Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to rule that a 40-foot-tall cross that stands on public land in Maryland is constitutional, but shy away from a sweeping ruling. The case is being closely watched because it involves the place of religious symbols in public life, but the particular memorial at issue in the case is a nearly 100-year-old cross that was built in a Washington, D.C., suburb as a memorial to area residents who died in World War I. Even before arguments in the case, it seemed that the memorial's supporters, including the Trump administration, had the upper hand based on the court's decision to take up the matter and the court's conservative makeup. But on Wednesday even some of the liberal justices suggested that they could join a narrow ruling upholding this particular memorial, even as they talked about the cross as a major symbol of Christianity.
Justice Elena Kagan noted that the cross became a particular symbol associated with those killed in World War I while Justice Stephen Breyer asked about the importance of historical context to this case. The bigger question might be whether there are enough votes to rule in a way that would allow governments to erect more religious symbols on public property. But several conservative justices sounded skeptical of adopting a broad approach advocated by the lawyer for The American Legion. The veterans' organization raised money for the cross and completed it in 1925. The cross's challengers include three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, a group that includes atheists and agnostics. They argue that the cross's location on public land violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others. They say the cross should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk. The group lost the first round in court, but in 2017 an appeals court ruled the cross unconstitutional.
In addition to The American Legion, the cross's defenders include Maryland officials who took over maintenance of the cross nearly 60 years ago to preserve it and address traffic safety concerns. Maryland officials say that the cross doesn't violate the Constitution because it has a secular purpose and meaning. Those defending the cross say a ruling against them could spell the "doom of hundreds of war memorials that use crosses to commemorate the fallen." Justice Samuel Alito picked up on that concern during arguments, telling a lawyer for the American Humanist Association that there are lots of cross memorials all over the country and asking: "Do you want them all taken down?" The Supreme Court has been criticized for being less than clear in explaining how to analyze so-called passive displays, like Maryland's cross, that are challenged as violating the Constitution's establishment clause. In 1971 the court announced a test for use in such cases, which asks whether the government's action has a secular purpose, advances or inhibits religion or fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion." But in the decades since, the court hasn't always followed that test, and several former and current justices have criticized it.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Wednesday if it wasn't time to get rid of the test, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that lower courts deserve more clarity from the Supreme Court. Monuments that are similar to Maryland's cross, meanwhile, have met with a mixed fate at the high court. For example, on the same day in 2005 the court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol while striking down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses. Justice Breyer, whose vote made the difference in the outcome in both cases, said the Texas display had a primarily nonreligious purpose while the history of the Kentucky courthouse displays demonstrated a government effort to promote religion.
A decision in the Maryland case is expected by the end of June.
Tags
Who is online
322 visitors
That's a bunch of BS! The cross is wholly recognized and used as a religious (Christian) symbol. There is nothing secular behind its purpose and meaning.
They can easily be replaced with a plaque or commemorative marker. It achieves the same effect.
Oh well, if the cross or any other religious marker can remain on public land, then there better be room next to it for any other different religious marker. Perhaps we'll see Baphomet statues next to crosses everywhere. After all, if you allow one, you have to allow them all.
Tell you what--you do the research and see how many dead soldiers were of other faiths related to the marker in Maryland, and then you go right ahead and petition the state that you wish to put a marker of some kind up. Then we'll take it from there.
No need to take down a cross because a few folks MIGHT have been offended by it. Not everyone is going to be happy, and that's just life.
Why should a marker of a singular faith be erected on public land in the first place?
Except possibly that whole church and state thing.
I have no plans to place markers anywhere, thanks.
Not if it's on public land.
It wasn't.
The cross itself is the ONLY thing even remotely religious about that memorial.
Did you think the government was going to fund what you wanted to put up?
Government didn't pay for this memorial. Your comments about other markers is moot then.
Did you read the article? Yes, it was. It was explicitly stated it was.
And that's enough. The cross is a religious symbol, regardless of how it's intended or used.
I already said I was not going to put anything up.
It's not about who paid for it. it's about its location.
Quote the article then. Better yet, spend 5 minutes doing some basic research on your own. Get back to me when you learn the truth for yourself.
The rest of your post will reveal itself as silly when you learn the truth.
From the very first sentence: "...a 40-foot-tall cross that stands on public land in Maryland..."
How about this: try to stick to the article rather than attempting to make things personal!
If it were silly, then the entire dilemma at the base of the argument wouldn't even exist.
Can we at least agree that it says the cross STANDS on public property but was not ERECTED on public property?
When you start your "research" you will find it was built with private funds and was LATER donated to the state in 1960.
I am sorry if my suggestion that you do some research is too "personal" for you. But the whole article is about the cross and the case. Learning more about the TOPIC is ON TOPIC.
It isn't doing any harm to anyone.
No one had anything but their feelings hurt.
A lot of stupidity on display over this.
It's not that simple.
Originally the people who erected the cross, also purchased the property.
Eventually because of widening the highway, the easement included the base of the cross and the County wanted the Cross Association to purchase
liability insurance in case, the aging concrete fell some year and injured someone or damaged passing cars.
I believe it went to court, but the bottom line was that the property was gifted to the county and they assumed the liability.
So it's a County government defending what they see as a war memorial that happens to be a cross.
BINGO!! We have a winner!!!
You are 100% right and there was no--repeat--NO endorsement of any religion made by the government.
The whole case is freaking ridiculous, and I wish the idiots who filed it could be made to pay legal costs for the government to defend itself.
There are some people who make a big thing about being hurt over religious issues - some who have achieved big awards in lawsuits.
True enough.
I can see it now---some clown somewhere will one day decide that crosses or religious artifacts in the Smithsonian Institute is government endorsement of religion.
SMH
LOL. Truer words were never spoken.
you are asking the religious that question ? c'mon Gordy, the answer is simple - because it coincides with their brand of religious beliefs... if that symbol(marker) was from another religion then it'd be a different story altogether.
Not the point. That isn't why they are challenging this. They are simply trying to impose their religion on the public sphere, namely, humanism. It's the only religion they want allowed on public land.
i'm not sure why it's such a hard concept for some people to understand that they want no religion allowed on public land... could you tell me why it's such a hard concept ?
It wasn't in this case.
It's a perfectly understandable concept. But this is America, pal. They don't get to dictate to the rest of us. Just because they don't like it doesn't mean it can't be done. Is that a concept you can grasp?
That may be asking too much.
Someone thinks "erected on" and "sits on" are the same exact things.
i appreciate your eagerness to respond to me - but that quote wasn't originally made by me nor did i make that statement in the post that you replied to. I did quote that statement from the original poster - maybe you should reply to that poster instead.
it's a perfectly understandable concept and easy to grasp. But this is America, pal. There's more than just the religious living here and just because you like it doesn't mean it can be done. Is that a concept you can grasp ?
