• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS To Rule On Legality Of Religious Cross

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday that it will take up a fight over a towering cross in suburban Washington, D.C., a case that invites the court to further define what kind of displays amount to government endorsement of religion.


250px-World_War_I_Memorial%2C_Bladensburg%2C_Maryland_003.JPG
........
Gov-Hogan-Peace-Cross-2-233x350.jpg


The court's rulings have been notoriously erratic in this area, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh's views probably won't differ much from those of Anthony Kennedy, who was willing to tolerate of a lower wall of separation between church and state.

The case involves a challenge to a 40-foot-tall concrete cross at a busy intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland. Completed in 1925, it was built to commemorate 49 servicemen from the county who died in World War I.

In 2012, the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit, claiming that its presence on public land violates the Constitution, amount to a government establishment of religion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia agreed, saying it could not ignore that "for thousands of years the Latin cross has represented Christianity."

Because the government owns the land on which the cross sits and has spent public money to maintain the memorial, the government improperly entangled itself with a particular religion, the appeals court said. A reasonable observer would conclude that the government "either places Christianity above other faiths, views being American and Christian as one in the same, or both."

Defending the cross, the American Legion argues that the memorial was designed to mirror the cross-shaped markers on the graves of American servicemen overseas. In the aftermath of World War I, the group says, crosses became the cultural symbol of the fallen, so the government "may use a cross when commemorating a secular, historical event."

A Supreme Court decision upholding the lower court ruling against the cross would cast doubt on hundreds of similar monuments nationwide that use crosses to commemorate lives lost in war, the American Legion warns.

The case will be argued early next year.
source


Thoughts?

.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The US is the only country of the Western World that agrees on bringing down monuments....:rolleyes:

First the war on statues in the South...now this
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The US is the only country of the Western World that agrees on bringing down monuments....:rolleyes:
Boy, you say it just as if you knew what you're talking about.

In Slovakia monuments to wartime leader Jozef Tiso were removed, and in 2006 the Spanish parliament ordered every commemorative statue of Francisco Franco torn down. In 2005 a monument to Lenin was removed in East Berlin. In1956 Hungarians toppled a monument to Joseph Stalin. And in 2004 a statue of Christopher Columbus standing in Caracas Venezuela was pulled down.

.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The US is the only country of the Western World that agrees on bringing down monuments....:rolleyes:

First the war on statues in the South...now this
The statues in the south you are referring to are not historical artifacts. They aren't even 100 years old. They were created toward the end of the Jim Crow era to frighten southern black people and remind them of 'their place'. They were also mass produced cheap hollow lawn ornaments that dented and bent with the slightest provocation. Why should we preserve them?

Removing war memorial crosses is pretty low on my priority list, even as a long time secular atheist. In fact, I think pushing so hard on things like this makes a more entrenched and toxic discourse and places like Scandinavia and the UK manage to be more secular even with public religious displays.

But the intent of those Southern statues wasn't altruistic. It wasn't about preserving history or remembering those who died. It was just thinly veiled racially motivated threats.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
The statues in the south you are referring to are not historical artifacts. They aren't even 100 years old. They were created toward the end of the Jim Crow era to frighten southern black people and remind them of 'their place'. They were also mass produced cheap hollow lawn ornaments that dented and bent with the slightest provocation. Why should we preserve them?

Removing war memorial crosses is pretty low on my priority list, even as a long time secular atheist. In fact, I think pushing so hard on things like this makes a more entrenched and toxic discourse and places like Scandinavia and the UK manage to be more secular even with public religious displays.

But the intent of those Southern statues wasn't altruistic. It wasn't about preserving history or remembering those who died. It was just thinly veiled racially motivated threats

Agreed!

The vast majority of Confederate monuments, schools, and other memorials were built during eras of American racial conflict, specifically during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (enactment of Jim Crow laws), and also during the 50's and early 60's (Civil Rights movement).

As for the cross, it's removal or erection is low on my priority list as well (Christians walk by faith, not by sight 2 Cor 5:7) but I think with this new conservative court the cross will stay. The problem most of my fellow evangelicals fail to realize is that once you allow the cross on public land there's no stopping someone from demanding a star and crescent moon, while another demands a monument to Satan.

The net effect? Towns will forego the hassle of erecting religious symbols at all.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
lol...I knew it...
whether u guys like it or not, America is culturally a Christian nation. ;)

Whose government is forbidden by law from endorsing religion or granting one or more religions privileged status over any others. If the SCOTUS keeps this up it would be tantamount to establishment of religion (in violation of the Constitution) for a governmental body to deny access to permission for a Pagan monument commemorating the dead, a Muslim one, a Hindu one etc.

If they allow one they have to allow all. That's what a few Christians supporting this will fail to realise until it's too late.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Whose government is forbidden by law from endorsing religion or granting one or more religions privileged status over any others. If the SCOTUS keeps this up it would be tantamount to establishment of religion (in violation of the Constitution) for a governmental body to deny access to a Pagan monument commemorating the dead, a Muslim one, a Hindu one etc.

