Didn't the cross as a symbol predate Christianity?
1
The issue of the state and religion has become convoluted - deliberately so by religious adherents. I suggest we walk back the whole discussion to a basic premise.
There should be no religious activity or symbols on public land or in public materials.
Period. If that cross were to stand the test of this case, then every other "faith" should have the ability to erect an equivalent structure.
The Taoist in me would like to see a huge circle. The Pastafarian in me would want a really big sculpture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...complete with meatballs. Maybe the FSM should be mounted within the circle to show unity.
Please explain how the cross can now be displayed with pride after the endless revelations of Christian clergy pedaphelia, general dishonesty and perversion.
But I digress.
The founders believed in protecting us from the church. The persecutions were fresh in their memories. They might find Mike Pence revolting.
Separation of church and state must be total.
That has nothing to do with restricting the free expression of any faith. Nobody will be stopping me from worshipping the Great Noodle. But I would not want to impose his sauciness on anyone.
For many humans the cross actually represents evil. Keep it private.
7
In order to preserve our precious legacy of the separation of Church and State, and for us all to get along, democratically elected members of the House and Senate should not be permitted to wear religion headgear or any other overt symbol of religious sectarianism.
Why? Because the House and Senate belong to all of us, they are the ultimate public square and because religious symbols in government are divisive and prejudicial.
Just to be fair to everyone and to preserve our precious non sectarian secular republic.
The House should reverse its recent vote to allow headgear with sectarian religious symbolism.
Eh. Pick your battles. It HAS been there a long time. It was put up by people caring for World War 1 dead. They didn’t mean it to convert Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to Christ, probably. Or to assert that Christianity is the National Religion. It was the only way they knew to express their feelings of grief for their slain brothers. For their sakes, not for those of the framers of the Constitution, we might let it stand, at least until all their direct descendants are gone.
It’s appallingly ugly. If you take it down, do it for aesthetic reasons.
4
The country is going backwards and the new "Conservative" Supreme Court is driving the cart and cracking the whip. For the last 20 years I have been telling anyone who would listen that the religious right is pure evil and if they get a chance they will legislate morality with the same zeal as the Saudis. These people can never be trusted. Never.
3
The scourge of religion is as detrimental as in biblical time and consistent through modern history as well as today. We have the blessing of constitutional freedom from religion. Thank God?
3
Our courts have bastardized the definition of establish to the point where recognition of established religions is considered to establish. That is simply not the context of the 1st amendment. The actual context was the State Church as in England in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The United States was founded as a secular nation by founders who were the product of the Age of Enlighenment and Reason. When I learned the Pledge of Allegiance, during WW2, it did not include the phrase “under god”, and our National motto was E Pluribus Unum.
A secular nation is not under any god. Our toleration of religious freedom does not stipulate respect, and we have our share of silly cults. I tend to pay a nod to Clarence Darrow, by substituting Mother Goose for God. I respect and try to follow the guidance of Jesus’ compassion for all, just as I respect the intellect of Einstein. Having two masters degrees from MIT, I just can’t accept supernatural magic. Religion has fallen on hard times lately, and it deserves it.
2
I don't know if this historical note is relevant.
In the mid 1950's during the McCarthy red scare hysteria the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
The idiotic concern was that commies were pledging allegiance to the American flag.
To prevent this [so the nutty reasoning went] the "under God" was added because being atheists commies could not say the pledge with this new phrase.
Was this establishing religion.
This seminarian essay, at
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/sons-of-freedom-and-joy
was recommended to fundamentalist Christians in a local church in my generally liberal community. In it is written:
"[T]he day is coming when the state and the church will merge, and the state will be perfectly and totally Christianized. This will happen when Jesus returns as the all-knowing, all-wise, all-just, all-good ruler of the world, deposing every other ruler who does not rejoice in his supremacy. The age of tolerance and pluralism will be over. Because when he comes he will come with the sword. “The Lord Jesus [will be] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:7–8)"
It seems reasonable to take their word that what they sincerely believe. Christian Nationalists regularly say that their belief system is "reality".
In this case's oral argument, one justice hinted that religious violence was a thing of the past. What world do this Justices live in?? The secular humanist lawyer later said that she had received death threats.
Faith is pretending to know what you don't know. Faith-based religion in the public sphere is thus always divisive.
The U.S. is on the slippery slope to theocracy, because the U.S. Supreme Court is greasing it big-time with its pro-religious blinders on.
3
NYTimes Online Breaking News headline:
The Court, the Cross —
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" ~ JOHN ADAMS, 2nd President of the US
— and the Struggle for the Country’s Soul
• ...for the country's 'Mind'.
"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself."
~ JOHN ADAMS
• [The court] has never upheld a solitary Latin cross....
A brief filed by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and other Christian and Jewish groups on behalf of those challenging the cross emphasized the profound religious meaning of the Latin cross....
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
~ THOMAS JEFFERSON
3rd President of the US
• So while a Supreme Court endorsement of “just” this one cross would be a significant step toward opening the public square to more overtly religious expression, there is ample reason to think the court won’t stop there.
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” ~ THOMAS PAINE, Father of the US Revolution
'nough said!
2
Many places in Europe, not just museums, but also churches, are repositories of glorious art much(most) of which is Christian. These works are products of their times. Should we remove them all in the name of political correctness? What are we doing, emulating the Taliban by removing all "offensive" depictions?
If a cross(which is not a crucifix, BTW, as no Jesus Christ on it) honoring the dead of another era was accepted and probably expected in that era, why dismantle or remove it now even if on public land?
When I was in Poland I passed a Russian soldiers cemetery entrance with statues, guns at the ready, of Russian soldiers in their greatcoats guarding their own. The Poles and the Russians aren't friends but leaving this was a sign of respect. Let it be.
2
Perhaps it should be disconcerting that popular culture is at odds with an originalist court. If society no longer agrees with the most basic doctrines that ground it, society is headed toward collapse.
Curious the comments all projections of mindsets.
"in God We Trust". Which God?
No clear thinking in most of these comments.
All are interpreting these symbols by today's political agendas.
This particular cross is evocative of a time long gone.
Go tear down some Confederate generals on bronze horses.
Or get a group of people together to purchase the land and make it private.
Let's get on board with TRump and just tear down everything offensive to our own particular drift.
Protestant and Catholic church leaders have had pretty much carte blanche and full public support to lead prayers, bible study and whatnot in public institutions, promote candidates from their pulpits without even a raised eyebrow about the impropriety and illegality of doing so, and in some cases influence public policy favoring their religious moral strictures over any others since our founding. This has been the case until about the 1960s, when some people began to object and courts began to listen. The issues of birth control and abortion are certainly the primary examples, but many others come to mind including the civil rights of LGBTQ, interracial marriage, slavery, institutionalized prejudice against divorced people, etc., all of which are negatively influenced by Christian belief in the culture at large.
This really must stop. I don't want my grandchildren brainwashed in school by Christians prayers and thought. I don't want my tax dollars spent maintaining a religious icon on public ground. Christians might feel attacked by chopping the arms of this cross, but too bad. Other people's beliefs, including mine, have been "attacked" and denigrated by Christians in every possible way all this time, and it can't be allowed to continue. The establishment clause is supposed to protect the rest of us from that very thing, at least on government property and administration.
