I rather suspect that one should read the actual case-law cited, before determining what the courts have said, rather than relying on the recitation in a letter. Generally speaking, it is unwise to rely on cherry-picked comments from random cases cited by a partisan, as one cannot know (1) whether the case-law is consistebnt on the point, or (2) the context of the quotes.
I myself lack the time for such an exercise.
In any event, it is quite irrelevant to your question. You asked “what would be considered evidence for my position that the Star of David is both a tribal symbol for some and a religious symbol for others”. My post is an answer to your question.
Note that the ratio of the case concerned the display of the ten commandments (an expressly religious symbol - one of the two examples I chose quite independently, above).
The artistic motif included six-pointed stars, as is referenced exactly once, in thois sentence:
The foot-notes read:
The majority of the Court then went on to state that the ten commandments monument failed the two-pronged test established by the case law, the second prong of which is as follows:
[Emphasis added]
In short, the court merely mentioned the star in a footnote, in a purely descriptive manner. It did not, contrary to the assertions made in the letter in the OP, find as a fact that the star of david was a “religious symbol”. That issue was not before the Court at all. Very obviously the Court ment little more that “this is a star of david, a symbol of Judaism”. The difference between Judaism-as-religion and Judaism-as-tribal-identity was not an issue before the court at all.
Moreover, the design included symbols which were not religious - such as the all-seeing eye, that is on the US dollar bill.
Further, the very test asserted in that case would require the same exercise I put to Czarcasm - namely, an examination, in context, of the meaning of the symbol by an objective observer familiar with its history.
This represents an almost text-book case of why one should actually read the case-law and not rely on cherry-picked quotes to overstate one’s position.
Many years ago the ACLU filed suit to have the words from Ohio’s Motto “With God all things are possible” declared UNconstitutional, they failed.
Also, many states have reference to some type of Diety in thier Constitution Preamble’s.
This reminds me of the Stephen Austin case out of a Texas town where they had a cross on the city seal, presumbaly a Christian Cross. After suit was filed, the Court declared it more of a “Historical” symbol then religious.
If I remember right, we had such a case in Ohio, very similar in nature. I do know that was declared to violate the Establishment Clause.
Personally, I think the FFRF may lose(on the state level, at least), seeing as how the official state motto of Ohio is a direct quote from the New Testament. It’s supposed non-religious historical origin?
A legal system that doesn’t see any Establishment Clause entanglement with that isn’t likely to give the proposed memorial supporters any grief, so rest easy.
This was a poor hypothetical for your side. Because when I see the Star of David I think Jews. I certainly don’t think that it represents a group that:
(1) Is ethnically Jewish
(2) But does not include those that have converted to Judiasm
(3) But does include atheist Jews
Symbols are like words. Their meaning is what most people believe their meaning are. Very few are going to see the Star of David and realize that it refers to the Jewish people and not the Jewish religion. Most are going to think it refers to Judiasm.
So next up, a monument at the Michigan Statehouse memorializing the Rape of Nanking.
[/quote]
Oh dear, the dreaded Slippery Slope has reared its greasy head!
Isn’t that the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ official motto?
He doesn’t. “Jews” is not a religion. He apparently doesn’t understand there’s a difference, but that’s his problem. Magen David symbolizes Jews. That’s how it should be.
Just pointing out that your argument is an absolute absurdity to the point of virtually complete semantic incoherence. You are actually arguing that, despite the fact that the Magen David is not a religious symbol, if the US courts rule it’s a religious symbol of Judaism (the religion) rather than Judaism (the cultural/ideological/social traditions, institutions, etc…), then, well, it counts as one. Incomprehensibly, you seem to be arguing that even if the courts got it wildly wrong, we should just accept that. And Bricker is right. If you disagree with him when he takes essentially the same position in virtually any law thread he ever posts in, your argument will be hypocritical in the extreme. And you’ve dumped all of this nonsense in spite, and actually in the teeth of Jews saying “No, it really isn’t a religious symbol.” Your argument seems to be that either the US government actually can tell religions what they really think and what their symbols are, and overrule the objections of those who actually follow those religions… or that the judges were wrong, but we shouldn’t care because, well, the gods only know why, but darnit you’re stickin’ to your tack. Boy howdy, are ya.
Which has no religious significance to Jews, is a cultural symbol only, has specific and massive historical relevancy both due to the Nazis’ yellow stars and the fact that the idea of vernichtung essentially began with Mein Kampf, which focused almost exclusively on the Jews. Of course, there is no actual evidence, and you certainly haven’t provided any evidence at all for your claim that that the Magen David actually is a religious symbol (because it isn’t). The best you’ve done is point to a list that included a symbol for atheism while you hilariously claimed that the list somehow was proof of what’s a religion and what’s not. Oh yeah, and a cite pointing to the Magen David’s origin in Kabbalism. That Britannica cite doesn’t mention anything about it even being a religious symbol, which makes your use of it even more bwahhh?!? inducing. In fact, it points out that in the Middle Ages when the Magen David was first in use, it has no religious significance. It goes on to point out that the Magen David was a sign of Jewish communities, not not Jewish congregations. All it does claim is that the Jews adopted it in imitation of Christians’ use of the cross. I’d need an actual citation for that other than Britannica’s word, as no rabbi I’ve ever spoken to has said any such thing. Ever.
But all this seems to be academic, as you refuse to listen to the unanimous consensus of Jews in this thread who actually know what our religious heritage contains… better than a set of most-likely-gentile-judges do (go figure).You’ve evidently decided on your conclusion, and you seem to be casting about, somewhat ineffectively and aimlessly, for facts that you can use to support what you already decided.
They might also go out and drink a lot of Everclear and then go shoot shotguns. Lots of things “might happen”.
But as the Magen David is not a religious symbol to Jews (is this starting to sink into your head, yet?), there is no reason to go based on flawed precedents, especially if a court case could overturn them with, go figure, an actually accurate knowledge of Jews and Judaism.
This seems kinda basic. If Jews know that the Magen David isn’t a religious symbol, and some judges didn’t know that and ruled contrary to the facts in relevant cases (although that claim too now seems specious, thanks Malthus!), all that means is that they fucked up. Why on Earth you’re defending this is beyond me.
This has to take the cake. Not only are you contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next (quite amusingly, I might add…), but you actually just argued that what’s at issue is “how the [Magen David] has been used by […] the U.s. Government itself” I mean, seriously, this comedy is solid gold. The manner in which the U.S. government “used” the Magen David (long, varied, easily citeable history of that, eh?)
Seriously, re-read what you just wrote. You just argued is that the majority gets to “use” a minority cultural group’s cultural symbol, claim it’s religious, and then block that culture from using their non-religious, solely cultural symbol. That, right after claiming that it’s not about the majority imposing their beliefs upon, and trampling the actual beliefs of, minorities. And this is what you think is not only good policy, but something you want to defend?
