General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court's Bladensburg Cross Decision "A Blow Against Constitution and Religious Equality"
Washington, DCToday, American Atheists rebuked the Supreme Court for its 7-2 decision upholding a 40-foot-tall Latin cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito claimed, That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials, adding, The passage of time gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.
Justice Alitos fumbling, awkward attempt at making a religious cross secular is little more than Christian favoritism at the expense of long-standing Establishment Clause precedent, responded American Atheists Vice President for Legal and Policy Alison Gill. However Alito may try to spin it, using taxpayer funds to maintain a 40-foot-tall Christian cross on government property is an endorsement of Christianity.
The passage of time in no way transforms an unconstitutional religious symbol into a permissible monument. The longer these discriminatory and exclusionary symbols remain, the greater the impact on those who are excluded, she added.
With this decision, the Supreme Court is dishonoring atheist and religious minority veterans, ignoring their contributions, and cheapening their sacrifice, said Nick Fish, American Atheists President. The preeminent symbol of one religious group can never represent our diverse and pluralistic society. This decision is yet another example of the Court extending favored status to one religion at the expense of the rights of the tens of millions of atheists and members of minority religions in the United States.
Taxpayers are footing the bill for a 40-foot tall cross that is, as Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent, a symbol that was never perceived as an appropriate headstone or memorial for Jewish soldiers or others who did not adhere to Christianity, added Fish.
Following this 7-2 decision, taxpayers will be forced to spend more than $100,000 to repair a crumbling 40-foot-tall Latin cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland.
unblock
(52,253 posts)Hey, why not have the government pay for everyone to have Christian bibles! I mean, gosh, movies quote from it all the time, so hey, it's secular, right?
Maybe someone can record a catchy version of the Lord's Prayer and get it played on the radio enough so Alito can claim it's now "secular".
Obviously, if anyone suggested that the lslamic crescent should in some case qualify for this kind of treatment, Alito would suddenly find a different brand of logic....
Volaris
(10,272 posts)Secondly, yes that should be tested...somebody should go place small concrete non-christian religious symbols in a circle around the Latin cross there, and then demand that the city maintain them, as well...
Firstly:
All Father, who art in Asgard,
hallowed be thy Beard.
Thy kindgoms come, thy will be done,
on Midgard as it is on Asgard
Give us this day, our daily Mjolnier
and forgive us our un-Worthyness,
As we forgive those, who have been
un-mighty against us.
Lead us not into our 'Quill'-ness,
But deliver us from Loki
For thine are the Kingdoms, The Power, and The Glory of the Nine Realms,
For ever and ever.
(I'm sooooo bored tonight won't you please please help me!!!!)
keithbvadu2
(36,829 posts)Then there is no religious meaning or insult to 'Piss Christ' because it is secular.
Polybius
(15,437 posts)Two of the four liberals sided with the majority.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)to consider it fair.
unblock
(52,253 posts)If a liberal or two vote with the majority, it's worth giving the decision a second look.
But it's hardly inconceivable that a liberal got it wrong. This is especially true when the liberal joins in a concurring opinion rather than the majority opinion, I.e., had different logic for siding with the winning side.
unblock
(52,253 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Then the government took it over through an eminent domain proceeding that was part of building an interstate highway. That is a world of difference from someone building a religious symbol on public land.
I'm an atheist, and I'm not threatened by seeing a cross, or a star of David, or a crescent moon with a star in the middle of it.
unblock
(52,253 posts)It doesn't appear to be something the majority based it's decision on.
If you allow what you describe, you allow a back door way for the government to maintain crosses across the country at the taxpayers' expense. The exact details of how the government came into possession of land bearing a huge religious symbol really is a matter of historical trivia. It doesn't bear on what is right for the government to do going forward.
Typically, with eminent domain for a highway, everything is razed to the ground, and you can bet that would have happened if it had been the symbol of a different religion.
I'm an atheist, and while I'm not bothered by symbols of Christianity per se, I am bothered by a government that funds maintenance of a Christian symbol at taxpayers' expense, and am even more bothered by a Supreme Court precedent that allowed for more and greater government funding and support for Christianity.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Yes, it resembles a religious symbol, but its primary purpose is not to proselytize a particular religion.
I'm with Justices Kagen and Breyer on this one.
unblock
(52,253 posts)No matter how much Christians keep insisting it's supposed to honor Jewish veterans, it doesn't; or at least it doesn't without a strong stench of disrespect for their religion.
It needn't rise to the level of proselytizing to be objectionable. Once the government funds it, along with this decision, it goes a long way toward formally establishing the Christian cross as the one religion whose symbols and other elements can be deemed to be secular and funded by the government and imposed on the people.
Does any other symbol of any other religion enjoy this status? How does this not violate the establishment clause?
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)I don't know why this is so hard for Christians* to understand.
*And people who don't call themselves Christians but who have absorbed a Christian worldview.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)says that it was built to honor 49 deceased service members from Prince Georges County. I didn't find a list of names anywhere, but the chances of all of them being of the Christian faith are probably strong.
There are religious symbols all over Arlington National Cemetery, not the least of which are religious symbols on grave markers.