If they allow one they have to allow all. That's what a few Christians supporting this will fail to realise until it's too late.

That's an absolutely uncontradictible reasoning.
And in fact I would agree on not erecting a monumental cross ex novo, for the reasons you clearly expressed.
But after 70 years a architectonic construction receives the status of "monument that cannot be demolished because part of the national cultural heritage" (at least according to the laws of my country).
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
One question is can we think of a better monument to commemorate the deaths of these particular servicemen? What symbolizes someone who gives their lives for a nation and does not endorse religion? A giant flag? Tablet with a list of names?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The statues in the south you are referring to are not historical artifacts. They aren't even 100 years old. They were created toward the end of the Jim Crow era to frighten southern black people and remind them of 'their place'. They were also mass produced cheap hollow lawn ornaments that dented and bent with the slightest provocation. Why should we preserve them?

Removing war memorial crosses is pretty low on my priority list, even as a long time secular atheist. In fact, I think pushing so hard on things like this makes a more entrenched and toxic discourse and places like Scandinavia and the UK manage to be more secular even with public religious displays.

But the intent of those Southern statues wasn't altruistic. It wasn't about preserving history or remembering those who died. It was just thinly veiled racially motivated threats.
Yeah I guess I can see that. The cross in the second picture is wearing a white hood.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Thoughts?.

Are we concerned that someone will be crucified on it?

A complete waste of taxpayer dollars, IMO. It's already there. It's been there for 93 years. It would cost money to take it down.

If you don't like it, don't look at it.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
.

The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday that it will take up a fight over a towering cross in suburban Washington, D.C., a case that invites the court to further define what kind of displays amount to government endorsement of religion.


250px-World_War_I_Memorial%2C_Bladensburg%2C_Maryland_003.JPG
........
Gov-Hogan-Peace-Cross-2-233x350.jpg


The court's rulings have been notoriously erratic in this area, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh's views probably won't differ much from those of Anthony Kennedy, who was willing to tolerate of a lower wall of separation between church and state.

The case involves a challenge to a 40-foot-tall concrete cross at a busy intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland. Completed in 1925, it was built to commemorate 49 servicemen from the county who died in World War I.

In 2012, the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit, claiming that its presence on public land violates the Constitution, amount to a government establishment of religion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia agreed, saying it could not ignore that "for thousands of years the Latin cross has represented Christianity."

Because the government owns the land on which the cross sits and has spent public money to maintain the memorial, the government improperly entangled itself with a particular religion, the appeals court said. A reasonable observer would conclude that the government "either places Christianity above other faiths, views being American and Christian as one in the same, or both."

Defending the cross, the American Legion argues that the memorial was designed to mirror the cross-shaped markers on the graves of American servicemen overseas. In the aftermath of World War I, the group says, crosses became the cultural symbol of the fallen, so the government "may use a cross when commemorating a secular, historical event."

A Supreme Court decision upholding the lower court ruling against the cross would cast doubt on hundreds of similar monuments nationwide that use crosses to commemorate lives lost in war, the American Legion warns.

The case will be argued early next year.
source
Thoughts?

.

Taking into consideration of the many years and generations the cross stood unabated and unchallenged, we have come to one intolerable generation that wants to rip down just about everything that offends them.

Sign of the times I guess.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
That's an absolutely uncontradictible reasoning.
And in fact I would agree on not erecting a monumental cross ex novo, for the reasons you clearly expressed.
But after 70 years a architectonic construction receives the status of "monument that cannot be demolished because part of the national cultural heritage" (at least according to the laws of my country).

Those laws seem like they're essentially founded on the argument from tradition fallacy. Just because something has always been there doesn't mean it always should be.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Those laws seem like they're essentially founded on the argument from tradition fallacy. Just because something has always been there doesn't mean it always should be.
yeah...I know...here in Rome there are many monuments that certain politicians would want to bring down...those of a certain period (1922-1943)...u know what I mean...:D:D
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Defending the cross, the American Legion argues that the memorial was designed to mirror the cross-shaped markers on the graves of American servicemen overseas. In the aftermath of World War I, the group says, crosses became the cultural symbol of the fallen, so the government "may use a cross when commemorating a secular, historical event."
I am a pretty hardcore secularist, but even I agree with the Legion here.

Through the centuries, a plain cross like that has come to have significance as a symbol of "Rest in Peace" in the USA. I wouldn't be inclined to support new ones. But old ones don't bother me in the slightest, and fighting about them is pointlessly divisive. IMNSHO.
Tom
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Taking into consideration of the many years and generations the cross stood unabated and unchallenged, we have come to one intolerable generation that wants to rip down just about everything that offends them.

Sign of the times I guess.
Bit of an overstatement don't you think?

v
 
Top