-
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!
The Cross STAYS - Sanity from the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Honestly, I don't see this as conceptually different from the Taliban blowing up those ancient Buddha statues.
Those statues were vastly older and cooler than the monument in question here. But it's the same concept.
Tom
its not amazing the energy people will waste on the dead even while the living go without the basic necessities.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I dont think thats bad. "Grandfathering" the one in since its already there anyways, but prohibiting any more.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
I am fine with it too, it demonstrates a good balance in the decision.
It is the lives of the dead that gives us the freedom of today to help with the basic necessities.
I believe that they do. Why wouldn't they?
The big problem with that cross is that it is supported by the taxpayers. A little sticky, but I still like to preserve the heritage. Even when I disagree with some of the assumptions of the original creators. Similarly, I enjoy Handels "Messiah" and Gospel music and Renaissance paintings and, well, a ton of stuff with religious overtones.
Tom
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Finally! SCOTUS makes sense.
Please copy and paste where the decision states that. Thank you.
Indeed. It's a tragic state of affairs when a group claiming Humanist values thinks a cross memorializing soldiers and the ultimate sacrifice for this country, when living veterans were denied so much by our government till Trump, argue they're not entitled to their religious expression even when they're dead.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, founded by an ex-Evangelical "pastor", and that Humanist group in the article, intend to remove all religious symbols from America if they can.
Their argument for separation of church and state isn't actually valid. But until they're challenged by the IRS for their tax exempt organization's effort to vacate the civil rights of the religious in America so as to have that 501(c)3 tax exemption revoked, they'll stay in the money and enemies of liberty.
But not today!
Skwim
Veteran Member
.
.
FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
"Supreme Court: Giant Christian Cross on Public Land is Legal Because It’s Old
The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 that the Blandensburg “Peace Cross” is constitutional, though that resolution comes with a variety of caveats. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented fully with the majority.
There are a lot of parts to this, so let’s go in order.
The case of The American Legion v. American Humanist Association involved the 40-foot-tall “Peace Cross” (a.k.a. the Bladensburg Cross), a World War I memorial in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
While supporters of the cross said it was a perfectly legal war memorial, the AHA argued that it was really just a giant advertisement for Christianity — maintained using taxpayer dollars via the Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission — and any reasonable person looking at the cross would agree.
The question the Supreme Court had to answer was this: “Does the Establishment Clause allow the government to permanently and prominently commemorate Christian veterans — and only Christian veterans — by funding, maintaining, using, and displaying a massive concrete Latin cross in the center of a heavily-trafficked intersection at the entrance of town?” The AHA said the answer was no — and that a decision against them would be a mistake — for the following reasons:
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito looked to the historical nature of this monument, saying that “established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices” should get a pass. He admits this is a Giant Christian Cross, but bizarrely claims it’s now “indisputably secular,” as if the religious identity of the GIANT CHRISTIAN CROSS has been obscured over time.
He also says that trying to neutralize the problem now could be perceived as anti-religious. So Christians get a victory by the very nature of having done something illegal a long time ago — and if we try to fix the problem now, it would hurt their feelings. Christians are the real victims in all this. Right…
What about the Lemon Test? Alito ignores it here precisely because of the supposed historical nature of this Cross, as if the passage of time renders the test unusable.
In essence, he’s saying there’s no longer anything explicitly Christian about this Giant Christian Cross. The Religious Right may like the conclusion he reaches, but they’re celebrating today because they know this case is about preserving Christian privilege. There are lots of winks going around in Christian Right circles today. Oh, this Cross isn’t Christian at all. Nope. Not even close. Hahahahahaha.
source and much more
The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 that the Blandensburg “Peace Cross” is constitutional, though that resolution comes with a variety of caveats. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented fully with the majority.
There are a lot of parts to this, so let’s go in order.
The case of The American Legion v. American Humanist Association involved the 40-foot-tall “Peace Cross” (a.k.a. the Bladensburg Cross), a World War I memorial in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
While supporters of the cross said it was a perfectly legal war memorial, the AHA argued that it was really just a giant advertisement for Christianity — maintained using taxpayer dollars via the Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission — and any reasonable person looking at the cross would agree.
The question the Supreme Court had to answer was this: “Does the Establishment Clause allow the government to permanently and prominently commemorate Christian veterans — and only Christian veterans — by funding, maintaining, using, and displaying a massive concrete Latin cross in the center of a heavily-trafficked intersection at the entrance of town?” The AHA said the answer was no — and that a decision against them would be a mistake — for the following reasons:
1) The Bladensburg Cross violates the Establishment Clause.
