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

[homersapien 11,354]

On 2/27/2019 at 8:48 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

 

First, there were founders who weren't religious in the traditional sense at all, like Thomas Jefferson, no less. Regardless, the religious beliefs of the founders is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is what they wrote into the constitution, and that's pretty clear.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

23 hours ago, triangletiger said:

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?  

The Peace Cross was completed in 1925 with private funds raised by an American Legion chapter on behalf of grieving families of 49 local soldiers killed in WWI.  The parks commission took possession of the lands with the memorial in 1961.  Doesn't the parks commission have an obligation to maintain the property which they acquired?  Or can they just throw up their hands and say 'nope, Peace Cross on the property -- we can't spend any money maintaining it for fear of looking like we are establishing a religion'?  

By the way, inscribed at the base of the cross are a few words:  Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion.  There is also a bronze plaque with words from Woodrow Wilson:  “The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.”  

The American Humanist Association is the organization filing suit claiming the Peace Cross is unconstitutional.  I have to ask:  what religion is being established here with the Peace Cross?  There are no explicit Christian references in anything inscribed on the cross or in the words of President Wilson on the plaque.      

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, there were founders who weren't religious in the tradition sense at all, like Thomas Jefferson, no less. Regardless, the religious beliefs of the founders is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is what they wrote into the constitution, and that's pretty clear.

You need to exchange the word Christian for the term religious. 

Say what you mean

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

9 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

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............

You are fine fifty. Many of us a big problem with the churches right now.

[tomcat 569]

Many interesting comments. The cross is justifiably a symbol of the Christian faith. The Constitution provides freedom of religion....and therefore freedom from religion. So how would many feel if instead of a cross there was a monument from any other religion. Would you defend its existence as you do the cross 

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

15 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

The Peace Cross was completed in 1925 with private funds raised by an American Legion chapter on behalf of grieving families of 49 local soldiers killed in WWI.  The parks commission took possession of the lands with the memorial in 1961.  Doesn't the parks commission have an obligation to maintain the property which they acquired?  Or can they just throw up their hands and say 'nope, Peace Cross on the property -- we can't spend any money maintaining it for fear of looking like we are establishing a religion'?  

By the way, inscribed at the base of the cross are a few words:  Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion.  There is also a bronze plaque with words from Woodrow Wilson:  “The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.”  

The American Humanist Association is the organization filing suit claiming the Peace Cross is unconstitutional.  I have to ask:  what religion is being established here with the Peace Cross?  There are no explicit Christian references in anything inscribed on the cross or in the words of President Wilson on the plaque.      

My post was intended to point out the broad issue that the Supreme Court is struggling with rather than this specific instance.  By and large, the court seems to be leaning toward saying there is nothing unconstitutional in this specific instance, but where do we go from here?  I am a Christian and have no problem seeing crosses or even symbols from other religions on public property.  However, there are symbols that I would have a problem with - not so much because they establish a religion it because it gives the appearance that the government endorses a certain view.  Nazi swastikas and Confederate battle flags come to mind.  Regardless of what one thinks of the original meaning of the battle flag,  it’s clear how it’s perceived now as a symbol of racism.  In the same way, regardless of what it may have symbolized in the past, the Latin Cross is clearly perceived as a symbol of Christianity.

[triangletiger 1,599]

9 hours ago, tomcat said:

Many interesting comments. The cross is justifiably a symbol of the Christian faith. The Constitution provides freedom of religion....and therefore freedom from religion. So how would many feel if instead of a cross there was a monument from any other religion. Would you defend its existence as you do the cross 

 

In general, yes.  But I guess it depends on the religion , the particular symbol,  and the context in which it was displayed.

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/3/2019 at 8:20 PM, SaltyTiger said:

You need to exchange the word Christian for the term religious. 

Say what you mean

No I don't.  By religious in the traditional sense I meant he didn't subscribe to a particular church or dogma, Christian or otherwise.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

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

 

And the guy who wrote it was a Deist.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And the guy who wrote it was a Deist.

Yep

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

On 3/3/2019 at 7:56 PM, tomcat said:

The Constitution provides freedom of religion....and therefore freedom from religion.

It does no such thing.  The Establishment Clause does not guarantee you freedom from religion.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

Common sense prevailed.  Interesting too that Kagan and Breyer joined the conservative majority, making it a 7-2 decision - only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Common sense prevailed.  Interesting too that Kagan and Breyer joined the conservative majority, making it a 7-2 decision - only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting.

I have not had a chance to read the decision yet. I am certain it is interesting. 

[AU64 10,122]

There are Christian symbols and references all over Washington DC in or on government buildings..  I'm waiting on the first court case from someone to try and remove all of them.      

These isolated cases are typically just attempts to intimidate small towns or cities that don't have the money or will to defend themselves against wealthy protagonists on many issues ...not just religious.     Seen that at work in my own town.