3
As others have noted, the issue is not to "embrace an overtly more religion-friendly approach." It is to establish Christianity as a state-approved religion.
James Madison spoke to this eloquently:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
11
I'm not entirely concerned by this single cross - what has me more worried about the current majority on the Supreme Court is their willingness to encode a dangerous fiction that commercial organizations are capable of having a faith or a conscience.
And oddly enough, the "conscience" of a company is, miraculously, in complete accordance with the ideas of some guy at the top.
So Hobby Lobby, with 32,000 employees, presents us with a Supreme-Court certified legal imposition of the head of the firms very flexible "conscience" in a way that deprives many of the female employees of their legally-mandated access to birth control. Because the owner feels strongly about his faith - which still allowed him to cheerfully spent $3.2 million smuggling stolen artifacts from Iraq to taint his Bible Museum.
What kind of picture of a corporate soul can that represent, that the Supreme Court is so desperate to protect?
10
We are divided on many many issues, and some of them are vital to our eventual survival, both as a culture and as a species. Why is the Court diddling over a cross when there are far more important issues at stake? I wish we would truly drop religion from our brains. But we won't and can't. Meanwhile we're running out of clean air and water, California is burning, the rest of the country is struggling against other earthly tsunamis, we are killing species daily, we are straining our food capacities (even with the drop in birth rate in the US), we need to provide health services for children of "ordinary" means, our education system is a joke. I'll put up with a stupid 40-foot cross, which will surely mock itself, if only we'll deal with the real problems of what used to be a democracy. I miss the sense that here in the US, we watched the fall of the sparrow (to haul religion into the mess after all) - I miss my sense of safety and tolerance and kindness. I miss the sense of true intellectual freedom. Maybe we never had any of it. I wonder sometimes.
5
I don't care about "in God we trust" on our currency or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or this peace cross.
I do care about decisions like Hobby Lobby or the gay wedding cake case or allowing public tax payer money to be used for vouchers to religious K-12 schools.
The Court seems to be saying anyone can refuse to do anything by just claiming that act would violate their religion.
The baker opposes gay marriage.
Can another who opposes inter racial or inter religion marriage similarly refuse.
This Cross was not erected by the government
Let a private organization now pay for the upkeep of the cross.
6
EXACTLY. Why would you insist a Baker that doesn't like you or you partner, make a cake for you? Would you eat it after he was finished? What good would it do for you to take this all the way to the Highest Court In The Land? I realize that he discriminated against you, but I would rather boycott his business than try to force him to make you a cake. The Principle? He still doesn't like you, no doubt his religion has pounded into his head, since birth, that you guys are an abomination, you aren't going to change his mind about anything, if anything, it's going to cement into his head that you are victimizing him, and he'll get a lot of sympathy from other religious kooks.
What really galls me is the "In God we trust" bit. I'd allow for 'Providence', but barely.
5
The cross is the symbol of Christianity to some but to many in the south and elsewhere it is the symbol of the KKK which uses it to menace and intimidate blacks and Jews. Our current Supreme Ct. has a distinctly Catholic persuasion with only three Jewish members and no agnostic or atheist judge. The conservative judges are all Catholic. Perhaps it is time to take religion or lack thereof into account when approving Supreme Ct. nominees. Freedom of religion cannot be completely confirmed if one religion is in the overwhelming majority on the highest court in the land.
5
Right, or having those loyal to a tainted religion recuse themselves.
Ironic how conservatives, a group which intersects heavily with self-identified Christians, call liberals snowflakes, but can't take anything they deem as a slight to their religion. Talk about snowflakes! How does it harm you or your religion to be disallowed from placing symbols of your religion (one of many) on public property? Answer: It doesn't. But they continue to wail and gnash their teeth and claim discrimination. Grow a spine, folks.
5
Most of the Founding Fathers were "Deists" - who believed in a Supreme Being but who explicitly did not claim any allegiance to Christianity. But for the last forty years the "religious right" has been hammering the Big Lie that, "America was founded as a Christian nation".
In 1782, the Founding Fathers established our National Motto as "E Pluribus Unum". The clear intent of the Founders was to emphasize that their new nation embraced diversity of all races, religions and creeds - leaving only a purely secular embrace of a common civics (i.e. government and law) as the sole definition of what is required to be "American".
Almost two centuries later (in 1956), Christian conservatives changed the National Motto to "In God We Trust". They were able to do this during the fevered height of the Cold War (in the shadow of McCarthyism) to emphasize that America was antithetical to "Godless Communism".
And that was the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent". Starting in 1957, "In God We Trust" was emblazoned on every new piece of U.S. paper currency, where it has remained for the last 62 years.
"In God We Trust" had previously appeared only on U.S. coins and only sporadically, starting with the two-cent coin during the Civil War (again as propaganda during a national crisis).
Now 20% of Americans describe ourselves as "having no religion". That motto on our money dictates that we are not "Real Americans".
"E Pluribus Unum" must be restored (to both our Motto and our money).
8
I'll have to disagree on a couple of points, Alex. This country was not founded on diversity and equal rights for all colors and creeds. Only if your creed was from England. What about the natives, the blacks, the Hispanics, the Jews, and everybody else that wasn't from England? In 1776, the world was a pretty segregated, racist place, kind of like now.
Ms Greenhouse
This is a far greater issue than the fine points of how this decision will be decided. You reference the original RFRA, Religious Freedom Restoration act, but miss the single dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens that the law is unconstitutional based on harm to atheists, perhaps from the first words of our Declaration of Independence "All men are created equal" After the creator had endowed us with this, Jefferson felt the relationship was over.
The entire body of law and interpretations that reference "religion" entails that such an entity is the province of the United States Government to define. As such, it is interpreted broadly, to include not only Scientology, but FACTS- First Amendmist Church of True Science- founded by a noted atheist.
Since our government eschews the ecclesiastic effort of defining which churches are agencies of God, it goes to the other extreme to allow any group to define itself, limited only by the by the ambitions of it's entrepreneurial leader.
Whether this particular cross remains is trivial, yet variations of such decisions must be made as long as this is officially "One Nation Under God" whose motto on every bill is "In God we Trust" The choice is whether we re-define ourselves as being a nation of reason rather than supernatural belief.
To change to the the later will truly take an act of God.
3
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chief joins the 4 non-conservatives on the court in finding in favor of this monument 5 to 4 in its location on the narrowest of grounds (it is an historical war memorial for our honored dead and many public veterans cemeteries are chock-a-block with religious symbols most frequently a cross).
An excellent piece Linda enjoyable by those of us with a professional background and also for the general reader. Where I think clarification was needed is in your accurate statement that trends and headwinds are against Judeo-Christian believers. True enough, but it is not nirvana around the next bend for militant atheists either. The millennial "nones" and their younger siblings are ascending. "Spiritual but not religious" is a far cry from atheists screaming invective and pushing for tax changes. That fact will impact how are courts rule even if they officially deny it.
