A 40-Foot Cross Has Honored War Dead for 90 Years. Is It Unlawful?
BLADENSBURG, Md. — Five miles from the United States Supreme Court, a 40-foot-tall World War I memorial in the shape of a cross has stood for nearly a century. Now, it is at the center of a battle over the separation of church and state that may end up on the court’s docket.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declared this month that the Peace Cross, which sits on state-owned land in Maryland and has been maintained with public funds, was unconstitutional, a ruling that supporters of the monument warned could result in a “cleansing” of memorials on public grounds across the country.
An appeal would provide the justices an opportunity to weigh in on increasingly common disputes over religious symbols on government property. Scholars hope the case will further distill what is and is not an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The Peace Cross, which commemorates 49 fallen soldiers from Prince George’s County, looms over the knotted intersection of Maryland Route 450 and United States Alternate Route 1 in this old port town of 10,000 people. When the sun rises, the cross casts a shadow toward the bank of the Anacostia River, and when it sets, toward an industrial lot housing a King Pawn shop and a boarded-up Kelley’s Muffler.
ADVERTISEMENT
The monument was erected in 1925 with funding from local families and the American Legion, but the state obtained title to the cross and land in 1961, and has spent at least $117,000 to maintain them.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the three-judge panel declared that the Peace Cross violated the First Amendment by having “a primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government and religion.”
Douglas Laycock, a religious liberties scholar and professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, praised the decision.
The cross “asserts the truth of one religion and, implicitly but necessarily, the falsehood of all other religions,” he said. “Its secondary meanings, as in honoring war dead, are entirely derivative of its primary meaning as a symbol of the Resurrection.”
If the Fourth Circuit denies a request for the full court to reconsider the panel’s decision, defenders of the monument vow to take the case to the Supreme Court. They argue that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, threatening national treasures such as the 24-foot Canadian Cross of Sacrifice and 13-foot Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery — both within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction — as well as the ground zero “cross,” the steel beams discovered among World Trade Center debris now on display in the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.
“It is brooding hostility toward religion, a sort of cleansing,” said Kelly Shackelford, the president of First Liberty Institute, one of the legal groups aiding the American Legion in defending the cross. “We would immediately need to begin massive bulldozing and sandblasting of veterans memorials across the country in a way that most people would find inconceivable.”
In his Fourth Circuit dissent, Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, first appointed by President Bill Clinton, argued that the Establishment Clause “does not require the government ‘to purge from the public sphere’ any reference to religion.”
Supporters of the cross also argue that context is vital: The Peace Cross is displayed alongside an American flag, amid a park of memorials for veterans of various wars. Its four sides, they say, are marked prominently with patriotic, not religious, virtues: valor, endurance, courage and devotion. The fallen soldiers are listed on a tablet with a quote from President Woodrow Wilson.
But opponents say it is hardly integrated: No other monument in the area is taller than 10 feet, and there are no other religious symbols in the park. They note that its fallen soldiers’ names are rusted away and obscured by bushes. And the cross has been the site of prayer gatherings as well as Veterans Day vigils — and even such vigils are often opened in prayer.
Two past Supreme Court cases, decided the same day in 2005, may foreshadow the factors that would control the outcome in the Supreme Court.
In McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, officials had authorized the display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses. After pushback, they had modified the exhibits to include Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and other historical documents, arguing that the Ten Commandments were similarly influential in the development of Western legal thought.
The Supreme Court ruled the displays unconstitutional, finding that they had no evident secular purpose. Michael W. McConnell, a constitutional law scholar at Stanford, calls such displays “triumphalism — a flavor of who is top dog.”
In a second case, Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, the court allowed carvings of the Ten Commandments in a Texas State Capitol monument that had been donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a primarily secular group, in 1961. The court cited the donor’s lack of religious intent.
In his Van Orden opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who cast the swing vote in both cases, called the historical factor alone “determinative”: The monument had stood since 1961 without controversy.
The Peace Cross, also donated by a secular group, is almost twice as old as the monument in that case, and has been on public property for a comparable span. If the Supreme Court reviews this one, Mr. McConnell believes it will be squarely governed by Justice Breyer’s opinion.
“I think they thought they were putting this kind of case to rest with Van Orden,” said Mr. McConnell, who has also served as a judge in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Somehow, the Fourth Circuit didn’t get the memo.”
