Freedom from religion group attack Holocaust Memorial's Star of David

jank

So it appears that a Star of David on a Holocaust memorial is an attack on the freedom of the separation of church and state in an Ohio.

Taken from the left wing huffingtonpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/ohio-statehouse-holocaust-memorial-star-of-david_n_3612373.html

"Since the Star of David is a religious symbol and a secular government is not supposed to be promoting religion, especially when there are other perfectly secular alternatives, we're objecting to that religious symbol," said Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis.

The wording on the memorial is set to say, "In remembrance of the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust and millions more including prisoners of war, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the disabled, and political dissidents who suffered under Nazi Germany."

But for Annie Laurie Gaylor, also a co-president of the Freedom From Religion group, the star nevertheless presents a problem. She said she isn't yet sure how the organization will proceed, but a lawsuit is not out of the question.

Heather Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union program on freedom of religion and beliefs, said her organization won't rule out a future lawsuit.

"Whenever the government displays religious symbols, it raises concerns," Weaver said. "In this particular case, based on what we know right now, we are not planing a lawsuit. That could change in the future. ... We want to keep our options open because this area of law is very dependent upon the context."

So are they right to object to the use of this religious symbol to be used in a public building as dictated by their constitution or is this another example of progressive liberalism thought process enveloping society as another form of silent authoritarianism?

krudler

Pick your battles an all that I'd say.

Penn

I wouldn't have an issue with it as I wouldn't consider it to fall under separation of church and state due it being a memorial (as opposed to things like the Ten Commandments being placed outside courthouses). My only issue with it would be that while the majority of people the monument is memorialising were Jewish, the monument is supposed to be memorialising people of other minority faiths who died too. If you're memorialising people of different faiths, it's unfair to the memory of those in the minority religions to blanket them all under the symbol of one faith. But then as krudler says, pick your battles.

GLaDOS

Thread title is a little over the top, thought this was going to be about vandalism or something!

Stupid thing to be making a fuss of though.

doctoremma

If it were a memorial for Jewish people who died during the Holocaust, it's a fair symbol.

If it is meant to be a memorial to all people who died during the Holocaust, it's not terribly inclusive. However, I suspect that including symbols representing all the individuals and groups of people who died would be highly impractical, so better to have some kind of catch-all symbol of humanity in general.

But in principle, an attack on freedom from religion to have a religious symbol on display in this general context? Not in my book. But Americans are very very strict on this, and it IS a state building.

jank

Penn wrote: »

I wouldn't have an issue with it as I wouldn't consider it to fall under separation of church and state due it being a memorial (as opposed to things like the Ten Commandments being placed outside courthouses). My only issue with it would be that while the majority of people the monument is memorialising were Jewish, the monument is supposed to be memorialising people of other minority faiths who died too. If you're memorialising people of different faiths, it's unfair to the memory of those in the minority religions to blanket them all under the symbol of one faith. But then as krudler says, pick your battles.

That is an interesting point. Would you have preferred a crucifix and a hammer and sickle to represent the soviet and polish prisoners who died during the holocaust?

Sarky

Now you're getting silly.

Delirium

jank wrote: »

That is an interesting point. Would you have preferred a crucifix and a hammer and sickle to represent the soviet and polish prisoners who died during the holocaust?

Why object to one religious symbol only to replace it with another?

Penn

jank wrote: »

That is an interesting point. Would you have preferred a crucifix and a hammer and sickle to represent the soviet and polish prisoners who died during the holocaust?

Well no, because then it just becomes extremely messy and from a design point of view, impossible to implement while still having an attractive memorial. My point is, if you have people of more than one religion, don't use religion in it at all.

They could have had the exact same memorial but instead of a Star of David, simply use a non-religious symbol. A heart, a star (not Star of David), two doves... anything. The memorial itself is the important part.

jank

koth wrote: »

Why object to one religious symbol only to replace it with another?

