Court Finds World War I Memorial Unconstitutional

[Chizzang]

Put up a symbol for EVERY other religion or STFU about it.

That's what I'm saying.

Nope
There are 27 world religions that have significant followings...
Displaying them all simply muddles the point significantly

The Republic...

[Col Hogan]

Why don't they just add a symbol of religious affiliation for all 49 people, like they do in Arlington. Probably would have been cheaper to honor each soldier in this manor, than have the liberals spend all this money in court to make them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

It’s not just Arlington where you can see stones like that...any National Cemetery has those...

[Gil Dobie]

That's what I'm saying.

Nope
There are 27 world religions that have significant followings...
Displaying them all simply muddles the point significantly

The Republic...

.........and 49 soldiers being memorialized at this site. Put up 49 mementos, as their ancestors chose, case closed, no more money being spent.

[Skjellyfetti]

Instead of 49 monuments to religion - how about 49 monuments to the 49 men that died in an utterly pointless clusterfuck of Biblical proportions.

[Gil Dobie]

Instead of 49 monuments to religion - how about 49 monuments to the 49 men that died in an utterly pointless **** of Biblical proportions.

That would be great.

[kalm]

Nope, but it doesn't allow governmental endorsement of one religion over another. Many SCOTUS cases back that up.

It allows freedom of religion. Tearing the cross down, shows the government is against freedom of religion.

What if they took it down gently?

[Chizzang]

The Republic for which it stands...

It's not about freedom OF Religion
it's about freedom FROM Religion
The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

That's where we disagree. I don't read it as freedom from Religion, I read freedom of Religion. And I don't see it as Religion taking part in the government, but government allowing expression of all Religions, but not being part of those Religions.

And I agree with The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

It becomes freedom FROM religion
when people like you want to put religious artifacts on government property

Government property is not an advertising billboard for religions
The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

[ASUG8]

What part of “The site honors 49 men from Prince George’s County who died in World War I.” don’t you and the Court understand?

So you are assuming that all 49 are Christian?


And it is on public land, so it doesn't matter either. What part of the Constitution do you not understand?

Arlington National Cemetery will be next for all the PC snowflakes.

[Gil Dobie]

That's where we disagree. I don't read it as freedom from Religion, I read freedom of Religion. And I don't see it as Religion taking part in the government, but government allowing expression of all Religions, but not being part of those Religions.

And I agree with The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

It becomes freedom FROM religion
when people like you want to put religious artifacts on government property

Government property is not an advertising billboard for religions
The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

I get what you are saying, that religion should not be part of the symbol of or governing part of the government, and I agree. There is a disconnect in what we believe these religious artifacts mean from our points of view.

It is a billboard, saying we have a country that is free of persecution for what we believe in. It's like the grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery, they are great symbols of people from all these backgrounds, that have given their lives for a country that stands for freedom. Take those symbols off the grave markers and it sanitizes the memories of our history and the people that helped keep us free.

[Gil Dobie]

It allows freedom of religion. Tearing the cross down, shows the government is against freedom of religion.

What if they took it down gently?

Only a snowflake would come up with this.

[kalm]

What if they took it down gently?

Only a snowflake would come up with this.

Gil, I was being nice and trying to appeal to your sensitivities. Only a snowflake would be insecure enough to insist their silly and meaningless religious commandments get posted in the public square.

[Gil Dobie]

Only a snowflake would come up with this.

Gil, I was being nice and trying to appeal to your sensitivities. Only a snowflake would be insecure enough to insist their silly and meaningless religious commandments get posted in the public square.

IMO, a snowflake gets insecure because silly and meaningless religious commandments get posted in the public square. If they are silly and meaningless religious commandments, why get concerned?

[kalm]

Gil, I was being nice and trying to appeal to your sensitivities. Only a snowflake would be insecure enough to insist their silly and meaningless religious commandments get posted in the public square.

IMO, a snowflake gets insecure because silly and meaningless religious commandments get posted in the public square. If they are silly and meaningless religious commandments, why get concerned?

Because not everyone, including those in positions of power like judges and potential US Senators don't find them silly or meaningless. Just because I find Islam silly and meaningless doesn't mean we should ignore their threat. This isn't all that difficult, Gil.

[Gil Dobie]

IMO, a snowflake gets insecure because silly and meaningless religious commandments get posted in the public square. If they are silly and meaningless religious commandments, why get concerned?

Because not everyone, including those in positions of power like judges and potential US Senators don't find them silly or meaningless. Just because I find Islam silly and meaningless doesn't mean we should ignore their threat. This isn't all that difficult, Gil.