The cross is Christian. It’s the symbol everyone associates with Christianity. And if the government is promoting this cross/memorial, it’s aligning itself with a particular religion. That’s illegal.
2) The Bladensburg Cross effectively denigrates the contributions of non-Christian veterans.
If this really is meant to be a war memorial, then using a Christian symbol sends the message that non-Christians who sacrificed their lives for this country need not be memorialized. Supporters may argue the memorial represents all veterans, but the symbol they’re using is not some universal symbol of sacrifice. It’s a symbol of one particular religion. Obviously.
3) A victory for the government would be bad news for Christians.
If this cross is declared legal, think about what that would mean: The Supreme Court would basically be saying the cross is not a uniquely Christian symbol but rather some generic symbol representing death. In other words, when you see the cross, don’t think of Jesus. The devout Christians who treat the cross seriously would likely take offense to that. The AHA says a ruling in favor of the government, for this reason, would be a “Pyrrhic victory” for Christians.
4) The fact that this Cross has been up for decades doesn’t make it legal.
History and tradition aren’t good reasons to let something illegal slide. The Supreme Court has even said as much when it comes to Establishment Clause cases. Hell, they struck down forced prayer in public schools even though we’d been doing that for a long time.
5) The Cross isn’t merely some passive display.
Supporters of the memorial argue that it doesn’t “force” you to become a Christian, so what’s the big deal? The AHA says that’s irrelevant. This is a giant cross in the middle of a busy intersection. The Supreme Court has previously said a smaller cross atop city hall was already “extreme” and an “obvious” violation of the law… so this has to be worse, right? In addition, groups have used the Bladensburg Cross as the centerpiece for “Town-sponsored events that include Christian prayer.” So don’t say it’s just a passive symbol.
6) Saying the Bladensburg Cross is illegal would not affect other Christian war memorials.
Despite rumblings to the contrary, there are very few stand-alone giant cross memorials on public property. This one is uniquely illegal.
7) The Lemon Test is a good way to analyze the legality of religious displays, and we don’t want to mess that up.
The “Lemon Test” was established by the Supreme Court in 1971 as a way to objectively decide whether a religious statute violates the law. It says the statute must be secular in nature, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and not create some excessive entanglement between church and state. If any of those prongs are violated, the statute is illegal.
The Bladensburg Cross advances Christianity. You could even say it creates entanglement between church and state. Therefore, it violates the Lemon Test. To say the cross is legal would mean throwing away the Lemon Test and a standard that has worked for several decades. Why mess with something that’s not broken?
8) No one’s asking for the Bladensburg Cross to be destroyed.
While one possible solution is to remove the “arms” of the cross and create a secular “obelisk” memorial, the AHA would be perfectly fine with it being moved to private property.
I would also note that one of the amicus briefs in the case raised another concern: Standing.
While the government wanted this case judged on its merits, many of their advocates wanted the case dismissed on the grounds that the people suing don’t really have legal justification for doing so. In response, a number of law professors told the Court to ignore that line of thinking because dismissing the case on those grounds would ruin the whole concept of standing with regards to illegal religious displays.
The cross is Christian. It’s the symbol everyone associates with Christianity. And if the government is promoting this cross/memorial, it’s aligning itself with a particular religion. That’s illegal.
2) The Bladensburg Cross effectively denigrates the contributions of non-Christian veterans.
If this really is meant to be a war memorial, then using a Christian symbol sends the message that non-Christians who sacrificed their lives for this country need not be memorialized. Supporters may argue the memorial represents all veterans, but the symbol they’re using is not some universal symbol of sacrifice. It’s a symbol of one particular religion. Obviously.
3) A victory for the government would be bad news for Christians.
If this cross is declared legal, think about what that would mean: The Supreme Court would basically be saying the cross is not a uniquely Christian symbol but rather some generic symbol representing death. In other words, when you see the cross, don’t think of Jesus. The devout Christians who treat the cross seriously would likely take offense to that. The AHA says a ruling in favor of the government, for this reason, would be a “Pyrrhic victory” for Christians.
4) The fact that this Cross has been up for decades doesn’t make it legal.
