The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case that could nuke the separation of church and state

[applegrove]

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case that could nuke the separation of church and state

IAN MILLHISER at Think Progress

"SNIP.....

In what will almost certainly be a victory for the religious right, the Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will decide whether the Constitution permits a local government to display “on public property a 40-foot tall Latin cross, established in memory of soldiers who died in World War I.” Although a federal appeals court held that this cross violates the Constitution’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh — which gave Republicans a solid five-person majority on the Supreme Court — all but guarantees that this lower court decision will be reversed.

The cross dispute arises in two consolidated cases, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, and Maryland-National Capital Park v. American Humanist Association.

The Supreme Court typically hears a religious monument case every few years — it considered a case brought by a religious organization hoping to build a monument to “the Seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM” in 2009, and last considered when the Constitution permits the government to display Christian iconography in 2005.


.......SNIP"

[Corvo Bianco]

1. Boo.

[unblock]

2. It won't "nuke" it.

First, it's already impaired. Having "in god we trust" on our legal tender, for instance, is about as directly and blatantly and establishment of religion as there is.

Non-believers not only have to abide by federal funds being used to propagate this religious affirmation, but in fact they are drafted into proselytizing for that religious belief with every financial transaction using such currency.


But the Supreme Court will use a similar constitutional argument, which amounts to, "i'm a Christian believer, so what's the problem?"

[brush]

3. WTH? Another step down the slippery slope with the repug SCOTUS in full effect.

[asiliveandbreathe]

4. there was another case similar to this memorial - the Mojave Memorial Cross..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Memorial_Cross


lower court rulings declared it illegal because of separation of church and state constitutional concerns.

A land exchange solved the problem....

On April 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled on Salazar v. Buono in a 5-4 decision sent the case back to a lower court.[7] The high court ruled there was no violation of the separation of church and state when Congress transferred the land surrounding the cross to a veterans group

[Alpeduez21]

5. The greatest threat to this country

was allowing republicans to take over court appointments. We are royally screwed. The apathy shown over the last decades towards elections by Democrats guaranteed repukes and conservatives will have power for decades simply because voting them out won't erase the court appointments.

What I'm saying is get off your ass and vote for the democrat for the next twenty to fifty years. This war is far from over.

[Polybius]

6. How will this change anything?

The cross has been there for 93 years. If they side for it, nothing changes.

[BruceWane]

8. Precedent changes

Nothing changes except for giving a green light to religious monuments going up on government property in every jurisdiction that allows it, i.e. under republican control - city halls, schools, police stations, etc. - followed by various other insertions of religious content into government.

I can guarantee you that there's already a large selection of "righteous benefactors" ready to donate these monuments.

There's a large group of people that are ready to get rolling with "rebuilding our christian nation", and normalizing the presence of religious - christian - content within our government entities is the first step.

[pansypoo53219]

7. but do NOT call it sharia.

[ProudLib72]

9. Every damned day!

And a lot of times twice a day!

[Flaleftist]

10. You don't need to use a religious symbol to honor soldiers.

And not every soldier is religious or has a religion that uses the cross, so it may actually be insulting to their memory.

[GulfCoast66]

11. I think this case is overblown and not a threat to the separation idea

The cross has sat there for almost 100 years. It was not put there to push a Christian message but to memorialize the dead in the World War. While we may not memorize our war dead the same today, it was how they did it in the day. And unlike confederate memorials out there to intimidate African Americans, this was erected to honor true patriots.

I can see the difference between this and a new Ten Commandments stone on the court house square.

I am a freethinker and generally find all organized religions somewhat frightening, but this does not bother me.

[Small-Axe]

14. I see it the same way.

Well said.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Do you really believe the heart of separation of church and state

is whether a religious symbol can be displayed on government property?

While I agree that it would be inappropriate, permitting it would hardly nuke the separation of church and state.

[applegrove]

13. I worry it is a thread they are pulling.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Yes - but a thread being pulled is very different

from nuking the separation of church and state.

