Court Finds World War I Memorial Unconstitutional

[CAA Flagship]

Court in Richmond rules that a cross honoring veterans ‘breaches’ wall between church and state

A nearly century-old, 40-foot cross honoring World War I veterans in Bladensburg, Md. represents an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, a divided federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., found that the cross “breaches” the wall of separation between church and state.

At least one other appeals court has pronounced a memorial cross on government land as unconstitutional. But Wednesday’s ruling marked the first time a circuit court has ruled against a cross in a World War I memorial, according to lawyers.

The concrete, Celtic cross was erected in 1925 by the American Legion and towers above a pedestal on a busy highway median about a half-hour drive from Washington, D.C. The site honors 49 men from Prince George’s County who died in World War I.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a bicounty agency, acquired title to the property in 1961.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-co ... 1508367195

[89Hen]

Used to be a country bar right across the street from this. Looked like a scene from Roadhouse in that place. Went only one time in 1990 and wasn't really sure how I got there or how I got home.

[dbackjon]

So they are saying that only Christians died during WWI.

Correct ruling.

[89Hen]

BTW and FWIW, this case has been going on for years and nobody would ever know this was public land where this cross stands unless you told them.

[Baldy]

If it makes it to the SCOTUS, it will be overturned.

[Col Hogan]

So they are saying that only Christians died during WWI.

Correct ruling.

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?

[dbackjon]

So they are saying that only Christians died during WWI.

Correct ruling.

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?

[bandl]

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?

Two of those men killed were gay...

That should change your tune

[89Hen]

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?

What if they are?

[Gil Dobie]

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.

[dbackjon]

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?

Two of those men killed were gay...

That should change your tune

Nope - Memorial is great. Just take down the unconstitutional cross

[dbackjon]

So you are assuming that all 49 are Christian?

What if they are?

You left out the part of my post where I addressed that.

[89Hen]

What if they are?

You left out the part of my post where I addressed that.

If it doesn't matter, why did you ask it?

[AZGrizFan]

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?

suddenly you're a fervent believer in the Constitution.

[Gil Dobie]

Two of those men killed were gay...

That should change your tune

Nope - Memorial is great. Just take down the unconstitutional cross

Does the constitution ban religion?

[dbackjon]

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?

suddenly you're a fervent believer in the Constitution.

Always have been. Don't pick and choose like the right does.

[dbackjon]

Nope - Memorial is great. Just take down the unconstitutional cross

Does the constitution ban religion?

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

[Gil Dobie]

Does the constitution ban religion?

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.

[Chizzang]

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.

Gil,
I know that you don't understand this scenario at all
as we've been through this type of situation a lot and you don't get it

It's not about "what makes somebody feel warm and fuzzy"
It's really very serious - perhaps THE single most important thing
that has kept this Government from becoming a theocracy like Iran

That might sound like a wild over statement
but it would only take one Jimmy Swaggert type president
and no constitutional protection FROM religious mission creep and we're there...

The rules are the rules
even if they hurt your feelings
They cannot be bent on these types of things - even if the "intent" was pure
Intentions can be twisted over time

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 theocratic ideology

[dbackjon]

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.

Wrong.

[dbackjon]

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.

Gil,
I know that you don't understand this scenario at all
as we've been through this type of situation a lot and you don't get it

It's not about "what makes somebody feel warm and fuzzy"
It's really very serious - perhaps THE single most important thing
that has kept this Government from becoming a theocracy like Iran

That might sound like a wild over statement
but it would only take one Jimmy Swaggert type president
and no constitutional protection FROM religious mission creep and we're there...

The rules are the rules
even if they hurt your feelings
They cannot be bent on these types of things - even if the "intent" was pure
Intentions can be twisted over time

Well stated. And we are closer to the theocracy than you think. We have a theocrat as VP, and one as Attorney General.

[kalm]

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.

Gil,
I know that you don't understand this scenario at all
as we've been through this type of situation a lot and you don't get it

It's not about "what makes somebody feel warm and fuzzy"
It's really very serious - perhaps THE single most important thing
that has kept this Government from becoming a theocracy like Iran

That might sound like a wild over statement
but it would only take one Jimmy Swaggert type president
and no constitutional protection FROM religious mission creep and we're there...

The rules are the rules
even if they hurt your feelings
They cannot be bent on these types of things - even if the "intent" was pure
Intentions can be twisted over time

Dback and Chizzy owning this thread. Put up a symbol for EVERY other religion or STFU about it.

[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

[Gil Dobie]

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

That's what I'm saying.

[Gil Dobie]

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