It's simple what I see, remove all religious evidence in the government. Do we change the names of religious cities, like St Paul, like the USSR did under Lenin and Stalin? Is that the end game? Not all the people that live in these cities are Catholic.

In 1841, Father Lucien Galtier was sent to minister to the Catholic French Canadians and established a chapel, named for his favorite saint, Paul the Apostle, on the bluffs above Lambert's Landing.[25][26] Galtier intended for the settlement to adopt the name Saint Paul in honor of the new chapel.[24]

[kalm]

Because not everyone, including those in positions of power like judges and potential US Senators don't find them silly or meaningless. Just because I find Islam silly and meaningless doesn't mean we should ignore their threat. This isn't all that difficult, Gil.

It's simple what I see, remove all religious evidence in the government. Do we change the names of religious cities, like St Paul, like the USSR did under Lenin and Stalin? Is that the end game? Not all the people that live in these cities are Catholic.

In 1841, Father Lucien Galtier was sent to minister to the Catholic French Canadians and established a chapel, named for his favorite saint, Paul the Apostle, on the bluffs above Lambert's Landing.[25][26] Galtier intended for the settlement to adopt the name Saint Paul in honor of the new chapel.[24]

No

[89Hen]

That's where we disagree. I don't read it as freedom from Religion, I read freedom of Religion. And I don't see it as Religion taking part in the government, but government allowing expression of all Religions, but not being part of those Religions.

And I agree with The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

It becomes freedom FROM religion
when people like you want to put religious artifacts on government property

Government property is not an advertising billboard for religions
The rule of Law in A Republic is paramount
not somebody's personal theocratic ideology

So you think this memorial establishes a religion?

[GannonFan]

I'm okay with the ruling and I generally am against these moves by people to read into the Constitution something that doesn't exist. First of all, and let's be honest, this memorial is ugly. As crosses go, this one is unusually large, blocky, and it's location is pretty poor. And second, the cross, or any other religious symbol, can't be the only thing or the most predominant thing in a memorial like this on government grounds and pass the muster. The crosses in Arlington, of which there are many that aren't actually gravestones or tied to gravestones, are fine because they aren't the most dominating things there. The Argonne Cross will be there no matter how many atheists detest it being there. Same with the Canadian Cross and many others. However, if all you put up is a weirdly dimensioned, single cross, as the memorial and it's going to be controversial and potentially run afoul of the Constitution. You don't have to throw up religious symbols from every religion possible, or even any at all, you just can't make the cross the overwhelming centerpiece, or only piece, on a memorial on government grounds.

[Gil Dobie]

Writing separately, Chief Judge Gregory wrote, “This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland ‘who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.’ I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend.”

[GannonFan]

Writing separately, Chief Judge Gregory wrote, “This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland ‘who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.’ I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend.”

I don't like that dissent - it basically says, you can do whatever you want as long as you put the right words on the monument and say that you're honoring the fallen dead. Even if you're absolutely sincere in that (and in this case I think the folks that erected the monument were), there's just more to it.

With that said, I wouldn't mind a rethink on this - this thing was put up 90 years ago before anyone was really complaining about crosses infringing on their right not to see crosses. I'd be alright with allowing something like this to be left up if you look back and can determine the purpose of the memorial in its historical context. If indeed it was just to honor the fallen dead and there wasn't any indication that people were just putting up a big cross because they were rabid Christians, I could see grandfathering the thing in and allowing it to stand. Again, we don't need to be the Taliban and remove historical things from existence just because we don't like them now and may be looking at it vastly differently than the original intent. Putting up Confederate statues 100 years ago (and 50-75 years after the event) to show Black people who's boss, yeah, those don't get protected. Honestly putting up a memorial right after it happened to honor people who gave the ultimate sacrifice and it just happens to be a cross, without the thought to piss off Jews or Muslims or atheists, I can see leaving those things.

[CAA Flagship]

Crosses on properties owned by tax-exempt entities, that are visible from government property (i.e. roads), will be a target soon.

[GannonFan]

Crosses on properties owned by tax-exempt entities, that are visible from government property (i.e. roads), will be a target soon.

They already tried that around here - apparently Villanova is building pedestrian bridges over a public roadway to connect a part of campus there with a parking garage. Some folks in Radnor were up in arms that on those stone walkways there will be some significantly prominent crosses carved into or even on top of the walkways. Local officials and PennDot said they're Villanova property and it's their bridges so they can do what they want. I don't think this is a slippery slope that will have no end (or just end when all crosses are banned). Maybe hundreds of years from now, who knows, but not in our lifetime.

