Agnostic.com

13 4

The U.S. Supreme Court has an easy call to make over the constitutionality of a 40-foot concrete cross on governmental land in Bladensburg, Md. Oral arguments are being heard on Wednesday, Feb. 27, over this fraught challenge.

One would expect to find a Christian cross — the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity — on public property in a Christian theocracy, not in a country that was first among nations to separate religion from government.

Read the rest by clicking below.
[ffrf.org]

AtheistNews 6 Feb 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The Surpreme Court rules that no one has been crucified on that particular cross so it does not count or something like that.

0

Take that down! What does it mean? Suppose that Jesus was electrocuted and the emblem was then an electric chair. No, I'm not making fun. I'm making sense. What does this mean?

2

As Animal Farm notes and Trump/GOP demand, some pigs are more equal than others

1

Well, they blew it, anyway. NPR reported that they found in favor of letting it remain.

Huh? A decision in the case isn't expected until June.

@AtheistNews I must have misheard the story's lead, then. Plus, one of the people in support of it remaining was expressing relief about what they characterized as a decision. My apologies.

@GinaMaria NP. I want to read more but from what I understand the majority on the court was asking questions that would lead to the conclusion they were going to everything they could to keep the cross where it is. I wouldn't be surprised if they accomplish keeping it but I wonder what mental gymnastics they will use to justify it. It's not going to be easy for them.

3

I believe that ANY religious icon or word needs to be removed from any public land. Our (USA) government, and any land owned or managed by our government, has absolutely NO business displaying anything of a religious nature. I have mixed feelings about things of historical value, but still, at no point in this nation's development should any religious items have been displayed or condoned. There are myriad other manners in which we could honor whatever is being remembered, a christian cross should never have been erected in the first place. Anywhere!

0

As a person not an American I find it funny that America would erase the symbols of black oppression by removing monuments that symbolize the people that want to retain slavery namely in the American South during the American Civil war but would not erase the symbols that show the grab to power of groups of people who want to plaster people in their faces with their religious beliefs even though they are violating both civil and moral rights. Has America and its government been taken over by fanatics and we should rather go to Theist China for global guidance? America seems to be a nation on continous decline while China seems to be moving from strength to strength. Hope I’m wrong on all counts.

Actually, this is an old problem that I think is getting better. Just 50 or so, years ago we had the McCarthyism religious fervor that still lingers, but now the younger generations in the States are much less religious and elections and the laws that come from them should become more secular. Right now secular groups are just beginning to gain the numbers to fight properly. It's slow in coming but personally, I think things are better overall than even 10 or 20 years ago.

Here is a study that says nones (without any specific religion) are the largest "religious" group out of 18-29 year olds. We're heading in the right direction, it's just going to take a while.
[statista.com]

1

It seems like a no-brainer but remember those (especially Kavanaugh) who are now on the court.

And we know for a fact Kavanaugh lied under oath in order to get that seat on the court.

1

I honestly think there are members of the court that will try any workaround they can in order to keep the cross where it is, but cases just like this one have already established a strong separation of state and church.
This is a section of AHA's docket submitted to the supreme court on page 38 and a link to that docket is below.
The formatting issues copying the pdf could not be avoided.

The Court has been unanimous that government-sponsored endorsement of is unconstitutional when the endorsement is sectarian, and this mandate is absolute, even when coercion is present and the practice is longstanding.
I.A.1.Every Member of the Court to consider the question has agreed that a prominent sectarian government display violates the Establishment Clause. Every Justice in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (89) joined an opinion citing a promi-nent Latin cross as an archetypal and “obvious” Estab-lishment Clause violation. Every Justice in Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 5 U.S. 753 (95) agreed that giving preferential access to a Latin cross on government property would violate the Establishment Clause. Every Justice in McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (05) agreed that a solo prominent government display of a sectarian ver-sion of the Ten Commandments would violate the Es-tablishment Clause. And in Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (), the plurality reaffirmed what was said by Justice Kennedy in Allegheny, that the permanent erection of a Latin cross on conspicuous government property violates the Establishment Clause. Justice Alito expressed doubt, moreover, that the Establish-ment Clause would forbid an official World War I cross on the National Mall. Id. at 728 (concurring). I.A.2.Justices of this Court have been unani-mous in recognizing the Latin cross as the preeminent symbol of Christianity. The Circuits have likewise been “ of the obvious” on this point, and have uni-formly found freestanding government cross monu-ments unconstitutional on the grounds that they exalt Christianity.

[supremecourt.gov]

3

They will without a doubt rule in favor of keeping it.

The ruling class is not millionaires and billionaires. The ruling class are the endless amounts of useless middle managers, like the supreme court and other agencies and courts, senate and congress. They constantly rule in their own favor, vote themselves more power and trample on anyone they can get away with trampling on.

Now look where we are.

SCal Level 7 Feb 27, 2019
2

It's be interesting to see how it plays out.

3

Is there a law saying that the cross must be there? If not, then I’m fine with it. There’s much better things to worry about.

The first amendment is very clear that it shouldn't be there.

@AtheistNews I disagree. The first words in the first amendment are “Congress shall make no law...”.

@indirect76 In this case, two legal actions happened in order for this issue to reach where it is today. One, a legal permit was needed to place the cross, to begin with. Two, the cross was legally obtained by the town in order for them to maintain its upkeep, something that has cost the town over $100,000.
If you doubt the meaning of the first amendment and how it applies in this case, the brief points out dozens of similar cases where courts upheld the separation of state and just like is being asked for here. Case history is very clear on this subject.
[supremecourt.gov]

@indirect76 - True, however, they should not encourage NOR allow religious icons of any type...

@AtheistNews You make a convincing argument. If there is precedent for this then, that is a good reason to not allow it. Having just a high school level understanding of the law, my original comment is no doubt flawed.

@indirect76 There generally has been a very good record of rulings in cases like this. The problem is normally when the court finds the plaintiff doesn't have standing. For instance, I object about a ten commandment monument. I have to show the court why I am "injured" over the monument. Quite often courts don't make the government follow the law because it's hard to show standing for the case (how someone is imposed on or injured by the subject of the case).
Most of the time cases like this end because of standing and have nothing to do with the merits of the case. When judges look at the merits there is a very good record of separating state from church. In this case, there are veterans that this cross is supposed to honor that are not christian or object to only honoring christian soldiers so standing was good enough to hear the case.

But from what I understand of the questions asked today the majority of the court is going to try anything they can to keep the cross where it is.

And hey, don't knock a high school education. LOL The only reason I'm even a little bit fluent on this subject is because I have been following and posting about state-church issues for years.

3

[baltimoresun.com]

A COUPLE MORE ARTICLES ON THIS ISSUE.

[deseretnews.com]

iT WILL BE very interesting to see how this vote goes.

3

Removing christian symbols like that one is a sin. Maybe that's the reason god punished our country, sending upon us two horrible plagues: Trump and Pence.

..

@James00346 Ha, Ha, Ha! That's a good one. Reminds me of the "game" he played with Satan in which the poor pawn Job, who never asked to be part in the game, lost everything.

@cogitoergosum

@motrubl4u Not only a work of fiction; a BORING work of fiction.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:299141
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.