U.S Supreme Court Rules to Allow a 40 Foot Christian Cross to Remain on State Property

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

 

[bodecea]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Atheists have all the nothing symbols they need, why bother with a cross?

Oh, look up in the sky, it's nothing and that perfectly expresses my atheist religion beliefs

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

"Come to papa"

 

[Correll]

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

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.

And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

On noes,
The Sky is falling Chicken Little.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

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.

Perhaps some sort of grandfather clause could or should be invoked in this case.

agree

 

[Auld Phart]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

Why?

to create the disharmony needed to get the cross taken down?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Atheists have all the nothing symbols they need, why bother with a cross?

Oh, look up in the sky, it's nothing and that perfectly expresses my atheist religion beliefs

Atheism is not the absence of belief

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

Time to put some other religious symbols up there next to it.....

Why?

to create the disharmony needed to get the cross taken down?

No, to give everyone equal time

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

On noes,
The Sky is falling Chicken Little.

Who are you talking to and who said that the sky is falling?

 

[rightwinger]

I generally oppose Christian symbols on public land

But given the historical context of when it was placed, I’m OK with it

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.

You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:

The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019

And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

 

[Correll]

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

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.

And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.

You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:

The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019

And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

The lie of multiculturalism, is that all cultures were be respected and live together in harmony, and equally.


Now we see that was a lie. Traditional American culture is being targeted.


We were tolerant, and nice, and generous. And people like you, are using it to destroy US.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Atheists have all the nothing symbols they need, why bother with a cross?

Oh, look up in the sky, it's nothing and that perfectly expresses my atheist religion beliefs

Atheism is not the absence of belief

But they very troubled about others belief systems. Thankfully we're not in some ME shithole where they behead you for not being a good Muslim

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

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.

So when the Obama's put the Rainbow Colors on the White House was that putting atheist or Satanic symbol on a government building?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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

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.

And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.

You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:

The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019

And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

Tradition back then wasn't putting a dick in another man's ass. Sorry but that shit started full force just after the sexual revolution not the American revolution.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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.

And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.

You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:

The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019

And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

Tradition back then wasn't putting a dick in another man's ass. Sorry but that shit started full force just after the sexual revolution not the American revolution.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

And again, multiculturalism is shown to be a lie. It is about destroying Traditional American culture and replacing it with secular progressive shit.

You want to talk about tradition ? THIS is our tradition:

The First Amendment. Text of Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Mar 28 2019

And what is the lie of multiculturalism??

The lie of multiculturalism, is that all cultures were be respected and live together in harmony, and equally.


Now we see that was a lie. Traditional American culture is being targeted.


We were tolerant, and nice, and generous. And people like you, are using it to destroy US.

Complete and utter horseshit but exactly what I what I have come to expect from you. No one is out to destroy anything. In your bizarre mind, you believe that someone else's gain has to be your loss . You believe that rights is a zero sum game just like the way you think that gay rights is destroying traditional marriage.

In any case, the issue here is that of a religious symbol on government property. It's an interesting issue and you might of noticed I took a rather neutral stand on it given the circumstances. Perhaps you might be able to come up with a reasonable and appropriate comment and dispense with your incessant, paranoid whining and bloviating about the destruction of tradition.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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.

So when the Obama's put the Rainbow Colors on the White House was that putting atheist or Satanic symbol on a government building?

No it wasn’t