• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Bladensburg Cross Unconstitutional?

Somerville said:
If a cobra killed your dog, you either live in South Florida or in Asia, which is neither here nor there in relation to this thread. However, how would moving the memorial from public land to private property reduce your freedom or denigrate those who died in WWI?
Click to expand...

Return the land it occupies 'back' to private ownership.
 
eohrnberger said:
The left's continue effort to destroy the Christian religion.
Click to expand...

Look at the hucksters like Creflo Dollar. God I luv that name. I see the Catholics are now dealing with sexual abuse of nuns. How nice. How much you think Joel Osteen is worth? I saw Jim Baker on TV the other day while flipping channels. Too funny. But blame "the left", its easier.
 
pinqy said:
You are seriously trying to claim that the cross is not a symbol of Christianity? You’re going to go with that?

Tell you what: show me a cross as a war memorial erectected by a country that is not predominantly Christian. If Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist countries also use the cross as a generic symbol, I’ll agree with you.
Click to expand...

It can be, or simply viewed as a grave marker, in this case representative of 49 lives from this town that gave their lives in WWI, perhaps some or none of them Christians. I just don't go out of my way looking to be offended, do you? Perhaps you should look at it as a way of Christians showing their respect/admiration/thankfulness to the 49 persons who 'gave their lives' for their freedom.
 
Individual said:
Return the land it occupies 'back' to private ownership.
Click to expand...

"private ownership" - yeah, that depends - was the traffic circle ever part of a private property AND what are the state laws about ownership of land along public roadways? Here in Maine it is a minimum of 10 feet to either side of the paving for a two lane road.
 
Individual said:
It can be, or simply viewed as a grave marker, in this case representative of 49 lives from this town that gave their lives in WWI, perhaps some or none of them Christians. I just don't go out of my way looking to be offended, do you? Perhaps you should look at it as a way of Christians showing their respect/admiration/thankfulness to the 49 persons who 'gave their lives' for their freedom.
Click to expand...

It is the foot in the door or the camel's nose into the tent. "Oh yeah, that cross is not really a Christian marker" Then the next time a blatantly Christian marker, plaque, monument, billboard is put up on the local courthouse or city hall, the argument in defence will be the "Oh come on, that's just part of our culture like the Bladensburg Cross, it's not really Christian don't ya know"
 
Individual said:
It can be, or simply viewed as a grave marker,
Click to expand...
Ok, show me where it is used as a grave marker in Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist countries.
The cross is only used in historically Christian areas because it is a Christian symbol.

in this case representative of 49 lives from this town that gave their lives in WWI, perhaps some or none of them Christians.
Click to expand...
And why was a cross chosen?

I just don't go out of my way looking to be offended, do you?
Click to expand...
Not much of anything offends me. And of those few things that do, I certainly don’t try to ban things that offend me: all things Justin Bieber would be gone in that case.

Perhaps you should look at it as a way of Christians showing their respect/admiration/thankfulness to the 49 persons who 'gave their lives' for their freedom.
Click to expand...
I do look at it that way. Doesn’t make it Constitutional. And as a side point, while I made “don’t die” part of my mission statement in my deployments to combat zones, I would not have wanted a cross, or a Star of David, or crescent moon, or any religious symbol over my grave if I had failed.

Let’s, for example, take a look at Arlington National Cemetary. No crosses as grave markers, just white headstones. There are 68 different symbols (mostly religious) that can be used. No one religious symbol for everyone. No government support for one religion over others. That’s Constitutional.

VA approved religious grave markings
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
It is the foot in the door or the camel's nose into the tent. "Oh yeah, that cross is not really a Christian marker" Then the next time a blatantly Christian marker, plaque, monument, billboard is put up on the local courthouse or city hall, the argument in defence will be the "Oh come on, that's just part of our culture like the Bladensburg Cross, it's not really Christian don't ya know"
Click to expand...

It wouldn't bother me at all.
 
pinqy said:
Ok, show me where it is used as a grave marker in Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist countries.
The cross is only used in historically Christian areas because it is a Christian symbol.


