Court Finds World War I Memorial Unconstitutional

[Chizzang]

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.

You're taking a pretty big leap there yourself Flaccofan...
I said what I said - you can add all kinds of assumptions you want to it - but ti mostly stands as it is
We should (as a Republic) be naturally very suspicious of religion creeping into everything
Religious Fundamentalism is the poison that makes enemies of reason

We've already shown we're capable of electing Jimmy Swaggert type politicians
The only thing - and this is NOT an exaggeration - the only thing that keeps them in check
Is the Reason of The Rule of Law / These nuts are not being held in check by their faith

think about that...
What keep this thing (This Republic) from flipping over entirely
Certainly not the lunatic fringe that's for sure

This is why even as a Liberal
I have zero tolerance for anti-gun 2nd amendment deniers
We cannot chip away at what built this place because it hurts somebodies feelings

[GannonFan]

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.

You're taking a pretty big leap there yourself Flaccofan...
I said what I said - you can add all kinds of assumptions you want to it - but ti mostly stands as it is
We should (as a Republic) be naturally very suspicious of religion creeping into everything
Religious Fundamentalism is the poison that makes enemies of reason

We've already shown we're capable of electing Jimmy Swaggert type politicians
The only thing - and this is NOT an exaggeration - the only thing that keeps them in check
Is the Reason of The Rule of Law / These nuts are not being held in check by their faith

think about that...
What keep this thing (This Republic) from flipping over entirely
Certainly not the lunatic fringe that's for sure

This is why even as a Liberal
I have zero tolerance for anti-gun 2nd amendment deniers
We cannot chip away at what built this place because it hurts somebodies feelings

No getting around this, you said that people of faith are nuts. People of faith are the lunatic fringe. The Founders were fully aware that people of faith, including themselves, would be part of running this whole thing, and they put it in the Constitution that you can't ban people of faith from being in the government. The government, at it's core, and as we wrote the Constitution, is based on the will of the people..."We, the People". Your lack of faith in people is quite disturbing.

[JohnStOnge]

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?

Dback, you need to look at what the First Amendment actually says in this regard. Unless you want to argue that this cross is a law passed by Congress with respect to the establishment of Religion you will need to concede that this is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Not in terms of what it actually SAYS anyway.

This "Separation of Church and State" thing is perhaps the clearest illustration of the fact that the Judiciary is out of control...that it is inventing law instead of interpreting it.

[Chizzang]

You're taking a pretty big leap there yourself Flaccofan...
I said what I said - you can add all kinds of assumptions you want to it - but ti mostly stands as it is
We should (as a Republic) be naturally very suspicious of religion creeping into everything
Religious Fundamentalism is the poison that makes enemies of reason

We've already shown we're capable of electing Jimmy Swaggert type politicians
The only thing - and this is NOT an exaggeration - the only thing that keeps them in check
Is the Reason of The Rule of Law / These nuts are not being held in check by their faith

think about that...
What keep this thing (This Republic) from flipping over entirely
Certainly not the lunatic fringe that's for sure

This is why even as a Liberal
I have zero tolerance for anti-gun 2nd amendment deniers
We cannot chip away at what built this place because it hurts somebodies feelings

No getting around this, you said that people of faith are nuts. People of faith are the lunatic fringe. The Founders were fully aware that people of faith, including themselves, would be part of running this whole thing, and they put it in the Constitution that you can't ban people of faith from being in the government. The government, at it's core, and as we wrote the Constitution, is based on the will of the people..."We, the People". Your lack of faith in people is quite disturbing.

Your over dramatization is cute... but understandable
And to your point - absolutely Religious nuts will get elected - and everybody knew that
This is EXACTLY why we have rule of law
and we can't bend the rules because something hurts their feelings

Thank you for making my point again for me

[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?

Dback, you need to look at what the First Amendment actually says in this regard. Unless you want to argue that this cross is a law passed by Congress with respect to the establishment of Religion you will need to concede that this is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Not in terms of what it actually SAYS anyway.