I was responding to Penn's post.

oldrnwisr

I don't see what's wrong with something like this instead:




That having been said, I think the real problem here is the wording of the memorial. I agree with doctoremma, it's not really that inclusive since it is ostensibly supposed to commemorate all those who died.

However, as far as this particular story goes I think the FFRF have got it wrong on this one. As far as I'm concerned this is similar to the difference between prayer in school and using the bible as literature. This isn't a church/state issue.

jank

Penn wrote: »

Well no, because then it just becomes extremely messy and from a design point of view, impossible to implement while still having an attractive memorial. My point is, if you have people of more than one religion, don't use religion in it at all.

They could have had the exact same memorial but instead of a Star of David, simply use a non-religious symbol. A heart, a star (not Star of David), two doves... anything. The memorial itself is the important part.

I see your point but the Star of David itself is so ingrained into the holocaust to remove it is akin to objecting to the use of the star and sickle when talking about the history of Soviet Russia or the Swastika (also a religious symbol) when talking about the history of the Nazi's. The only thing it achieves is a dumbing down of history where more care is taken not to offend than to educate. Hence my point about other symbols by trying to be more inclusive.

Interesting though that people wouldn't be in favour of that (no way would a crucifix be allowed!) as 101 other groups would come and say "where is MY memorial". Cant please everyone... so why bother trying eh? So all we achieve is a dumbing down of society and history.

Sarky

How is including everyone dumbing it down?

Delirium

Sarky wrote: »

How is including everyone dumbing it down?

+1

I would have thought that a suggestion that only Jewish people were persecuted/executed during the Holocaust would be dumbing things down.

jank

So your saying you would prefer more national and religious symbols on the memorial?

Sarky

Perhaps he just doesn't want to let old prejudices and the like die out?

doctoremma

jank wrote: »

I see your point but the Star of David itself is so ingrained into the holocaust...
Interesting though that people wouldn't be in favour of that (no way would a crucifix be allowed!) as 101 other groups would come and say "where is MY memorial". Cant please everyone... so why bother trying eh? So all we achieve is a dumbing down of society and history.

While the Star of David may be somewhat informally synonymous with the Holocaust, it is not in any way officially synonymous with the Holocaust. And furthermore, this is an official government building, in a country which has a constitutional separation of state and religion.

I wouldn't think it at all unreasonable for an individual to object that the philosophical/religious views of others who died in the Holocaust were being lost in favour of the single symbol of the majority. I'd object to it, if my gay Gyspy non-Jewish Nanny (not a real person) had been killed.

And you CAN please everyone, by being inclusive of everyone.

Penn

jank wrote: »

I see your point but the Star of David itself is so ingrained into the holocaust to remove it is akin to objecting to the use of the star and sickle when talking about the history of Soviet Russia or the Swastika (also a religious symbol) when talking about the history of the Nazi's. The only thing it achieves is a dumbing down of history where more care is taken not to offend than to educate. Hence my point about other symbols by trying to be more inclusive.

Interesting though that people wouldn't be in favour of that (no way would a crucifix be allowed!) as 101 other groups would come and say "where is MY memorial". Cant please everyone... so why bother trying eh? So all we achieve is a dumbing down of society and history.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion based on what I or others have posted.

If the memorial was to commemorate the deaths of the Jewish people only, absolutely fire away and use the Star of David. What I'm saying is that it's unfair to the memories of those who aren't Jewish to be memorialised by the symbol of a religion they were not a part of. I can't see how that's in any way "dumbing down society and history". There could easily be a plaque or markings to symbolise the many different people who died.

A non-religious monument to the millions who died and educating people about the history behind what happened aren't mutually exclusive ideals.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So your saying you would prefer more national and religious symbols on the memorial?

Why not have either (a) all conceivable appropriate religious symbols on it or (b) the sane option, have no symbols on it at all?

jank

The memorial is supposed to have the following.

The wording on the memorial is set to say, "In remembrance of the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust and millions more including prisoners of war, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the disabled, and political dissidents who suffered under Nazi Germany."

