The Baffling Argument of the Week award goes to Justice Antonin Scalia, who last Wednesday argued, in a separation of church and state case involving a cross on Federal land, that the Christian embodiment of Jesus' death and resurrection isn't a religious symbol but actually a
commonly-recognized symbol for "dead person under here:"
Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed. "It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead." Eliasberg objected. "I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew," he said.
Scalia shot back angrily, "I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion."
Well sure -- Jesus did allegedly die for
all mankind (humankind, even, if we're going to get all PC and declare the inerrant word of The LORD some sort of living document) even though not everybody (i.e. communists, terrorists, The Dixie Chicks) are exactly delighted with the gesture. Who else would throw such pearls before swine?
Okay, maybe Brahma would, since many Hindus consider their religion to be
universal as well (hey, you -- put the hamburger down -- your new secret religion demands it).
So, Justice Scalia -- try one of
these on for size. Brahma might not have died for your sins, but hey -- He considers you one of his own. Which is a lot more than most of sane society is willing to do.
Posts