I did. And will whenever anyone states something that isn't true.
This whole flap over a cross is ridiculous.
Govt. isn't doing a thing wrong, and idiots suing over it should be made to pay all legal fees involved.
that's great. i'm glad you replied to the poster who made the original statement.
strictly opinion. others have a different viewpoint, i realize that's a shock to you.
It is.
Well, let's look at it closely, shall we?
Govt. made no law regarding religion. Fact.
Govt. established no religion. Fact.
Govt. didn't grant any special privileges to any religion. Fact.
Govt. didn't establish any religion. Fact.
Govt. didn't prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Fact.
What has the govt. done wrong here exactly?
well gosh, i had no idea the Cross wasn't a common symbol for the Christian Religion. Maybe you can explain to everyone how the Cross isn't a symbol for the Christian Religion ? or maybe you can admit it is ?
Sure it is--to some people. it is to me, and I never denied that, so I don't understand your point of mentioning that to me. The cross isn't the same for everyone, though. In fact, one poster here said it was a torture device and that was what she thought of when she saw one.
What does that have to do with anything?
What did the govt. do wrong in your opinion?
Thank you for not bothering to dispute the clear facts.
this is all you needed to say. And since you said this you have just answered all of your questions about government as well.
she is correct - didn't someone super important die on a Cross, thusly making it the symbol of the Christian Religion ? playing obtuse doesn't look very good.
i figured someone with religious beliefs would have to ask that question - it speaks volumes.
you already answered that question.
Refer to my post 1.2.5.
So you are just complaining about nothing. The cross was built on private land with private funds. Govt. didn't do anything wrong, and the idiots who sued should bar the costs of the local govt. to defend itself.
Luckily, looks like SCOTUS will rule that it may remain there. I am very happy about that.
The memorial was built using private funds on private land.
The govt. hasn't done anything wrong, and just because a couple of folks were somehow "offended" by it is just too bad. There will always be those perpetually offended folks around, especially when it comes to religion.
Well, I suppose it was kind of a rhetorical question.
Not even possible because it wasn't.
That also includes any legal actions or repercussions.
Potential constitutional violations is not something to take lightly.
well i can't help you understand the situation, so good luck to you. I'm glad you are happy about this "win".
it was.. because we all know it's true that if it was a different religious symbol - we'd be having a much different conversation.
Immaterial. Regardless of where it was constructed, the fact remains it is on public property.
I am aware of that. It doesn't change a thing.
You can save your "suggestions," thanks. I have been addressing the points of the article.
Absolutely right that YOU CAN'T HELP ME. I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION JUST FINE.AND I AM ECSTATIC ABOUT THE WIN, THANKS!
True. And since no violations have occurred, completely a waste of time and money.
The govt. didn't do any of these things.
So what issues are in play besides someone getting their feelings hurt because a cross is on public land?
yes, i am well aware of that . Maybe one day you'll understand it better - might be helpful to put yourself in someone else's shoes .
you should do a comedy routine at a night club - that's rich !
Actually, it IS material. Had it been erected on govt. land with govt. funds, you might actually have a point. But that isn't the case here. So what if it is on govt. property?
Actually, it DOES. See above answer.
Got plenty of them, so no need to save them. I have been adressing the points of the article, too!
I understand it just fine. And I'll be damned if I put myself into the shoes of the perpetually offended.
And I can't tell you how happy I am that you are glad about me being happy that SCOTUS is doing the right thing.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!
why should you do that when you get perpetually offended constantly defending your beloved religion and religious beliefs because you feel they are constantly attacked by people asking questions ? .. oh wait....
LOL you certainly sound "happy" .... i didn't realize "happy" people would use phrases like "i'll be damned" and then state they don't care about what others viewpoints are because they've dismissed them in advance as "perpetually offended"... sounds like a few things.. but i'm not sure about "happy"
And who exactly has stated that it should be removed? Not me, for sure. So why would anyone want it removed if it isn't offensive to them? That is senseless.
I am sorry my level of contentment doesn't measure up to what you think it should be.
Maybe I'll work on that......…….n-a-w.........LOL!
again - i can't understand the situation for you , i can only point it out and hope you are smart enough to understand it correctly on your own .
wait... you think i care about your level of contentment ? oh this is rich ! keep it up !
I clearly explained what the situation was, but I can't understand it for you.
Do you need me to use the sarcasm font to make sure you know what is sarcasm and what isn't?
I'll be happy to start if it helps you out.
/S
and each time you clearly keep leaving out a fact - the Cross is a symbol of the Christian Religion . why do you keep leaving that out ?? ... hmmmmm.....
oh wait.. you think i care about your sarcasm too ?? oh my... this is great comedy material ! seriously, go on tour !
Again, a fact not in dispute. Do I really need to say it for you every time?
Don't know and certainly don't care, but you seem to be struggling with sarcasm so I am offering to help you out.
If you don't want it, that's cool.
That means the government currently maintains it (a religious symbol) with tax money.
And it was the County's choice, to work with the American Legion, to buy the property for $1 in order to maintain a War Memorial dedicated to County residents.
A choice apparently supported by the community for over 50 years.....
The most SCOTUS can do, is "force" the County to return the American Legion's One Dollar from the original land sale and make the AL
buy liability insurance and maintain the monument.
The lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of $$ and energy for all involved.
Oh pardon me: a religious torture device. Better?
That happens to also be a religious symbol.
Who's upset? or are you projecting?
We both agree that this should stay where it is.
No point in discussing it further, as we both agree.
No wrongdoing on govt.'s part, no one's rights violated.
IOW, just as it was before this frivolous lawsuit was brought.
Don't presume to speak for me. I did not say whether i agreed it should say or not.
I didn't speak for you, just went by what you posted.
Do you want the cross removed or not, and if so, why?
So?
Don't you think the county should maintain it since they accepted the gift? Or should they have let it simply fall into a state of disrepair, creating a hazard?
The county shouldn't have accepted it to begin with. Paying to maintain a religious symbol can and has created a legal quagmire.
You spoke for me when you stated I agreed with you, when I never explicitly stated any agreement or disapproval.
It is a war memorial. That is it. Kind of late now to blame the county for a good deed done 50 years ago or so.
Why won't you simply answer the question:
Do you want the cross removed or not, and if so, why?
A war memorial that happens to be a religious symbol.
And? Is that a problem?
Apparently so. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an article about it.
Yeah, a few loons are upset and took it to court.
B.F.D.
That is your statement, and one which I already addressed previously.
I don't know where you come up with such flights of fantasy like that.
Not at all. I love Halloween. It's lots of fun.
It's a CROSS-a religious symbol, on public land, maintained with government (tax) funds.
So what? Where and how is the local govt. endorsing any religion?
A religious symbol is erected and maintained on public land with tax money. That is the endorsement or preference of a religion. I can't make it any clearer than that.