The architect of this memorial is not some bible thumping redneck from Texas, its Daniel Libeskind who designed the new World Trade centre and the Jewish museum in Berlin among many other buildings and monuments.

Really the only objection is to the use of the star of David on the memorial itself. Looking at the picture its only a outline of the image, more of a silhouette.



As already alluded to how can one make this 100% inclusive only by using no symbols whatsoever?

Sarky

How would you include everyone, jank? Cover the thing in symbols?

Delirium

jank wrote: »

The memorial is supposed to have the following.



The architect of this memorial is not some bible thumping redneck from Texas, its Daniel Libeskind who designed the new World Trade centre and the Jewish museum in Berlin among many other buildings and monuments.

Really the only objection is to the use of the star of David on the memorial itself. Looking at the picture its only a outline of the image, more of a silhouette.



As already alluded to how can one make this 100% inclusive only by using no symbols whatsoever?

The text that will be on the memorial that you posted does quite a good job IMHO:

"In remembrance of the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust and millions more including prisoners of war, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the disabled, and political dissidents who suffered under Nazi Germany."

jank

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps he just doesn't want to let old prejudices and the like die out?

Care to elaborate on what you mean? The architect is a religious bigot?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

..............



As already alluded to how can one make this 100% inclusive only by using no symbols whatsoever?

You start looking at these for inspiration for starters.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_National_Memorial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial

Putting a star of david on a monument meant for everyone is hardly the best place to start being "inclusive".

Penn

jank wrote: »

The memorial is supposed to have the following.

Yes. So why use a symbol for Judaism when a substantial percentage of those the monument is dedicated to aren't Jewish?

jank wrote: »

The architect of this memorial is not some bible thumping redneck from Texas, its Daniel Libeskind who designed the new World Trade centre and the Jewish museum in Berlin among many other buildings and monuments.

Nobody had any issue with this. Who designed it isn't a fact in what anybody here is saying.

jank wrote: »

Really the only objection is to the use of the star of David on the memorial itself. Looking at the picture its only a outline of the image, more of a silhouette.

It's specifically designed to be the Star of David, and is one of the main features of the monument.

jank wrote: »

As already alluded to how can one make this 100% inclusive only by using no symbols whatsoever?

As I said in my initial post, a heart, star, two doves, teardrops... Anything really. Plenty of non-religious symbols which could have been used to equally great effect

Sarky

jank wrote: »

Care to elaborate on what you mean? The architect is a religious bigot?

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that using the star of David sends the message that it was only jewish people who really suffered during the holocaust. Not exactly fitting tribute to the "millions more" who suffered too. That's the problem.

jank

koth wrote: »

The text that will be on the memorial that you posted does quite a good job IMHO:

"In remembrance of the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust and millions more including prisoners of war, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the disabled, and political dissidents who suffered under Nazi Germany."

Yet having a piece of architecture in the shape of the star of David has caused this issue. So we are back to where we started. Are they right to object to the use of this image as its a religious symbol or is this just an example of people complaining cause they can?

In my mind its a case of historical accuracy. Dumbing down the holocaust where we reach a stage where people are afraid to show the Star of David in relation to this genocide is absurd in my opinion. It is inextricably linked to the holocaust wether we like it or not.

super_furry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdoo43sp3ZY

jank

Sarky wrote: »

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that using the star of David sends the message that it was only jewish people who really suffered during the holocaust. Not exactly fitting tribute to the "millions more" who suffered too. That's the problem.

Maybe you should read the article so.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Yet having a piece of architecture in the shape of the star of David has caused this issue. So we are back to where we started. Are they right to object to the use of this image as its a religious symbol or is this just an example of people complaining cause they can?

In my mind its a case of historical accuracy. Dumbing down the holocaust where we reach a stage where people are afraid to show the Star of David in relation to this genocide is absurd in my opinion. It is inextricably linked to the holocaust wether we like it or not.

I've already shown two relatively recent monuments that have no symbols and are inclusive of a wide variety of faiths.