Our constitutional separation of church and state benefits those of us who are not religious or who are members of minority religions. But most of those who created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were Christians, and yet they explicitly avoided an establishment of religion. Why? Because it was necessary to protect Christians from their fellow Christians.The efforts of conservative Christians to baptize the nation may come back to haunt them.
8
@writeon1
I doubt that the majority of those that created our Constitution were Christians. I think the majority were Deists, who don’t believe in a personal god. In any case, there is no empiracle evidence that supports the existence of supernatural supreme beings.
1
Religious war and religious oppression were the impetus for the foundation of the British colonies in America-Pennsylvania for the Quakers and Maryland for the Catholics among others. Both of these religions were Christian and persecuted in Britain as were the Puritans and others.
The Catholic Church centered in Rome had controlled Europe as a theocracy until 1054 when the Byzantine Orthodox Churches split off. Multitudes of Protestant groups followed and religious wars riled Europe for centuries. Much of the turmoil in the Middle East is due to a battle between Muslim sects. Even Israel is being pulled apart by religious differences between Jewish sects.
Just as some want government funding for religious activities others want to end tax exemption for religious entities.
Move the cross to private land.
84
@Maureen Steffek Yes, excellent comment
4
what did the framers have in mind when they wrote of freedom of religion and establishment of an official state church? did they mean freedom to worship however we please, or not at all, free from coersion by an official, superior church like the Church of England, which made emmigrants of the Pilgrims, or the Catholic Church, which made refugees of the Hugenots? they probably also had in mind the molten lead enemas of the Inquistion. their frame of reference was Europe's official Christian churches and their quasi-state powers over all citizens. they were thinking of various brands of Christianity, so to this day we are flummoxed by what they meant when it comes to the practices of the more "exotic" Christian sects, non-Christian religions, or no religion at all. the Court seems to think along the lines of those who believe America is a "Christian" nation, mildly tolerant of non-Christians in practice, but expecting everyone to be basically okay with kowtowing to a Christian line which includes crosses (aka crucifixes) sponsored by the government, laws based on particular Christian religious beliefs (abortion), Christian prayers in public and government forums, blue laws, and the like... just as long as no one Christian church is sanction "official" even if Washington's National Cathedral is sometimes called the "official" church of US presidents. clearly, the conventional thinking cannot expand to include non-Christian presidents or rights not church-defined.
3
@Pottree An "establishment of religion" is a belief held on faith, but not provable by anyone, not an edifice or institution. "Jesus is the son of God" is an establishment of religion, not of science.
@Steve Bolger- not in the law, which is relevant here. An "establishment of religion" has been held legally to mean the establishment or endorsement of a state religion, of any kind.
2
We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Christianity may be the majority religion, but its not universally held, nor is it the only religion. Though this 40 ft. cross was originally built on private land, I wonder if the local citizenry would have tolerated the same memorial recognition, sponsored by a mosque, if it erected a 40 ft. star within a crescent? After all, among American war dead, there was surely some percentage of Muslims, as there is serving today. The atheists, of course, would prefer no religious symbols. Mixing religion and politics reminds me of something Charlie Brown once said, “I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand.”
4
Well the president is signing bibles...So it's a bit moot.
1
@g4towerman- not at all, for the very reason you cite. The president is free to say and do pretty much anything they want with the bounds of the law. But the government is not. The two are separate and distinct.
1
How Linda's blood must boil at the thought of millions of Democrats and Republicans going to religious places of worship on Fridays, Friday evenings, Saturday mornings, or Sunday mornings.
Oh, if only those people were going to sports events! Or better, assembling in front of progressive socialists to learn why the Soviet experiment in tyranny needs to tried out again, if only to teach Americans a harsh lesson.
But cities are made of people, and people decide on their own to erect memorials. The hedonists and the hellers need to go about putting their own steles or temples up and see who nods in agreement or just laughs at the display.
3
#The Observer
After studying the constitution, I failed to see that the framers wanted to establish a national "most popular" religion of any kind. They were wise to see that mankind has fought too many wars over just that issue.
6
the people who want public support of religion always assume it is their religion that will be supported
7
Having lived in Europe for years, where religious art is ubiquitous and inherently a part of the public space, to me it seems weird to complain about a single cross. Perhaps the slippery slope fallacy is at play?
7
@Benjo- No. We are not Europe, and our legal system and its values are fundamentally different.
2
Why do the courts tiptoe around the arguments made by the hyper christians among us about religious symbols in public places.
Would the courts grant the same deference to any of the non-christian religions practiced within our borders?
As a nation we must freely allow and stoutly defend the free practice of all religions, not just christianity, as long as it is non-violent, practiced in their dedicated places of worship, and kept out of the public arena -- especially politics.
1
Certain religions believe that God's commandments trump human, secular decisions and also our ability to make sense of things and make moral decisions. It makes no sense for God to allow people to be born gay and then condemn them, but God is not bound to what makes sense to us.
Many of these religions also hold that God can suspend the moral notion that the end does not justify the means. For example, it is God's will that we give people false information or withhold true and relevant information in order to get them to behave, and to deny or obfuscate that this is happening so the strategy can succeed. Both religious and secular authorities have done and are still doing this with respect to marijuana and its dangers.
Religions that believe God wants his followers to enforce his moral rules on everybody, including nonbelievers, are inherently treasonous in relation to our establishment as a secular republic. We can only survive and avoid religious struggles and wars if such religions do not take their beliefs seriously enough to attempt implementing them. Unfortunately, this is increasingly not the case for some of our main sects.
4
Ms Greenhouse, We are so lucky to have you. Thanks for this careful reporting and for reminding us that our Supreme Court is "hurtling us in the other direction that is fraught with uncertainty and danger." paul in bessemer
2
What ‘theory’ will they use? It’s called the First Amendment under the ‘free expression thereof’ clause.
6
@Once From Rome did you read the facts of the case? it's on public land, which mean it is speaking for the government, not an individual. The First Amendment is pretty clear on what government should "say" about religion: nothing.
29
@Once From Rome-Establishment to prohibit.
1
@Once From Rome
You are free to express your religion without public finance. The same people that want to cut taxes to the bone want to use the money that is left to promote their religion.
Using tax dollars for religious purposes is not free expression. It is establishment of religion by government, and clearly unconstitutional.
27
The Bladensburg monument also raises another monumental case, the use of crosses (and Stars of David and crescents) on tombs at the national cemeteries in Normandy. By deed of France, this property is controlled and maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission, an agency of the federal government. How can the thousands of monuments erected there not be seen in the same way as the promotion of religion by a government entity?
9
@Ockham9 The religious symbol on the headstones reflected the religion stamped on the deceased's dog tag at the quest of the fallen individual. If there was no religion stamped the headstone did not bear a religious symbol. The cross in Maryland was not constructed as the collective wishes of those memorialized.
11
@Ockham9 Because they reflect the individuals who are buried there. Should be obvious.
