Is a cross-shaped WWI memorial on public property unconstitutional?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - Pending SCOTUS case

Issues: 

- Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I on Public Property is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross?

 - Whether the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment?

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - Pending SCOTUS case

Issues: 

- Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I on Public Property is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross?

 - Whether the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment?

"Shaped like a cross"? 

Yes. Of course most Christains will disagree, which only proves the point. 

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - Pending SCOTUS case

Issues: 

- Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I on Public Property is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross?

 - Whether the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment?

IMO, unconstitutional is an oxymoron when it deals with anything relating to the Lord God Jehovah, such as a cross , since our original Constitution was founded on His commandments, morals, and principles.   Question for the mods: does this conversation need to be moved to smack talk since it suggests religious beliefs?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

IMO, unconstitutional is an oxymoron when it deals with anything relating to the Lord God Jehovah, such as a cross , since our original Constitution was founded on His commandments, morals, and principles.   Question for the mods: does this conversation need to be moved to smack talk since it suggests religious beliefs?

Eh, some of the founding fathers were not orthodox Christians, so....

This is a legal question under the Constitution - which is precisely why it isn't in the smack talk forum. 

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Eh, some of the founding fathers were not orthodox Christians, so....

This is a legal question under the Constitution - which is precisely why it isn't in the smack talk forum. 

How about a simple no then?

[bigbird 60,449]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Eh, some of the founding fathers were not orthodox Christians, so....

This is a legal question under the Constitution - which is precisely why it isn't in the smack talk forum. 

Why would a Roman execution device have bearing on constitutionality?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Why would a Roman execution device have bearing on constitutionality?

I haven't read the briefs but I would guess because it's a symbol of Christianity and it is located on State land, and thus potentially has First Amendment implications. 

 

[bigbird 60,449]

18 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I haven't read the briefs but I would guess because it's a symbol of Christianity and it is located on State land, and thus potentially has First Amendment implications. 

 

Is one's interpretation of a symbol now protected? It clearly states it's a WW1 memorial. If one interprets it to be something else, then that's on them.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/battlefield-cross

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Is one's interpretation of a symbol now protected? It clearly states it's a WW1 memorial. If one interprets it to be something else, then that's on them.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/battlefield-cross

I personally don't care that the monument is a cross even though I'm not a religious guy.  However, you're argument here is flawed. 

The cross has been internationally adopted as a primary symbol of Christianity.  Much like the swastika is synonymous with the Third Reich now, despite it's origins being in the Far East centuries before Hitler ever came to power.  Let's say we put a WW2 memorial on public land in the shape of a swastika.  Most would be outraged even though it's a mere "interpretation of a symbol" as the original meaning of it was peace and love.

Common symbols have to mean something in society or we can all argue interpretation for just about anything, including a stop sign.

[SaltyTiger 7,774]

No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of Americawere men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.

https://www.thoughtco.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789

 

[SaltyTiger 7,774]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

even though I'm not a religious guy.

Which does not mean you do not have beliefs. Even Christian

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Which does not mean you do not have beliefs. Even Christian

I don't have beliefs based in religion.  Just basic human decency.

But re-read what I posted.  I don't actually give two craps that the WW1 Memorial is a Cross.  I'm in the let it stay camp because it 1) celebrates our country's heroes, and 2) is pretty unobtrusive.  But there has to be some agreed upon meanings for symbols in order for a civilized society to function.  That's the point I'm making in response to Bird.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

Is one's interpretation of a symbol now protected? It clearly states it's a WW1 memorial. If one interprets it to be something else, then that's on them.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/battlefield-cross

I’m not sure I follow. Note, I’m not expressing which side I favor.

Why do you think the Surpeme Court took the case? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/02/27/kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-seem-split-in-scotus-case-over-memorial-cross.html

[Strychnine 1,802]

11 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't have beliefs based in religion.  Just basic human decency.

But re-read what I posted.  I don't actually give two craps that the WW1 Memorial is a Cross.  I'm in the let it stay camp because it 1) celebrates our country's heroes, and 2) is pretty unobtrusive.  But there has to be some agreed upon meanings for symbols in order for a civilized society to function.  That's the point I'm making in response to Bird.

 

As another fellow subscribing to no religion, I share your thoughts on this monument.  There may be religious symbolism attached to the cross that it is composed of, but it was not built as a religious symbol, it was built to commemorate locals who died in World War I.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I think people get way too wound up about this kind of stuff.  The cross isn't hurting anything and it's clear it is there to memorialize WWI vets.  I don't think the Founders envisioned when they were simply trying to prevent an actual established state religion like the Church of England that we would ever had interpreted it with this sort of gnat-straining.