First off, it was NOT erected on public land. It was built on private land later donated.
What has govt. don to "endorse" any religion? It is merely maintaining a war memorial.
Just look at the cross as a torture device and I am sure then you'll be just fine with it.
Govt. simply hasn't done a thing wrong here, and I am confident that SCOTUS will rule that way!
Irrelevant. Once the government assumed ownership and responsibility of the cross, they tacitly promoted or displayed a religious symbol and maintained it with tax money. That's as bad as the government actually erecting a cross on public land.
Did you not read, much less understand my previous post?
Regardless of the intention, it is still a religious symbol.
I'm not into torture devices either.
Sure they have. It's just no one has noticed or complained until now.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Then you simply shouldn't have brought it up.
That's a lot of BS to pack into two sentences.
Read it, understood it, and dismissed it as bullshit.
And?
No one noticed? Weren't you the one who posted that it was awfully hard to ignore a 40 foot cross?
Me neither, because it is the right decision to make.
It was there, it was in the way of the new highway, it would have cost a lot of money to move it so it was cost effective to leave it in highway medium. This is a special case
He can't because the govt. isn't doing anything of the sort, and he actually knows that but just hates the idea of a cross sitting on public ground so much that it blinds him to the reality of the situation.
I didn't say the government was making any laws establishing religion.
Speak for yourself, since you apparently still do not get it!
While you offer nothing to refute it.
See previous statement.
I guess you weren't paying attention.
And it only took this long for someone to complain.
Your opinion is noted.
I see you're making erroneous presumptions again.
please, in all of your wondrous wisdom, do tell what law govt. made regarding religion, how govt. promoted religion, or how govt. infringed on anyone's religious freedom. You know, since you seem to know how they crossed some line between the separation of church and state.
When are they going to sue the state of California because they own many if not all of the California missions as part of the state parks system? They maintain them and many have chapels that are still in use today and contain religious artifacts and symbols.
While they are at it, they should look at Mission San Javier Del Bac outside of Tucson, AZ. It is a mission church on the National Registry of Historic Landmarks administered jointly by the Roman Catholic Church and the National Park Service. It is one of the oldest functioning Catholic churches in the country, if not the oldest. Probably sacrosanct as not even the lefties want to go up against the Catholic Church. Oh, I forgot mention, it also sits on a Indian reservation. Lefties can't touch it anyway....
I also wonder when they are going to go after the cities like Los Angeles, I San Francisco, Las Cruses, St Augustine and others for having religious based on names.
Nice Strawman. California is not the issue here. But if you want to know, go ask them.
I already explained that. I can't make it any clearer than I have. But religious freedom isn't the issue.
Ducking the question are you?
You made the statement that a religious symbol on government property should be removed even if it was not government land when constructed I am just trying to find out exactly how hard you would take it
No one that I recall said that religious freedom was the issue. The issue here is some folks got their little feelings hurt because (GASP!! OH NO!!!) a CROSS is sitting on public land, and the very same idiots somehow take that as a government endorsement of religion, when it clearly is not in this case.
There is absolutely no good reason in the world for SCOTUS to rule that the cross should be removed, and unless I am mistaken, it will be allowed to stand as is. I know that will chap some asses, but, oh, well.
I know at least I and others will be happy when SCOTUS rules. Not the whiners, of course, but once again, oh well.
You're the one who brought up infringement on anyone's religious freedom.
I already said the SCOTUS will probably allow it to stay.
I already said California isn't the topic here.
Why, yes I did. because I felt it necessary to prove to some doubters that the govt. has done absolutely nothing wrong in this "case" and they should move on.
As previously pointed out, SCOTUS most likely will allow the cross to stay because the govt. has done nothing wrong.
People offended by a cross sitting on public land can simply get over it, or not.
I just wish that SCOTUS can make the people filing this silly, frivolous lawsuit pay the legal costs involved in defending this nothing-suit.
I'll second that idea!
And don't forget to start a GoFundMe page or something to raise money to PUT your special markers or plaques or whatever in place. Can't have the govt. paying for it, now can we?
While I neither believe in the Christ the cross represents nor Baphomet, I'd much rather go see a 100 ft tall Baphomet statue. After seeing the millionth cross on everything from mountain tops to tube socks it loses whatever meaning it was supposed to have.
The fact is the cross is much older than Christianity so I suppose anyone can choose instead to think of the ancient Mesopotamian god Tammuz associated with shepherds which is why his followers would carry shepherds crooks with a large "T" cross on top, virtually indistinguishable from the staves carried by todays Catholic Bishops and popes.
So next time you drive by a huge cross memorializing fallen heroes just think to yourself "Thank Tammuz they're all in Ishtar's (Tammuz's consort) underworld".
And to think that some of us might actually think about the soldiers the monument recognizes instead of some bullshit about how a cross is too offensive for them to tolerate.
I don't see anything wrong with it. After all, no Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Jews fought and died in that war, eh? Majority rules - so democratic. Sorry, but I still can't get over the hilarity of the ten commandments being removed from a courthouse, while the statue of Justice, who was in fact worshiped as a god, decorates most of them.
It's all so Shakespearian - Much Ado About Nothing.
You got that right.
What makes you think someone can't be thinking of the soldiers while also thinking "Thank Tammuz they're all in Ishtar's (Tammuz's consort) underworld" instead of thinking "Thank God they're in heaven"...?
I wasn't suggesting taking it down, I was merely suggesting broadening its symbolism to be more inclusive. Would it diminish your faith at all if I went and prayed at or worshiped at the giant cross but were praying to Tammuz instead of Christ? Would it be ruining the cross for Christians like they believe gays have ruined marriage? Who really are the intolerant ones here? Gordy wasn't suggesting taking the cross down either, just pointing out that if you allow 100 ft tall crosses on public property don't be surprised to see some giant Baphomet statues. I don't hear anyone here saying the cross is too "offensive" to tolerate, just people reminding Christians to be careful what they wish for because "religious freedom" doesn't just mean for Christians and their iconography but all religions. You make a special place for Christians in the public space you have to allow a special place for every religion, faith or belief system.
There is nothing wrong with broadening its symbolism, and there is nothing wrong with leaving it alone.
See, when most people visit that site, I would believe that many are thinking of the soldiers memorialized there instead of being a Christian or thinking about religion. In addition, government did not put it up. Government isn't endorsing any religion, government has not made any laws regarding the free expression of any religion, and government has not made any attempt to impose religion on anyone.
You would need to ask someone who believes that. If someone wants to put up a statue commemorating our armed service members who have died, and are prepared to pay for it, by all means, go for it, I say.
This isn't a special place for Christians. We have churches for that. This is public land being used by anyone who chooses to use it in accordance with local laws.
There is no good reason to complain about this.
True, although I will add that after much highway redesign over 90 plus years,
the Memorial ended up isolated on a median and one would have to risk crossing several lanes of traffic to visit it
and the names of the troops are on a relatively small plaque not visible from the main highway.