10
@Alan Mass. Understood, but the question is whether a private individual can have the government proselytize for him or her on public property. If I donate money for the erection of a cross on city hall property, I don't think that would pass muster, as has been ruled in the various Ten Commandments monuments cases. If the deceased veteran wishes to be buried under a religious symbol, they are certainly free to do so in a private cemetery; but when on public land, this changes the equation.
1
How about this as a simple solution:
Chop off the "arms" of the cross & leave standing a monolith memorial to the fallen soldiers of WWI.
Momument stays, but it's no longer a Christian symbol.
Everybody wins.
44
@Bernie Oakley That would make it a phallic symbol, which is a religious symbol in some religions and among some pagan groups.
4
@Bernie Oakley
This is one of the solutions proposed by the plaintiffs - to modify the monument in such a way that it is no longer a religious symbol.
2
Religion is the world's greatest con and biggest danger to humankind especially now, when accepting our own responsibilities to the planet is key to our own existence. Accept science and humanism - reject the primitive tribalisms.
47
@Cal You realize that by demonizing religions and promoting humanism as the one true path to salvation for the human species, you are ALSO devolving into a "primitive tribalism" right?
Perhaps the path forward is not the condemnation of other perspectives, but tolerance for others and finding common ground to come together for the greater good WITHOUT forsaking our diversity of beliefs.
4
@Cal
Because science and humanism is devoid of tribalism?
4
Ms. Greenhouse and most NYT commeners would benefit from reflecting on those buried in the poppy filled fields in Europe rather than submitting their petty arguments. Look up.
7
Funny how it rapidly becomes a petty argument only when there’s the least little danger that you might not get what you want.
2
@Tom - as we keep looking, should we note how many of those who fell in the last century were falling on the graves of those who fought in religious wars for centuries before that? Most of Europe could be covered with crosses for the dead because both sides used flavors of the same faith to justify killing each other.
2
The so-called "conservative" justices obviously have radical right wing sympathies that a high percentage of the country, in addition to established precedent, rejects. They are creating law, not interpreting it, essentially functioning as a legislator of last resort, instead of a court of such.
This overreach will inevitably diminish an already tarnished and highly suspect institution whose history is an exemplar of reactionary activism. The legislature is the first branch; so long as gerrymandering and voter suppression ensure a sympathetic legislature the SC will endure.
But it's only a matter of time before some populist politician initiates a sustained attack on the SC; once that happens it will wither away to irrelevance.
2
I see so many people resorting to the slippery slope argument in these comments that it's like watching a mudslide.
3
I think that you think that a cross means much more than it does.
2
it means this: we are Christians, and you are not. this is our place, and you are an interloper, here only by our forbearance. don't step out of line or you will be quashed. only Christians are "true Americans". have a blessed day.
3
It seems that the times require that those with religious beliefs other than Christian, united with those sincere Christians who have no agenda to force in any way their beliefs upon others, mount a sustained and powerful movement to counter the current campaign to impose a theocratic agenda on government. This includes challenging the notion that atheists or other non-believers should be prohibited in effect from holding high public office by supporting campaigns to secure the election of many such officials. Gays have come out of the closet, so should those who do not believe in a supreme being. We who feel offended by attempts both sly and overt, such as the cross in question, to impose the idea that this country is somehow essentially "Christian" and that others are second class citizens, have only our timidity to blame for the success of our would-be theocrats.
3
Giving public money to religion always favors one religion over another. History is replete with such examples. Once again the Christians, in this case specifically, Catholics, are supporting the government giving money to "religion," which, of course means Catholicism to them.
there will be no money for muslims, nor minor religions, such as worshipers of the oak.
How soon those Catholics forget that that many Protestant do not consider Catholics Christian and Catholics were discriminated against for many years in this country. Look no further than Irish and Italians.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
3
How about they concoct a "disclaimer principle" which lets the religious import of such displays be neutered by additional components that make the whole presentation secular in nature? In this case, a big "historical marker" would turn it from a chapel into a museum.
The 93 year old monument seems like a relatively harmless entanglement of church and state, but unfortunately appears to be the perfect crowbar for allowing Christian doctrine to further intrude into public life.
7
I grew up in The Bronx in the 50's and 60'. If you were Catholic, you went to Saint Simon Stock. If you were Jewish, you went to PS 115. The students, the teachers and the administration were primarily Jewish and yet - we had to have assembly with "non-sectarian" prayers and had Christmas and Easter plays and celebrations. It was as if we lived in rural Iowa.
I always felt I lived in a Christian nation. I do not believe this is what the founding fathers intended.
The danger of living under one dogma is that you are tolerated, until, perhaps, you are not.
5
does the Christian majority even see what non-Christian minorities see: required Christian pageants and prayers, sublimation to laws based on Christian doctrine, Christian symbols in public places at public expense, are the foundation for the God-fearing majority to accept concentration camps and religious/ethnic cleansing? why is there a national Christmas tree if we are supposedly without establishment of religion? it is because the
majority will accept the idea that different religions means different sects of Christianity ONLY?
Time to tax the churches. If I have to pay to uphold their beliefs, they need to pay for my secular life.
13
Religion is the opiate of the people. Tax it like alcohol or marijuana where it is legal.
1
"A core project of today's Supreme Court ..."
"The court's most conservative justices ... are currently trolling for a case ..."
"An opinion all four justices signed in January demonstrated their hunger for a case that could lead to that decision’s overturning."
"The four justices noted, with evident regret, that the court had not been asked in that case to revisit either the 1990 decision or a 1977 statutory ruling ..."
Do "project", "trolling", "hunger", "evident regret" ... describe justices exhibiting judicial or presumptuous legislative behavior? Self-evidently, the latter.
Stewardship of the Court's institutional legitimacy is at odds with "projects, trolling ...". We should have nine justices that act accordingly. We must have five.
3
This is against the Constitution.
It is not debatable in the least.
Read the document.
5
If religions are inserting themselves into the political sphere, shouldn't they be paying taxes?
7
As always, Ms. Greenhouse makes the subscription to NYTimes worth every penny. Thank you for such an enlightening perspective on our failing $COTU$.
2
As Americans, we support the free exercise of religion, as long as it is OUR religion--Christianity. In 1864, Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned "indifferentism" (tolerance of other faiths) and argued that the State had a responsibility to support the Church and to suppress non-Catholic faiths.
That's pretty much the thinking behind these "religious freedom" zealots. They want the federal government to support Christianity AND to suppress other faiths--Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, etc. Any faith not symbolized by the Cross must be STAMPED OUT. Why? Because to too many Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Catholic believers, anyone who disagrees with them is WRONG, and no one has a "right" to be wrong.
I cannot help but wonder--once the politically active Christians in this country have driven out all non-Christian religions, will they turn on each other? Will Baptists decide that Catholicism is a cult? Will Catholics insist that Protestants must recant their "heresies" or face secular punishment? Will the Assemblies of God declare war on the Mormons? Each believes that God is on THEIR side and not the other.
In a scene from the film "Kingdom of Heaven," the Knights Templar conclude their argument for war with Islam by screaming, "God wills it!" Their army marches into the desert and dies from lack of water.
Freedom OF religion and FROM religion were enshrined in the 1st Amendment. Do we really want to throw that away to protect our "turf"?