[applegrove]

17. Still may rev up the base for more.

[Ms. Toad]

20. I sure hope you're not talking to their base here.

No point in being chicken little here. A thread is not a nuclear bomb.

[applegrove]

23. No I think a win would rev up the base.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Revving up the base is still not a nuclear bomb. n/t

[allgood33]

15. If there be no separation then the church should be taxed without exception.

And we need to tax both churches and other corporations at reasonable rates so that neither ends up paying virtually no taxes. The mega churches receive much more from the state than they contribute and their mega pastors get away with even more than the corporate executives.

[leftyladyfrommo]

18. This is one area where I don't agree with a lot of people.

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2018, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Having a cross memorialize the war dead doesn't bother me at all. Crosses have marked the graves of the dead forever. They only make me sad for the awful loss of life that comes from war. Their presence keeps the memory of those awful times in the piblic memory. It keeps is from just forgetting about the massive loss of lives we have endured. Like those white crosses, row on row at Arlington and Gettysburg and Flanders. I see them and take time to remember. It really isn't a religious thing to me. Only people left behind trying to remember the huge sacrifices we have made.

I also am not bothered by the Ten Commandments in public places or Christmas displays.

I don't have a family so those things along with Xmas lights and decorated trees and buildings just seem beautiful to me.

[DFW]

19. My dad is buried at Arlington

I would have been furious if a cross had been put up where his remains lie. He fought for the United States, not the Crusades.

[albacore]

22. Burial plots are different....

Military graves can have any number of different religious symbols as headstones.
Public property... public memorials should NOT pick one religion. That's establishment of religion, and the Constitution was very clear.

I imagine Kavanaugh and the rest of the SCOTUS justices who are Constitutional literalists/fundamentalists will suddenly have an attack of "interpreting the Constitution" and the "Founder's real intent" and allow religious symbols on public property.

If the Founders had wanted the 10 Commandments displayed, they'd have done it. The 10 Commandments are not about civil law. Most of them are related to religion, and the religious observation of one particular group. NOT OK.

[Adrahil]

21. Nah, this one is not a huge deal....

The cross is old. and the gubmint bought the land after the memorial was erected. They can EASILY find the historic circumstances permit the government to leave the cross in place without broader implications.

[haele]

25. However, there are a lot of huge cross displays that had been erected in the 20's/30's to mark

"Covenant Neighborhoods" - WASP only developments, usually set-aside to be enclaves of upper-middle class snobs. They'd erect a huge cross on a nearby hill that could be used as a navigational point if close to shore, to ensure that any Jew, non-believer, or minority who thought they might want to buy property in that area could see that this was a "Christians only" enclave.

When questioned, they'd inevitably claim it was a "War Memorial", even though for the most part, war memorial plaques would only be placed on the site once someone took them to court because the land they'd typically put it on was designated public land, not someone's private property.

We have a case like that locally that always comes up every couple years, because other than the old-timers (who have all died off by now), very few people remember when and why the original cross went up, and that in the 1950's, the local John Birch society got the local VFW to replace the original cross with a fancy cinder-block cross and a small brass placard to "protect it" from those heathens who wanted it removed from public land. Since then, the local churches and the VFW have gone to great lengths, including selling out placard space to various groups and allowing other religious symbols to be displayed at ground level - to sell the myth it was always a War memorial.

But an old lady I used to work with in the 80's remembered when she was in her teens her parents discussing why they needed to replace the original cross that had burned down, to keep those "damn uppity J***s, N***s, S***s, and W*******s from thinking they could buy houses in their village" - referring of course to the Jews, Blacks, Southern European immigrants who made money fishing, and Mexicans that they thought might want to live in their comfortable "art and elites" enclave.

It was okay for those people to work or do business there, but they by god better be gone come sundown...and the Cross was their way of making it clear to anyone within ten miles that this was a private community, no matter what any law or constitution dictated.

Haele