Supreme Court to Decide If WWI Cross Must Be Removed

[Route 45]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pe...k-supreme-court-fight-over-religious-displays

"The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the American Jewish Committee are among those backing the memorial's removal. But 109 members of Congress and 28 states are among those filing briefs in support of the veterans."

This should be interesting to watch. Surprised that this challenge wasn't brought forth by an atheist group.

 

[historian]

This should be interesting to watch. Surprised that this challenge wasn't brought forth by an atheist group.

Optics matter. I'm sure that they are bankrolling a large portion of it. The Baptist Joint Committee is like the anti-ERLC.

 

[JettaKnight]

Optics matter. I'm sure that they are bankrolling a large portion of it. The Baptist Joint Committee is like the anti-ERLC.

Never heard of them, going to have to investigate...

Here's my take: If this cross can't stand because it's "religious" then every amoral singer, actor, model, etc. wearing a cross in any form must take it off (incl. tattoos).

 

[Route 45]

Never heard of them, going to have to investigate...

Here's my take: If this cross can't stand because it's "religious" then every amoral singer, actor, model, etc. wearing a cross in any form must take it off (incl. tattoos).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that jewelry and tattoos are slightly different than monuments on government property.

 

[Denny347]

Optics matter. I'm sure that they are bankrolling a large portion of it. The Baptist Joint Committee is like the anti-ERLC.

Why? There is enough religious intolerance by other religions that we don't need to find something that isn't there.

 

[Denny347]

https://bjconline.org/ Darn Baptists making trouble

 

[printcraft]

In before some ****up wants to dig up the bodies because they are an environmental hazard on "government property".

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

Meh. I think there's clear issues of separation of church and state, but this doesn't seem like that much of a fight worth fighting for. Even from a small-government point of view, it costs money to take it down plus I would be worried about grievances from family members of the buried that may have drawn some significant meaning or connection to that cross. And to what real benefit?

Plus, according to the article, the structure's fundraising and building was "spearheaded by Gold Star mothers of Prince George's County, Md., who lost their sons to battle, it honors 49 men, including four African-American soldiers and a Medal of Honor recipient. It was completed in 1925, built by members of local American Legion posts with private donations. It was later rededicated as a memorial to honor all American veterans."

This seems like a strong reason to keep it up, in my opinion.

The anti-statue side has the main motivation of being against the prioritization Christians and not including other groups. Well, yeah, it was a group of Christian families that created it. Instead of "suggesting the memorial either be moved to private property or redesigned" why not just organize groups to fund-raise for and build a similar statue in honor of the groups/veterans that people feel are disrespected by this non-secular statue? Or would that be another separation of religion and state issue?

 

[indyblue]

I don't get what the problem everyone has with religious "symbols" or "monuments" and the gov. The constitution only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

How does a statue or monument (like x-mas trees, menorahs, etc.) violate the "separation of religion and state"? It doesn't say Gov can't have anything to do with religion or display religious artifacts, it just says "shall make no law" based on religion.

Someone has twisted the constitution to mean something it never says. I don't see the problem with the gov allowing religious displays on gov property, they aren't laws.

Call me confused!

 

[JettaKnight]

https://bjconline.org/ Darn Baptists making trouble

This what happens when they don't allow outlets for creativity and energy, aka dancing.

It's 90+ year old cross that they want removed?

An embarrassment.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pe...k-supreme-court-fight-over-religious-displays

"The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the American Jewish Committee are among those backing the memorial's removal. But 109 members of Congress and 28 states are among those filing briefs in support of the veterans."

This should be interesting to watch. Surprised that this challenge wasn't brought forth by an atheist group.

Oh, they're involved...

""There is an unfairness of suggesting that a cross could represent all veterans when clearly not all veterans are Christians," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, which opposes the cross on public land"

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't get what the problem everyone has with religious "symbols" or "monuments" and the gov. The constitution only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

How does a statue or monument (like x-mas trees, menorahs, etc.) violate the "separation of religion and state"? It doesn't say Gov can't have anything to do with religion or display religious artifacts, it just says "shall make no law" based on religion.

Someone has twisted the constitution to mean something it never says. I don't see the problem with the gov allowing religious displays on gov property, they aren't laws.

Call me confused!

^^^This^^^ The whole "separation of church and state" thing was from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, NOT the Constitution.

 

[Denny347]

Oh, they're involved...

""There is an unfairness of suggesting that a cross could represent all veterans when clearly not all veterans are Christians," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, which opposes the cross on public land"

But the Baptist and Jewish organizations get a pass? They are taking up an idiotic cause but THEY represent secular AND religious organizations.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

But the Baptist and Jewish organizations get a pass? They are taking up an idiotic cause but THEY represent secular AND religious organizations.

No, my point was in reply to Surprised that this challenge wasn't brought forth by an atheist group. Nobody gets a pass. They're all wrong when it comes to this issue. However, if you can show me in the Constitution the "separation of Church and State" wording, I'll be happy to reconsider. Nobody's been able to do it so far, but you're welcome to try.

 

[Herr Vogel]

There's a word for this and that word is iconoclasm.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There's a word for this and that word is iconoclasm.

Okay, I had to google that, but I agree.

i·con·o·clasm[h=3]Dictionary result for iconoclasm[/h]
/īˈkänəˌklazəm/
noun
noun: iconoclasm

• 1.
  the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical; the doctrine of iconoclasts.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Jt22453]

I will never understand why something must be torn down from a hundreds of years ago because it is not all inclusive. Our country was not all inclusive at the time and this particular monument wasn’t made for everyone, it was made by Christian families for their loved ones. If it was blatantly obscene I could see some censorship, maybe. It is a cross. Leave our history alone and if they want to be included, let them find a way to honor their own instead of tearing down other people’s heritage. Let it go back to being a monument to the 49 or whatever. Waste of time and money. This stuff pisses me off. I couldn’t care less if someone put up a Star of David 100 years ago to honor their deceased loved ones even in a govt. cemetery. Doesn’t hurt anyone but people have to get on their soapbox and ***** about some injustice being done to them. Bull****. Let’s just put a big dong up instead since they were all men and they had a dong. All inclusive,right?

 

[KLB]

Such a stupid case and colossal waste of time. The cross hurts no one, and does not force anyone to believe anything. I hope the USSC rules in favor of the cross staying.

 

[Route 45]

No, my point was in reply to Surprised that this challenge wasn't brought forth by an atheist group. Nobody gets a pass. They're all wrong when it comes to this issue. However, if you can show me in the Constitution the "separation of Church and State" wording, I'll be happy to reconsider. Nobody's been able to do it so far, but you're welcome to try.

I don't see any specific prohibitions on rape and murder in the Constitution. It's almost as if the Constitution is not the whole body of law. Maybe the founding fathers should have set up a special branch of government to interpret things.

 

[Route 45]

I will never understand why something must be torn down from a hundreds of years ago because it is not all inclusive. Our country was not all inclusive at the time and this particular monument wasn’t made for everyone, it was made by Christian families for their loved ones. If it was blatantly obscene I could see some censorship, maybe. It is a cross. Leave our history alone and if they want to be included, let them find a way to honor their own instead of tearing down other people’s heritage. Let it go back to being a monument to the 49 or whatever. Waste of time and money. This stuff pisses me off. I couldn’t care less if someone put up a Star of David 100 years ago to honor their deceased loved ones even in a govt. cemetery. Doesn’t hurt anyone but people have to get on their soapbox and ***** about some injustice being done to them. Bull****. Let’s just put a big dong up instead since they were all men and they had a dong. All inclusive,right?

I'll mostly agree with you. I am against putting up new religious monuments to honor "all" veterans, because not all veterans are of one religion. But this particular monument was originally erected to honor the 49 veterans who died in WWI. It's a historical monument, and the cross has the American Legion crest on it, which I'm not sure Jesus was a member of.

If the problem was that the monument was being maintained with tax money, the city should have the option to maybe sell or lease the land to the American Legion, or to another private group. I'm betting the Supreme Court makes a narrow ruling on this particular monument without addressing religious monuments on public land in general. I think that the wailing and gnashing of teeth about tearing down monuments at Arlington is just so much histrionics.

That being said, I'm betting there would be a different take on taxpayer money being used to maintain an Islamic monument on public land.