As the concrete is in need of some repair, moving the monument has not been deemed to be in its best interest.
Perhaps to assuage the feelings of those who sued and their supporters
someone should start a Go Fund Me site to put up a decent and architecturally appropriate sign
declaring it as the 1925 American Legion war memorial to Bladensburg's and Prince George County's World War 1 dead.
Interesting read and undated picture
Ya see.....there are MORE folks than not, that only reflect on the People that died than the actual "Stone" that was put up. If the "Stone" Offends, one might look within to see what is really important to them, then reflect AGAIN, as their first thought of "Stone" Offense was Fucked Up !
I wonder how Christians would take a decision that ruled the cross isn't really all that important as a religious symbol. Would they swallow it in order to keep that symbol up or actually be honest and admit it would be unacceptable to have that concept become the a legal definition of that symbol?
An obelisk is a religious symbol. At least it was to the Egyptians who invented it. It represents a ray of sunlight from the sun-god Ra.
Context matters. It's pretty simple-minded to see a cross and immediately assume the government is trying to turn people into Christians. It's partisan and closed-minded to refuse to see any other explanation.
The purpose of this or any similar memorial is not to establish or promote a religion. This is supported by the secular and patriotic large, easily seen words found on the cross: Courage. Devotion. Valor. Endurance.
The purpose of such a memorial is to remember the war service of American soldiers. That is a wholly secular purpose. It's likely that most or all of them were Christians and so the cross is used to honor them and their sacrifice because the cross was important in their lives. It is, at most, respect for their religion and the guiding principles that drove them to sacrifice themselves for others. It is a simple and respectful thing to memorialize someone using a symbol that had meaning for them. It's not an example of the government trying to show favoritism to Christianity.
Very well put.
Well said. Shine some wisdom on the ignorance and intolerance.
It's the government recognizing or giving special consideration to a particular religion.
Then a religious symbol need not be used.
Then a plaque, monument, or some other memorial will do just as well.
Speculation.
Then they can be honored for such in cemetaries, religious institutions, or private property.
See previous statement.
I get the impression that you will be sorely disappointed if the cross is allowed to stand. Best brace yourself.
Then you would be wrong.
Certainly not the impression your posts give.
No, it's already been explained to you what the government is recognizing and Christianity as a religion is not getting any special consideration. This is a memorial to honor people, not a religion.
"Need" is not the standard. "Respectful" and "Appropriate" are standards when you are memorializing someone. So you do what they or their surviving loved ones would best appreciate.
Obviously not in the judgment of the people who had to make the decision. Perhaps you just can't appreciate what is being honored here.
Highly likely. Get educated about religious demographics in 1917. How Christianity shaped the experience and memories of World War I
Oh, you don't think soldiers should be honored on public property? Interesting. And sad.
No, you should see my statement. Memorials are about the people being remembered. They aren't about you .
How you choose to perceive my posts is on you and of no importance to me.
Then why keep arguing against it?
It's already been explained to you that a religious symbol is not needed to honor somebody and that such a symbol is also largely recognized as religious in nature.
I've already said several times that any type of non-religious memorial can be utilized for such a purpose.
It's not about peoples judgement. it's about what is constitutional.
I didn't say it wasn't. But it doesn't matter if everyone was Christian. Individual religious beliefs is not the point.
Trying to put words in my mouth is as good as lying! Once again, I've already said several times that any type of non-religious memorial can be utilized for such a purpose.
I did. it changes nothing!
I never said they were about me. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
What argument? The statement was that I would be upset if the cross stayed. That is an erroneous statement, which I merely pointed out as such. Nothing more.
Ok, I got it.
Just like your impression of the memorial is on you and of no concern to me.
Good. Glad that's settled.
That's right. Of course, it's also the impression it leaves on the courts too.
If you have actually been following the case, you would realize that most likely the court will allow the cross to stand. I am sure that is disappointing to you, but, oh well!
Here's an idea---if it offends you, don't look!
I never said the courts wouldn't allow it to stand. I expect they probably will.
There you go making erroneous presumptions again.
It doesn't. But it's also hard to ignore a 40 ft. cross.
Granted that it might actually require some personal effort.
I promise no one is going to jump out of it and try to convert you to any religion.
Your opinion and irrelevant.
What uniformed, prejudiced people think is not relevant either.
You say it with every comment. In spite of ample evidence as to the purpose of the memorial, you insist on characterizing in a way that suits your personal bias. In your mind, the purpose and intent of the memorial is irrelevant. What you think is all that matters. So, yeah, it is all about you.
What has been your point? That it should stay? or go? You keep saying it should go. That speaks for itself.
But apparently it's super easy for you to ignore the words VALOR ENDURANCE COURAGE and DEVOTION in large print all around the sign. It's also super easy for you to ignore the very large American Legion logo placed prominently in the center of the cross on both sides of it.
None of those is a religious message, but you ignore that and pretend the whole thing is about religion. Your bias won't let you look at all the details, just the parts that allow you to be offended.
Does anyone think they will somehow be converted to Christianity because they looked at (GASP!!) a CROSS??
WHAT are they scared of?
That's the argument - that somehow the Christian cooties will get on them. I can't think of a single case of that happening offered up as evidence.
Touche!
Much like yours.
Most Christians would probably consider the cross a religious symbol. Are you calling them uninformed and prejudiced?
Only in your mind.
I am aware of the purpose of the monument. That doesn't change any of the facts presented.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Not at all, despite them being largely overshadowed by the entirety of the monument itself.
Just the structure itself carries religious overtones.
Once again, you presume too much.
The purpose is critical to the significance of the facts under the law. Under the so-called Lemon Law test used by the Supreme Court to interpret alleged violations of the First Amendment, the government action violates the establishment clause unless 1) it has a significant secular purpose (everyone - including you - acknowledges that it does), 2) does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion (again, everyone acknowledges that the primary effect is the honoring of war dead and there is no evidence that religion has been advanced or inhibited in any way), and 3) does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion. Note that some entanglement is therefore ok. There's no evidence here of excessive entanglement of government and religion.
No need to presume. You have already declared how your prejudice allows you to ignore or dismiss key facts. Thusly:
Your inability to see or consider anything but a cross speaks to your personal bias in these matters. There is more there to see, but you refuse to see it. Those words and the American Legion emblem are prominent. Anyone can see them with a casual glance. You don't have to hunt for them. But to disregard them, you have to deliberately ignore them. That's your bias in action.
Except the government I funding the support and maintenance of a religious symbol.
You either have no clue what I said or you are lying. Which is it?
I see it for what it is: a cross. It's intention might be as a memorial. But that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a cross which is also a religious symbol.
Nice smokescreen. The emblem is not the issue here, nor have I brought it up.