“I think this is a pretty easy case, and I found the Fourth Circuit’s decision quite surprising. If the Supreme Court were to grant review, the likelihood is very high that it would be reversed.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/us/politics/peace-cross-maryland-court-first-amendment.amp.html
Tags
Well, that's who they are and what they do.
It seems quite dishonest of you to post the cover page of the ruling and then post the final paragraph of the dissent rather than of the ruling.
Not really. I provided you with the link to the 48 page PDF file. If you want to know more, click on the link and read it yourself, like I did. Here is the link again.
The monument was erected in 1925
Times change.
Some things never change. There are people who maintain their values and respect for all those who have provided us with the freedoms we love and cherish so much and then there are those who are nothing more than dust in the wind.
Things change . even values people have change.
I know my values have changed as I matured. Probably so have yours.
1925 is a hell of a long time ago, many many things have changed since then for damn sure.
I'll bet no horses and buggies even pass by that "monument " these days . LOL
If it's old tear it down? Don't you respect what other generations found important to them?
Don't you respect what other generations found important to them?
Not near as much as I respect what this generation wants and needs in our modern times. Those people from the past are dead, WTF does it matter what they wanted or saw as important to them back then in today's world ? Remember they are all dead and they don/t care one way or another now anyway.
Whats's much more important to me is how living people feel and think right now, today.
Whats's much more important to me is how living people feel and think right now, today.
So you think the monuments to the past should be torn down and the land used for whatever people need today? Who needs that Lincoln memorial anyway. Tombstones in cemeteries? Why bother? Why bother with funerals. They are dead and don't know if their body is coyote food.
The respect shown those who went before is the same respect shown the living today. Do you really have that little respect for people?
Not near as much as I respect what this generation wants and needs in our modern times. Those people from the past are dead, WTF does it matter what they wanted or saw as important to them back then in today's world ? Remember they are all dead and they don/t care one way or another now anyway.
Well, I guess we now know where you stand on the constitution......
All those people that it's principles were important to are now dead, so what do we care what they thought.....
It's just a piece of parchment, makes good kindling I hear...
Whats's much more important to me is how living people feel and think right now, today.
E.A Those that forget their Past, and have no respect for the Present, have NO place in the Future!
Nice quote but history is replete with examples of people, groups, entire societies that moved on from their past, did not respect their present and went on to positively impact/change their futures.
did not respect their present and went on to positively impact/change their futures.
E.A Lets Examine that in the " Light of Scientific Fact " ::
1 Please show us examples of those that have " Survived " without the GENETIC make up of the PAST and all the " Garbage " that comes with it, and if the GENETIC Damage is irreparable, what does that mean?
2 For Evolutionist, " Survival of the Fittest " means/meant what and how is that Locked in?
3 For History Minded , How many " Empires " Self Destructed " because they Failed to accept what originally made them a " Unit " and Succeeded?
I'm sorry but I don't see what any of your points have to do with what I actually stated. If you have a point/question that is on topic I'd be glad to answer.
Nice quote but history is replete with examples of people, groups, entire societies that moved on from their past, did not respect their present and went on to positively impact/change their futures.
14.1.1.1.… Freefaller replied to Eagle Averro @14.1.1.1.… 9 minutes ago
I'm sorry but I don't see what any of your points have to do with what I actually stated. If you have a point/question that is on topic I'd be glad to answer.
E.A Sorry I can not assist those that forget their own Lines, have a nice day!
Nice quote but history is replete with examples of people, groups, entire societies that moved on from their past, did not respect their present and went on to positively impact/change their futures.
14.1.1.1.… Freefaller replied to Eagle Averro @14.1.1.1.… 9 minutes ago
I'm sorry but I don't see what any of your points have to do with what I actually stated. If you have a point/question that is on topic I'd be glad to answer.
E.A Sorry I can not assist those that forget their own Lines, have a nice day!
So you think the monuments to the past should be torn down and the land used for whatever people need today?
Yes if it's needed. But I don't live in the past either so...
Look back in history, people have built on top of the past for centuries.
Thanks you have a nice day too. Maybe we'll have better communication next time.
Maybe we'll have better communication next time.
E.A Indeed " Hope Reigns Supreme " Take Care :-)
Yes if it's needed.
I hope liberals run on your position in '18!
There are people who maintain their values [no matter how immoral and despicable] and [feign] respect for all those who have provided us with the freedoms we love and cherish [in order to conceal their treasonous goals] so much and then there are those who are nothing more than dust in the wind.