[homersapien 11,354]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It does no such thing.  The Establishment Clause does not guarantee you freedom from religion.

It essentially guarantees you the right - or freedom - from religion by prohibiting the government from promoting it (on your behalf).

 

[homersapien 11,354]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I have not had a chance to read the decision yet. I am certain it is interesting. 

My take on it is, if government did the same thing today, it would be ruled unconstitutional, but since this was done so long ago, they are essentially grandfathering it and saying it doesn't violate the constitution.

IMO, it was a cultural compromise that (ironically) denies the supposedly strict constructionist views of the conservative wing of the court.

Not that I wouldn't welcome a similar cultural standard being applied to say, the second amendment.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It essentially guarantees you the right - or freedom - from religion by prohibiting the government from promoting it (on your behalf).

It prevents the government from forcing you to have or follow a religion essentially.  It's not a cover-all to prevent you from having to encounter religion on public property, no matter how innocuous it may be.  If someone's sensibilities are so fragile that they cannot bear the sight of a cross meant to memorialize those who gave their life in a war this country fought, the government's action or non-action here isn't the thing that's broken in this scenario.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

IMO, it was a cultural compromise that (ironically) denies the supposedly strict constructionist views of the conservative wing of the court.

Neither the majority opinion, nor dissent, based its ultimate conclusion on textual construction. Also, the Supreme Court has not seen a strict constructionist judge in our lifetime. 

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

My take on it is, if government did the same thing today, it would be ruled unconstitutional, but since this was done so long ago, they are essentially grandfathering it and saying it doesn't violate the constitution.

Breyer touches on this point in his concurring opinion. However, he did not say it would be ruled unconstitutional. He said it would not be permissible "under this approach." Essentially meaning the Court's analysis would be different. This also speaks to another important element: the circumstance-specific approach at play.

In that scenario, the construction of a brand new memorial like this one, you'd see interpretive variances play a larger role. For example, Thomas might argue that the establishment clause doesn't apply to State governments at all because the clause does not fall into the "incorporation doctrine." Even if it does, then he could argue that there would still be no constitutional violation because the establishment clause applies to laws passed by state governments or, at minimum, it requires actual coercion. 

Then again, you still have to deal with Alito's point, which many justices were receptive to: that memorials such as those, do not convey an exclusively religious message. For many, these memorials denote more "secular" meanings, such as a "symbolic resting place for ancestors who never made it home." 

Then of course, you'd have Ginsburg who would reject Alito's argument in full. She would assert, as she did in this case, that the cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian Faith in all circumstances. But again, the thrust of that argument depends on the parameters of the establishment clause (which are unclear) and what constitutes a violation of the same, in addition to Thomas' view. 

I would place Gorsuch and Kavanaugh somewhere between Alito and Breyer. 

Most importantly though, it all goes back to the circumstances. 

[homersapien 11,354]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It prevents the government from forcing you to have or follow a religion essentially.  It's not a cover-all to prevent you from having to encounter religion on public property, no matter how innocuous it may be.  If someone's sensibilities are so fragile that they cannot bear the sight of a cross meant to memorialize those who gave their life in a war this country fought, the government's action or non-action here isn't the thing that's broken in this scenario.

That's hypocrisy coming from someone who feels Christians have a constitutional right not to participate in government initiatives involving basic civil rights or healthcare programs because they have a religious objection to a given aspect, such as gay marriage or contraception/abortion.

You folks seem to want it both ways.  You expect a  constitutionally-based "opt out option" of government policy when if it conflicts with your religious beliefs, but otherwise, you would force the rest of us to participate when the government acts to "establish a religion", which is exactly what this cross represents.  (I supposed you're fine with that because it's your religion that's being established.)

The cross was funded by public money (the government) and erected on public property.  That's unconstitutional when it first happened and it's unconstitutional if it happens tomorrow.

And this has nothing to do with personal "sensibilities" about an "innocuous" violation of the first amendment. Frankly, that sort of language comes across as an insult to my constitutional right to avoid religion as I see fit.  And it's certainly no more innocuous than selling someone a cake (for example).

When authoritarianism comes to America it will be wrapped in the American flag and carrying a cross. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's hypocrisy coming from someone who feels Christians have a constitutional right not to participate in government initiatives involving basic civil rights or healthcare programs because they have a religious objection to a given aspect, such as gay marriage or contraception/abortion.

You folks seem to want it both ways.  You expect a  constitutionally-based "opt out option" of government policy when if it conflicts with your religious beliefs, but otherwise, you would force the rest of us to participate when the government acts to "establish a religion", which is exactly what this cross represents.  (I supposed you're fine with that because it's your religion that's being established.)

Hardly.  Having to endure the trauma of seeing a cross that ends up on public property because the people who put up the monument donated it to a state agency is not tantamount to making you perform some act - utilize your expression and skills to materially involve you in something you disagree with.  