4
We're talking about law here, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas ought to keep their hands off the Establishment Clause. The Founders understood the danger in mixing religion with government. If all those "conservatives" believe in original interpretation, why don't they stick with that instead judicial convenience based on their personal preferences.
4
Oh, I get it. “Dual allegiance.”
Now where was it that I saw this sort of claim getting roundly booed, lately?
the Founders' concern was avoiding the conflict that would result if one Christian religion, like Anglicanism, were made the state religion, and others, such as Methodism, were excluded. it. was about avoiding prioritizing and empowering one Christian faith over others, and the rival power that church could wield against the nascent government. basically, I can't see it had anything to do with non-Christian religions which were not anywhere on their radar because they saw everybody as Catholic, Protestant, or savages.
1
@Pottree Jefferson, for one, was quite familiar with other religions, and recognized the need to accommodate them within the larger framework of American society, even though their demographic footprint in this country was quite small in his day, as these quotes demonstrate:
http://reverbpress.com/news/us/thomas-jefferson-defends-muslims-against-donald-trump/
This case is pretty specific. No government entity either erected that cross OR allowed it to be erected on public land - it was a private act done on private land and the big cross only became an occupant of government land when the state used eminent domain to take that parcel of private land decades after the fact. I could imagine a narrow ruling in which the cross gets to stand but only due to those particular facts - facts which will not appear in many other cases.
14
Would it be fair to ask the justices that hold a specific religious belief to recuse themselves from the case if the outcome of the case could be seen as personally benefiting their specific religion?
I am probably missing something from my question.
5
@Bodhi
Since two justices who had officiated at marriages of gay couples refused to even consider recusing themselves from the gay marriage decision, your answer presents itself.
There is no institutional referee set up to judge on SCOTUS recusal decisions.
2
@Bodhi Well, the current roster of Surpremes includes Jews, Catholics and 1 or 2 Protestants. God forbid they should all have to recuse themselves from cases having anything to do with religion.
1
@The Observer
Explain how “gay marriage” and officiating a “gay marriage” is a religious relief ?
1
Can one of the multitude of presidential candidates just come up with a proposal for a Year Zero starting in 2021- we can tear down everything from the past -crosses, books, statues, etc, and rename everything. This will help get rid of all of the old isms that have left us where we are today.
3
We already have the CE designation for, "Common Era." It's simply AD renamed. It's a good alternative to the religion-based AD and really won't have a negative impact on anyone's internal calendar.
This case is far more likely to revolve around a respect for history -- the cross has stood as a WWI memorial for 93 years, than religion per se. Contrary to Ms. Greenhouse's assessment, the justices are not "opening" the public square to religion -- they may be inclined to allow a religious symbol to remain however because of its historical significance.
5
Isn't the solution to just sell the land that the Cross stands
on to a private group that will be charged with maintaining it ?
It had been there for 93 years and is in for those who
gave their lives in World War I.
If there are Jewish Veterans buried there, let a Star of David
be erected.
2
@John Brown But if selling the land has no purpose other than to preserve the cross, that transaction itself could be challenged. At a minimum, they would have to open it up to all bidders, including those who would not be interested in maintaining the cross.
1
If the left really expects to have a cross erected to honor World War I dead torn down, it is no better than the Taliban who destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001 because they, too, were offended by them. The secularist left and the Taliban are equally intolerant.
8
@Ron Wilson
Good afternoon Ron,
First, no one is advocating for anything being torn-down. There are other solutions.
Second, I haven’t heard from the Left that they want to get rid of _all_ religious symbols— just those in government-owned spaces.
Lastly, it is by no means intolerant to insist that all beliefs/non-beliefs, including Christians, to operate on the same footing as others. Your comparison with the Taliban does not hold, as they are not in countries that observe a wall of separation between church and state.
Some Christians have been getting upset to see folks push back on their efforts to place their symbols in government spaces; yet these are the same people who object to having symbols from other beliefs/non-beliefs represented too. That won’t do.
It is time to end Christian Supremacy and other hegemonies, so we can realize a ‘more perfect union’.
4
Sure, I confess to being intolerant of stupidity.
@Ron Wilson Odd that you place blame on a group of people you call secular left. Does that mean there are no people you would call secular right?
1
1. That cross is patently un-Constitutional.
2. The people claiming that nah, it’s okay, are the people who shrieked at that mosque six blocks from the WTC ruins.
3. The day I see the “freedom of religious,” sticking up for any image that is anything other than their version of Christianity will be the first day.
4. I personally think that it’s kind of silly to try and get all the Christian imagery off public grounds. Though I wish we would.
5. Ever read, “The Age of Reason?”
6. Certain Christians will mouth absolutely anything, and invent any history, to justify their supremacy.
7. It’s hilariously stupid to swear up and down that the Pilgrims came here on behalf of religious liberty.
8. This solid editorial is probably right: the real auestion is how bad the Court decision will be.
2
@Robert
I don’t have a problem with the cross or the mosque. Does that ruin you whole theory?
1
Why don’t justices have to recuse themselves if they are Christian in a case where they are deciding whether a Christian symbol on public land is permitted?
1
Originalism is pure quackery. You can claim to be reading the mind or intent of the writers and so can anyone else and both of you would be hard pressed to actually prove you know what it was. Any casual observer of any Court hearing should know that. If not, try again.
3
Remember how people criticized the Taliban and Isis for destroying ancient pieces of art because they offended their religion? Progressives are no different from those groups. They want to destroy everything that offends their religion of Progressivism. And I will support forcing a Christian baker to celebrate something completely opposed to their belief system when I can force an atheist or Muslim to create come celebrsting Christianity.
4
@Somebody
1. The ancient pieces are art were not on public land.
2. Progressivism is not a religion.
3. Baking a cake is not celebrating anything; It's simply baking a cake.
5
@Somebody You oppose people, not principle. You must therefore support the levy of taxes on religious property.
3
The cases highlighted show why we need Supreme Court term limits. An 18 year limit would ensure that every president got to appoint two justices. Over time, this would make the court more reflective of America as it is, rather than America as the reactionary rich want it to be.
Which came first - an atheist-led movement to eliminate religious symbols from the landscape, or an evangelical-led movement to solidify Christianity's political power in the US?
Answer: the white evangelical-led movement, primarily the Moral Majority, which was a reaction to Roe v Wade. Atheists in the 70's were still powerless fringe crazies. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was still actively hated by many Americans.
Five members of the Roberts court sees itself as the Moral Majority and sees atheists as people opposed to America. Our current President does nothing but extol and encourage that belief.
As an atheist, I don't care much about crosses - as Bill Maher said, "we're atheists, not vampires." But, as many here have said, I do care about the increasing power evangelical Christianity (Protestant or Catholic) is taking from non-evangelicals in this country. "Religious liberty" is code for "Christianity uber alles."
9
Is it so much a matter of removing religion from public property, or is it that one theology dominates?
Religion is non denominational. Christianity is a theology.
The Founders did not want one theology to dominate the others. That cross dominates the public scene as a theological statement, or preference. It should not be allowed, war memorial or not.