Edited for the sake of truth
The monument was erected in 1925
And that was the year which SCOTUS began the Incorporation Doctrine which applies the Establishment Clause to the states.
fukkin' A
honoring those who gave their life during service to their country has not changed
Why is it necessary to honor soldiers with a religious icon? Is the Vietnam Wall or the statue of soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima less honorable because they are not religious?
90 years ago, the Constitution of the U.S. was in full force, yet, the Cross was allowed.
This is just stirring up stuff for the sake of "making a point". So, alright, you made your point and we hear you.
Let it ride......for 90 years it has not bothered you at all. Why now?
Lol cause a lot of these people haven't been alive for part or most of the last 90 years?
90 years ago, the Constitution of the U.S. was in full force, yet, the Cross was allowed.
That doesn't make it right or constitutionally legal.
This is just stirring up stuff for the sake of "making a point". So, alright, you made your point and we hear you.
Good! Constitutional violations should not be kept silent.
Let it ride......for 90 years it has not bothered you at all. Why now?
What difference does it make?
It makes a hell of a lot difference. Stirring up shit.....let them rest in peace! What goes around comes around!
It makes a hell of a lot difference.
No, it doesn't. Just because it was allowed for all those years doesn't make it constitutional. So, how long does something have to go on without a word before we simply ignore it then? 1 year? 5 years? 10?
Stirring up shit.....let them rest in peace!
They are resting in peace.
What goes around comes around!
What's that supposed to mean?
Stirring up my shit might stir up your shit.....that's what it means.
Let me ask you something. If that cross stays there how will it interfere with your life or anyone else's? Won't you get up the same every morning? Go to work and love your wife and kids like you always do? Will your Mom still love you?
Nothing will change in your life if that cross stays there.
Will your name go on some plaque that you were responsible for this cross being removed? Will there be a band playing and you will be hailed as the new righteous defender of our Constitution?
It is a CROSS that has been there for 90 friggin years!
If you and yours want to take up causes, then, I suggest you start with our homeless and work from there!
Nothing changes if the cross comes down. Except the constitution is then being observed.
Oh, well, hooray! You won what?
A 90 year old cross coming down! Well, aren't we special? We showed them, but long before you were in existence the cross stood and who in the hell did it bother?
Not anyone. My ancestor signed the Constitution and that is not what he intended. Separation of church and state which meant there would be no designated official religion with the federal government. It did not say that religious symbols could not be erected on public land. It meant that unlike Britain there would be no official religion. You could practice whatever religion turned you on without government interference. You want to put up a Jewish symbol or any other symbol....go for it.
That separation of church and state was for the federal government to follow in that they could not decide that they are Protestant or Catholic or any other religion like England did and ran the folks out to come to America.
You folks need to get your facts straight. You have no right to take down that Cross. No one is saying that the Cross represents ALL, but it does represent some. And, that SOME have a right to keep their Cross.
No, it doesn't. Just because it was allowed for all those years doesn't make it constitutional. So, how long does something have to go on without a word before we simply ignore it then? 1 year? 5 years? 10?
There's precedent in other areas of the law - for example, the concepts of estoppel and laches have long acknowledged that if you let a thing go for a long time, it implies that you either endorse the thing, or at the very least, it's not a problem for which you should be dragging people into court.
It did not say that religious symbols could not be erected on public land.
Says who ?
I dont remember seeing ANY references to that in the constitution.
It has not bothered anyone for 90 years. Why make a fuss about it now.
And please don't mumble something about the Constitution.
The LWNJ's still can't understand while they have fallen out favor and keep losing elections.
And now there is another kerfuffle about George Washington's church???
90 years ago the cross was put up on PRIVATE land, now it is on government land, that is the difference, you want to change it then either make the land private again or, put other memorials with other religious symbols to honor the other religions.
90 years ago, the Constitution of the U.S. was in full force, yet, the Cross was allowed.
Actually that's false. The Incorporation Doctrine only first began to be implemented in 1925, so most of the bill of rights still didn't apply to state governments. In fact at that time the states were still free to be quasi-theocracies which enforced Christian sharia law.....nor was there a right to an attorney in state cases.
Moreover 90 years ago that icon of superstition stood on private land so it was perfectly legal. That's really where it needs to go today.
"the three-judge panel declared that the Peace Cross violated the First Amendment by having “a primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government and religion.”
This assertion has been made in many of these cases but no proof is offered in support. That is, 1) there is no evidence that the government is attempting to endorse religion (or one religion over another). In fact the evidence contradicts this claim because the cross is specifically and explicitly intended to memorialize those who fought and died in World War I. That's a totally different thing.
