War memorials can be easy to miss. They’re often tucked away in small parks, virtually invisible to all but those who approach them on foot.
Not so the Peace Cross.
Standing more than 40 feet high, the concrete edifice was dedicated almost 100 years ago “to the heroes of Prince George’s County, Maryland who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.”
Each of the four faces of the cross is inscribed with a word: “valor, endurance, courage, devotion.”
If this strikes you as a fitting and dignified expression of gratitude to those who gave what President Abraham Lincoln called “the last full measure of devotion,” consider yourself lucky.
After all, you could belong to the American Humanist Association. The atheist group considers this striking memorial to be not only offensive, but unconstitutional.
In fact, the group has been suing for years to have the Peace Cross removed. In their view, the cross—which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2015—carries “an inherently religious message and creates the unmistakable appearance of honoring only Christian servicemen.”
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
At what point does atheism essentially become a religion forcing their views upon others?
ReplyDeleteAmazing how a lack of reading comprehension can take down a whole country.
ReplyDeleteThe article postulates in it's heading, that there is a "corrupt" understanding of the establishment clause. This certainly can not be, as it was correctly ruled upon by the experts in the field of law.
ReplyDeleteIt is a giant 40 foot cross. How can it possibly be confused for anything other than a Christian symbol? 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.
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?
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?
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.
@12:51
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Atheism religion? What are it's doctrines? Where is it's holy book? What are it's views it's trying to force on others?
A-theism means without theism. Lacking a belief in a God or Gods. Like asymmetry. A-symmetry. Without or not having symmetry. It makes no positive claims, has no holy texts or tenants. It defines a single thing about a person. It can not describe a person or tell you anything about what they do believe, or about who they are.
I think you are mistaken by what you say, and I get the feeling you don't know any atheists, nor have you spent much time with any.
Atheist believe we all should not believe in any God, that is their belief, theism, tenet and message ... got it?
Delete1:45, there is absolutely no argument that the 40 foot cross isn't a Christian symbol. It most certainly is and was put there not by Congress, but by the local people who wanted it to honor their soldiers, which they had every right to do and make it as permanent as death itself.
ReplyDeleteThe "Corrupted understanding" brought out in the headline has to do with the actual verbiage on the First Amendment. I suggest you and all who wish to comment on here go first and read it, THEN come back and tell us all how this Cross somehow made Congress make a law establishing a religion anywhere and what that law actually says about this 40 foot cross.
We will all be waiting right here for your wonderful news.
When they win, what will they have won?
ReplyDeleteThis incident is like so many others where most local residents have no problem with local landmarks with crosses on them, but outside groups such as AHA come in and cause chaos like other liberal globalist thinkers. When they took prayer and Bible reading out of our classrooms, our Nation began to crumble.
ReplyDeleteThe spooks (AHA, 1:45, etc.) are coming out. Must be close to Halloween.
ReplyDelete@3:32 PM
ReplyDeleteAh, so you are a Constitutional Law expert? I guess not.
Also in the First Ammendment: "not abridge free speech", but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is not one, now can you? That is not protected speech.
As a place to start to help you understand the establishment clause, why not read what was intended by it by the guy who wrote it? Read the letter to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson. Not only is it clear as to it's intention, but it is where the term "wall of separation between church and state" comes from.
If you have further confusion, reference a few of the Supreme Court cases regarding the establishment clause that set precedent in the matter. Here are a few but there are many more.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
I hope that helps get you started.
What you don't seem to understand, is that OTHER religions will start to use your poorly formed reasons to ratchet their way into the public sphere. Don't want Muslims or Satanists in your Schools or Public arena? Start heeding the wisdom of our forefathers who recognized the problems of mixing religion and government.
@7:15
ReplyDeleteSupport that claim please, as is stands I reject it completely. Support that when a single compulsory daily prayer was removed from schools, how it caused the nation to crumble.
Did not saying it stop all the Christians from being Christian? What happened to the rest of the day, the week, and the weekend where they were STILL Christian and could pray to their hearts content? I mean, 75% of the Country is Christian, ipso facto if we are crumbling, it's on their watch by their hands
What happened exactly, and HOW did the nation crumble. How did one, cause the other, and what SPECIFICALLY was the crumbling?
I am so done with hearing these tired religious memes that have no connection with reality. I am open to changing my mind, but this one has obvious and serious problems that it seems just laughable.
I'm sure that by prayer, you don't mean Muslim prayer, or Satanist prayer, you mean Christian prayer, right?
Simple solution the local Government marks off 25 or 50 feet square, deed it and donate it to a VFW, American Legion or some other private non-profit group. No longer on Government property end of law suit!!
ReplyDelete@4:53 AM
ReplyDeleteBeing an atheist just means you don't accept the claims of theists, therefore by default don't believe in their god.
It makes no assertions, declarations, or claims.
It is not a belief system. I makes no claims on what others should think or believe.
I'm an atheist, and I don't want you telling me what to believe, I wouldn't do that to you. In fact, I would defend your right to freedom of your religion.
My opinion is that people who think as you do about atheists are merely parroting what they have heard, and don't really know any atheists, and have done very little reading or learning on viewpoints or opinions other than your own.
If you had, you would understand why what you said doesn't really make much sense.
Consider this. You are a stamp collector, I am not. Does this make me a "non-stamp collector"? What does being a "non-stamp collector" say about me other than I don't collect stamps?
Saying things like "non-stamp collectors want to force everyone else to not collect stamps" sounds silly doesn't it?
The same applies when you make claims about atheists.