Incorrect. We have already established it's a war memorial. Any support or maintenance is going to that.
You either have no clue what you have said or you are lying. Which is it?
But not a cross only. A cross with an American Legion emblem and patriotic military words. You keep ignoring that - like I have said.
As I have pointed out multiple times now, you are deliberately disregarding it because to acknowledge it would mean having to admit how wrong you are and how biased you have been. You see what you want to see and will only talk about what your bias allows.
It is still a religious symbol, regardless of its intent.
Nice deflection.
I have acknowledged the emblem, and it changes nothing.
As I pointed out, you are wrong in that regard!
Of course, everyone who isn't Christian might have a different opinion. What the first amendment to the US Constitution clearly states is that the religious majority doesn't get to make that decision simply because it's majority.
No, it does not say that.
If you insist it does, please QUOTE it directly.
So a torture device as a memorial - makes sense to me. <s>
That reminds me of something George Carlin once said: "I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood."
Is that really what you think of first when you see a cross?
That's what it was used for.
Well, that certainly is an answer.
Just not to the question I asked.
Might want to keep it handy in case someone asks you what some of the uses for a cross have been.
Such anti-religious bigotry is troublesome.
But totally in line with normal activity here.
Protection against vampires?
Sure, why not?
Of course, some might say that it is what the cross symbolizes to vampires that makes it effective, not the cross itself.
Yes it is.
BS - not anti-religious at all. I just believe there are better memorials than a torture device.
Well, that makes you pretty darn unique.
Most people don't look at a cross and think torture device, If they did, then this cross wouldn;t be so upsetting to some.
And if some didn't think of pentagrams as a sign of the devil then I would be able to wear my chosen religious symbol to work.
That is a separate topic. Take it up with your employer, unless you feel an employer can not do that legally?
Have you filed any lawsuits?
And a factual one.
I guess most people don't know the true history or purpose of the cross then.
No, it isn't. If most people actually thought that way, there wouldn't be so much whining about a cross.
Man, you best get with Phoenyx then because she is convinced it is a symbol of Christianity. Or are you saying that MOST people view it as a religious symbol (which is why so many are upset over it) and everyone else views it as a torture device?
what an interesting statement... especially considering these words:
at post @1.2.27 in response to whether the Cross was a symbol of the Christian Religion or not.
yay !! let's all pretend to be obtuse and pretend that nobody has ever died on a cross or that it wasn't a torturous death !
Great, glad you enjoyed it!
Of course, I am not naïve enough to think that when most people look at a cross, they see a torture device, nor would I ever make such a ludicrous claim.
Bottom line is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and you haven't proven in any way , shape, or form that the govt. has done anything wrong.
What exactly upsets you about this? It can't be govt. over-reach, or govt. endorsing religion, or favoring a religion over another, so what is it?
someone said that most people look at a cross and see it as a torture device ? please point that statement out to me.
i didn't realize that i stated i was trying to prove the government did something wrong - please point that out to me as well, i must have missed that.
who said i'm upset over this ? i'm just simply pointing out some uncomfortable truths for you - the Cross is definitely a symbol of the Christian Religion.. as you admitted in your own words. I'll let you figure out the rest - i'm sure you are a smart cookie.
Veronica did.
I understand what she is saying as people put up a crucifix. Some have crosses with Jesus hanging from them.
That they would take the device as their symbol, one that tortured him and ended his life.
Uncomfortable? LOL!! Why would I be uncomfortable because a symbol of my religion? That is strange to think that.
Yes, the Cross is a religious symbol. I love it that way. Still don't see any point in complaining about THIS cross used to memorialize dead American soldiers. But you go right ahead.
Cross will stay. People offended can ignore it. If people don't like it, that will just be too bad. They will just have to get over it already.
Silly thing to be so worked up over and to file a lawsuit over. Just plain dumb.
And yet, He endures and lives among us.
well.. like i said.. i can't understand the situation for you... good luck to you.
this purposely obtuse act you have going on is getting very old
does this mean you can stop being so worked up over it ?
seeing delusions or imaginary creatures isn't a good sign for your mental health... unless of course you can point him out to everyone and identify him for the world to see ? (or is this just some big religious secret ?)
nope, Veronica didn't state that "most people look at a cross and see it as a torture device" .. but she did refer to it as a torture device which implies she looks at it that way - and i can see how she views it that way, someone died torturously on a Cross and now the religious hold that torture device as some paragon of good... i don't pretend to understand it nor do i worship death
Never asked you to, as it is unnecessary. This is the whole situation: Some folks got upset over a cross being on public land. That is IT. The govt. hasn't done anything wrong, but the cross is SO offensive to those folks they demand it removed. Pretty damn easy to understand if you simply look at the facts.
If you don't like what I post, you can ignore it.
Maybe. I still want the clowns who brought suit to pay legal fees for the county to defend itself against this frivolous lawsuit.
Never claimed to have seen any imaginary creatures. My mental health is terrific, thanks for your concern.
Why do you think it should be removed?
True.
She did not say it that way. She was the one talking about it, thus the one Texan was referring to.
I can totally understand her questioning the symbolism.
you keep forgetting to put in the fact that the Cross is a symbol of the Christian Religion... why is that ? .... hmmmm....
ah yes... a great statement highlighting misunderstanding and purposeful obtuseness - thank you for that display
good - then point Him out to everyone since you stated:
in post @3.2.17 - surely you can do that.. or tell us what state or country he's in right ?
when did i ever say that ? are you having a conversation in your head with Him and confusing it with what's posted here ?
i can too. notice anything in common with the people who can't understand it ?
Already established fact. Do you need me to repeat it every post, or can you just remember it now?
If you have a legitimate argument to make, please, do so.
A waste of time. I can not do that, but I see Him in nearly all walks of my life. Doesn't matter anyways, if God Himself appeared before you, you still would not believe it anyways. I am not interested in proving anything about God to you, as you well know by now. You are already drifting to where all those discussions go--"Prove it". Sorry, can't play that tonight.
Oh, good, then we agree, the cross should stay. That is just perfect!!!
You could have saved us all kinds of time had you simply stated that a long time ago.
ok good - that means you can stop playing obtuse about the reasons as to why some people are upset over this, right ? it answers all of your questions.
which means you *DO* see imaginary creatures - contradicting what you stated earlier that you didn't. You absolutely do - it's just like a child who believes unicorns are real and sees them everywhere... yet can't point them out to anyone else...
purely conjecture based upon your disdain for anyone who doesn't lockstep with your religious beliefs.
yes, yes, we know - you feel attacked and "persecuted" again because you were asked to back up a statement you passed off as fact. we get it by now. next you'll go on a rant about your beliefs etc etc...
i never stated that either... are you and Him having a great conversation in your mind because it seems you aren't conversing so well with anyone outside of your head - i haven't stated whether i think the cross should stay or come down. Try again !
