Should the Supreme Court allow a Christian cross in a war monument?

 
This 75-year-old wooden cross, now covered with a tarp, was at the center of a heated debate in the U.S. Supreme Court today.

The cross, which is located atop a rock in California’s Mojave National Preserve near the Nevada border, has honored fallen World War I soldiers since 1934 but came under fire a decade ago after park employee Frank Buono protested its potential 1st Amendment violation of establishment of religion.

The land on which the cross sits was recently transferred from the national preserve to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, but the Supreme Court justices debated today whether that solves the issue. In the past, the park has turned down a request to display a Buddhist symbol. The Obama administration agreed with the VFW and urged the court to uphold the display of the cross while it is under private control.

An excerpt from the article by David G. Savage:

"This is a stand-alone cross," said Peter Eliasberg, the [American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California] lawyer. "The cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity," he said, and it should not be treated as though it is the single, favored religious symbol.

Justice Antonin Scalia took sharp exception to that comment.

The cross "is the most common symbol" to honor the war dead, he said, calling it an "outrageous conclusion" to say the cross is limited to honoring only soldiers who were Christians. By the end of the hour, it was not clear what issue the justices will decide. They could decide whether the transfer of the cross to the VFW solved the legal problem. Or they could go further back and decide whether it was constitutional to erect the cross on public land.

So what are your thoughts? Is it being too politically correct if we disallow a private World War I monument with a Christian cross? Or does the cross' presence in the preserve wrongly discriminate against other religions by preventing their symbols, like a Buddhist one, from being represented as well?

-- Kelsey Ramos

Photo: This cross, now covered in tarp, atop a rock in California’s Mojave National Preserve has been a memorial to fallen World War I soldiers since 1934. Credit: Liberty Legal Institute / Associated Press

Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story' challenges many aspects of American life

Although the latest Michael Moore documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story" has been screening in Los Angeles in a few theaters for a week, the film debuted nationwide Friday.

The consensus of reviewers sampled by RottenTomatoes.com gives the controversial (and funny) doc a respectable 72% "fresh" rating (meaning more favorable reviews than unfavorable ones). L.A. Times film critic Kenneth Turan's review is equally lukewarm to the movie that uses AIG, Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger and even Jesus Christ to help prove Moore's theory that capitalism is hurting America. An excerpt:

Clearly, Moore has not lost his provocateur's gift for stirring the pot, and it is heartening to have a filmmaker take on a subject this all-encompassing and almost taboo. But not even Moore's skill can quell the suspicion that "Capitalism" misses the narrower focus that gave his earlier films some of their punch.

In a sense, "Capitalism" comes by its wide-ranging, scattershot approach naturally. After all, this is a heck of a big subject: Just ask Karl Marx, who spent 18 years researching and writing his multi-volume "Das Kapital." So it's perhaps inevitable because of the ton of territory "Capitalism" covers that this film ends up as the sum of its parts, nothing more.

That said, Moore's scattershot is a lot more interesting than some filmmakers' focus, and many of those individual parts are classic. For one thing, Moore retains the instincts of a shrewd stand-up comedian -- the astonished, baffled looks he often wears are a case in point, as is his decision to include under the rubric of "When did Jesus become a capitalist?" the dubbing of a section of a biblical epic with free-market platitudes.

So now that the film has been released nationally, if you've seen it, feel free to give us your take in the comments below.

-- Tony Pierce

Trailer for "Capitalism: A Love Story" by Overture Films

Muslims pay their respects to Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson, the reclusive pop star who dominated the pop charts in the 1980s, passed away yesterday after suffering from cardiac arrest. 

Many knew Jackson as the King of Pop, the moonwalker whose soulful music defined a generation.  But few were aware of Michael Jackson's connection to Islam. 

Although he was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, Jackson reportedly converted to Islam in 2008.  Jackson's brother, Jermaine Friday -- who converted to Islam in 1989 -- reported that Jackson took a great interest in Islam after being shown books from his trip to Mecca.

"When I came back from Mecca, I got him a lot of books, and he asked me lots of things about my religion, and I told him that it's peaceful and beautiful," Friday said.  

