No Star of David on Holocaust Memorial?

Atheist Group Calls for Removal of Star of David from Ohio Holocaust Memorial
By Sterling Beard
July 22, 2013


An atheist group is agitating for the removal of the Star of David from a Holocaust memorial at the Ohio state house, reports the Columbus Dispatch.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) objects to the memorial’s inclusion of the Jewish symbol on the grounds that “permitting one permanent sectarian and exclusionary religious symbol . . . would create the legal precedent, for instance, to place an equally large or larger permanent Latin cross on Capitol grounds.”

In a letter to former Ohio state senator Richard Finan, chairman of the board that oversees the capitol’s grounds, FFRF suggests that “the monument could resemble numerous powerful war memorials across the U.S. which do not use any sectarian images, including the national World War II Memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial. Each is secular in nature and without religious reference, which offends no one and is respected by all.”

The lack of religious imagery on those monuments “neither diminishes their significance nor detracts from the respect and honor shown for the victims of those conflicts,” they argue.

The inclusion of the Star of David, FRFF explains in a press release, excludes 5 million victims of the Holocaust who were members of other persecuted groups, such as “gays, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roma Gypsies, the disabled and many others.”

Allowing the Star of David on the state-house monument, they contend, would “dishonor the truest protection our country has against a similar Holocaust on our shores: the precious constitutional principle separating religion from government.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354...-sterling-beard

Atheists just need to fuck off. First saying holiday instead of Christmas, the making government building get rid of Nativity scenes, and now this. The holocaust affected people who were Jewish. Why would the Star of David not be on there? All atheists do is whine.

i don't think you understand sir. in a perfect utopia, nobody needs to feel out of place. saying merry christmas may make those who don't celebrate it feel uncomfortable, so we have to find a way to accommodate everyone. the only problem with that line of reasoning is that its impossible to do while maintaining anything resembling a free society, but that should just be overlooked as we become more progressive.

Before all of you junior crusaders get your panties in a wad, there's not much basis to the suit, and it is from a fringe group. While religious imagery (including crucifixes, Star of David) is essentially inappropriate constitutionally in government and other public places, there is considerable authority and precedent allowing it to remain when it is embodied in a display that advances or represents a nonreligious purpose. Here the memorial represents an event in history where the Jewish symbol is necessarily entertwined with the historical event.

Now Christmas and Hannukah displays are a different story. The Star of David or a Nativity are in this context constitute explicitly religious expressions, and courts have properly held that they do not belong in government buildings, parks, etc. However, decorated trees, wreaths, and menorahs have been found to have seasonal and cultural meanings beyond the religious context, and therefore these displays have been found to be acceptable decorations for the season.

Anyone who wants the nativity, you can display it freely on your property or church all year round.

Excellent Kly. Also, I refer Board members to Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties union. These SCOTUS opinions compare and contrast much of what Kly has eloquently stated above.

Just leave the star of David where it is. Like Kly said, it serves a historical purpose

Well said, Kly.

Klyd, always a gentleman and a scholar.

As time goes by, these types and their views become less and less "fringe." People thinking they have a right to be "free from religion" is certainly more widespread nowadays.

Ivy this is a punk ass atheist group. I'm agnostic and struggle with religion but these guys are about as threatening as the Easter Bunny. There's not much cause to worry

I've always had a soft spot for agnostics. They at least have some humility. You don't hear of many militant agnostic groups.

Lol yeah. I'll be the first one to admit I'm skeptical of religion but I won't rule it out either

This is a disgrace. A small group? I dont know. I am never suprised anymore by the amount of nut jobs in this country.

Freedom from Religion Foundation has actually won quite a few lawsuits for a supposed fringe group. I think they are actually mainstream leftists perfectly in line with the party that tried to take god and israeli's status out of the party platform.

That's pretty much it. Their approach is, "Don't worry, nothing to see here. We're harmless. (see klydon's post). Meanwhile, they slowly work at marginalizing religion in this country more and more.

Can I ask a sincere question? Why does atheism bother you? I mean, if you have your faith, nobody can take it from you. If your faith is true, nobody can change your mind. Why does someone else's bother you?

Personally, I disagree with this group. I think they're just plain stupid and silly, but what impact can they have on my faith? They can't take it from me.

Yes SB, oh so true. I think "faith" can be a threatening thing to those who don't have it. Can we define faith? It is somewhat ambiguous and personal. For me it is comforting and that is a hard thing to define.

In a personal sense I simply find them annoying. Their inherent arrogance, as well as them spending so much time and energy fighting against something they profess to not even believe in. In another sense, I think these types are a sign of what is to come in terms of religion becoming more marginalized in our society. They may seem extreme even to you right now. But their views could very well be mainstream and widely accepted in another generation.

Personally I find hard core aethiests and hard core religious people equally annoying. Anyone who is vociferous about the existence of a Supreme Being hasn't thought it through. There could be a God and there could not be a God, I am not amart enough to say. I have my own beliefs, but they are mine, and I have no desire to fost them on anyone else. And whatever some group of fringe religious zealots or anti religious zealots do is not going to afftect what I believe to be true.

I'll tell you one thing, however, God is not some old white guy with a beard who lives in the sky.

"The nonspeculative nature of the Christian faith makes it unpalatable to many whose lives are thoroughly grounded in philosophical conjecture."

+1 DT

How would you react if I said that about followers of your religion? And how would the moderators of this board react?



(Oh, that atheist group, of course, is crazy.)

First of all, I really dislike Atheists who complain about others faith. This is supposed to be a monument reflecting those who lost their live's in the Holocaust, and most were of Jewish faith.

This group of Atheists are just like those who push their religion on others. This is pretty much why I don't care about religion. There is to much hate, and it shouldn't be like that.

The term "Holocaust" includes only the Jewish victims (6 million Jews), this term never included anyone else. So it's only right that a Jewish symbol is on a Jewish memorial. Jews are an ethno-religious group so it's logical that their symbol has some religious connotations, but as many Jews became non-religious in the last few decades and still identify with their Jewish identity, one could call it a symbol of the Jewish people as such, regardless of what they believe in now. After all, it's on the Israeli flag. I mean, that's like complaining that the 'double cross' on Hungarian and Slovak coat of arms is 'sectarian' and 'exclusionary' religious symbol, because it originates from 12th century Christian Hungarian Kingdom. One can't simply erase centuries of history and tradition just because he doesn't like what his ancestors believed in.

Anyway, I do believe that non-Jewish victims of the Nazi agression in Europe are often neglected. But this is a subject for some other discussion and it's quite complex. The fact is that the term 'holocaust' (or 'shoah') is reserved for Jewish victims only. This atheist group obviously doesn't know much about WWII history/is not interested in it (otherwise they would be familiar with the basic terminology), they just want to create noise. It's very unjust to use something like a memorial for innocent victims to promote your own ideology, but that's how these groups operate.

Slava, excellent post. You summed it up perfectly.

It's a valid point that a lot of people miss. It's called incrementalism. Incrementalism is not new and it has already changed how we interpret the 1st amendment since at least 1947 in the Everson decision.