This "Separation of Church and State" thing is perhaps the clearest illustration of the fact that the Judiciary is out of control...that it is inventing law instead of interpreting it.

the job of the Judiciary is to interprete it, yes. But that is what they did, not invent a law. The United States was founded by refugees of all types - religious, criminals, indentured servants, slaves, etc.

You all seem to be ignoring the public land part of it. If villanova or anywhere else puts a cross on their land, that is protected. Once you put it ON public land, then yes, in can and has been interprepted as establishing a state religion.

[JohnStOnge]

the job of the Judiciary is to interprete it, yes. But that is what they did, not invent a law.

They did effectively invent a law. There is no way something like putting a cross on public land is a violation of anything the Constitution actually says. There IS no Constitutional prohibition on such a thing. The prohibition was and is entirely an invention of the Federal Judiciary. The Federal Judiciary invented a prohibition that otherwise would not exist.

[kalm]

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.

when it was put up has no bearing on the constitutionality.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with your made up claim of having a right to not see a cross.

What else should we grandfather in?

And your Taliban comparison is equally weak. The Taliban destroyed historical artifacts. This just says they cant be displayed on public property. HUGE difference.





.




















constitutionalty

[GannonFan]

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.

when it was put up has no bearing on the constitutionality.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with your made up claim of having a right to not see a cross.

What else should we grandfather in?

And your Taliban comparison is equally weak. The Taliban destroyed historical artifacts. This just says they cant be displayed on public property. HUGE difference.





.




















constitutionalty

The Supreme Court has ruled that crosses can be on public land before, and there are plenty of crosses on public land. The idea that you can't have crosses on public land is an idea that is made up and is not the reality of the rule of law in this country. I know it's hard for you and dback, because it's a little bit complicated. That's what we're here for, though, to keep educating you. You're welcome.

[kalm]

when it was put up has no bearing on the constitutionality.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with your made up claim of having a right to not see a cross.

What else should we grandfather in?

And your Taliban comparison is equally weak. The Taliban destroyed historical artifacts. This just says they cant be displayed on public property. HUGE difference.





.




















constitutionalty

The Supreme Court has ruled that crosses can be on public land before, and there are plenty of crosses on public land. The idea that you can't have crosses on public land is an idea that is made up and is not the reality of the rule of law in this country. I know it's hard for you and dback, because it's a little bit complicated. That's what we're here for, though, to keep educating you. You're welcome.

The Court has also upheld removals and has not been clear on the matter. But I'm glad you dropped the grandfathered in Taliban arguments.

[89Hen]

Gov Hogan just posted this on FB...

This is outrageous. The Peace Cross was built in 1925 by families in Prince George's County who joined with the American Legion to honor their fallen from World War I. Marylanders are united in showing respect for our veterans.
I’m a native Prince Georgian and have passed by this memorial thousands of times. I view it as an incredible tribute to those who came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
The idea that memorializing our soldiers killed in battle on foreign lands to make the world safe for democracy is somehow unconstitutional goes against everything we stand for as Americans. Our administration will fight this unacceptable overreach. Enough is enough.

[Chizzang]

Gov Hogan just posted this on FB...

This is outrageous. The Peace Cross was built in 1925 by families in Prince George's County who joined with the American Legion to honor their fallen from World War I. Marylanders are united in showing respect for our veterans.
I’m a native Prince Georgian and have passed by this memorial thousands of times. I view it as an incredible tribute to those who came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
The idea that memorializing our soldiers killed in battle on foreign lands to make the world safe for democracy is somehow unconstitutional goes against everything we stand for as Americans. Our administration will fight this unacceptable overreach. Enough is enough.

Let me summarize this ^

This is outrageous, the symbol of my religion is exempt from constitutional covenants and it hurts my feelings... Blah blah blah Ultimate sacrifice hurts my feelings blah blah blah America

[89Hen]

Gov Hogan just posted this on FB...

Let me summarize this ^

This is outrageous, the symbol of my religion is exempt from constitutional covenants and it hurts my feelings... Blah blah blah Ultimate sacrifice hurts my feelings blah blah blah America

You never answered my question Cleets....

