• SCOTUS seems to seek narrow way to uphold cross that memorializes WWI dead
    23 replies, posted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-balances-history-and-religion-in-deciding-monuments-fate/2019/02/26/24688222-3a0e-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.9531c36b6b74 A majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed to be searching for a way — a narrow one, most likely — to allow the Bladensburg Peace Cross commemorating World War I dead to remain where it has stood for nearly 100 years. Two of the court’s four liberals suggested the passage of time and the unique nature of World War I memorials may provide a way to accommodate the 40-foot-tall cross, which sits in a highway median in Maryland. The Bladensburg Peace Cross, made of granite and cement, was built in 1925 and paid for by local families, businesses and the American Legion to honor 49 veterans from Prince George’s County. But the 40-foot cross sits on land owned since 1961 by a state commission that pays for its maintenance and upkeep. The legal challenge began with the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit atheist organization that has filed similar lawsuits throughout the country. But in questioning Katyal’s counterpart, Monica L. Miller, another member of the court’s left, Justice Elena Kagan, suggested there might be a way to separate crosses used to commemorate WWI veterans from others. Kagan, who as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general had defended a cross in the Mojave National Preserve erected for that purpose, said the cross had become a symbol for that war. “I really did mean to confine it to this World War I context, because I think there’s something quite different about this historic moment in time,” she said. The monument’s defenders say a Maryland district court judge got it right when she noted that the cross had stood for decades without controversy and that it met the test that the Supreme Court has established for such controversies: that it had a secular purpose, that its “primary effect” was religious neutrality and that there was not excessive entanglement of government and religion. While neither the commission nor the association asked the court to adopt a new test, the American Legion and the Trump administration did: that religious symbols are allowed unless the government’s action is “coercive” or involves “excessive proselytization.” They didn’t seem to find much traction, even with conservative justices. This is a really interesting case that has been going on now for a while. Basically, this monument was erected in 1925 by private funding and individuals on private land to honor the 49 dead from that county in WW1. In the 1960s, the government used emeinent domain to gain control of the land to help build a highway. They thus took on responsibility to maintain it. Recently, an organization sued saying that it was a Christain symbol in violation of the 1st amendment. And here we are now in the Supreme Court, where this could go either way - but it seems like both liberal and conservative justices are trying to seek a way to keep the monument standing.
No no no, it’s not a cross. its a lower case t, standing for “time to grieve”.
Honestly this is a clear case of, "Leave it the fuck be" for me. It was a memorial put up by families to remember their lost sons, fathers, uncles, and brothers. Taking it down would be next level scumbaggish.
Ugh this is such a mish-mosh of bureaucracy that created this mess. I say let it be; the government didn't erect it, it's just already there, and it brings peace to enough people and harm to none.
Its pretty clear that it shouldn't stand where it is, but that's more to the fact that it cannot be visited, is falling apart, and has been taken over by the state through eminent domain.
The concern is with what the what precedent it might set with the establishment clause. It's a sticky situation.
I would think that if they side with the athiest group for the precedent, some group would arise to take care of that specific WWI monument regardless.
If that’s the case, then couldn’t they just move the monument and/or possibly get a private entity to preserve it? I don’t think the middle of a highway is exactly the most accessible place for people who’d actually be interested in visiting it either.
Ya I wonder if they'll rule "the state can spend funds relocating monuments under x y z circumstances" like when the monument ends up in the middle of a highway through use of eminent domain
can they pull a page from the San Francisco playbook? we had a similar issue—a 100 foot cross on city land: In 1991, several organizations, including the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sued the City of San Francisco for owning a cross on city (public) land, and several court battles ensued. Eventually the courts forced the City to either tear down the Cross or sell it to a private entity. On July 12, 1997, the Council of Armenian-American Organizations of Northern California (CAAONC), a coalition of over 30 Armenian-American Organizations outbid other groups, and purchased the Cross from the City of San Francisco. The sale was unanimously approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and placed on the ballot as Proposition F. On November 4, 1997, the voters of San Francisco overwhelmingly voted to approve the sale. The CAAONC thus became the legal owner of the Mt. Davidson Cross and assumed the responsibility for maintaining it.
I fucking love how this feels like a wint shitpost.
But what if no bidders come forward? It's unlikely as hell but still a possibility.
then it would appear no one cares enough to preserve it
Not necessarily; it could be a result of the starting bid being too high.
that's not really how auctions work. I think you're dragging out the hypotheticals here
Or maybe I'm just ignorant and in need of a better explanation.
the minimum bid is deliberately set low so that people bid on the item
If this is such a big deal why is government iconography still full of Christian symbols? Like "In God we trust" on the dollar bill? You'd think that would be a greater priority than some cross in the middle of a highway.
Don't forget "One nation, under god" in our National anthem!
I seem to remember that this anthem was written in the '50s or something. There is a good video to inform on this subject here. Title is just a hypothesis he deconstructs, not his agreement per se) : https://youtu.be/bcnBUdLPp2s
Even Good point. Whilst I share their beliefs in general, I find it very disrespectful for them to do this. Militant atheists really hurt their cause sometimes.
That's the Pledge of Allegiance, not the National Anthem. The National Anthem was written as a poem during the Battle of Baltimore in 1814 in the poorly named War of 1812. The song, like the poem before it, talks about the defiance of the national flag (a very giant one erected on the fort defending Baltimore) defiantly remained hoisted throughout the entire bombardment by the British navy.
I'm not American but I really don't see why this needs to change the interpretation of the establishment clause. This kind of cross specifically has become it's own symbol particularly in the context WW1. Sure, it has Christian origins, but memorialising war veterans is not instrinsically tied with Christianity. Like sure, it's a symbol of Christianity in most cases, but in this context it's quite obviously a memorial symbol. And that's not taking into account the countless instances of blatant Christianity baked into like your entire government. Or that the USA is so fast and loose with its ammendments that how one particular case interprets one particular ammendsment is hardly important to overall policy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.