People should get upset over something else besides a 100-year old cross (a Christian symbol) commemorating our war heroes and isn't hurting anyone.
It is not hurting anyone, so no one should be upset over it.
Now, that is just a flat-out lie. I never care what others believe regarding God or religion, as I have pointed out many times to you.
Well, what are you wishes for this particular cross (a Christian symbol) and why can't you simply state it?
I will leave you the last word because I realize it is important to you.
oh well.. gee.. that changes everything ! alert the press ! Texan1211 has decreed that no one should be upset so we should all just move on and lockstep with his religious beliefs - right ? sorry, everyone is different and some people will get upset over things like this while others won't. Of course, you immediately dismissed anyone who did get upset as "perpetually offended" just because they simply don't lockstep with your religious beliefs.
yet you spend an awful lot of time defending your beliefs and touting that you "don't care" as you keep interjecting yourself into religious conversations that weren't originally directed towards you.
i haven't made up my mind on it, honestly. I see both sides and i see potential consequences (which is where Gordy is coming from - the possible larger picture.. and it's probably why this is a narrow ruling - which should have given you a hint as to the actual issue), but i haven't decided what i think should be done yet. Thanks for asking
um.. you do realize that it's the "last word" if the person replying isn't answering questions from the previous person.. right ? if they are answering question(s) - as i just did since you asked what i would want for this particular Cross - then it's a debate still. (i can't believe i have to explain this to you...)
Yes, it is! People may not know about that little tidbit of the history of the cross. Religion may have usurped the cross for its own benefit, but that doesn't change the facts of the cross' origin or purpose.
Christians have made it a symbol of Christianity.
I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that the cross was historically a torture device, as Veronica pointed out.
No one is disputing that. What I am saying, again, is that MOST people do not look at a cross and think "torture device", no matter what the facts of the origins of a cross are.
Well, duh.
AGAIN, no one is disputing that. When most people look at a cross, they are far more likely to view is as a symbol of Chrisianity than a torture device. They just plain do. Which is probably why so many seem upset that THIS cross sits on public land and has so many in such a tizzy.
As I said, many people are probably unaware of the origins of the cross. I simply affirmed Veronica's original statement.
Which affirms what I said about Christians making the cross their symbol.
I am still not getting why anyone cares about this cross which has stood for about 100 years, honoring Americans who gave their lives for their country. Govt. didn't build it or supply the land it was originally on. There is no need to remove this, and the lawsuit, IMO, is frivolous.
Even you agreed it should stand, so I fail to see why this is in any contropversial/
Very simple. Nowadays, anything that offends a progressive liberal just has to be torn down. If it has anything to do with religion, especially Christianity, well that's just icing on the cake!
I know, sadly, that you speak the truth here.
it is just plain ridiculous.
Don't they know that it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion?
The govt. has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case, and people claiming otherwise are flat-out wrong.
Pretty sad when it involves a memorial.
can you have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion ? doesn't freedom OF religion also include the freedom FROM religion and the choice to be not religious at all ?
Of course. Why would anyone think otherwise?
No one is forcing any religion on anyone. You are free to have no religion or any religion.
That doesn't mean that you should never be exposed to any religion.
Once again, what objection do you have regarding this was memorial?
so freedom FROM religion means you have to be constantly exposed to religion (crosses etc) and even have to abide by laws based upon religion ? (blue laws... look them up sometime) that's an interesting definition for freedom FROM religion...
Really no point to this if THAT is what you got out of THIS:
No one is forcing any religion on anyone. You are free to have no religion or any religion.
That doesn't mean that you should never be exposed to any religion.
Maybe next week I'll have more time to explain it to you.
This week ain't looking too good.
so the question remains:
does your freedom FROM religion definition also mean that we should all be exposed to every religion on the planet or just select few religions like yours ?
Do I also need to explain to you what "Really no point to this if THAT is what you got out of THIS:
No one is forcing any religion on anyone. You are free to have no religion or any religion.
That doesn't mean that you should never be exposed to any religion." means?
so the question remains ( since you dodged it once again, unsurprisingly ):
does your freedom FROM religion definition also mean that we should all be exposed to every religion on the planet or just select few religions like yours ?
I simply don't have the time or patience to explain the even most mundane of things to you.
Yeah, every time someone tells you that you have freedom to belong to any religion or no religion, it is just a code for them forcing their religion on you.
/S
who said anything about belonging to a religion ? did you see the word "belong" in any of my posts ?? try sticking to the actual conversation - i said "exposed" and not "belong".
so the question remains (since you dodged it once again, unsurprisingly):
does your freedom FROM religion definition also mean that we should all be exposed to every religion on the planet or just select few religions like yours ?
Yeah, every time someone says you have the freedom to belong to any religion or no religion, it is just a code for them meaning that you must belong to their religion.
Oh, sorry: /s
As I clearly stated earlier, it is freedom OF religion. Which means you can worship as you choose or you may choose not to at all. Clearly YOUR choice. I really don't give two cents what you personally are exposed to. I am just tired of some people whining about a cross erected as a memorial to Americans who gave their life for this country.
Once again, what is your objection to this cross?
why do you keep rambling on about "belong" when the post you replied to doesn't contain the word "belong" ? it really suggests reading comprehension problems since the post says the word "exposed".
of course you don't care - you've already dismissed anyone who doesn't lockstep with your religious beliefs as "perpetually offended".
i never stated i had an objection... please work on your reading comprehension - i covered this already in @3.2.29
Please, take the last word.
Where did I say that? I neither agreed nor disagreed. I merely pointed out some facts surrounding the cross and the legal issues associated with it, along with a conjecture about how the courts might rule on the matter. How I personally feel about it is irrelevant.
The bold is your reply.
I don't believe that you are saying that you want something that isn't fair, so why wouldn't you, a reasonable person, agree that letting things remain as they have been for a very long time, without hurting anyone, is a good idea?
I think we both are pretty darn sure the court will allow it to stand as is. Government did nothing to breach the wall of separation.
That reply was to Charger's solution, which seems to be a fair compromise. It does not speak of my approval or disapproval of the monument in question. As for the court, I already previously said I expect them to allow the monument to remain.
Why not just come out and say what you feel about this instead of dancing all around it?
Do you want the cross removed or not, and if so, why?
Send your letter of complaint to James Madison.
Then you should start an "Abolish the Constitution" campaign. You've already made a pretty good start.
Doesn't need to make sense to you. It just needs to make sense to the people who care about those being memorialized.
Don't insinuate I do not care to memorialize our vets. I just do not see the need to use a torture device to do so.
Bottom line is that a group of Americans came together and collected funds to build a memorial to those fallen in service of our country, and now only some people want this particular memorial removed.
This isn't government endorsement of religion by any stretch of imagination.
It's just not.
Except if my tax dollars have to go to maintenance of the torture device then I also have a nut in the game.