So you think this memorial establishes a religion?

[Chizzang]

Let me summarize this ^

This is outrageous, the symbol of my religion is exempt from constitutional covenants and it hurts my feelings... Blah blah blah Ultimate sacrifice hurts my feelings blah blah blah America

You never answered my question Cleets....

So you think this memorial establishes a religion?

Does it have a symbol specific to one religion on it..?

[89Hen]

You never answered my question Cleets....

[Gil Dobie]

Interesting that the cross has the American Legion logo on it. It's part of the American Legion motto, to uphold and defend the constitution.

The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic veterans organization.

[kalm]

Gov Hogan just posted this on FB...

This is outrageous. The Peace Cross was built in 1925 by families in Prince George's County who joined with the American Legion to honor their fallen from World War I. Marylanders are united in showing respect for our veterans.
I’m a native Prince Georgian and have passed by this memorial thousands of times. I view it as an incredible tribute to those who came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
The idea that memorializing our soldiers killed in battle on foreign lands to make the world safe for democracy is somehow unconstitutional goes against everything we stand for as Americans. Our administration will fight this unacceptable overreach. Enough is enough.

Who said memorializimg soldiers is unconstitutional?

[89Hen]

Who said memorializimg soldiers in unconstitutional?

I don't think anyone has ever said that in the history of mankimd.

[JohnStOnge]

What gets me is this:

If we were operating in a vacuum where nobody had discussed this before we could present this language:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Then we could ask, "Is a local government or private entity putting a cross on public land a violation of that restriction?"

Or we could ask, "Is a public school principal in Shelby, Alabama, reading a prayer over the intercom a violation of that restriction?"

And the answer by any person who can read and understand English would be "no." Neither one of those things is a law made by Congress respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not even remotely arguable that they are.

Yet because the Supreme Court says so we buy that crap when it's obviously false.

[kalm]

What gets me is this:

If we were operating in a vacuum where nobody had discussed this before we could present this language:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Then we could ask, "Is a local government or private entity putting a cross on public land a violation of that restriction?"

Or we could ask, "Is a public school principal in Shelby, Alabama, reading a prayer over the intercom a violation of that restriction?"

And the answer by any person who can read and understand English would be "no." Neither one of those things is a law made by Congress respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not even remotely arguable that they are.

Yet because the Supreme Court says so we buy that crap when it's obviously false.

Well thank god the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[Chizzang]

This country got to where it is precisely because of the curt execution of our constitution and it's principals...
Because the rule of law was and is more important than "personal feelings"

As I read this thread I see a lot of "personal feelings"

[CID1990]

This country got to where it is precisely because of the curt execution of our constitution and it's principals...
Because the rule of law was and is more important than "personal feelings"

As I read this thread I see a lot of "personal feelings"

Rule of law??

That ship sailed in this country a long time ago - at least in terms of respect for the concept

no surprise that everybody is jumping on that bandwagon now - theres no room left in the argument for rule of law proponents

we live in an era where the executive can choose not to enforce laws as long as the polls suggest he wont lose an election over it

and Congress is all to willing to abrogate its responsibilities by acquiescing to the executive... because doing nothing is electorally better than doing something

Ive said before we're in the middle of one big civics lesson in this country - and it isnt a good one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

This country got to where it is precisely because of the curt execution of our constitution and it's principals...
Because the rule of law was and is more important than "personal feelings"

As I read this thread I see a lot of "personal feelings"

Is that how you dismiss any views that are contrary to yours? Your opinion reflects "the rule of law" and anyone who disagrees with you or sees more nuance in it is doing so from "personal feelings"? I'm surprised you could even type that post, what with the condescension being so thick over there I would've thought the keys would be sticky. And when has our defense of the Constitution ever been "curt"? That's an odd adjective to throw in there, considering that Constitutional law reflects many years of developing thought and opinion. Heck, there was 50 years between Plessy and the Topeka cases on civil rights - was that "curt"? Maybe you have a different definition of the law than the rest of us do - probably because we're so weighed down by "personal feelings". Oh, and principles is spelled wrong. If you're going to pontificate to people you should at least get that right.