And then, 2) There is no evidence that anyone has ever been influenced by such endorsement into adopting a religion, staying with a faith they were on the verge of rejecting, or giving up a faith they once held as sacred as a result of this alleged "endorsement." In other words, the overwhelming evidence, available to us across the generations, is that such displays are harmless.
The cross honors one religion and, one religion alone, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.
Not according to this story, in this one, if your Jewish you have to use a Star of David. 
The cross honors one religion
It's not there to honor a religion. It's there to honor men. These 49 soldiers were probably all Christians, so a cross went up. Now they could have used a rock or a giant pineapple with SpongeBob inside, but would either have made any sense? Doubtful. So, a cross is totally appropriate. If you wanted a Star of David to go up there for a jewish soldier as well, I doubt the government would refuse.
But if you have actual evidence of actual harm in this specific case, let's hear it.
Or it just isn't there.................................
Quite the contrary...
There are four, and they are the second highest decoration for valor in combat the nation can give. only the Congressional Medal of Honor is higher.
Captain Audie Murphy was awarded two of them in addition to his Medal of Honor and several each Silver and Bronze Stars,. (actually his second DSC was started as a second award of the MoH which was endorsed all the way up to his 5th Army commander who reduced it to a DSC award claiming that no one deserved two CMH's)
Yes they award crosses.
Residents of St George County came together to create something that honored their sons and fathers who were killed in battle. They chose the shape of a cross. Why? Because it was appropriate at the time.
You now think that the cross is inappropriate because what it means to you.....you don't even consider what it meant to them.
I would tell exactly how I feel about that......but it would be very inappropriate for this forum.
Residents of St George County came together to create something that honored their sons and fathers who were killed in battle. They chose the shape of a cross. Why? Because it was appropriate at the time. You now think that the cross is inappropriate because what it means to you.....you don't even consider what it meant to them. I would tell exactly how I feel about that......but it would be very inappropriate for this forum.
They need to move that religious symbol to private property where it belongs. If that cross didn't refer to the Christian religion you would not claim that moving it threatened your religious constitutional rights.
You can call me any name you can think of and it won't hurt my feelings. Free speech is a wonderful idea.
Are you sure about that?
Please feel free to explain any religious significance in the crosses of those military service medals. Any religious significance of that cross would also be a constitutional issue because they are awarded by the state.
Crosses are crucifixes not. Is a pentagram a star?
It is a five pointed star within a circle. Each one of the points on the star stand for something, earth, wind, fire, water and, spirit.
Crosses are crucifixes not.
Bingo, thank you.
If this cross in Maryland displayed the body of Jesus Christ, it would be a crucifix. It would then be an overtly religious symbol on public land.
But this is a cross, with "valor, endurance, courage, devotion" on it.......similar in design to Military awards of the day. It represents sacrifice for our country.
But this is a cross, with "valor, endurance, courage, devotion" on it.......similar in design to Military awards of the day. It represents sacrifice for our country.
BS. It's the protestant cross.
What law was passed establishing a religion
Putting a giant 90 ft religious symbol on tax payer funded ground seems to be a pretty clear establishment of that religion. Are you okay with a 90 ft pentagram going up right next to the cross which would be maintained with your tax dollars?
But this is a cross, with "valor, endurance, courage, devotion" on it.......similar in design to Military awards of the day. It represents sacrifice for our country.
Then you agree that it would still be a suitable monument if the arms were cut off? That would remove the religious endorsement and allow it to remain on public land.
Eliminate the 90 degree angles and everything will be better? What if we just tilted the arms up 5 degrees. That way we have a combination of acute and obtuse angles.
Whatever it takes to make it no longer recognizable as a religious symbol. Inverting it might work too. Or just chop it down and use it for kindling.
Whatever it takes
I wish you could see how sad that is. The story behind the cross, who contributed to it, why they contributed to it, who these fallen soldiers were in this community, who designed the memorial............none of that is as important to you as destroying 2 lines intersecting at right angles.
You don't have to be afraid of a cross.
You don't have to be afraid of a cross.
Who's afraid of it? All we want is the same respect shown for other religions that are practiced in this country or, take the cross down or, move it off of government land or, give it to a private group that can take of it. Government funds and, land are not or, should not be used to promote one religion. That might be alright for a place like Reo De Janeiro but, not the U.S. which has the First Amendment.
