court case, which had concluded earlier that the crosses on Utah state highways “have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion,” and ordered the crosses moved. The now-defeated appeal was sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization founded by Bill Bright and James Dobson–two execrable proponents of bigotry and theocracy. The ADF most recently garnered popular attention for litigating against the appeal to overturn Prop. 8 in California two years past. I wonder if they’re preparing a suit against Kim Kardashian for her recent garroting of the “sanctity of marriage.”
The author makes no attempt to understand or explain why American Atheists originally sued to have the crosses moved; not content to wallow in ignorance, he also eschewed what little reading is necessary to understand what our judicial system considers a religious symbol. He argues that a cross is innocuous–a universal symbol of sacrifice, others say–yet I do not recognize it as such. I’ll have nothing to do with the doctrine of vicarious redemption, as I prefer total personal responsibility to scapegoating. But neither will the other sixty million American Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, Hindus, and secular humanists—or the Supreme Court—all of whom recognize the Latin cross as unambiguously Christian.
The distinctive reek of demagoguery becomes unbearable as the author accuses the original litigants of dragging the memorials of fallen state troopers through the mud for political gain. As AA president Dave Silverman said, “Erecting divisive religious icons that violate the very Constitution the fallen troopers had sworn to uphold is not the way to honor those troopers…” Protecting Jefferson’s wall is a thankless and oft-derided job, but it is necessary if we’re to retain the religious freedom we now enjoy. I daresay our author would object to a monstrous statue of the Code of Hammurabi on the Supreme Court Building lawn. Then again, this is of no import to someone who believes–as the author does–that it’s all “petty squabbling over the First Amendment.” Only a spoilt child, having never considered what rights the First Amendment ensures, could pen such drivel.
Rick