Posted on 06/25/2019 5:58:24 AM PDT by Kaslin
It's like, really, we need all the religion we can get around here! What with Americans -- you know -- perpetually at each other's throats, yelling in each other's faces. But we get another reminder, at the feet of the Supreme Court, of the difficulties attendant on expunging nastiness from national life.
Our highest court had to instruct us, 7-2, it was no violation of our national principles to leave unmolested a large cross of marble and granite commemorating on public land in Maryland the deaths of local soldiers in World War I. We need learned jurists to tell us what any uninstructed half-wit, 80 or 90 years ago, could have figured out? Namely, that in the affairs of nations, the exercise of human generosity counts for at least as much as do legal rights, real or asserted. However, we don't do things that way anymore. We've forgotten how. Note the yelling, etc.
The yelling -- juridically speaking -- in the case of American Legion versus American Humanist Association commenced when unnamed aggrieved parties made known their offense at the spectacle of a Christian cross on once-private now-public land. In the complainants' eyes, Maryland's government could be construed as sponsoring religion, contrary to the requirements of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (enforceable against state governments since 1940). The high court, after lower court litigation had been exhausted, took a look and said last week, well, no, there's nothing wrong with the cross where it is, doing what it does.
Thus, the cross stands, and members or clients of the American Humanist Association who suffer offense at the sight of a Christian symbol -- on public land -- may avert their eyes, though they may choose instead to fume. The habit of attempting to rewrite supposedly premodern norms and values steadily intensifies. The demands this makes on us are rigorous. We've been living this way, not always noticing it, for maybe 60 years. Life gets less and less friendly. Donald Trump didn't initiate the idea of stuffing your personal views down other people's throats, declaring them to be right and orthodox.
The tone of modern discourse, if you want to call it that, dates mainly from the '60s -- not that we never had fights before the '60s. It was then, however, we learned to fight dirty. I'm-right-you're-wrong -- the style we presently practice -- commenced during the counterculture era.
If you say the war has to be won by the United States, you're not just wrong, you're some kind of fascist.
If you say American women aren't actively oppressed, you're some kind of chauvinist pig. Oink, oink!
If you're not offended by the sight of a Christian cross as a public war memorial, you're at the least insensitive and probably some kind of religious nut.
We used to iron out these matters -- most of the time -- through the exercise of good manners. That was before we came to recognize good manners as a form of "oppression" -- demanding restraint in the face of the outrageous. To see the other side of an argument as well as your own side is, in our hyper-politicized era, stupid. Gets you nowhere. Wastes time. Let's get on with the business at hand: winning power, exercising power.
Odd thing about religion, in the power struggle context: At its best and highest, as distinguished from its worst and lowest (e.g., the Thirty Years' War), religion mitigates conflict. Thus, George Washington's declaration in his Farewell Address: "Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that ... national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Would not Washington have looked benignly upon a 40-foot cross honoring American war dead? A follow-up question is of equal import, it seems to me. Would he not have shaken his head sadly at the process by which we got to this point in our affairs, turning over to learned judges a question as obvious and easy as this one?
But we got here. And the learned judges did just as they ought to have.
This “American Humanist Association”?
Is this the one George Costanza donated money to?
Any other ruling would have forced the government to go back and remove Crosses and Stars of David from tombstones at Arlington and every other national cemetery.
Uh oh! Thomas and Alito are manspreading.
Ah, the ‘joys’ of being rules by the lawyerly oligarchy.
Our once Republic reduced to the turn-style of oppressive govt: lawyers pass vague (@ best) laws, someone sues, judges opine on laws vs. precedent (rarely, if ever, based on Constitution, let alone ‘void for vagueness’), govt grows.
Lather, rise, repeat...
Are they the ones who celebrate Festivus?
It’s atheists with a cool sounding name!.........
The federal government is to not involve itself in decisions to favor or dissuade any religion. If people do things involving religions on public property don’t turn to the courts of law to stop, prevent or punish them, turn to suing in civil court to demonstrate what monetary damages were inflicted upon you when such action took place.
This “American Humanist Association”?
Is this the one George Costanza donated money to?
That was the HUMAN FUND. I made a donation in your name. Your welcome.
The tone of modern discourse, if you want to call it that, dates mainly from the ‘60s — not that we never had fights before the ‘60s. It was then, however, we learned to fight dirty. I’m-right-you’re-wrong — the style we presently practice — commenced during the counterculture era.
\
Which side of our politics decided these battles need to be fought in the first place? Which side decides they are so offended by a cross that they need to go to federal court to seek to have it torn down?
When the writer says we are at each others throats, etc. I wish he would clarify which side has pushed us down that road.
And it looks like Gorsuch’s robe might be bumping against Sotomayor’s which is a clear indicator of his bigotry and total lack of respect for the safe spaces of latinx, women, and all oppressed minorities. To the gulag!
RBG, with her time nigh, needs to get right.
And a few Muslim crescents as well . . .
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.