It is a five pointed star within a circle. Each one of the points on the star stand for something, earth, wind, fire, water and, spirit.
Devil Worship!!!!
(Note the Star on the forehead or between the horns on the 2 picts on the right).
which was people fleeing for their religious freedom.
E.A Indeed so with what " Religion/Believe, and what " Book " as their Foundation?
So what is the present situation, what Book is so hated and are those adherents being " persecuted "?
E.A Indeed so with what " Religion/Believe, and what " Book " as their Foundation?
So what is the present situation, what Book is so hated and are those adherents being " persecuted "?
The Bible isn't the foundation of US civil law.
The enforcement of the constitutionally required separation of church and state isn't evidence that the Bible is hated in the US. Christians are not being persecuted because they can't ignore the law and use the power of the state to further their religious beliefs. Christians in the US have the very same right to believe in God and worship as you see fit as everyone else has to believe and worship or not to believe as they choose.
In my opinion ...
The history of our nation is replete with religious symbolism and traditions. It is part of our culture and I see no practical way of removing these symbols and traditions from public facilities and indeed our law. I also do not see good reason to even try to do so. I accept crosses marking the graves of soldiers, having 'In God We Trust' on our money, etc. Mistakes were made in the past and the distinction of religion and state is clearly compromised.
What I would like to see us do starting now is to seriously engage in secular government. Do not tear down monuments, etc. produced by our ancestors; acknowledge our history and past cultures. But from now on, no public property should be built with religious symbolism. New currency designs should be secular. New laws should hold to a purely secular government.
To wit ... embrace our history and respect the wishes (culture, traditions) of our dead ancestors who produced these monuments. But let's be a bit smarter (and disciplined) in future decisions and keep religion and government distinct.
To wit ... embrace our history and respect the wishes (culture, traditions) of our dead ancestors who produced these monuments. But let's be a bit smarter (and disciplined) in future decisions and keep religion and government distinct.
On one hand that would be great but the reality is that there's a constant battle in this country between sane people and Christofascists who want the government to endorse their cult and enforce their sharia laws. One of them is the VP right now. We shouldn't give theocrats any encouragement.
On the other hand those existing symbols of religious endorsement are just as constitutionally offensive and just as historically misleading as statues of the Confederacy. Neither of them ever should have been put up to begin with and to leave them standing in the public square gives posterity the wrong message.
Neither of them ever should have been put up to begin with and to leave them standing in the public square gives posterity the wrong message.
There is only so much time and so much energy to use. To me, the smart way to go is to operate on present (and future) secular practices. It is impossible to remove all religious symbolism and artifacts resulting from historical actions and I see no point in doing so even if we could. I have no problem acknowledging the cultural views of our ancestors. They had their views and now those views are part of history - in part evidenced by artifacts such as the subject cross. Rather than destroy or remove historical artifacts I would recommend we recognize them as such (flaws and all) and focus our energy on the present and future.
It's going to take the Church of Satan erecting a 90 foot Pentagram on tax paid for public space for the idiots and morons to start to understand what the establishment clause actually means. To me, that would seem to be an acceptance of their religion as sanctioned by the State if they were to allow such a thing, an "establishment" if you will. If it's not, then we must allow the Church of Satan to erect their 90 foot Pentagram next to the cross.
Below is Muhammad, in the center with a sword, flanked on either side by other lawgivers whom are holding Christian symbols of Faith ( Globus Cruciger and the Labarum )
These are on the North Freize of the U.S. Supreme Court. My guess is that the Supreme Court building in Washington was paid for by public funds.
OMG. Isnt' the Supreme Court building a public building? Where are the ravaging Constitutional scholars when you need them? BLAST THOSE RELIGIOUS FIGURES FROM THE BUILDING!!!! People become infected if they're not removed.
That sounds more like an opinion about their opinion, as opposed to a fact.
Let's say both. After all, my opinions are as good as facts. 
140 yearsSince a ruling against polygamy? Not much relevance to a cross on public or government land, is it?
Actually, it's quite relevant. While polygamy was the basis of the case, the ruling itself affirmed the concept of separation of church and state being in the constitution. So the government supporting religious display or expression, especially to the exclusion of any and all others, runs afoul of separation.
Who is online
79 visitors
If that were true it would be due to the entire radical right trying to impose a perversion (there are so many to choose from) of christianity on the entire country. In fact, the presence and maintenance of any symbol of religion, regardless of which one, violates both the US and MD constitutions.
