US Supreme Court allows WWI memorial cross to stand in Bladensburg

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
This just in...

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association that allows a World War I memorial in the shape of a cross to remain standing in Bladensburg, Maryland:

“Bladensburg’s ‘Peace Cross’ honors veterans who gave everything to serve their country, and the Supreme Court’s decision means that the memorial will continue to honor their memory. We commend the court for ensuring that one group’s offended feelings over the memorial won’t diminish the sacrifices of our veterans or dismantle their memory. A passive monument like the Bladensburg Cross, which celebrates those who died to defend our Constitution and acknowledges our nation’s religious heritage, simply does not amount to an establishment of religion.”

ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case on behalf of retired Major General Patrick Brady, a Medal of Honor recipient and one of the most decorated soldiers in American history, plus seven veterans groups representing thousands of living veterans. The brief supported the American Legion’s efforts to protect the memorial, which the American Humanist Association sought to uproot because it is in the shape of a cross.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
I bet Lincoln would be sorry he ever appointed her if he could see some of her recent decisions.
If he were alive to see them, she'd be invoking accusations against him for patting her on her hoop-skirt.
 

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
It's amazing how they have managed to twist and pervert the meaning of this over the decades, when it is so simply stated.

They use it to establish laws preventing students from exercising religious activities on public school property when in fact that action violates the very premise of the clause, IMO. yes, yes. the Supreme Court ruled this and the SC ruled that. Still doesn't make it right. It also seems that their idea of the rules only applies to Christians and not other select groups like say Muslims.

I certainly don't want the government establishing the Church of the US, or outlawing certain religions, or requiring me to go to church. But saying that it is a violation of the clause to have a monument of the 10 commandments on government property is insanity.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
I certainly don't want the government establishing the Church of the US, or outlawing certain religions, or requiring me to go to church. But saying that it is a violation of the clause to have a monument of the 10 commandments on government property is insanity.
Things like this happen when insanity and vile behavior is given legitimacy as a political position.
 

NextJen

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Can you imagine if they ruled the other way?
Would that have led to having to redo all of the headstones at Arlington?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
It's amazing how they have managed to twist and pervert the meaning of this over the decades, when it is so simply stated.

I would also argue in this instance the Gov accepted or took on responsibility for the Memorial when MNCPPC took over the property in 1961, and is responsible for maintaining the site as is. of course in 1961 their did not exist the hatred of any religious symbols in teh 'public spaces'
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Ginsberg and Sodajerk.; I thought Ginsberg was dead. Did she actually appear in person?
Were there strings attached to her? Did her taxidermist do a really good job?
 
Top