[triangletiger 1,599]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/02/27/kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-seem-split-in-scotus-case-over-memorial-cross.html

Quote

The most lasting of the court's approaches is known as the "Lemon test" after the 1971 case in which it was articulated.

The Lemon test established three prongs for determining whether a law can pass: The law must have a secular purpose, neither primarily inhibit nor advance religion, and avoid excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Those are pretty subjective criteria. No wonder rulings on religious liberty and separation of church and state are all over the place.

[Strychnine 1,802]

33 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think people get way too wound up about this kind of stuff.  The cross isn't hurting anything and it's clear it is there to memorialize WWI vets.  I don't think the Founders envisioned when they were simply trying to prevent an actual established state religion like the Church of England that we would ever had interpreted it with this sort of gnat-straining.

 

Before the American Humanist Association made it a national news story by bring it before the Supreme Court, I suspect that very few of the people who even knew it existed at all actually cared.  I am probably inclined to agree with the American Humanist Association more than I disagree with them, but this would be an instance where I disagree.

[AuburnNTexas 7,134]

Since the cross was put there originally by the families of the men that died and it was not originally on Public land it should remain.

Times and the country have changed. I am a devout Catholic but I recognize the fact that many of the people who now serve our country have many diverse belief's from Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, to no belief in God.  As such I think we  any new monument put up to thank and remember the people who serve our country should be to honor these people but should not have a religious side to it.  Each individual gravestone can be used for religious purposes by the families. 

I don't think we should remove symbols that were created in the past by the families to honor their soldiers. By removing those monuments we disrespect those families and their soldiers who gave their lives. If there is enough space I would not be adverse to put up a second monument if the Humanists are willing to pay for it just like the families of the soldiers who died then everybody is covered.

 

[LakeBum 187]

So if some religion in the US adopts the American Flag as a religious symbol, would that mean it could no longer be flown on government property? 

Seems rather subjective to rule out any religious symbol just because it was adopted by some religion. Next thing you know, someone will object to MLK holiday because he was a minister.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I find this offensive:

 

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

On 2/27/2019 at 2:48 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

I haven't read the briefs but I would guess because it's a symbol of Christianity and it is located on State land, and thus potentially has First Amendment implications. 

 

I'm sure the objection is over the establishment clause of the 1A, but when does the '"... nor prohibit the free exercise (religion) thereof" clause come into play?  If a community elects to erect a memorial cross or Star of David, etc. at a public cemetery, then why wouldn't such an act be considered free exercise thereof?  At the very least, it could be argued that such an act is protected speech too.  If a newspaper sponsored the memorial ... then wouldn't that cover the trifecta of the entire 1A?      

[triangletiger 1,599]

13 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

I'm sure the objection is over the establishment clause of the 1A, but when does the '"... nor prohibit the free exercise (religion) thereof" clause come into play?  If a community elects to erect a memorial cross or Star of David, etc. at a public cemetery, then why wouldn't such an act be considered free exercise thereof?  At the very least, it could be argued that such an act is protected speech too.  If a newspaper sponsored the memorial ... then wouldn't that cover the trifecta of the entire 1A?      

I think the  question comes in when it’s public property being maintained with taxpayer funding.  Should a taxpayer who is not a Christian be required to pay taxes to maintain a monument that represents a worldview which he or she doesn’t agree with?  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

I'm sure the objection is over the establishment clause of the 1A, but when does the '"... nor prohibit the free exercise (religion) thereof" clause come into play?  If a community elects to erect a memorial cross or Star of David, etc. at a public cemetery, then why wouldn't such an act be considered free exercise thereof?  At the very least, it could be argued that such an act is protected speech too.  If a newspaper sponsored the memorial ... then wouldn't that cover the trifecta of the entire 1A?      

Its about the tax payer (state) money, presumably.

[aubiefifty 16,737]

On 2/27/2019 at 7:48 PM, SaltyTiger said:

No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of Americawere men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.

https://www.thoughtco.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789

 

of course they were salty but after thecaths and prots murdered each other for years over religion they never wanted it to happen again. that is the truth. heck i love jesus but i refuse to go to church because they teach too many hateful things to me. shrugs. oh and i am not arguing but giving a different point of view. hope you are well salty you sexy devil you............