Thumbs Up: Court Rules the Old Rugged Cross Must Come Down

[Skwim]

"An old, rugged cross that has stood on public land in a Washington, D.C., suburb for almost a century has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (Oct. 18) that the so-called Peace Cross violates the establishment clause of the Constitution with “excessive religious entanglement.”

“The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” the court wrote in a 33-page opinion. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds.”

The cross is planted in the town of Bladensburg, a short drive from the U.S. Capitol, at the intersection of a state road and a federal road, and commemorates World War I veterans.
source
​

Slowly but surely.

.

 

[Kemosloby]

There's only one cross that saves souls and that one isn't it.

 

[danieldemol]

I have to wonder when a thing begins to have heritage value, after all you presumably wouldn't take down the sphynx of Egypt and the Taliban were considered silly in the eyes of many western folk for their destruction of historical Buddha statues.
Maybe it has to have tourists to be worth saving *shrugs*?

 

[columbus]

I have to wonder when a thing begins to have heritage value, after all you presumably wouldn't take down the sphynx of Egypt and the Taliban were considered silly in the eyes of many western folk for their destruction of historical Buddha statues.
Maybe it has to have tourists to be worth saving *shrugs*?

I am really kinda with Daniel here.
I think (based solely on the pic) that's it's a cool old thing more than an offensive statement of some sort. It's supporters would have done well to find private money for the upkeep, though.
But I like it. Sorta like the statue in Rio.
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

If it's purpose was solely to commemorate the dead rather than to make a religious statement, I could make an exception. Think about tombstones with religious imagery in public cemeteries. Surely making an exception for those would go without saying.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have to wonder when a thing begins to have heritage value, after all you presumably wouldn't take down the sphynx of Egypt and the Taliban were considered silly in the eyes of many western folk for their destruction of historical Buddha statues.
Maybe it has to have tourists to be worth saving *shrugs*?

That's an excellent point. I think these matters shouldn't be retroactive. We're talking a century here so there's no question as to its historical value as a landmark. It's earned its place by way of establishment.

It should be left where it is, avoid the crap that's already going on with similar things and direct this kind of mentality toward future projects involving religious imagery and such.

 

[Father]

you know what. no. keep it. just paint a pentagram in the center of it and we will call it even.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have to wonder when a thing begins to have heritage value, after all you presumably wouldn't take down the sphynx of Egypt and the Taliban were considered silly in the eyes of many western folk for their destruction of historical Buddha statues.
Maybe it has to have tourists to be worth saving *shrugs*?

As far as the government goes, it's not a part of our heritage, it was a fluke when it did start to go that way, and we are slowly steering the state back to secularism where it rightfully and properly belongs. America has always been a place of mixed demographs, and a cross does not represent our political heritage, making it inappropriate for public lands.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There's only one cross that saves souls and that one isn't it.

Good point.

I would say the issue should be looked at broader. In the various things the government does, there are many secularly promoted and funded things such as Cosmos which was aggressively atheistic and government funded and so... in the sphere of the public forum since the government funds secular and atheistic things funding something which actually may have to do more with honoring the largely Christians lost in war it may be reasonable to keep it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Cosmos which was aggressively atheistic and government funded

What was "aggressively atheist" about either the original or the reboot? The beliefs of both Sagan and Tyson (the hosts of the original and reboot, respectively) go much deeper than tradition bipolar black/white understandings of atheism and theism, and Tyson himself is very adamant and insistent that he is not an atheist as that does not describe his views, preferring instead the term agnostic as something that comes close.
I'm also not sure if the government funded Cosmos. You'll need to provide a link for that.

in the sphere of the public forum since the government funds secular and atheistic things funding something which actually may have to do more with honoring the largely Christians lost in war it may be reasonable to keep it.

They weren't fighting to defend Christianity or Christian values. Yes, most probably were, but not all, and those who were not should not be remembered as something they were not. If anything, why not mark them with the symbols of the branch they served? That does, after all, represent all those who died as well as those who fought and died with them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it's purpose was solely to commemorate the dead rather than to make a religious statement, I could make an exception. Think about tombstones with religious imagery in public cemeteries. Surely making an exception for those would go without saying.

Religious imagery on tombstones - and war monuments - is meant to denote the religious beliefs of the deceased who they commemorate.

A cross on a tombstone says "this soldier was a Christian." As long as the soldier really was Christian, fair enough.

A cross on a war monument says "all of these soldiers were Christian" or "these soldiers were in the army of a Christian nation" or "these soldiers died for the cause of Christianity." None of these messages are appropriate in a secular nation.

Religious imagery on a public monument is a government endorsement of religion. Religious imagery on one soldier's tombstone is not.

 

[sayak83]

"An old, rugged cross that has stood on public land in a Washington, D.C., suburb for almost a century has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (Oct. 18) that the so-called Peace Cross violates the establishment clause of the Constitution with “excessive religious entanglement.”

“The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” the court wrote in a 33-page opinion. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds.”

The cross is planted in the town of Bladensburg, a short drive from the U.S. Capitol, at the intersection of a state road and a federal road, and commemorates World War I veterans.
source​

Slowly but surely.

.

Looks like a nice looking historical cross. Why remove it?

 

[Skwim]

Looks like a nice looking historical cross. Why remove it?

It's agin' the law. Read the OP.

.

.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wwhy do Americans even consider destroying their heritage,

 

[Skwim]

Wwhy do Americans even consider destroying their heritage,

Because not all heritage is worthy of keeping, such as items deemed unconstitutional by a federal court. Think Germany should have kept its statues and monuments glorifying the Nazi regime?

How about the monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest, slave dealer and first Imperial Wizard of the KKK, in Selma, AL,

.

.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

funding something which actually may have to do more with honoring the largely Christians lost in war it may be reasonable to keep it.

There are plenty of ways to honour soldiers, many of which were Christians, without effectively giving a big middle finger to the non-Christian soldiers who died alongside them.

 

[Skwim]

I would say the issue should be looked at broader. In the various things the government does, there are many secularly promoted and funded things such as Cosmos which was aggressively atheistic and government funded

What is this Cosmos you mention, which was "aggressively atheistic"?

and so... in the sphere of the public forum since the government funds secular and atheistic things funding something which actually may have to do more with honoring the largely Christians lost in war it may be reasonable to keep it.

Was being a member of a religion, in this case Christianity, germane to their service in the armed forces?

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What is this Cosmos you mention, which was "aggressively atheistic"?


Was being a member of a religion, in this case Christianity, germane to their service in the armed forces?

.

you never saw Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' ... definitely took atheistic stances
and funded by government aid

 

[Shadow Wolf]

you never saw Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' ... definitely took atheistic stances

Where? When?

 

[sayak83]

It's agin' the law. Read the OP.

.

.

So, if USA had a Mayan pyramid, the government should tear it down instead of spending money to preserve it, as it represents the religion of the Mayans?