Right now, the SCOTUS has been very mixed on what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to monuments in the shape of a religious symbol on public land. Therefore, it's not crazy to think that there is a fair amount of gray area in that regard. There is no simple "rule of law" answer here. There have been cases where they have been unequivocal that a cross should come down, and in other cases they've been adamant that a cross doesn't have to come down. Although kalm doesn't like to have to think too hard on things, the intent of when this thing went up is a very valid point of reference, especially when trying to determine if this is an advocacy (which means intentional backing) of religion by the government. But that's just one component of a clearly unsettled area of law right now. I'm not sure we're any closer to a definitive answer on this, especially since no one case is exactly like another.

[CID1990]

This country got to where it is precisely because of the curt execution of our constitution and it's principals...
Because the rule of law was and is more important than "personal feelings"

As I read this thread I see a lot of "personal feelings"

Is that how you dismiss any views that are contrary to your's? Your opinion reflects "the rule of law" and anyone who disagrees with you or sees more nuance in it is doing so from "personal feelings"? I'm surprised you could even type that post, what with the condescension being so thick over there I would've thought the keys would be sticky. And when has our defense of the Constitution ever been "curt"? That's an odd adjective to throw in there, considering that Constitutional law reflects many years of developing thought and opinion. Heck, there was 50 years between Plessy and the Topeka cases on civil rights - was that "curt"? Maybe you have a different definition of the law than the rest of us do - probably because we're so weighed down by "personal feelings". Oh, and principles is spelled wrong. If you're going to pontificate to people you should at least get that right.

Right now, the SCOTUS has been very mixed on what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to monuments in the shape of a religious symbol on public land. Therefore, it's not crazy to think that there is a fair amount of gray area in that regard. There is no simple "rule of law" answer here. There have been cases where they have been unequivocal that a cross should come down, and in other cases they've been adamant that a cross doesn't have to come down. Although kalm doesn't like to have to think too hard on things, the intent of when this thing went up is a very valid point of reference, especially when trying to determine if this is an advocacy (which means intentional backing) of religion by the government. But that's just one component of a clearly unsettled area of law right now. I'm not sure we're any closer to a definitive answer on this, especially since no one case is exactly like another.

oh sh1t

i thought he was talking about elementary school principals

i need to change my whole reply


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Is that how you dismiss any views that are contrary to yours? Your opinion reflects "the rule of law" and anyone who disagrees with you or sees more nuance in it is doing so from "personal feelings"? I'm surprised you could even type that post, what with the condescension being so thick over there I would've thought the keys would be sticky. And when has our defense of the Constitution ever been "curt"? That's an odd adjective to throw in there, considering that Constitutional law reflects many years of developing thought and opinion. Heck, there was 50 years between Plessy and the Topeka cases on civil rights - was that "curt"? Maybe you have a different definition of the law than the rest of us do - probably because we're so weighed down by "personal feelings". Oh, and principles is spelled wrong. If you're going to pontificate to people you should at least get that right.

Right now, the SCOTUS has been very mixed on what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to monuments in the shape of a religious symbol on public land. Therefore, it's not crazy to think that there is a fair amount of gray area in that regard. There is no simple "rule of law" answer here. There have been cases where they have been unequivocal that a cross should come down, and in other cases they've been adamant that a cross doesn't have to come down. Although kalm doesn't like to have to think too hard on things, the intent of when this thing went up is a very valid point of reference, especially when trying to determine if this is an advocacy (which means intentional backing) of religion by the government. But that's just one component of a clearly unsettled area of law right now. I'm not sure we're any closer to a definitive answer on this, especially since no one case is exactly like another.

oh sh1t

i thought he was talking about elementary school principals

i need to change my whole reply


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heck, I didn't even have the heart to point out that "its" is the correct version of the possessive, while "it's" means "it is". One battle at a time.

[89Hen]

You never answered my question Cleets....

Still haven't