How is acknowledging that more than Jews died distorting "historical accuracy"? This is confusing.

Sarky

jank wrote: »

Maybe you should read the article so.

Tried it, didn't magically stop the star of David being a religious symbol that fails to include everyone.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You start looking at these for inspiration for starters.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_National_Memorial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial

Putting a star of david on a monument meant for everyone is hardly the best place to start being "inclusive".

Why not? The holocaust was first and foremost directed against the jewish people. They suffered most of all. Nobody is denying that others weren't targets, this memorial makes mention of that specifically. But all this is besides this point. The issue that this fringe group has against this memorial is the use of a religious symbol.

Penn

jank wrote: »

In my mind its a case of historical accuracy. Dumbing down the holocaust where we reach a stage where people are afraid to show the Star of David in relation to this genocide is absurd in my opinion. It is inextricably linked to the holocaust wether we like it or not.

May I ask, Jank:

You say that the Star of David is inextricably linked to the Holocaust. I agree. However, so is the Swastika. If the monument had the Swastika as the focal point rather than the Star of David, would you object?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Why not? The holocaust was first and foremost directed against the jewish people. .

It was.

jank wrote: »

They suffered most of all. .

They did.

jank wrote: »

Nobody is denying that others weren't targets, this memorial makes mention of that specifically. But all this is besides this point. The issue that this fringe group has against this memorial is the use of a religious symbol.

....they oppose the use of such symbols on principle. Secondly, using one symbol to represent the victims gives a contrary message to any text included re other victims. Other US monuments have found a middle ground and I see no reason this shouldn't happen here.

doctoremma

jank wrote: »

Are they right to object to the use of this image as its a religious symbol or is this just an example of people complaining cause they can?

I think there are two issues here. The group are objecting to the Star of David being displayed in a public/state building, regardless of context. Most of us here are objecting to the use of the Star Of David to represent those who died in the Holocaust. Neither group is "complaining cause they can". Both are entirely legitimate objections.

Both of which could be easily solved by using a non-religious and inclusive symbol instead of a Star of David.

jank wrote: »

In my mind its a case of historical accuracy.

But you are deliberately ignoring the other groups of people who were involved?

jank

Sarky wrote: »

Tried it, didn't magically stop the star of David being a religious symbol that fails to include everyone.

Maybe thats why the Nazi's pinned the yellow star of David on all of Europe's Jews and gassed them in eastern Europe.

So the argument is are we going to dumb down history in case of offending whatever group wants to be offended or do we want to use symbols ingrained in history to commemorate such events?

Sarky

Or maybe, and this is just a wild speculative leap here, one could design a monument that doesn't exclude others on the basis of religious symbols?

Gordon

I like the subtle reference to goatse dude.

doctoremma

jank wrote: »

So the argument is are we going to dumb down history in case of offending whatever group wants to be offended or do we want to use symbols ingrained in history to commemorate such events?

You are talking as if those people who might be offended at the exclusion of a symbol of their own people also killed in the Holocaust are somehow making an massive fuss about nothing?????

Penn

jank wrote: »

Maybe thats why the Nazi's pinned the yellow star of David on all of Europe's Jews and gassed them in eastern Europe.

So the argument is are we going to dumb down history in case of offending whatever group wants to be offended or do we want to use symbols ingrained in history to commemorate such events?

Again jank, they're not mutually exclusive. You can educate as well as equally commemorate the deaths of everyone. The symbol is not the important part of the monument. The reason for the monument is the important part, and as koth said the text explaining what the memorial is for does far more educating and is more equally inclusive than the symbol.

You honestly seem to be arguing for the sake of it at this point.

Sarky

Gordon wrote: »

I like the subtle reference to goatse dude.

This is why you're my favourite.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

..........

So the argument is are we going to dumb down history...........

The holocaust killed millions, including jews. The star of david is a jewish symbol. Why is acknowledging the diversity of the victims an attempt to "dumb down history"? This is the second time I've had to ask.....

jank

Penn wrote: »

May I ask, Jank:

You say that the Star of David is inextricably linked to the Holocaust. I agree. However, so is the Swastika. If the monument had the Swastika as the focal point rather than the Star of David, would you object?