History and tradition aren’t good reasons to let something illegal slide. The Supreme Court has even said as much when it comes to Establishment Clause cases. Hell, they struck down forced prayer in public schools even though we’d been doing that for a long time.
5) The Cross isn’t merely some passive display.
Supporters of the memorial argue that it doesn’t “force” you to become a Christian, so what’s the big deal? The AHA says that’s irrelevant. This is a giant cross in the middle of a busy intersection. The Supreme Court has previously said a smaller cross atop city hall was already “extreme” and an “obvious” violation of the law… so this has to be worse, right? In addition, groups have used the Bladensburg Cross as the centerpiece for “Town-sponsored events that include Christian prayer.” So don’t say it’s just a passive symbol.
6) Saying the Bladensburg Cross is illegal would not affect other Christian war memorials.
Despite rumblings to the contrary, there are very few stand-alone giant cross memorials on public property. This one is uniquely illegal.
7) The Lemon Test is a good way to analyze the legality of religious displays, and we don’t want to mess that up.
The “Lemon Test” was established by the Supreme Court in 1971 as a way to objectively decide whether a religious statute violates the law. It says the statute must be secular in nature, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and not create some excessive entanglement between church and state. If any of those prongs are violated, the statute is illegal.
The Bladensburg Cross advances Christianity. You could even say it creates entanglement between church and state. Therefore, it violates the Lemon Test. To say the cross is legal would mean throwing away the Lemon Test and a standard that has worked for several decades. Why mess with something that’s not broken?
8) No one’s asking for the Bladensburg Cross to be destroyed.
While one possible solution is to remove the “arms” of the cross and create a secular “obelisk” memorial, the AHA would be perfectly fine with it being moved to private property.
I would also note that one of the amicus briefs in the case raised another concern: Standing.
While the government wanted this case judged on its merits, many of their advocates wanted the case dismissed on the grounds that the people suing don’t really have legal justification for doing so. In response, a number of law professors told the Court to ignore that line of thinking because dismissing the case on those grounds would ruin the whole concept of standing with regards to illegal religious displays.
THE DECISION
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito looked to the historical nature of this monument, saying that “established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices” should get a pass. He admits this is a Giant Christian Cross, but bizarrely claims it’s now “indisputably secular,” as if the religious identity of the GIANT CHRISTIAN CROSS has been obscured over time.
He also says that trying to neutralize the problem now could be perceived as anti-religious. So Christians get a victory by the very nature of having done something illegal a long time ago — and if we try to fix the problem now, it would hurt their feelings. Christians are the real victims in all this. Right…
What about the Lemon Test? Alito ignores it here precisely because of the supposed historical nature of this Cross, as if the passage of time renders the test unusable.
In essence, he’s saying there’s no longer anything explicitly Christian about this Giant Christian Cross. The Religious Right may like the conclusion he reaches, but they’re celebrating today because they know this case is about preserving Christian privilege. There are lots of winks going around in Christian Right circles today. Oh, this Cross isn’t Christian at all. Nope. Not even close. Hahahahahaha.
source and much more
Last edited:
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Go read the decision. I won't do your homework for you. Google is at your fingertips.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Just remind them: their " win" came at the cost of thier most sacred and cherrished symbol. Its not thiers anymore. Use it anywhere, everywhere, for every thing. Its not Christian anymore. Cross vibrators, anyone?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I don't see anything wrong with a decades old memorial to the dead that isn't of a proselytizing nature. It would only become an issue for me if a similar war memorial albeit for a different faith was denied - something like this: The Satanic Temple Veterans’ Monument
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Cool! We had the first to protect such things, but the Cross is now no longer Christian so that is not blasphemous or profane.
Shad
Veteran Member
She can not understand the difference between establish and endorse. That says a lot
I've eaten it all.
Nothing left for ceremonial purposes.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ginsburg is extremely brilliant, but that doesn't translate out that she's omnipotent or that one cannot disagree with her.
Why is it that some here can't disagree with someone else without tearing them down? I hate to say this but it seems those with less knowledge are the ones that typically refer to others that they disagree with as being ignorant, and yet I would suggest that no member of the SCOTUS is likely to be ignorant.
Why is it that some here can't disagree with someone else without tearing them down? I hate to say this but it seems those with less knowledge are the ones that typically refer to others that they disagree with as being ignorant, and yet I would suggest that no member of the SCOTUS is likely to be ignorant.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
"Forgive them father, for they know not what..." *muffled*