[dbackjon]

Crosses on properties owned by tax-exempt entities, that are visible from government property (i.e. roads), will be a target soon.

They already tried that around here - apparently Villanova is building pedestrian bridges over a public roadway to connect a part of campus there with a parking garage. Some folks in Radnor were up in arms that on those stone walkways there will be some significantly prominent crosses carved into or even on top of the walkways. Local officials and PennDot said they're Villanova property and it's their bridges so they can do what they want. I don't think this is a slippery slope that will have no end (or just end when all crosses are banned). Maybe hundreds of years from now, who knows, but not in our lifetime.

So the bridges cross a public roadway? Why does Villanova feel the need to shove their religion down the throats of the public? They have plenty of room to put the crosses up on their own property

[Chizzang]

They already tried that around here - apparently Villanova is building pedestrian bridges over a public roadway to connect a part of campus there with a parking garage. Some folks in Radnor were up in arms that on those stone walkways there will be some significantly prominent crosses carved into or even on top of the walkways. Local officials and PennDot said they're Villanova property and it's their bridges so they can do what they want. I don't think this is a slippery slope that will have no end (or just end when all crosses are banned). Maybe hundreds of years from now, who knows, but not in our lifetime.

So the bridges cross a public roadway? Why does Villanova feel the need to shove their religion down the throats of the public? They have plenty of room to put the crosses up on their own property

Because religion creep is a part of almost every religions core
Using public spaces and government spaces as religious billboard advertising
is a battle they aren't prepared to give up just yet

Our Republics Rule of Law is secondary to these people
and they see it as "not applying to them"

Marcus Aurelius had his suspicions if there was room in a mans heart for both rule of law and religion
He did not think religious men could put aside their faith in favor of rule of law
and he feared humanity would return to scattered quarreling tribes of zealots
he argued that mans only chance was Rule of Law and Jefferson and our founders agreed

[GannonFan]

They already tried that around here - apparently Villanova is building pedestrian bridges over a public roadway to connect a part of campus there with a parking garage. Some folks in Radnor were up in arms that on those stone walkways there will be some significantly prominent crosses carved into or even on top of the walkways. Local officials and PennDot said they're Villanova property and it's their bridges so they can do what they want. I don't think this is a slippery slope that will have no end (or just end when all crosses are banned). Maybe hundreds of years from now, who knows, but not in our lifetime.

So the bridges cross a public roadway? Why does Villanova feel the need to shove their religion down the throats of the public? They have plenty of room to put the crosses up on their own property

Well, the bridge is their property - it spans from one section of their property over to another section of their property. And displaying a cross is not necessarily "shov(ing) their religion down the throats of the public" - they have many crosses on their property, and many that can be seen by the public, from public land, if they happen to so look in that direction. Your weird interpretation of the amendment as being a freedom from religion does not extend to you not having to ever see evidence of a religious belief.

[GannonFan]

So the bridges cross a public roadway? Why does Villanova feel the need to shove their religion down the throats of the public? They have plenty of room to put the crosses up on their own property

Because religion creep is a part of almost every religions core
Using public spaces and government spaces as religious billboard advertising
is a battle they aren't prepared to give up just yet

Our Republics Rule of Law is secondary to these people
and they see it as "not applying to them"

Marcus Aurelius had his suspicions if there was room in a mans heart for both rule of law and religion
He did not think religious men could put aside their faith in favor of rule of law
and he feared humanity would return to scattered quarreling tribes of zealots
he argued that mans only chance was Rule of Law and Jefferson and our founders agreed

Come on, now you're just sliding into an argument that can be concisely categorized as bunk. You're now not even disguising an argument that people of faith, any faith, cannot be entrusted to have any connection to government (i.e. the Republic). Shouldn't be able to vote, shouldn't be able to hold office, because, as you say "Republic's rule of law is secondary to these people". Odd, though, that the Founders certainly did not share your sentiment, as they had the foresight to include in the Constitution in Article VI the No Religious Test clause. That clause is basically the Founders themselves reaching forward in time to call your argument, as I've coined it, bunk.

As for your fascination with Marcus Aurelius, did he also not say this: "If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now."? If we're to follow the example of good 'ol Marcus it seems he's saying you should just ignore your inner resistance to public displays of religion and just let it be. Granted, I don't think that's the answer, but since we're giving Marcus such prominent stature in this debate it seems only logical not to parse whatever thing he wrote to fit whatever particular argument you're making.