"The monument was erected in 1925 with funding from local families and the American Legion, but the state obtained title to the cross and land in 1961, and has spent at least $117,000 to maintain them." Simple solution the state should give the cross and land back to whom ever gave or sold it to them. I'm sure when the land was transferred there was an implied contract that the memorial would be maintained by the state and if that is no longer possible then title should be given over to someone who can and will maintain it.
That seems reasonable
That was my first thought when I read this...problem solved.
Referring to selling or giving the property back to private ownership.
Well, then, find someone to take those statues off the hands of the public space and purse and PDQ because they're coming down.
Bunch of idiots. We won't even recognize our Country in 20 years. They will have rewritten the Constitution and we will be another ME Country.
Doubtful. I've lived here for 60 years and it really hasn't changed much. He who has the gold still makes the rules.
Whites will come in way behind illegal immigrants, blacks and Hispanics, and Muslims. And they most likely won't get along.
Awwww, does it hurt Removed, CoC (BT) that you might be a minority some day?
Bullseye!! You've hit on their very most raw nerve. They know it's-a-comin' so they're doubling down on their extremist views in their typically wrong-headed way thinking that will somehow stop the unstoppable. If liberals who actually believe in the first amendment rather than just giving it lip service can save the day for the right of religious minorities to have protection against a tyrannical majority their descendants will be the beneficiaries, no thanks to them. But I'm sure those descendants will, as their ancestors, will have no knowledge of the history that protected them.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to add an amendment to the Constitution, much less rewrite the US Constitution with an Article V convention?
The Establishment Clause creates a strict separation of church and state to prevent the US from becoming a violent religious hellhole.
No one's stopping your from leaving.
Although I am not nor ever was a Christian, as I was raised in another faith in which I no longer practice most of the rituals anyway, I really have no problem with seeing a cross erected at a graveyard to memorialize those who were probably mostly Christian. In fact I also saw nothing wrong with a rendition of the 10 Commandments gracing a public courthouse or administrative building. I have no problem with my Buddhist wife (I am not a Buddhist) praying to a shrine to the Goddess of Mercy, GuanYin that we have in our living room. Why are people so fucking petty?
We've been over and over this, Buzz. You're Canadian which is to say, British in culture. There's never been a separation of church and state in that system so you have no concept of how that's supposed to work. It's one of the reasons for the rebellion--to destroy the idea the the state was the church as is still nominally the case in England today. You really don't get it.
You're absolutely right, Atheist. I never thought about that, because I can look at appropriate religious symbols on private OR public property and not be the least bit concerned about it. I say "appropriate" because I would not agree with putting a big Star of David on a Catholic cemetary. I never saw anything wrong with a statue depicting the 10 Commandments in front of a courthouse. Why then is the statue of JUstice, based upon a god of Roman or Greek ancient history, be acceptable? But even if it is contrary to the Constitution and/or the Amendments to retain a cross at a cemetary (even if public property) which nobody cared about for decades. Why, all of a sudden, has it become such an issue? Why, all of a sudden, did your anthem and flag become such an issue? Why, all of a sudden, did Confederate statues become such an issue? What triggered it?
Someone who cared enough about our constitution finally noticed that the cross was on public land.
.
They've always been issues for a variety of reasons, but the latest bit is due to cops killing innocent black folks.
.
They've always been an issue even when they were first erected, but the southern states have whitewashed their own history. I've always wondered how anyone could think it was a good idea to erect public statues to praise traitors and white supremacists. The difference today is that the majority of folks in those states are less racist than they used to be and a lot more culturally diverse.
But if you're looking for a particular trigger event for the latest round of activism against racist icons, Dylann Roof's massacre in SC has something to do with it.
So because some cops killed some black people, it makes sense to disrespect the flag and the anthem that symbolize a whole country and everyone in it?
Well, okay, I guess there's a precendent for it:
If anything the protesters are being far more patriotic than the reactionary nationalists and the racists who don't care that our country isn't living up to its supposed values.
It's long. I like the last thing said in this and it makes me wonder what will we cherish 50 years from now, when we can so easily forget these men who died for this country for those who have nothing to offer us except disdain for us.
Obama, the Communist, was working hard to fundamentally transform this country and he knew the best way was to load the courts down with Progressives.
Oh, we're in Looney Tunes mode now. No need to comment further.
Obama, the Communist...Damn I thought he was a progressive, or was it a fascist, maybe it was a socialist or an anarchist....Oh wait, it was a King.