Although Jackson never confirmed his conversion himself, Muslim readers from around the world paid their respects to the deceased pop star.

"Abi here from Cape Town South Africa. As a Muslim, I was very touched by his recent reversion to ISLAM. May ALLAH (God Almighty) grant him a high place in paradise... Amen," said ABDURAHMAAN BAILEY.

"He will stay the star #1 in our hearts . You federate people all over the world through your music. May Allah put his rahma in you.Rest in peace From all your Belgians fans," wrote Nanou.

(Read more after the jump)

How will In-N-Out change -- or should it?

My life as a fast-food consumer pretty much ended the moment my kids became old enough to drive themselves to the nearest hamburger stand.

But even back then I knew that all such chains could be divided into two categories: There was In-N-Out, and there was everybody else.

The In-N-Out cult -- is there any other word for it? -- is rooted in its patrons’ appreciation for its simple menu and its sedulous devotion to fresh, high-quality ingredients.

To be sure, there are other fascinations. These include the mystique created by its management’s traditional refusal to ever speak to the press (including for this column).

Then there are the biblical citations imprinted on the edges and seams of its burger wrappers and disposable cups, a practice started by the late Richard Snyder, the born-again younger son and onetime heir apparent to In-N-Out’s founders, Harry and Esther Snyder.

Finally, there are the intertwined issues of In-N-Out’s colorful past and its unsettled future, which are touched on in a new book about the company, entitled simply "In-N-Out Burger," by BusinessWeek writer Stacy Perman.

As the chain moves into ownership by the third generation of the Snyder family -- Lynsi Martinez, 27, is the granddaughter of the founders and a rather mysterious figure -- what lies ahead? What changes would you like to see -- if any -- in this California institution?

Read the complete column: In-N-Out: Can perfection survive?

-- Michael Hiltzik

Caitlin Pogue prepares burgers for lunch customers at In-N-Out in San Marcos on February 06, 2009. Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times

The Big Picture: Upcoming Bill Maher film mocks the religious

         

Is it still controversial, or at least funny, to point out the obvious absurdities of faith?  If not, Bill Maher's upcoming film may not do too well. He worked with "Borat" director Larry Charles to film interviews with people who did not realize that they were actually the subjects of a mockumentary, as opposed to an informative documentary.  The unwitting butts of Maher's cinematic joke included a rabbi, a preacher and other religious people, thus giving The Big Picture columnist Patrick Goldstein the accurate impression that Maher "thinks religion is a big crock of spit."  Though "Religulous" doesn't open until Oct. 3, Goldstein scored an early screening and an interview with Maher.  The "Real Time" host was happy to share his tactics on tricking religious leaders into thinking that they were being taken seriously, much to the amusement of some readers but to the dismay of others.

Milo will probably catch "Religulous" on the opening night: "Any moron who thinks the earth is 5000 yers old should not be working at a fast food restaraunt much less representing our country."

David clearly does need to turn to religion for comfort: "Now, if only 'humans' could be satisfied with simply living a full life; working hard; having some fun...then dying. The End.This planet would be truly better off. You live. You Die. That's it. Period.Now, Have a Good Day."

But Karl Engels tried to prove that spirituality and common sense do not always cancel each other out:  "From what I can tell this movie is meant only to mock religion by interviewing some of it's wackiest subscribers. Finding and interviewing a jesus freak, ignorant catholic or screaming muslim isn't that hard or creative."

dave wrote: "Many of the posters seem to believe that if we could simply eliminate religion, we'd somehow eliminate many of the supposed problems that come from such belief. But kids... think with me here: IF it is US that invented it, then the problem is with US. Eliminate religion and humans will find some other motive to misbehave."

In fact, all of the self-described religious readers kept their arguments on the rational side, mostly taking issue with Maher's comedic methods rather than his anti-religious stance. Do you think that the concept of "Religulous" is indeed an irreverent one, or do the super-devoted just make for super easy laughing targets? 

--Amy Silverstein

Photo by Alexandra Lambrinidis/Lionsgate