Nietzsche wrote, "Religion is beautiful. Theology is funny."
Millions have died over "funny" theological issues, not religious sensibility that makes us all equal before or without
any god. Religion is the spirit of all theologies. What separates us? Defines us narrowly? Theology!
2
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" It seems to me that "respecting" is a very low bar, and that "an establishment of religion" could be any church, temple etc.
So, I ask, how is granting tax-exempt status to religions not a clear violation of the first amendment? Why should American taxpayers subsidise a mansion for a RC bishop, for example?
6
@Caded -- That is seen not as a subsidy but rather as a refusal to burden religion.
If a property tax on religious properties were allowed, then some tax assessor and review panel would be required to place a tax valuation on the religious property. That would involve value judgments of the property highest and best use and put a market value on something that is not a market.
There are real complexities to burdening religions with tax valuations. It is a defensible view, even if not the only possible view.
3
@Caded
'The Power to Tax, is the Power to Destroy'
1
@ Mark Thompson......you’re ok with government evaluating my property, but not the church’s ? Nonsense.
1
Colombia needs to fight its own war with Venezuela. They are after something and labor and they want the U.S. to get it for them. Yes, Colombia is the fifth most dangerous country in the world.
This cross is a copy of the 8,291 at Maargraten, the 2,289 at the feet of Bellau Woods in the Marne, 5,247 at Ardennes, 4,405 in Brittany, the 3,811 in Cambridge. This was a memorial to them, and as we tear down the country and freedoms they fought to defend, we ought also tear down this memorial to them.
5
1. So how many crosses you figure you need?
2. I take it you’re unaware that those cemetaries have other imagery than just Christian?
3. Belleau Wood, Belleau Wood (not Bellau, FYI)...isn’t that the place some clown named Trump refused to go visit?
After all, it WAS drizzling.
1
Who would have dreamed, when Bush appointed Roberts, that he would become the only bulwark between our democracy and the bad dream of christian conservatism overrunning America?
2
A Christian nation will never be a free nation. And the push toward achieving a Christian nation by the fundamental/evangelical minority through their current emissaries on the Supreme Court (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh) will lead to a theocracy quite similar in standing to what we see in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Israel. And how's that working for them?!?!
5
This lawsuit is a complete waste of energy and resources. There are plenty of other more worthy and winnable battles to fight when it comes to separation of church and state. Who cares about this memorial?? Fight for the end of tax exemption for religious organizations. That’s something many of us can get behind.
3
@A Person In theory I can agree that tax exemption for churches could go away. But along with the tax exemption comes a ban against political support for candidates. I am more in favor of keeping religions organizations out of politics.
1
A pastor spoke at my public high school graduation. The school had a tradition of having the priest from the Catholic Church and the pastors from the various Protestant churches take turns each year speaking at the graduation ceremony. As far as I know, no one ever registered a complaint and it all seemed to work quite well. The town and the class were overwhelmingly church going Christians. The next year, after some court decision, the school decided that pastors could no longer speak at graduations. The compromise is a joint baccalaureate held the week before graduation at one of the local churches, which take turns hosting it each year. Most of the schools announce the time of the baccalaureate along with the graduation time. No student has to attend but most do. The change annoyed me at the time since it went against the wishes of 100 percent of the students in the small school, but the compromise also works. Undoubtedly a rabbi or imam would also have been invited to speak if one of the students had been Jewish or apracticing Muslim. It’s still traditional for a prayer to be given at public college graduations and for Native American spirituality also to be represented.
I don’t believe that the Constitution was ever intended to prohibit religious practice or expression in the public square. My educated guess is that the cross will be allowed to remain as a symbol that transcends a particular religious denomination.
1
@Bookworm8571- yes, but a public school paid for by our tax dollars is not "the public" square", is it? Frankly, school officials should have invited the rabbi, the imam, the Buddhist priest, the Hindu priest, and all the ministers to speak in their turn anyway, if they had had any imagination and were also willing to be the broad-minded. Since they weren't, I don't want my tax dollars paying for somebody else's prayers when mine aren't represented, nor do I want any school kids inculcated with a single belief system suing my money to do so.
6
@Bookworm8571 - I have two issues with your post: the first is that no one at your high school had an issue with religious figures speaking because, as you say, the class was overwhelmingly church-going Christians. That is not a good representation of the current religious situation in the US. 2) The cross does not transcend a particular religious denomination. It IS the symbol of a particular religion. I think you are still stuck in the thinking that dominated your high school, where "Christianity" equalled "religion."
4
@laguna greg Geez Greg! The public school was not inculcating belief systems on anyone. I think it would great if any religious leader came and lead a prayer in this setting. A prayer in this context is a prayer for wisdom, understanding, and compassion; not to bow before a deity and ask for forgiveness or a plea for rain.
1
There's a difference between a cross in the public square as a memorial for the dead and cases like Hobby Lobby, or a case that outlines religious freedom in the workplace.
A monument to the dead may have a religious origin, but it is essentially a monument to heroism and sacrifice, using a religious symbol. It coerces no one and injures no one.
Hobby Lobby used a corporations's "religious freedom" to deny substantial health care to women; the Little Sisters of the Poor have doubled down to have the right to do the same. Here there is actual injury, actual imposition of one religion's philosophy upon the welfare of others.
Cases which draw the line between discrimination and accommodation; between freedom and establishment are tricky. The Colorado baker wanted to be free to only work for people he supported in his world view; his customers only wanted to be free from his religious discrimination. That is a balancing act.
Truthfully, I don't trust this crew at all to take on the mantle of protecting people from other people's religious beliefs. The monument offers no real injury, no coercion, no discrimination. The monument takes no action. Cases in which we are deciding whose freedom counts for more, and affects health care, employment, the right to do business and the tight to use a business are the quicksand cases.
208
@Cathy
The cross does not belong on public property. It is not a secular or historical symbol. The government shall not establish religion. It hurts America because the cross on public property looks like an establishment of Christian religion.
160
@Cathy
For well reasoned and lead out - thanks
What you said is profoundly right.
By example I'll use my own feelings as an atheist well schooled and indoctrinated in his religion of birth.
It was obvious from our Nation's beginning that the notion of being secular was forefront. They knew first hand how governments used religion/theology against the People. They also had a strong sense that science would prevail over superstition.
Secularism was memorialized by the founders.That most were theists or deists seems highly appropriate for the time No surprise and does not obviate the basic secularism they radically enshrined for us.
I expect our MODERN Government to comport with reality in a scientific sense and not over-ride secular reasoning and For the People concepts.
But to the punchline: I think you hit the nail on the head.
Passive things like this Cross do not bother me. I can clearly see it honors our sacrificed warriors - most of whom probably were Christian.
I also can easily ignore the theology the Cross implies to attribute my own musings; that it symbolizes that their sacrifice allowed us a salvation of sorts from evil forces; that we should be thankful.
But non-passive things I want protection from! PERIOD. That is my right as a MODERN rational American. You enter the public square in a profession, business, position, etc. - leave your religion home!
And I have rights to demand our Government be and remain secular!