And why was a cross chosen?


Not much of anything offends me. And of those few things that do, I certainly don’t try to ban things that offend me: all things Justin Bieber would be gone in that case.


I do look at it that way. Doesn’t make it Constitutional. And as a side point, while I made “don’t die” part of my mission statement in my deployments to combat zones, I would not have wanted a cross, or a Star of David, or crescent moon, or any religious symbol over my grave if I had failed.

Let’s, for example, take a look at Arlington National Cemetary. No crosses as grave markers, just white headstones. There are 68 different symbols (mostly religious) that can be used. No one religious symbol for everyone. No government support for one religion over others. That’s Constitutional.

VA approved religious grave markings
Click to expand...

I don't see this as government support for one religion over another, but simply recognition by Christians, of various denominations for a number of fallen soldiers. Why make such an issue out of this when there are many more pressing issues that need attention. Perhaps the addition of another structure containing the 68 different symbols could be added to put your mind at rest. What symbol represents atheism?

But at the intersection of the cross you will find what could be considered an islamic 5 point star.
 
Elvira said:
True...technically it should not be used as a Christian symbol at all...

“You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them, for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion..." Exodus 20:4,5

"Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry." 1 Corinthians 10:14

“‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’” “‘And I will become a father to you, and you will become sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah, the Almighty.” 2 Corinthians 6:17,18
Click to expand...
Well then, it seems we have our answer! The bladensburg cross clearly is not unconstitutional
 
Individual said:
I don't see this as government support for one religion over another, but simply recognition by Christians, of various denominations for a number of fallen soldiers.
Click to expand...
Ok, so on that site, the government is supporting a Christian symbol, put up by Christians, as a Christian recognition of the dead, and you don’t see how no other religions are represented or supported? I’m stumped


Why make such an issue out of this when there are many more pressing issues that need attention.
Click to expand...
Because I support rule of law and the Constitution and I am opposed to any religious group dominating the public sphere.


Perhaps the addition of another structure containing the 68 different symbols could be added to put your mind at rest. What symbol represents atheism?
Click to expand...
There is no room for another structure. For s public area that allows multiple statues/memorials, then all groups should have equal opportunity, with the exception of obscene images/language or those that are otherwise disrespectful.

There are 70 VA approved symbols, not 68 (I miscounted). One is explicitly atheist
emb-16.jpg
. The infinity sign and a Humanist symbol are also available.


[wuote]But at the intersection of the cross you will find what could be considered an islamic 5 point star.[/QUOTE]
No, it couldn’t. It may resemble an Islamic star, but no one could possibly think that’s what it was meant to be.
 
pinqy said:
Ok, so on that site, the government is supporting a Christian symbol, put up by Christians, as a Christian recognition of the dead, and you don’t see how no other religions are represented or supported? I’m stumped



Because I support rule of law and the Constitution and I am opposed to any religious group dominating the public sphere.



There is no room for another structure. For s public area that allows multiple statues/memorials, then all groups should have equal opportunity, with the exception of obscene images/language or those that are otherwise disrespectful.

There are 70 VA approved symbols, not 68 (I miscounted). One is explicitly atheist
emb-16.jpg
. The infinity sign and a Humanist symbol are also available.


[wuote]But at the intersection of the cross you will find what could be considered an islamic 5 point star.
Click to expand...
No, it couldn’t. It may resemble an Islamic star, but no one could possibly think that’s what it was meant to be.[/QUOTE]

1. It's a Christian symbol because it was paid for by Christians.

2. At most you could say our government is supporting the right to have religious views, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc., etc., etc. It does not impose any religious views upon observers.

3. Nothing in our Constitution is violated by any religious symbol.

4. At most our Constitution disallows government from imposing any one religion on the population as a whole.

5. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
As a result, no law has been made, but you seem intent on government to prohibit the free exercise thereof which IMO, WOULD be in violation of the 1st Amendment as the existence of the Cross imposes NOTHING religious upon the lives of viewers.
 