That is a pointless question. The Nazi's used the Swastika as their symbol of power, their racial purity, their nationalism and their loyalty to Hitler and the fatherland. It was the symbol used to perpetrate a war where 50 odd million died and some 6-7 million Jews were gassed, made into soap and lampshades. The Star of David was used a symbol of shame made to be worn by all Jews to show that they were outcasts, undesirable and sub-human both in cities and towns where they lived for hundreds of years as part of the community and then in camps where they queued up to die. It would be in very bad taste to use a Swastika to commensurate victims of the holocaust, although importantly not illegal and that is the nub of the issue. We are talking about the legality of this symbol at the end of the day.

Also note that neo-Nazi's are free to parade their symbols of racisim and hate in the United States, yet a holocaust memorial featuring a Star of David? A step too far? Kind of absurd don't you think?

Zillah

Thead title is hilarious. Damn militant atheist groups launching their attacks!

Well, speaking. That's like attacking, isn't it?

doctoremma

Is it just me or is anyone else dying to Photoshop the picture....

Sarky

doctoremma wrote: »

Is it just me or is anyone else dying to Photoshop the picture....

Ever since Gordon commented. Alas, I'm still at work. But I do have a whole weekend ahead of me...

Penn

jank wrote: »

That is a pointless question. The Nazi's used the Swastika as their symbol of power, their racial purity, their nationalism and their loyalty to Hitler and the fatherland. It was the symbol used to perpetrate a war where 50 odd million died and some 6-7 million Jews were gassed, made into soap and lampshades. The Star of David was used a symbol of shame made to be worn by all Jews to show that they were outcasts, undesirable and sub-human both in cities and towns where they lived for hundreds of years as part of the community and then in camps where they queued up to die. It would be in very bad taste to use a Swastika to commensurate victims of the holocaust, although importantly not illegal and that is the nub of the issue. We are talking about the legality of this symbol at the end of the day.

It's not pointless as you exactly hit upon the point I was trying to make. The swastika would cause offence to people. Likewise, commemorating non-jewish people with a jewish symbol would cause offence to people. It's the equivalent of replacing "10 million (number used as an example) people including 6 million Jewish people" with "10 million Jewish people".

They weren't Jewish, they shouldn't be memorialised with a Jewish monument.

jank wrote: »

Also note that neo-Nazi's are free to parade their symbols of racisim and hate in the United States, yet a holocaust memorial featuring a Star of David? A step too far? Kind of absurd don't you think?

The only absurdity is how you feel that's in any way related to what any of us are saying.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

....they oppose the use of such symbols on principle. Secondly, using one symbol to represent the victims gives a contrary message to any text included re other victims. Other US monuments have found a middle ground and I see no reason this shouldn't happen here.

Yet is it illegal?

It seems that one can only have a symbol if it doesn't offend anyone and/or symbols are plastered all over the place in case some group is left out.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Yet is it illegal?

It seems that one can only have a symbol if it doesn't offend anyone and/or symbols are plastered all over the place in case some group is left out.

Again, missing the point entirely. It's not the symbol, it's the fact that a religious symbol is being used to commemorate the deaths of people who weren't followers of that religion, which is an insult to their memory.

As stated, if the monument was only to commemorate the Jewish people who died in the Holocaust, I would have zero objections to the proposed monument.

Sarky

jank wrote: »

It seems that one can only have a symbol if it doesn't offend anyone and/or symbols are plastered all over the place in case some group is left out.

Is this all it boils down to? That's a very childish way of looking at things.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Yet is it illegal?

It seems that one can only have a symbol if it doesn't offend anyone and/or symbols are plastered all over the place in case some group is left out.

You still haven't explained how using non-exclusive imagery is "dumbing down history". My third time of asking.


.....all religious symbols are barred from federal property, to the best of my knowledge.

Why should a group be left out?