Have driven past it many times it has never bothered me. It should stay. There is nothing in the First Amendment that would require its removal or modification.
Posted on 02/24/2019 8:33:42 PM PST by Rummyfan
If the U.S. Supreme Court took a light touch on cultural issues following the contentious confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh this fall, the period of restraint didn't last long.
The justices next week are set to hear arguments over whether a giant, four-story World War I memorial cross located in a busy Maryland intersection and maintained by the government can remain standing.
The case, which touches at the core of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, is the most significant dispute over a public monument to reach the top court since Chief Justice John Roberts took the helm.
It comes before the court in the wake of controversial orders connected to abortion and a Muslim inmate's religious rights during execution, and just a month after the justices said they would hear their first major gun-control case in nearly a decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Have driven past it many times it has never bothered me. It should stay. There is nothing in the First Amendment that would require its removal or modification.
Rename mountains in SW Utah
Which mountain names trouble you?
Hopefully the Justices will enter the court by the west entrance while they are hearing this case.
What the devil is keeping Ruth alive?
Well, I may have answered my own question.
He discussed the 1A is designed to protect religion from government, NOT to protect government from religion.
Is weekend at Ginsburgs still playing?
The case, which touches at the core of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause …Baloney. Has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause because the government maintaining the monument does not establish a religion over the entire USA at the expense of the Free Exercise Clause.
It’s my childhood neighborhood. I’m certain that the people who actually have real roots there don’t want it gone.
Why hasn’t the land just been purchased by a private trust?
The Government maintains Crosses on the Graves of Veterans.
Perhaps we should mow them down and replace them with non denominational Headstones.
If the government cannot promote a religion, then they need to also stop promoting gay marriage, trannyism and all the other religions they’re currently in the business of pushing.
Here’s an article about the controversy, and something about the 49 WWI servicemen who are honored there:
Because if that had been done, the liberals win. The liberals would have established a precedent that they can force the sale of crosses to a private trust, without settling the legal status of a cross on public land.
Perhaps we should mow them down and replace them with non denominational Headstones.
-
Headstones? HEADSTONES?! HEADSTONES SHOULD BE ABOLISHED! Think of how much they insult all of the poor minorities and immigrants who have been buried in places WITHOUT headstones! They are just another evil characteristic of white, male privilege! Worse, think of all of the damage those rotting bodies have done to our environment! I think all of the bodies from World War I ALONE could have been responsible for global warming! And all the space they take up in cemeteries that could be better used as transgender appreciation centers!
/liberal mode
>>whether a giant, four-story World War I memorial cross located in a busy Maryland intersection and maintained by the government can remain standing.
Let’s see, 100 years and it wasn’t a violation. That is the ruling. Move on, atheists.
>>can remain standing.
How queer, Snopes said awhile back it wasn’t at threat of being torn down.
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.