Key Religious Symbols

yxdv49ua



​
What is and isn't Constitutional is existential. What Peace Cross' builders were thinking is of no matter, for I can assure you that neither they nor the MD authorities who permitted the cross' erection were thinking "let's put up this cross even though we know its unconstitutional." They were surely thinking they wanted to memorialize WWI vets and chose the cross the symbol with which they wanted to do so. I'm sure they had good intentions, but goodness of their intentions doesn't affect whether the state's adoption/erection of the symbol violates the Establishment clause.

As for the church and state aspect:


Symbology Considerations:
In preponderantly non-Christian cultures, a cross is just a cross, but the U.S. is culturally mostly Christian and, the "and" being pivotal, the U.S. has a proscription against commingling church, any church (faith) and state. The consequence of that proscription is that our cultural heterogeneity makes it difficult for state owned and operated facilities to display religious symbols. Were the U.S. a homogenous culture or were it not to have the separation requirement it has, the cross wouldn't violate the separation of church and state dictum. But we have that dictum; thus the cross and a host of other symbols violate it when displayed on state property.


Contextual Considerations:
Three kinds of religious displays on public property engender most Establishment Clause rancor.
  • Government-sponsored celebrations or acknowledgements of religious holidays (e.g.,Christmas or Hanukkah) with a public display of religious icons, symbols, or objects (e.g., a nativitycrèche or a menorah).
  • Celebration/acknowledgement, by installing plaques or monuments inscribed with religious symbols/passages, of religion’s influence on American political and legal history.
  • Objects or symbols (e.g. a cross) erected by private citizens or groups in public places known as public forums.
The matter of Peace Cross involves the last category.

"Public property" refers to the interior/exterior of property owned by governments, including public schools, city halls, courthouses, capitol buildings, parks, streets, sidewalks, town squares, plazas, etc. The SCOTUS has recognized some such places -- those that have been devoted, by long tradition of government fiat, to public assembly and debate -- as "public forums," whereat are keenly circumscribed limits on expressive activity. Re: public forums, courts demur to deem a religious displays as establishments or endorsement of religion.

Accordingly, one must ask whether the Peace Cross space constitutes a public forum. Yes, one can gather a small group there, as one can anywhere, but it's truly nothing more than a traffic circle.

y4no86am

​


The DC area has many traffic circles and public squares, and most of them are indeed public forums. Dupont Circle is a public forum space, as is Lafayette Square; however, the Peace Cross roundabout is clearly not designed or maintained as such a place.

Ward Circle, DC -- It's just not a place people go to "hang out" and discuss anything. If, say, a pro or anti American University demonstration were organized and the streets closed, sure, folks would gather there and on the adjacent land, but otherwise Ward Circle isn't a gathering place.


y4b8lor2


​

Dupont Circle, DC -- There're always people gathered in Dupont Circle. Folks stand there with signs protesting/advocating "this or that." They gather to discuss the times. They meet there to people watch. And Dupont Circle is designed and maintained to be exactly that sort of place.


y2m736fa
 
I'm a Devout Agnostic and I say keep it. Leave it be. Why? The irony is just too delicious to pass up. It's called the "Peace Cross" and it stands over a war memorial. For centuries Christian armies have marched behind a Cross to go and slaughter their fellow men, with the clergy giving their blessings and prayers that they rack up a nice body count. So, yes, a Cross is the most apropos symbol for a war memorial.
 
Bezukhov said:
I'm a Devout Agnostic and I say keep it. Leave it be. Why? The irony is just too delicious to pass up. It's called the "Peace Cross" and it stands over a war memorial. For centuries Christian armies have marched behind a Cross to go and slaughter their fellow men, with the clergy giving their blessings and prayers that they rack up a nice body count. So, yes, a Cross is the most apropos symbol for a war memorial.
Click to expand...

Well said...you've hit the proverbial nail on the head...:thumbs:
 
Somerville said:
Is a cross a purely Christian symbol when it is used as a fallen veteran memorial? The SCOTUS will be making a decision on this matter in the next couple weeks.



Reasons offered by the American Humanist Assn.