So you live in Prince Georges County in Maryland?
Ever complained to your local officials about the cross before?
I didn't. Your comment was about the means of memorial, not the concept of memorializing in general, right? My response was that the means of memorial needs to make sense for those being memorialized and the people who care about them, i.e. friends, family, comrades, neighbors. If you aren't part of the culture that identifies with them, then you might not understand the design of the memorial, but - and no offense is intended - who cares what you think? The memorial isn't for you.
Memorials can vary widely in design and not everyone likes every design. So what? The point is to honor the people being memorialized.
The need is that the symbol was important to the people being memorialized. What it might have been used for in some other context is irrelevant. The cross here isn't being employed as a torture device. It's being employed as a symbol, but not of torture.
There have been many examples of people taking an object, animal, or word that could be seen as dangerous, cruel, or evil and turning it into a symbol of strength or some other good (the reverse happens, too). The cross has been that kind of thing for christians since about the 4th century, when the crucifixions stopped and christianity was elevated in its social and political status by the Emperor Constantine.
20 Widely Used (And Widely Misunderstood) Symbols
25 Modern Symbols That Have Lost Their Original Meaning
If you expect to approve of all uses of your tax dollars you will be disappointed a great deal ...... disappointed indeed
I bet she doesn't live in that county, and if she did, I bet she never complained once to her local officials,
What? And not let them deflect and derail? That leaves them with nothing to use.
You've always had a real flare for the irrelevant, Tex.
What are you whining about this time?
Do you have any real objections to this particular cross?
I do not usually complain about my tax dollars - just throwing that argument back at those that do not want their tax dollars feeding the hungry or helping the sick. If they want to choose where their tax dollars go then I should be able to not have mine go towards maintaining a religious symbol. See what I did there? Probably not since you do not want to see it.
Totally missed the point.
I am sick of how they assume liberals are not religious, patriotic or contributing members of society.
Unless you live there, your tax dollars aren't going there.
Now, what point are you trying to make exactly?
Unless you live there, your money isn't going there.
Do you have a real objection to the county maintaining a memorial to honor its war heroes?
You choose not to see my point.
As far a memorials go - I have no issue. Again you fail to bother to see things from the other side of things.
Yes, I do see what you did there and it’s a non sequitur since i’m not the one doing the complaining here.
I am truly not complaining - merely pointing out the faults that some on here fail to see in their own "side". I am all for memorials for our fallen heroes. Just sick of some that fail to see how things can be taken from the other side. They fail to even try to understand.
If all the fallen heroes are Christian then a cross would be good, but what if some them are not Christian?
Thus far, it seems as though your point is that you don't want to see your taxes go to this, and I explained unless you live there, they aren't. I even asked you to explain your point, and you come back with this?
You complain I don't see the other side. Make the case for the other side instead of being so vague.
We can all use a little extra perspective. In this case I think the cross should stay but I understand the legitimate reasons some oppose it. For me it comes down to the cross being erected as a memorial on private land. Then that land was donated for public use. If this were a group proposing a new 100 ft cross erected on public land I would oppose it, but one that existed when on private land and merely donated I do not have a problem with.
I agree it should stay, but I maintain my objection to those that fail to see where others are coming from & question the patriotism and support of our military of those that oppose it.
Well, in the case of Arlington. An entirely tax payer subsidized cemetery, emblems for belief of choice are already etched into each grave marker.
So you have no worries in that regard.
That said, there will always be fundamentalist crackpots on both sides. They never will represent the majority who are more moderate.
Totally agree.
A Latin cross has only one meaning today and it ain't secular.
Key word--TODAY.
Not the same some 70++ years ago.
So a cross didn't represent the Christian religion 70+ years ago?
Did I say that? Where????????????????????????????????????????????????????
It did and the government has paid for thousands of them on government land. This is Arlington National Cemetery.
a very good point
What a great post!
Where is that? Looking at pictures of Arlington, they have regular graves stones with religious affiliation marked on the stone.
You said "Not the same some 70++ years ago." That implies the cross carried a different meaning then. Last I checked, a cross represents Christianity.
That looks like the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in France. There are even French flags next to the graves.
Very strange of you to write that after posting this:
People 70++ years ago didn't come unglued whenever they saw a cross. Maybe because they were smart enough to recognize that THIS cross is a memorial to Americans who gave their live for their country, and not any attempt to convert anyone to a religion or to make the govt. endorse any religion.
Times have changed as the perpetually offended have multiplied greatly.
That is what I thought it was, in France. It is not Arlington.
How so?
That doesn't address anything I said.
Your point?
Which means the post was either an attempt at deception, or that one did not know what Arlington or the Normandy Cemetery looked like.
That is in France.
There's only one cross in Arlington, but I do not know the story.
Individual headstones in Arlington have about 186 religious symbols to choose to have engraved on the markers.
The fact that six people voted it up tells me there are supposedly pro military people that don't even know the national military graveyard.
I take responsibility for the error. When I googled crosses at Arlington multiple links and articles appeared with images of those crosses and articles related to attempts to remove the crosses at Arlington. Do a google image search with the words “crosses at Arlington” and you will see the related articles.
I take full responsibility for the error and the shame and humiliation that goes along with it.
No worries.
No worries, mate.
Pretty irrelevant since no one is advocating that individual graves can't be marked with religious symbols. Another weak one from you, Dean.
Ruh-roh.
[Removed]
[deleted]
I'm torn on this one. On one hand it is a religious symbol on public property which I don't agree with but on the other hand it is a memorial to our fallen soldiers and as a gold star mom I would not want to see it taken down. What upsets me about this when I read an article last week on it someone wanted it destroyed, that I do not agree with
My solution; all statues, monuments, crosses and similar stuff on government property stays as is and is maintained and no more put up. Anything new must be neutral.
I am not religious but what was built as a sign of respect years ago should be left
Now that sounds very reasonable.
Exactly. I am not offended by a simple cross. I'm not that fragile.
Oh, man, I don't know. Aren't you the least bit concerned that a nearly 100 year old cross on (gasp!) government property is just government's way of promoting Christianity?
And aren't you afraid that if you ever see a Star of David on (gasp!) government property that you will be forced to become Jewish?
I hadn't thought of that...
"Be afraid...be very afraid"
LOL!
Isn't that an argument against removal of Confederate statues (which only recently became a huge issue).
Yes. And equally cogent.
But this memorial was built with private funds on private land.
Government had absolutely nothing to do with it other than maybe issuing work permits for it.
I don't see how anyone can honestly argue that this memeorial to Americans who fought and died for their country is in any way, shape or form any type of government endorsement of religion.
To claim it is is lying to oneself.
Absolutely, they should stay as should all existing monuments
If it was built with private money on private lands, then what the hell is the issue?
It is a cross. That is all it takes for some to be offended.
No one is being harmed by it. No one is seriously thinking that the government there is somehow trying to establish a religion or making any laws concerning religion. No one can even really think that the government there is even endorsing any religion.
But, it is a cross.
And that is offensive to some.
see my 1.4.6 & and 1.4.7
it's ended up on a limited access median between major traffic lanes 6 miles outside of the DC limits.
It's not as if it were in front of a Courthouse or post office.
To make a federal lawsuit out of what's on a median is a stretch for "public property" imho
it even has it's own flag staff and someone keeps Old Glory flying.
but it needs better identification/signage
Interesting. Good to see what it looks like. Since it's hard to get to, my suggestion would be to erect podiums topped by brass plaques stating the meaning and names at both sidewalks across from the cross.
The flag flying beside it should have been a hint to people that it was more than just a religious symbol.
Fair enough.
So you have no further objections to this memorial?
Good!
Not maintained by public employees with public funds. Let religious institutions foot the bill and get the people to do it if they want these things up so much. I'm not talking about military cemeteries where individual markers may be religious symbols but public memorials where one religious symbols dominates the entire public space.
"I'm not talking about military cemeteries where individual markers may be religious symbols but public memorials where one religious symbols dominates the entire public space."
Did that help? As far as I know military cemeteries are not dominated by one particular religious cemetery but if there were, then that particular symbol should be removed. The only other way that might be consistent with the first amendment was to allow all religious symbols an equal place and that would lead to chaos.
I believe that SCOTUS will allow this cross to stand like it has for a very long time. Govt. has done nothing to breach the wall of separation.
I want to thank Gordy for posting this seed. I haven't enjoyed reading and contributing to the commentary this much for quite a while - a lot of fun to start my morning.
Looks like SCOTUS will do the right thing here and allow the memorial to stand untouched.
Good for them!
Here's a little history for people too busy to do any research... This monument was designed by John Joseph Earley and erected between 1919 (ground breaking) and 1925 (dedication) on private land. In 1961 that land was turned over to the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission . The Commission oversees maintenance. This monument was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 9/8/2015. (The reference number is 15000572 ) Its listed area of significance is ART; MILITARY . It is a monument to World War One Prince George's County Servicemen that died fighting for their country...their names are listed on it.
It really is a shame that some people read far too much into a monument that was designed one hundred years ago to honor those who died fighting for their country.
I can't figure out why a 100 year old memorial is so upsetting to some.
They fail to see the historic value and only see their own interpretation of this monument. If any of their relatives were listed on that monument...I wonder how they would feel...gee, sorry, for a moment I imagined they would be able to see beyond their own feelings.
For some, a cross is nothing more than a symbol of Christianity that must never, ever be displayed on public grounds. Except for one poster who thinks of it aa a torture device first.
.What not a single person opposed to it can do is establish that the government made any law regarding religion, favored one religion over another, or promoted any religion.
Do you find it upsetting that other people have different views of religion than you do as well?
No.
Why do you wish to know?
That argues for returning it to private hands as it was originally intended. Seems like the people of the day had the right idea to keep a religious symbol a private matter.
Why does this cross seem to bother you? Do you want it removed, and if so, why?
This is one I could actually care less. It has been there for close to 100 years.
I say let it be.
The only problem I can see will be when someone comes barreling though there and rams into it.
The Peace Cross is very near where I spent my younger years. It was just down the street from one of the best motorcycle shops ever. They had a wonderful display of Ariels, Vincent Black Shadows, early Nortons, etc.
These days it is still not that far from me. One county away. Though it is very close to the county in which I reside, I am at the extreme opposite end of my county.
I think they were called FreeState cycle? They are somewhere else and sell Harley's these days.
I learned about this shop from an interesting Jewish fell. Among other things he was a biochemist at NIH and, btw, started one of the most notorious biker gangs on the east coast. He chose an interesting name for his gang. Actually, Motorcycle Club. Just like the Hells Angels aka HAMC.
That's their patch of the day. Maybe still is. The fella who designed that patch is also a Jew and a relative of the founder.
Jews who will also shoot back, well until the founder passed in the 80s.
So what does all this have to do with anything?
I have no idea what was sold for public consumption, but I know what these fellas told me the origin of the names was. The name Pagan's was chosen for a specific reason. At the time, one definition of Pagan was, one who did not follow the Christ.
Lou was not a follower of the Christ. He was a Jew. He was a Pagan according to this definition.
These fellas introduced me to Freestate as typically a Blaylock cycle customer in those days.
How do you get there? I ask. By the Peace Cross. They say.
Was there ever angst in this reference by these fellas? Nope. To the community, the Peace Cross was a recognized memorial to those from THAT community who fell in battle. The Peace Cross was respected by all for this reason, sand SJW things.
These Jews, these Pagans who will shoot back revered the Peace Cross, for what it represented for that very community.
...and that's the way is was.
I keep thinking about all the old buildings and villages, places in Europe. All of the old architecture that has religious imagery.
What would have been lost if those old buildings/statues were not allowed to stand for centuries.
I know that this case isn't that extreme, it is just to where my mind wanders.
Along that line of thought, the first thought coming to my mind every time this subject is breached is that of the beautiful and historical artwork and structures destroyed by ISIS when running amok.
Are we going to have our own form of running amok here, based on polarized ideology?
That's quite a leap, dave. I've not seen the slightest hint that anyone wants to destroy anything.
Not a far leap at all. That topic was breached in the third paragraph of the article. Further, I don't see any comments tothe effect of "no we don't want them taken down"
Your quoted passage only contains the question from Alito and not the lawyer's response. Why is that?
Because I quoted from the article.
My comment was based on the article presented.
That's why.
I imagine if I wasted enough time I could find any commentary possible on the article. Instead i just used the article posted right here.
Gee, I wonder why I don't do a thesis paper research on this and every topic I respond to here?
Given geology or ancient history I might do that.
To satisfy an internet warrior? F' no. Go waste somebody else's time.
Don't bother. I did that and couldn't find a response recorded anywhere. So we can't assume the answer to Alito's question was yes. Don't you agree? But thanks again, dave, for showing how touchy you get to even the slightest nudge.
It's like this; assholistic question gets assholistic reply.
That short fuse of yours is getting wearisome.
Crosses are not the only tombstones in military cemeteries.
again, that is the French WWII Cemetery at Normandy
Different standards in USA military cemeteries.
RIP Hero
National cemeteries have already begun to recognize Wicken symbols on headstones.
If that's true it's as they should. No difference whatsoever between that religion and any other.
MMMMMM, I'm gonna put up a crescent moon on public property. There is a church across the road from a public park, I got my spot!
That's swell and all, but be prepared for a lot of flak from the perpetually offended if you dare to put a religious symbol on public ground. Even if you pay for it to be put there.
Might want to get permission first from your local govt., too.
"A decision in the Maryland case is expected by the end of June."
And then it will be the law of the land!