to a pin head.
Posted on 04/18/2018 9:59:07 AM PDT by reaganaut1
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” So begins the First Amendment to our Constitution. Those words have been turned into a “law” that allows courts to demand an impenetrable wall of separation between religion and government. A recent case shows how amazingly far they will go to ensure that.
In 1925, a group of citizens in Bladensburg, Maryland wanted to honor 49 men from Prince George’s County who had lost their lives during the First World War. The local chapter of the American Legion and families funded a memorial usually called the “Peace Cross” at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Maryland route 450. It stands 40 feet high. A plaque at its base reads, “valor, endurance, courage, devotion” and the names of the fallen are also engraved.
In 1961, the land on which the Peace Cross sits was taken over by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which pays for the upkeep of the monument and grounds. No one had much cared about that until the American Humanist Association (AHA) filed a lawsuit in 2014.
At the first stage of the litigation, federal district judge Deborah Chasanow ruled in favor of the defendant(Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission), holding that, “The ownership, maintenance, and display of the Monument by the Commission do not violate the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment.”
But the AHA appealed to the Fourth Circuit, a court that was packed with “liberals” during the Obama years. In October of last year, a three-judge panel decided(2-1) to reverse the district court and hold that continued government support for the Memorial is unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Misconstrued and wrongly interpreted for years.
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Protect it and tell the court to go to hell.
How can a memorial, the revered rememberance of past individuals— their lives and actions, be considered the establishment of a religion?
The goal is eradicating history.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof.” Honestly, how do the judges make that ruling based on that sentence?
As I understand it, it is considered an endorsement of religion, per liberal criteria, because a cross is on the site.
I heard it suggested that if they chop the arms off the cross , then the atheists would deem the memorial to be acceptable.
Or if the cross were removed, again, the atheists would be ok with it.
So to these activists, any symbol of any religious significance has to be removed.
That's the confusion, the "endorsement of religion."
I think (and I don't know but I assume it's been debated by others who are smarter than me), that "respecting an establishment of religion" does NOT mean the concept of "religion." I think "establishment" means a specific denomination of church, not the verb "to create."
So, "respecting an establishment of religion" means respecting, say, Methodists over Protestants, not the general concept of "religion, " which a single non-denominational cross in a cemetery represents.
The cross itself is not an establishment of any one religion.
-PJ
This sort of thing happens out there in China all the time.
Oh wait, this isn’t China ?!
Humanists and communists: birds of a feather.
Now it’s time, for the Supreme s to sing NO It’s Not In Violation!
to a pin head.
No law has been made but “the free exercise there of” has been impeded.
There is no more intolerant, bigoted, hate filled group than militant atheists.
So the court makes a ruling which it is not allowed to do, based on a religious argument.
They are to make no ruling based on whether something is religious.
Alice in Wonderland...
When will they be going after Arlington Cemetery?
Just like ISIS did blowing up religious statues all over the ME.
I don’t see anything that prohibits endorsing a religion, or multiple religions even. Endorsing would indicate that it is okay to call it a religion, as opposed to some cults. Establishing would require the government to say that a particular religion is the official religion of the state.
Better get rid of all Indian effigies on public grounds. They are religious in nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.