The Fourth Circuit Court recently ruled in a 2-1 decision that a 40-foot tall cross honoring Prince George’s County, Maryland, veterans who died fighting in World War I was unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause. The monument, known as the Peace Cross, was erected in 1925 with funding from local families and The American Legion and it sits on public land. It has been maintained over the years by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a state agency.
Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, who was the sole judge voting against the majority decision, stated that the majority “ignores certain elements of the memorial … and confuses maintenance of a highway median and monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.” He also said, “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.”
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
7 comments:
Don't give up the fight. it's a new administration and this liberal nonsense is a carry-over from the last one.
Set up a guard around it and I guarantee, no police office will enforce the removal.
A cross in no way establishes a law saying you must be a Christian. Where in the Hades do these judges get their copy of the Constitution from?
@ 1:38
Explain why it is appropriate to use Christian Specific Iconography on a war memorial? Why does the imagery HAVE to be religious at all in nature, and why it HAS to be Christian?
Did you look at it? It is a 40 foot cross.
There is no reason that a public monument should display Christian Specific Iconography, unless you can pose an argument that justifies using this imagery over any other sort of all inclusive imagery?
The government endorsing this imagery, and choosing this over all other clearly establishes that only Christians are included in this monument.
This is a violation of the establishment clause, and the court correctly ruled on it.
1:38pm......they were Democratic appointed
Obama had a chance to install some of his worshipers on the 4th Circuit, and consequently its rulings have veered leftward.
Elections have consequences.
2:40, did you know that ALL those who the cross represents were Christians?
And show me this "Establishment clause" you spout about. I'll bet you can't.
@7:16 PM
Anon 2:40 here.
You didn't address a single question I posted. I would like if you do. I'm open to changing my mind, but every time I ask those questions I get crickets.
And... to answer your questions:
The Establishment Clause: A quick google search came up with this:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
If you would like to further that I would recommend reading Supreme Court rulings on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and what Thomas Jefferson... the man that penned the First Amendment wrote about it... most specifically his letters to the Danbury Baptists.
I think that should clear things up.
And to this one: did you know that ALL those who the cross represents were Christians?
I'm not sure what you are asking, you will need to be more clear, but to take a stab at it.... the most recognizable iconography for the Christian religion is the cross. It would be difficult, or next to impossible to confuse it for anything else, or it's meaning as anything else. If the imagery is not a problem for you, how's about we simply turn it upside down? If the imagery, or use of the cross does not signify Christian, then there should be no problem with it being up side down.
Now I know this is absurd, but it is to prove the point. No, I don't think it should be displayed as upside down any more than any religious iconography is appropriate on this sort of public monument. It is clearly exclusionary. If it's purpose is to honor all serving military, why not use some sort of imagery that represents all military?
Post a Comment