Winnable war: Supremes uphold cross

  

Category:  Religion & Ethics

Via:  heartland-american  •  3 years ago  •  31 comments

Winnable war: Supremes uphold cross
The Bladensburg Peace Cross is perfectly constitutional without any question. Let's be grateful to the God of the Bible that the Supreme Court sees it the same way.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the Bladensburg Peace Cross. Good for them. It is simply impossible for this cross to violate the Constitution in any way.

It was erected in Maryland in 1925 to honor the memories of 49 local men who gave their last full measure of devotion defending our liberties during World War I. It was financed and constructed by the American Legion.

The complaint against the cross, which has stood unmolested for 94 years, came from just three people who complained of "unwelcome contact" with the cross, which means they could see it from their car when they drove to work. But as Clarence Thomas has frequently pointed out, the minimum thing you must have for a violation of the First Amendment is some kind of coercion. Well, nobody here is forcing anybody to do anything. Nobody is obligated to look at the cross, venerate it, believe what it stands for, or even drive by it.

1bladensburgcross_350x219.jpg Humanists challenged it before the Supreme Court as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Associated Press , in its garbled coverage, says this clause "prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others."

But that is not at all what the Establishment Clause prohibits. It does not prohibit Congress from "favoring one religion over others," it specifically and only prohibits Congress from passing a law that picks one Christian denomination and makes it the official church of the United States. As long as Congress does not do that, it cannot possibly violate the Establishment Clause.

The Constitution prohibits Congress, not Maryland, from establishing religion. You have to work at it to overlook this since "Congress" is the first word in the First Amendment. It is Congress that is restrained by the First Amendment and nobody else.

States under the Founders' Constitution were allowed to do anything they wanted with regard to religious expression. They still are, since the First Amendment has never been amended and means the same thing today it meant the day it was adopted.

bladensburg-peace-cross.jpg That only Congress was forbidden to establish religion is indisputably plain from the early history of the Republic. Even after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into full effect, in 1789 and 1791, 10 of the 13 states (at a minimum) had established religions in their states. That is,

they had selected one Christian denomination (or "sect," to use their word) and passed a law establishing it as the official state church. What was prohibited to Congress was permitted to the states.

Maryland is not Congress, and a cross is not a law. Maryland couldn't establish a national church even if it wanted to. If we use the Constitution as written by the Founders, it's impossible for Maryland to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And the federal government – including the judiciary – is further forbidden by the First Amendment to "prohibit … the free exercise" of religion. The people of Maryland were exercising their religious liberty when they erected this cross. The Supreme Court is forbidden by the federal Constitution from restricting religious liberty anywhere. If the justices had ruled against the cross, then whatever else they would have been doing, they would have been prohibiting the free exercise of religion, which they are expressly forbidden to do.

Since Congress – and by extension, the entire federal government – is forbidden to intrude into the religious affairs of any state, this case should not even have been in a federal court at all. The Supreme Court should have rejected this case when it was presented to them on grounds that it simply has no jurisdiction in a case like this. The Court should have kicked it back to Maryland for its Supreme Court to decide based on its own constitution.

As our national anthem has it, this is the "land of the free." The cross is perfectly constitutional without any question. Let's be grateful to the God of the Bible that the Supreme Court sees it the same way.



Bryan Fischer hosts "Focal Point with Bryan Fischer" every weekday on AFR Talk ( American Family Radio ) from 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. (Central). He  is author of  The Boy to Man Book: Preparing Your Son for Manhood .



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    3 years ago

Liberty: War on veterans' memorials is over

Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

michael_web_color_mug.jpg Berry

Attorney Mike Berry of First Liberty Institute reacts to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. "We're thrilled – this is a landmark victory for religious liberty. [It's] a major Supreme Court win," he tells OneNewsNow.

Berry believes the decision will have an impact on future decisions by atheists and other groups to use the courts to destroy the cross. "I think [it will discourage that], at least in terms of seeing activist groups using the Establishment Clause as a sort of weapon to target veterans' memorials, Ten Commandments displays, public prayer, and that kind of stuff," he adds.