86
@MegaDucks Religion is for many folks as much a part of their identity as race, gender, ethnicity, etc. is for others. What do we leave at home when we enter the workplace? Our very selves? There has to be reasonable accommodation. (BTW, I am a nonbeliever working for a religious institution, who has many devoutly religious friends.)
5
Everyone in the world gets their religion from the same source as their physical ethnicity and language ("mother tongue"): from their parents. A "nation" is a group of people who share those three markers of common birth. Religion is the ideology of the nation.
Nationalism is the idea that the territories that are sovereign states and the groups of people that are nations should coincide: one state per nation, and one nation per state.
A different concept of citizenship is contractual: acceptance of the rights and responsibilities upon which the state is based. Physical ethnicity, language, and religion do not make a person a non-citizen or second-class citizen in a contractual state.
The contractual idea is liberal (tolerant of inherited differences) and is espoused by political parties that call themselves "liberal." Nationalism is espoused by political parties that refer to themselves as "conservative," although it is not related to the common meaning of that word (cautious, requiring proof).
The U.S. was established as a contractual state. Nationalism mainly arose later and elsewhere, but the U.S. has plenty of nationalists and plenty of adherents to the original U.S. concept.
The trend in the U.S. has been to reduce civic disabilities based on physical ethnicity, language, and religion. Those who see nationalism as an exercise of ethnic, linguistic, and religious rights regret this and try to reverse it. Ms. Greenhouse is recounting their efforts.
1
By pushing government support of religion into the public square the court is setting up a future conflict not between religious and secular, but between different religions. The court will be forced to choose the rights of one religion over another. This is precisely what the constitution was intended to prevent.
286
@syfredrick
yes, as an atheist I want the right to put up my symbol as large and loud as the Christian symbol. For some reason I don't think that will gain any traction.
28
@syfredrick
Yes. Eventually the Catholic Court might pick Catholicism over Protestantism. Then what, Evangelicals?
26
@McGloin. Ick yes. A huge cross without the half-dead guy hanging on it is bad enough - imagine a crucifix with the guy still attached. How awful would that be on your way to work or school every day?
This debate reminds me of an excellent article by Noah Feldmaan in this newspaper, https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/magazine/a-churchstate-solution.html
He says: Increasingly, the symbolism of removing religion from the public sphere is experienced by values evangelicals as excluding them, no matter how much the legal secularists tell them that is not the intent. Despite the gravity of the problem, I believe there is an answer. Put simply, it is this: offer greater latitude for religious speech and symbols in public debate, but also impose a stricter ban on state financing of religious institutions and activities. This approach, the mirror image of O'Connor's compromise [in Lemon v Kurtzman], is drawn from the framers' vision and the historical experience of separating church and state in America. The framers might well have been mystified by courthouse statues depicting the Ten Commandments, but they would not have objected unless the monuments were built with public money. Having made a revolution over unfair taxation, they thought of government support in terms of dollars spent, not abstract symbols.
1
@Donald Bailey- but that's the problem right there. A publicly funded school is not the "public square." It's not the agora, it's the lyceum paid for by yours and my tax dollars. And since that is the case, no religion should appear to be sponsored there. For far too long, Christian sects on both sides have had a free hand in defining what religious thought should by sponsored in public schools, all the while excluding everyone and anything else. This really has to stop, and it's irrelevant who gets their feelings hurt over it.
If Christians want access to the "public square," they can buy advertising and rent space just like anyone else. But government buildings and institutions should be off limits because that's the only way we will keep them open to everyone.
One could make the argument that, to a more traditional Christian, it is implicitly proselytizing to display a cross at the fully-upright “Station.”
Or it could be seen as blasphemy, I suppose. Perspective really is everything.
Quite simply, if you choose to pray before performing government business, including teaching in a public school, then no one is stopping you nor should they. If you require the people performing the same government service to be present during your personal prayers, then you are misinformed at best and proselytizing at worst. The war dead honored in the subject town were honored for their government service, not their religion(s). Therefore, it is inappropriate to erect a cross or any other religious symbol at a publicly placed and funded memorial.
2
So there is a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, a state that enforces the death penalty. I cannot see how religious conservatives can ignore the contradiction. Either “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is a commandment or it isn’t. Maybe they should be renamed the Ten Aspirational but Optional Policy Guidelines. Or, maybe this is really all about branding.
2
The Supreme Court precedents on this topic have created a problem for those who want to keep religious symbols out of the public square. In the Allegheny v. ACLU case, decided 30 years ago, the court equated a Hannukah menorah to a Christmas tree, reasoning they are both secular and therefore permissible in a public space. This makes little sense and ignores the distinction between the secular and the sacred. What we call a "Christmas tree" is more accurately an evergreen with lights... a secular symbol of the season, not a religious symbol of “the savior”. While Christmas Day certainly has religious significance for Christians, it is also a secular national holiday with government, schools and banks closed. More importantly, the whole concept behind the Christmas tree has nothing to do with Christianity (the Santa connection is a big stretch). Contrast that with the menorah, which is an inherently religious symbol with religious significance. The menorah lighting was a rite in the ancient Temple. The menorah commemorates a supernatural event in which one days’ worth of oil burned for eight days. The menorah is used in conjunction with prayers that invoke God. Prayers, miracles and temple rites are all inherently religious. No one recites blessings over a Christmas tree. The court may use the Allegheny reasoning to uphold the WWI memorial cross.
1
Actually it would not have been so bad had the Founders established a state religion. State churches are the norm in Europe, including the Nordic countries, where a special tax is levied on their behalf. The result? These countries are totally secular. Religion functions as a civic rite holding society together. The US, on the other hand, is seething with religious fervor which is only matched by religious ignorance. As opposed to most civilized countries, a majority of Americans believe in God. But what God? Because they only learn about their own sect in their own church instead of getting a comprehensive religious education in public schools, most Americans are ignorant not only of other people’s religions but also of their own. Recently I, an atheist Jew, had to explain to a Presbyterian friend Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. Ask an average American Christian about the difference between the concept of God in Islam and Christianity and get a blank stare. So I say: let’s bring religion back into the public square. Let’s have obligatory classes on comparative religion and ethics as they do in Germany. I am not afraid of a cross in a square. But I am afraid of the mealy-mouthed “respect” for “faith” which precludes any theological discussion and debate.
3
Thanks for your interesting comment!
1
@Mor- Except that the "Great Experiment", which is our country's separation of church and state for one thing out of many, does not use religion as the binding cultural force. For 200+ years it has worked very well, a country bound for the very first time in its national and legal identity without religion as a scourge and whip to force its lower middle and lower classes into compliance. It is one of the fundamental, great and powerful differences between us and Europe and has made us stronger, not weaker, then them.
If you've been out of the house anytime recently, you will have noticed that religions are everywhere in the truly public square. They advertise, raise money, have TV shows, publish scads of books and magazines, and own jets and mansions just like sports stars do. They can be as present as they like, so long as they pay for it with their own money.
So no, I don't agree with your idea at all. Keep them in the marketplace, with everyone else. But don't give a millimeter in the government, not ever.