 

Quote

The cross was funded by public money (the government) and erected on public property.  That's unconstitutional when it first happened and it's unconstitutional if it happens tomorrow.

Wrong.  The cross was built with private funds on private land in 1925.  Thirty-six years later, the land and monument were donated to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.  The only government money involved now is the upkeep of the property.

 

Quote

And this has nothing to do with personal "sensibilities" about an "innocuous" violation of the first amendment. Frankly, that sort of language comes across as an insult to my constitutional right to avoid religion as I see fit.  And it's certainly no more innocuous than selling someone a cake (for example).

When authoritarianism comes to America it will be wrapped in the American flag and carrying a cross. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  

It has everything to do with fragile sensibilities and I can't help if that upsets you.  Being unable to bear that a monument that wasn't paid for with government money happens to be sitting on land that is now owned by the state government because the people who originally owned it donated it to them isn't in the same ballpark as being forced to materially participate in an event or action that violates one's conscience.  One is a passive thing that asks nothing of you and requires you to do nothing.  It compels no action on your part.  It's essentially 'live and let live.'  The other does compel you to use your time, talent and creativity and engages your material participation in the acts of others.  It is active, not passive.  It's not live and let live, it's live and force others to get involved. 

Characterizing the refusal to do a specific kind of custom cake (for instance) when you willingly sell all kinds of other cakes for other occasions to the same people as being a bigot refusing to serve gay people is akin to saying a photographer who refuses to do an album or promotional shoot for a rap artist because of their objection to the lyrical content of the music as being a racist refusing to serve black people, even if they willingly serve black clients for other kinds of photos (family portraits, modeling shots, etc.). It's complete nonsense both to compare it to this cross monument and to characterize it as bigoted in the first place.

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Neither the majority opinion, nor dissent, based its ultimate conclusion on textual construction.

Also, the Supreme Court has not seen a strict constructionist judge in our lifetime. 

OK, what is the term should I have used?  Literalist?  

"Strict constructionism is a legal philosophy that applies a narrow, or strict, interpretation to a legal text, like the U.S. Constitution. Under strict constructionism, a judge can interpret a text as it is written, considering only what is presented within the four corners of the legal document."

Does that not broadly describe a conservative philosophy of interpreting the Constitution vs. a philosophy of say a "living constitution" that should be interpreted in context?

(Isn't the conservative catchphrase "I want a judge who enforces the law, not makes the law"?)

I am not trying to argue legal theory here.  I am not equipped to do so.  I am simply presenting my limited understanding as a layman.

So, how would you generally describe the philosophy of the modern block of conservative justices.

 

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Breyer touches on this point in his concurring opinion. However, he did not say it would be ruled unconstitutional. He said it would not be permissible "under this approach." Essentially meaning the Court's analysis would be different. This also speaks to another important element: the circumstance-specific approach at play.

OK, point taken, but doesn't that more or less imply it would be constitutionally prohibited? 

Do you think if the government wanted to install a cross at public expense on public property tomorrow, it would be ruled constitutional? 

In that scenario, the construction of a brand new memorial like this one, you'd see interpretive variances play a larger role. For example, Thomas might argue that the establishment clause doesn't apply to State governments at all because the clause does not fall into the "incorporation doctrine." Even if it does, then he could argue that there would still be no constitutional violation because the establishment clause applies to laws passed by state governments or, at minimum, it requires actual coercion. 

Well, in my opinion, Thomas is a wacko to start with.  But don't our basic federal constitutional rights supersede States rights?  My state can't legalize slavery, why would establishing a religion be any different?

Then again, you still have to deal with Alito's point, which many justices were receptive to: that memorials such as those, do not convey an exclusively religious message. For many, these memorials denote more "secular" meanings, such as a "symbolic resting place for ancestors who never made it home." 

Well, just my opinion but I think Alito's argument is disingenuous. No one looks at the cross and sees a secular representation of anything.  The fact that the cross might be seen that way is only because of the majority tradition Christianity has over other religions in this country. I am sure there are Jews, Muslims, atheists in the cemetery.   His opinion would be the equivalent of saying, well let's just use the cross to represent everyone's sacrifice since it's use has been so common in our history and culture and it's relevant to the majority of the people buried here. And it's just gaslighting those of us who object to the government respecting the establishment of ANY religion by claiming the cross has nothing to do with Christianity (in this context.) Pretty weak position.

Then of course, you'd have Ginsburg who would reject Alito's argument in full. She would assert, as she did in this case, that the cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian Faith in all circumstances. But again, the thrust of that argument depends on the parameters of the establishment clause (which are unclear) and what constitutes a violation of the same, in addition to Thomas' view. I would place Gorsuch and Kavanaugh somewhere between Alito and Breyer. 