All quotes from [URL="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/31/heres-why-the-supreme-court-must-say-the-bladensburg-cross-is-unconstitutional/]Here’s Why the Supreme Court Must Say the Bladensburg Cross Is Unconstitutional[/URL]
Click to expand...

hopefully with Judge Kavanaugh on the court we can begin acknowledging our Christian heritage again and get rid of this perversion of the establishment clause, that was meantly only to restrict congress from making a national church, to prohibit religious symbols.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
hopefully with Judge Kavanaugh on the court we can begin acknowledging our Christian heritage again and get rid of this perversion of the establishment clause, that was meantly only to restrict congress from making a national church, to prohibit religious symbols.
Click to expand...

The value of your words is greatly diminished by your chosen avatar.

Please provide words from those who created the Constitution which would support your (or Kavanaugh's) views on "Christian heritage".
 
More on the subject from Scotusblog.

Argument analysis: Peace cross appears safe, if not stable, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 27, 2019

Today the justices heard oral argument in the dispute, and it seemed likely that the cross will survive the challenge, even if the court’s ruling proves to be a relatively narrow one that allows the peace cross and other historical monuments to stand while making clear that new religious symbols may not pass muster in the future.
(. . .)
To determine whether the cross violates the establishment clause, the court of appeals applied a test from the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which focuses on whether a law or practice has a secular purpose, whether its principal effect advances religion, and whether the law or practice creates an “excessive entanglement with religion.” In this case, the court of appeals reasoned, the average person would think that the cross is intended to endorse religion because the cross dominates the other war memorials in the vicinity and has long represented Christianity.
(. . .)
Arguing on behalf of the American Legion, lawyer Michael Carvin offered a more sweeping test, under which virtually all religious symbols would generally be constitutional except, he explained, “in the rare circumstances where they’ve been misused to proselytize.”

Carvin’s proposed standard met with skepticism not only from the court’s more liberal justices but also, significantly, from some of its more conservative members.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was one of those skeptics. If we “abandon Lemon’s endorsement test because it’s become a dog’s breakfast,” Gorsuch queried, what’s the difference between proselytizing and endorsement?

Chief Justice John Roberts was also skeptical, although for a slightly different reason. He noted that what Carvin had initially advertised as a “pretty concise test” “degenerates pretty quickly into” “kind of a fact-specific test” – which, Roberts seemed to suggest, the court would want to avoid.
(. . .)
In light of the historical context of this case, Breyer asked Miller (attorney for the plaintiffs), what do you think of saying “yes, ok, but no more?” “We’re a different country now, and there are 50 more different religions” than there were when the cross was erected nearly a century ago. Miller was unenthusiastic, but Kagan was more receptive to Breyer’s idea. “There’s something quite different about this historic moment in time,” Kagan agreed.
Click to expand...
 
Bezukhov said:
. For centuries Christian armies have marched behind a Cross to go and slaughter their fellow men
Click to expand...
does the silly liberal think they should have surrendered to Muslim and Nazis? Isn't thinking fun??
 
Somerville said:
The value of your words is greatly diminished by your chosen avatar.

Please provide words from those who created the Constitution which would support your (or Kavanaugh's) views on "Christian heritage".
Click to expand...

????We are obviously products of the Christian Enlightenment. THe idea of liberty and morality as we know it today came from Christ.
 
notquiteright said:
Oh Ye of little faith.... :roll:

If you think this in ANY way destroys the Christian Faith then it would have been wiped out in Roman arenas by a few lions... :doh
Click to expand...

liberals have not wiped out Christian morality (love thy neighbor as thyself) but weakened it a lot, just look at all the school shooters, depressed , overdoses, murders. Liberals need to own their handiwork
 
James972 said:
liberals have not wiped out Christian morality (love thy neighbor as thyself) but weakened it a lot, just look at all the school shooters, depressed , overdoses, murders. Liberals need to own their handiwork
Click to expand...

So you're saying that conservatives are responsible for 100% of all murders?

Huh. OK.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
So you're saying that conservatives are responsible for 100% of all murders?
Click to expand...

no liberals since they oppose the great Christian commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom