• 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?

The words one finds on the internets can be quite surprising at times. The quoted words here were found while I was searching for the reasons Protestants use a bare cross to symbolise their faith while Catholics and Orthodox churches use a cross with the body of Jesus present. It seems Protestants have changed their beliefs since the mid 19th century, in regards to the symbology of the cross.

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
DEFINED BY WHAT WE ARE NOT:
THE ROLE OF ANTI-CATHOLICISM IN THE FORMATION
OF EARLY AMERICAN IDENTITY
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE HISTORY DEPARTMENT
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF HISTORY
BY
BRANDI H. MARCHANT
LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA
APRIL 2012

Consistent with Puritan piety that considered holidays to be Catholic perversions, many American Protestants refused to celebrate Christmas as late as the nineteenth century.3 Lamenting the small number of New York City churches open on December 25, 1840, George Templeton Strong criticized “the Papaphobic dissenters” for refusing to celebrate what
they considered “a relic of popery.”4 Perhaps most striking to the modern American would be the Protestant aversion to using the cross as a Christian symbol. Anti-Catholic rioting that tore through Philadelphia in May 1844 provided a striking example of opposition to the cross as a fundamentally Catholic symbol. As flames engulfed the St. Augustine Catholic Church, rioters outside expressed great satisfaction as the fire finally destroyed the cross atop the church. While all Protestants certainly did not share in this kind of anti-Catholic violence, most denominations carried on the Reformation tradition of repudiating vestiges of Catholicism. For many, this entailed a rejection of all ornamentation, including such things church decoration and vestments as well as crosses.5

3 Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007), 39.
4 George Templeton Strong, The Diary of George Templeton Strong: Young Man in New York, 1835-1849,
ed. Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952), 154.
5 Ryan K. Smith, Gothic Arches, Latin Crosses: Anti-Catholicism and American Church Designs in the
Nineteenth Century (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 1-2, 6. Smith presents a
compelling argument that the popularity of Gothic design in Protestant religious spaces during the mid-nineteenth
century emerged as a response to the profound growth of the American Catholic Church. By assimilating many of
the material aspects of Catholicism, such as architecture, symbolism, and decoration, into their own Protestant
worship, they sought to utilize effective features of Catholicism, while undermining its influence
 
The Supreme Court has incorporated the First Amendment to apply to both State and local governments in 1925. It does not, however, apply to private organizations. Just government, at every level.

Constitution would never have been ratified if Feds had said, we will usurp state power after you ratify Federal Constitution.
 
The left appears to be obsessed with only persecuting Christians. For example, they could have easily gone after an orthodox Jew, or a devout Muslim baker, instead of the Christian baker in Colorado. Instead, the left specifically targeted a Christian for persecution. So I don't think you are going to see Muslims feeling uncomfortable. In fact, it is because Muslims make Christians uncomfortable is why the left embraces Muslims, even though most Muslims would rather kill a leftist - particularly the homosexual atheist leftists.
I wonder if liberals would like to ban crosses on churches? It must make Muslims and atheists very uncomfortable since there are so many churches and so few Mosques.
 
Please inform the reading audience the exact relationship between the Bladensburg Cross on public property and a cross seen on a Christian church.

govt permits churches with crosses so why not traffic circles with crosses??? 1+1=2
 
Are churches the property of a government - local, state, or federal?

our issue is not whether churches are the property of govt but whether permitting a church with cross and a traffic circle with a cross indicate Congress has established a religion. Isn't learning fun??
 
our issue is not whether churches are the property of govt but whether permitting a church with cross and a traffic circle with a cross indicate Congress has established a religion. Isn't learning fun??

jimmy, I am really beginning to wonder about your cognitive abilities.
 
Today in 2019 and, more importantly, at the time of the making of this memorial the cross was, and is, definitely a Christian symbol. It isn't the kind of thing I lose sleep over, but I view the memorial as only paying respect to the Christians who died in WWI. It an exclusive memorial, not an inclusive one. As an atheist veteran I am not offended by it, but I wish they would just be honest about it. But then I guess if they were honest about it they would lose the court case.

If you were honest you'd admit you'd like to see all public displays of Christianity wiped away. But if you did, you lose your case.
 
If you were honest you'd admit you'd like to see all public displays of Christianity wiped away. But if you did, you lose your case.

I have been on record here over the years that whether it is something like this or Confederate statues, I just don’t care. They are things that birds sit on and poop on. Leave them or take them down. It doesn’t register on my list of priorities. When I was younger I was more of an activist about these kinds of things. But my perspective on such things has changed over the years.
 
I have been on record here over the years that whether it is something like this or Confederate statues, I just don’t care. They are things that birds sit on and poop on. Leave them or take them down. It doesn’t register on my list of priorities. When I was younger I was more of an activist about these kinds of things. But my perspective on such things has changed over the years.

But you chose to get involved in the thread anyway.
 
If you were honest you'd admit you'd like to see all public displays of Christianity wiped away. But if you did, you lose your case.

yes if a cross in a traffic circle offends a liberal imagine how much a cross on an actual church offends a liberal!
 
jimmy, I am really beginning to wonder about your cognitive abilities.

translation: as a typical liberal I lost debate so am reduced to personal attack.
 
translation: as a typical liberal I lost debate so am reduced to personal attack.

Translation: As a very unique individual, I am unable to accept that facts often contradict my statements and will simply denigrate those who have supplied the facts.
 
, I am unable to accept that facts often contradict my statements.

if true why is the liberal so afraid to show just one example of a fact contradicting a statement?? What do you learn from your liberal fear?
 
if true why is the liberal so afraid to show just one example of a fact contradicting a statement?? What do you learn from your liberal fear?

:lamo: nice bit of editing there jimmy. another shining example of your debate skills. have fun in the sandbox with your toys.
 
:lamo: nice bit of editing there jimmy. another shining example of your debate skills. have fun in the sandbox with your toys.

ever see a conservative or libertarian have to run from a debate? What does that teach you??
 
ever see a conservative or libertarian have to run from a debate? What does that teach you??

All the time jimmy, on every day I participate on this forum, I see "a conservative or libertarian" run from a debate. As with your standard mode of operation, they do so by clipping quotes, bringing in totally irrelevant or unrelated subjects and by simply denying the validity of the counterpoints offered by their opponents.
 
A town in Missouri has done the right thing after the FFRF petitioned the town.

Ozark will move cross after pressure from out-of-state group
January 12, 2019

Ozark, Missouri is bowing to pressure from a group that regularly sues local governments and will move a cross from a public park.

Under pressure from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, city officials in Ozark announced that the cross that was on display at the Finley River Park will be moved to private land located at the south end of the park to avoid a lawsuit from the atheist group.

The land that the cross is being moved to is owned by the Christian County A&M Society and is regularly used by the Finley River Saddle Club Arena.
 
All the time jimmy, on every day I participate on this forum, I see "a conservative or libertarian" run from a debate. As with your standard mode of operation, they do so by clipping quotes, bringing in totally irrelevant or unrelated subjects and by simply denying the validity of the counterpoints offered by their opponents.

dear, clipping quotes is not running from a debate, running is when you leave debate or respond only with personal attack. 1+1=2


here's perfect example of liberal running or withdrawing after he has lost debate:
"nice bit of editing there jimmy. another shining example of your debate skills. have fun in the sandbox with your toys."
 
dear, clipping quotes is not running from a debate, running is when you leave debate or respond only with personal attack. 1+1=2


here's perfect example of liberal running or withdrawing after he has lost debate:
"nice bit of editing there jimmy. another shining example of your debate skills. have fun in the sandbox with your toys."

and the √81 = ?

Why don't you "debate" the topic jimmy? You have not yet, in 40 pages, managed to supply the readers with a rational answer supported by Constitutional law
 
and the √81 = ?

Why don't you "debate" the topic jimmy? You have not yet, in 40 pages, managed to supply the readers with a rational answer supported by Constitutional law

oh no, why don't you "debate" the topic somer? You have not yet, in 40 pages, managed to supply the readers with a rational answer supported by Constitutional law

( this is a liberals idea of debating)
 
oh no, why don't you "debate" the topic somer? You have not yet, in 40 pages, managed to supply the readers with a rational answer supported by Constitutional law

( this is a liberals idea of debating)

RoFL, Yeah, with things like "facts", "law", the "Constitution", logic... As if you had any idea what "debate" meant.
 
oh no, why don't you "debate" the topic somer? You have not yet, in 40 pages, managed to supply the readers with a rational answer supported by Constitutional law

( this is a liberals idea of debating)

Salazar v. Buono

Holding: In a highly fractured decision, the Court sent back for reconsideration a case in which Congress enacted legislation to transfer federal property containing a cross to a veterans organization in response to a prior court ruling that leaving the cross on federal property violated the Establishment Clause.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on April 28, 2010. Chief Justice Roberts concurred; Justice Alito concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; and Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Breyer also dissented.

Following the remanding to the Ninth Circuit, a decision was reached which allowed the Mojave National Preserve to accept 5 acres of land in exchange for one acre of property where the cross stands and is now maintained and preserved by the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post.
 
Following the remanding to the Ninth Circuit, a decision was reached which allowed the Mojave National Preserve to accept 5 acres of land in exchange for one acre of property where the cross stands and is now maintained and preserved by the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post.

My disquisition on the history of the Establishment Clause was eaten by internet gremlins... 5000 chrctrs not enough. ;)

Short version: Establishment clause of 1st Am prohibits establishment "of religion" - not "a" religion (and the "free exercise", but another topic). Initially only applied to federal government. From the outset, it was interpreted to apply to all branches of government. This was an outgrowth of the perception that the Legislative branch, while coequal, was the proponent of all laws - the Executive enforced, the Judiciary intepreted. Hence that being Article I. All "powers" of the government were vested in the Legislature (Article I, Section 8). (The other articles articulated responsibilities within the government (vesting clauses; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):"The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.", but that is another long subject.)

Following the Civil War (as noted by others) the 14th Amendment was passed:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Among those privileges and immunities are the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court process of applying federal prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights to State and local governments is called "incorporation." The phrase used is "____ as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment". This first happened in 1876, but most such cases have occurred since 1920. In short, the arguments that a) the First Amendment only applies to Congress has been long rejected by the Supreme Court, b) the argument that it doesn't apply to State or local governments has been long rejected by the Supreme Court, and c) this has nothing to do with private religious conduct, nor does the First Amendment.

Did I cover all the inanity?
 
Back
Top Bottom