Obviously.  But again, however you want to label it, the words of the 1st amendment are not all that obscure.  Using public monies to erect a religious symbol on public land seems like a clear constitutional violation to me.

But I guess that's we have lawyers - to muddy everything up! 

Most importantly though, it all goes back to the circumstances. 

And I don't have a problem with that, just like I don't have a major problem with applying the constitution to modern circumstances in general.  This is not a hill (ruling) I would be willing to die on.

But having said that,  I do think the precedent is dangerous.  It opens the door for further diminution of minority rights, if not the potential of outright Dominionism.

Thanks for responding.  I appreciate your perspective even though I don't always understand or agree with it.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Hardly.  Having to endure the trauma of seeing a cross that ends up on public property because the people who put up the monument donated it to a state agency is not tantamount to making you perform some act - utilize your expression and skills to materially involve you in something you disagree with.  

 

Wrong.  The cross was built with private funds on private land in 1925.  Thirty-six years later, the land and monument were donated to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.  The only government money involved now is the upkeep of the property.

Thanks for correcting me.  I didn't realize that.  It does make a difference.

 

It has everything to do with fragile sensibilities and I can't help if that upsets you.  Being unable to bear that a monument that wasn't paid for with government money happens to be sitting on land that is now owned by the state government because the people who originally owned it donated it to them isn't in the same ballpark as being forced to materially participate in an event or action that violates one's conscience.  One is a passive thing that asks nothing of you and requires you to do nothing.  It compels no action on your part.  It's essentially 'live and let live.'  The other does compel you to use your time, talent and creativity and engages your material participation in the acts of others.  It is active, not passive.  It's not live and let live, it's live and force others to get involved. 

My concern with government "establishing a religion" is not a mere "fragile sensibility" issue.  It is a very firmly held value that reflects the importance it was given by the founding father's in the 1st amendment.

I will concede I was wrong about the history and that does make a difference.  But don't characterize my regard for the key importance of the 1st amendment as based on fragile sensibility.

Characterizing the refusal to do a specific kind of custom cake (for instance) when you willingly sell all kinds of other cakes for other occasions to the same people as being a bigot refusing to serve gay people is akin to saying a photographer who refuses to do an album or promotional shoot for a rap artist because of their objection to the lyrical content of the music as being a racist refusing to serve black people, even if they willingly serve black clients for other kinds of photos (family portraits, modeling shots, etc.). It's complete nonsense both to compare it to this cross monument and to characterize it as bigoted in the first place.

I am perfectly fine with self-described Christians, Muslims or anyone else who make a point of persecuting homosexuals - at least to the extent the homosexuals are not physically or materially harmed by it. 

In fact, I welcome it. It's a great way of exposing what these supposedly religious people are really all about. 

That's ultimately good for the rest of us.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am perfectly fine with self-described Christians, Muslims or anyone else who make a point of persecuting homosexuals - at least to the extent the homosexuals are not physically or materially harmed by it.  

In fact, I welcome it. It's a great way of exposing what these supposedly religious people are really all about.  

That's ultimately good for the rest of us.

And you get upset that you perceive I'm mischaracterizing you?  That's rich.

If a photographer refuses to do a nude photo shoot for a person, but is willing to take normal, non-provocative photos of the same person, it's quite obvious they aren't persecuting people who work in the porn industry.  If a party caterer refuses to provide catering services for the album launch party of a black rapper who's lyrics are filled with objectionable content, but would cater a family reunion for the same person, it's obvious they aren't persecuting black people.  Gay people are not any more special in this regard than the people in those examples.  If a business will serve gay customers for various kinds of events but simply refuse to lend their talents to one specific kind of event that happens to likewise violate their conscience and religious beliefs, that's not persecution or bigotry.  It's simply living in a pluralistic society with people who disagree with you.  

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And you get upset that you perceive I'm mischaracterizing you?  That's rich.

If a photographer refuses to do a nude photo shoot for a person, but is willing to take normal, non-provocative photos of the same person, it's quite obvious they aren't persecuting people who work in the porn industry.  If a party caterer refuses to provide catering services for the album launch party of a black rapper who's lyrics are filled with objectionable content, but would cater a family reunion for the same person, it's obvious they aren't persecuting black people.  Gay people are not any more special in this regard than the people in those examples.  If a business will serve gay customers for various kinds of events but simply refuse to lend their talents to one specific kind of event that happens to likewise violate their conscience and religious beliefs, that's not persecution or bigotry.  It's simply living in a pluralistic society with people who disagree with you.  

Like I said. 

Rationalize it all you want, but it's not that complicated. You either:

1) accept homosexuals as individuals having their own, innate ("God"-produced) sexuality 

or

2) you think they are sinners against God by simply being who they are.

 

Everything else is obfuscation. 

But thank you for not taking an extreme position.