In other words, atheist and humanist groups are forewarned by the decision – but what about Arlington National Cemetery where over 14,000 soldiers are buried?

"Anybody who reads this decision should come to the conclusion that Arlington Cemetery is off limits," Berry responds, "[and] that any legal attacks from this point forward that somebody tries to launch against some of these veterans memorials that happen to be … in the shape of crosses and Arlington Cemetery, those lawsuits are going to lose now."


kaoe_mug.jpg Kao

"Religious freedom is what allows America to flourish as a religiously diverse country that is peaceful and pluralistic. So for those who maybe dislike [this] decision, having freedom for all people to live according to their beliefs and for there to be public expression … really benefits the entire country and all Americans."....

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2  pat wilson    3 years ago

This subject was seeded 12 or so hours ago by someone else and it has a lot of comments. You may want to join in on that one rather than plugging up the FP feed with duplicate topics.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  pat wilson @2    3 years ago

I went through recent seeds and didn’t see it.  Besides, I posted an opinion article on the topic, not a hard news article which makes it different enough.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    3 years ago

The writer of this article is a far right , discredited, evangelical nut case named Bryan Fischer. 

Are there no standards for seeding on this forum?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 years ago

Holy shit.... What an effing lunatic. You should seed an article about that idiot. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    3 years ago

That he was the author was a great reason to seed it from the source. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 years ago

Did the author misstate the SCOTUS decision?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2    3 years ago

Can I answer? The answer is absolutely not.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.1    3 years ago

I just get tired of idiots attacking the source of everything they don't like.

Just tells me that they have no real argument so resort to that tired old tactic.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 years ago

Yep.  Attack the seeder, the author, and the source in any order rather than discussion on the actual article topic.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.3    3 years ago

But what else do they really have?

I'm just surprised that this, too, hasn't become Trump's fault somehow.

Give it time……………………………...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 years ago

Sadly there are but fortunately the source fits within them at least until the standard changes yet again.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4  seeder  XXJefferson51    3 years ago

A great victory worthy of celebration. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Quiet
5  lib50    3 years ago

How weak the faith is when one has to resort to public idolatry to make sure everybody knows how pious and righteous one is?  In many cases its like they want to poke and gloat over those who don't share their faith.  Which tells a totally different story than they think.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @5    3 years ago

Oh, yes, how absolutely HORRIBLE that people erected a war memorial in the form of (gasp!) a CROSS!

How weak is the disbelievers "faith" that they can't stand to even LOOK at a (GASP!) cross?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    3 years ago

It was built around 1925 on private land and it wasn’t until decades later that the state got ownership of the land it’s on. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.1    3 years ago

I know. Decades and decades of the memorial standing there, not bothering anyone, and NOW it is some big deal to a bunch of atheists?

Too fucking bad--they can just get over it already.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
6  dave-2693993    3 years ago

I don't know about al the left vs right nonsense, blah, bah, blah...

However I do know the Peace Cross was a commemoration to folks from this community who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the first World War.

JMO, anyone who wants to wipe that from history, regardless of the meanderings of property hand changing, can go pound sand.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
6.1  Jasper2529  replied to  dave-2693993 @6    3 years ago
wipe that from history

That's the ultimate goal: to erase history by removing monuments, statues, paintings, etc. Just like what the Taliban did.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Quiet
6.1.1  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1    3 years ago

Lol,  I'm sure the Taliban would love those war monuments to the losing side of a war against America.  Although not too many groups of people want to remember massive war defeats like that.  (ps who loves to burn books and cd's again?)

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  lib50 @6.1.1    3 years ago

Liberals, the SPLC,  and the internet social media, and msm so called fact checkers, snopes, politifact, etc.  

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  lib50  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.2    3 years ago

What happened to your affinity with the Constitution?  I see you've changed your avatar to reflect the new republican aspirations to autocracy.

 
 

Who is online

Lucifer Morningstar
Nowhere Man


36 visitors