TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Here is an interesting First Amendment church-state issue that was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) It’s a contentious issue but even a partisan hack like myself, who is skeptical of all things religious, can see both sides of- Sort of.
Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.
It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.
In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.
Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:
Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.
Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a 40-foot cross honoring soldiers who died in World War I could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. The cross, the court said, did not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.
The decision was fractured, and the seven justices in the majority embraced differing rationales. In all, seven justices filed opinions.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for five justices, said the monument did not primarily convey a religious message.
Well Sam, a Christian cross most certainly does convey a Christian message, and in fact that was the intent when it was dedicated in 1925
At the dedication ceremony, a member of Congress drew on Christian imagery in his keynote speech. “By the token of this cross, symbolic of Calvary,” he said, “let us keep fresh the memory of our boys who died for a righteous cause.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html
Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Ginsburg wrote:
The Latin cross,” she said from the bench, “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the ‘central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.’ The Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith.”
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion, but there are a couple of other facts that gave me pause as to whether or not the cross should be removed.
It has been there a very long time and no doubt is seen by many as a monument to the fallen of WW! As much as or more than a religious symbol. To destroy it would be a slap in the face of the descendants of the deceased.
In addition, at the time that it was dedicated, the land was not state owned- that changed in 1969. Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case. There is a lot more of interest in the article and it is worth a read.
Of course, the crackpots have to weigh in:
Christian Nationalist Claims Constitution Gives Christians More Protection Than Atheists
Dazed and confused: Leading Christian Nationalist David Barton makes the false claim that the U.S. Constitution offers more protection to religious people than non-religious people.
This is the kind of crap that makes me all the more skeptical of religion and religious people. This guy is only reinforcing the idea held by some that religion is irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual. Instead of sticking to the plausible legal and logical arguments for the ruling, he goes off on a Christian Supremacist rant.