Comments on: The Scalias of Justice

By: Across The Desert, Listening To The Supremes « Around The Sphere

Across The Desert, Listening To The Supremes « Around The Sphere — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:30:04 +0000

[...] Jonathan Kulick Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Making of Journey Across the [...]

By: John G

John G — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:22:37 +0000

It seems fair to disagree with a suggestion that a cross on a memorial constructed 75 years ago was not intended to honor all the dead of the war it referred to (or all the dead on ‘our’ side, anyway), whatever their religion. Did the builders of the monument intend to honor only the Christians? I doubt it. If they had been asked, they probably would have said “the cross applies to most of them, and that will have to do.” Individual tombs can be designed for their occupant; collectives may have to generalize.

We’re more sensitive these days to the exclusionary effect of the alleged generic that covers only the majority, or the dominant group. Thus all the ‘he/she’ formulations we now see and many of us use.

I doubt that most builders of memorials today would erect only a cross to honor a diverse group, even if most of that group were Christian.

So if Justice Scalia is saying that it is not necessary to take down a 75-year-old monument because by the standards of the 21st century it is not sufficiently inclusive, or because to the 21st-century eye it favors one religion, one can have some sympathy, whether or not one agrees with that conclusion.

However, his statement that the cross ‘of course’ is generic, and his outrage at the suggestion that it is not, suggests that he has not been paying attention to the discourse of identity for the past 40 years or so, not to mention that he has forgotten the civility that a judge should model to the Bar.

By: paul

paul — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:10:00 +0000

Just for reference, here’s http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html which is a list of the symbols that Arlington puts on grave markers. There are ones for wiccans and for atheists (although the atheist one is retro in a rather creepy way).

By: Wagster

Wagster — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:07:46 +0000

Golden Arches don’t mean McDonalds. In the United States, the Arch is the most common symbol for the hamburger.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:43:31 +0000

Just think of what would have to be true of Scalia for his argument to be honest.

By: Bernard Yomtov

Bernard Yomtov — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:23:58 +0000

…the menorah is a Jewish national symbol, not an American one. But there’s lots of those: the flag, bald eagle, 3-cornered revolutionary war era hat, etc.

Be careful about the hat, Warren. Haman was Iranian.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:58:02 +0000

What would an appropriate symbol for nonbelievers be? Contrary to popular belief, there are atheists in foxholes. If you’re fighting for your country, wouldn’t a symbol of that country be appropriate? If you’re fighting for Halliburton, perhaps their corporate logo would suffice.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:28:14 +0000

I vote for argument from power. That seems to be the preferred mode of argument for all Supreme Court justices, whatever their ideological leanings, and Scalia is exceptionally adept at it. Just assert, in the face of all contradictions, that what you say is true. As a Supreme Court justice writing for the majority (which Scalia gets to do more and more often) once you assert it, it’s so.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:47:26 +0000

Here’s a photo of a WWI grave of a Jewish soldier in the British Army: http://www.flickr.com/photos/redvers/976822731/ . It would be easy enough to find Muslim Hindu and Sikh grave symbols too. Scalia is just being ignorant.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:41:51 +0000

We’ll have to find the latin or greek for “troll”.

I think it’s also the argument from power: “I don’t have to care whether what I’m saying makes sense, because you’re the petitioner and I’m the judge.” Since the first time I saw him speaking in public, Scalia has always impressed me as one who revels in wielding damaging power over others.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:21:11 +0000

I would suggest that insisting that the symbols of one’s faith are not symbols of one’s faith is an indication that one is not, in fact, devoutly religious, no matter how much one wishes to appear so.

By: Michael Drake

Michael Drake — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:19:50 +0000

“Idiocy? “Extreme folly or stupidity.” I’m no formal debater, but I don’t think that an argument from stupidity is what the good Jesuits at St. Francis Xavier taught Scalia, and he is plainly not an id[i]ot.”

This quasi-enthymeme is a non sequitur: the fact that Scalia is not stupid does not mean he cannot argue from stupidity. Similarly, one need not be a putz to argue from putzigkeit (though the case of Scalia does not present this particular question).

By: Warren Terra

Warren Terra — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:36:43 +0000

And yes, I got Seth Gordon’s wife’s joke, but chose to ignore it. Most Christians don’t realize the distinction she’s making exists within Judaism. And a secular American symbol would be appropriate.

By: Warren Terra

Warren Terra — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:24:34 +0000

Seth Gordon’s wife has a point, except that the menorah is a Jewish national symbol, not an American one. But there’s lots of those: the flag, bald eagle, 3-cornered revolutionary war era hat, etc.

By: Michael O'Hare

Michael O'Hare — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:17:15 +0000

I guess we could challenge everyone we meet with a cross around their necks and ask them why they are displaying an unChristian symbol that merely symbolizes death in battle, and are they in favor of more deaths of soldiers?

Sigh…

By: chrismealy

chrismealy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:48:28 +0000

I appreciate the exercise.

How about, “playing dumb.” Or just trolling.

By: Seth Gordon

Seth Gordon — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:04:33 +0000

My wife suggests that the most appropriate religion-neutral-ish symbol to place on a grave would be a menorah, since the Maccabees fought a war of national liberation, and our soldiers likewise are supposed to be fighting for freedom rather than any baser motive.

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:23:11 +0000

Scaliitry: plausible but fallacious argument, known by its proponent to be fallacious, and delivered with sarcasm.

By: C.S.

C.S. — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:01:58 +0000

What’s wrong with “ass-holery”?

By: ChristianPinko

ChristianPinko — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:47:27 +0000

As a Christian, I’m ashamed of behavior like this.

I think the answer is that, alas, most American Christians — most white American Christians, anyway — think that the cross is a symbol of America at least as much as it’s a symbol of Christ, and that any “real” American wouldn’t make a fuss about resting beneath a cross.