Religion

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts) Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:01 AM Jun 2019

Supreme Court rules 'peace cross' in Maryland can remain.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/supreme-court-maryland-world-war-i-memorial-cross/index.html

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said on Thursday that a 40-foot cross on public land in Maryland that was built to honor fallen soldiers in World War I does not violate the separation between church and state and can remain standing.

Although the justices differed on their rationales for upholding the cross, Justice Samuel Alito, writing the opinion of the Court in part, based his conclusions on the fact that the cross "carries special significance in commemorating World War 1."

"The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent," Alito said.

Alito stressed that the monument is a "place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our nation."

I notice Alito didn't talk about MOVING the cross to private property where it belongs.
Once again, I stand with Ginsburg.

Edit: I note in the video the reporter has developed some sort of verbal tic around 'PEACE CROSS' like they've found some magic key/mantra to finally getting through the Wall of Separation.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules 'peace cross' in Maryland can remain. (Original Post) AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 OP

Peace cross? SHRED Jun 2019 #1

One more step on the road to theocracy. nt procon Jun 2019 #2

I have mixed feelings on this issue Cartoonist Jun 2019 #3

I would accept a one-time government expenditure to move the cross to whatever private land/owner AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #4

The fact that it was built originally on private land customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #5

The side protrusions on the cross, and the central supports. AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #6

Then either a private group raises funding to deal with that customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #7

I haven't read it. AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #8

I, too, am an atheist customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #9

Horrible decision. Voltaire2 Jun 2019 #10

SHRED

(28,136 posts)

1. Peace cross?

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:03 AM

Jun 2019

How Orwellian for a symbol of torture and death.

procon

(15,805 posts)

2. One more step on the road to theocracy. nt

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:08 AM

Jun 2019

Cartoonist

(7,507 posts)

3. I have mixed feelings on this issue

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:10 AM

Jun 2019

I would oppose new construction of religious symbols, but acknowledge historical monuments on a case by case basis.

I would not welcome a universal ban on such as I fear some religious nut jobs would then use it to remove native American Totem poles.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)

4. I would accept a one-time government expenditure to move the cross to whatever private land/owner

Reply to Cartoonist (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:15 AM

Jun 2019

agrees to upkeep and display it for... dunno, 100 years or whatever. Sort of like transferring a cultural icon that the government owns, to the Smithsonian, or something like that.

Especially since the cross was originally on private land, and was eminent domain-ed due to the construction of a freeway.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)

5. The fact that it was built originally on private land

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:26 AM

Jun 2019

is key to this. As for so-called expenses of maintaining it, what maintenance would a non-mechanical solid structure need anyway? The grass around it would have to be mowed no matter what.