Our newspaper here in Concord, NH regularly list historic happenings on or about the day of the year they occurred. One in this mornings paper mentioned that on this date in 1662 a man was hanged for "being a Quaker." Religious discrimination would seem to have arrived and unfortunately thrived with the original settlers!
2
Why do these judges seem so intent on mixing state and religion? What is behind this thinking? Many of their decisons of late are against the small "man", if you will. They rule for the elites time and time again...Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, They find it unobjectionable to approve the buying of elections and the disenfranchisement of the poor, the elderly, and people of color. All in with the aristocrats are they. And they continue their assault of the democratic principal of not mixing state and religion. Why?
1
@Dianna-because the Religious Right, the Silent Majority, has paid very good money these last 30 years to make sure their policies win and everyone else's loses. They really don't care what this country actually means, to them or anyone. They have no respect for the rule of secular law, even as it protects them. They have engaged every stratagem and plot, they have lied, slandered, abused, perjured, defamed, betrayed, imprisoned and even raped and murdered over and over again, and they have suborned every fool who could be bought, in order to assure that their religion prevails over every other no matter what the law says. The lengths they have gone to would make Yeshua vomit in his hat if he ever came back to see it, but they justify it all by thinking they are God's Chosen and the rest of us are uncircumcised infidels, who should be put down as decreed in the Old Testament. All in the name of power, money and the Rapture. And it's been going on for 2,000+ years now, in exactly the same way.
We give them the bully pulpit at our own peril.
Let's try this:
Move the cross to a privately owned site and have it's maintenance privately funded.
Then erect a large "Star of David" or "Crescent" in the public space vacated by the cross. Inscribe it with duplicate inscriptions to those on the cross.
Then bring the case before the SCOTUS! What's fair for the Cross is fair for the Star or Crescent. The "independent secular meaning" would be invisible to most Americans.
1
The rot really set in with Bush -v- Gore in 2000. After that most thinking people realized that something profoundly bad had occurred. That decision was nothing more nor less than a judicial coup against states' rights and The Constitution.
The Citizens' United decision was more mainstream fare, but still a giveaway to rich folks (corporations), for they are people too. But what has happened to the court with the appointment of the latest two religious zealots, is the end times for sanity, logic and intelligence.
I never had any time for Antonin Scalia, after he said he literally believed that an angel was on one of his shoulders and a devil on the other one, arguing for his opinion and that he prayed and God guided his choice. What arrant nonsense!
Now we have three Scalias, (Alito, Gorsuch & Kavanaugh.) Thomas reflexively just hates the world and wants to poison any well he can find. Roberts is the only thoughtful person on the right of the court, but he tends to be cynical and blows with the wind, hoping to not be hated when he doesn't do his masters' bidding.
Sadly, to me, religion is in the ascendancy in this country and nothing on the horizon is going to change that. Even a Democratic victory in 2020 will not percolate down to the Supreme Court. The oldest justices are the progressives, so this is going to take a while to fix.
5
I think we should be less concerned about whether cartoonish religions ascribed to by ignorant and/or fear-filled people will be granted a greater foothold in our culture by (ignorant and/or fear-filled members of) SCOTUS and more concerned about whether the broader culture will be up to offering the public somewhat greater sustenance for the soul than adolescent entertainment, bloviating blowhards and the old-standbys, sex and violence.
We're quickly descending down a rabbit-hole dug by those who insist that there is no greater meaning to life than dying with the most toys. And when that's what provides meaning to life, we end up getting a life governed by our most primal fears and wants.
If you doubt it, just take a look around.
2
The Seventh Day Adventist case really makes the point about the difference between religion and humanism. When the pharmacist's religion prevented him from helping out in an emergency situation, it really is not about any sort of spiritual, loving motivation. It's about fanaticism.
We hear constantly about wonderful Christian Charity, which we're now increasingly told will take over the work that government agencies perform.
It didn't seem to be operative in an emergency situation when others needed help in this situation.
2
@Entera- all the more reason not to give those people encouragement. It will come to a point quite soon where if it's their Sabbath, they will not help you if you lie bleeding in the street... if you are not in their church...
This case, and most legal precedent, examines the "joint" Greenhouse describes between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The Justices, and many commenters, only interrogate a case to determine whether religion, invariably Christianity, is being actively "established."
As an atheist I have experienced the force of religious expectation my whole life. As a small child in a small town, the first question asked by my friends' parents was, "What church does your family attend?" In school I was expected to utter the Pledge, "Under God" and all, despite a queasy feeling that I was lying. My coins read "In God We Trust." As I held them, I felt the pressure of conformity. I eagerly joined the Boy Scouts, mostly for the cool uniform, but stopped after two weeks because the Scout leader began every meeting with a prayer. My friends all went to a Tuesday Bible class and made fun of me because I didn't join them, so I did. I felt something profoundly disturbing about the unctuous woman who loomed over me with sanctimonious intimacy. I didn't go back.
Every public symbol furthers this Christian hegemony. It has nothing to do with the freedom of religion, which has never been in question. These people, including the majority of the Court, are complicit in establishing religion. I cringe when public officials say the obligatory "God Bless America" or start meetings with a prayer. All these "innocent" things remind me that it is not really my country.
345
@Barking Doggerel Very good comment which reminded me of things which have happened to me down through the years.
I grew up in the rural/small town South and when most people meet someone new they ask where they are from and what church they go to. In my experience a lot of church going is not really about religion. If you live in a small town in the South and want to be a person who meets the public -- attorney, teacher, business person, politician -- you almost have to go to one of the leading churches because church is where you meet people in the community. And the church that you go to tells people about you. When people ask what church you go to -- what they want to know is what tribe you belong to. What rank in society do you belong to. In most Southern towns, if you go to the First Baptist or First Methodist, then you will fit right in with the leading citizens in the community.
I have met some wonderful, sincere people in church; I have also met a lot of fakes and grifters who are using the church for social and political reasons. Often as a way to make an easy living.
32
@Barking Doggerel My sentiments exactly! I remember being drummed out of the Boy Scouts because I told the scout master I did not believe in god. During my adolescent years I pretended to be a believer because of intense social pressure.
27
@Barking Doggerel
The crosses within the cemeteries are for individuals, each individual who apparently placed "christian" on their dog tags. The cross under debate is to be a public monument and a religious symbol has no place in the public space.
14
The Founding Fathers knew much better than we do the bitter, bloody divisions caused by religious differences. The English Civil War, the Thirty Years War, the recent conflict with Catholic France, not to mention the fact that America was an actual haven for religious dissenters, were very much on their minds when they divorced religion from government completely. Religious observants should be content to practice their faith undisturbed. They may rue the day when government acted on their behalf.
343
@T.J.P.
In a recent visit to Normandy France, while visiting the American cemetery. I noticed there were only two religious symbols. The cross and sparsely the star of David. I asked the question why only two religious symbols or markers were prominent in the cemetery. The decision was made originally to use the cross based on world war one cemeteries. It was not meant as a religious symbol then, but rather the Latin cross. The cross only became a Christian religious symbol some one thousand years after the birth / death of Christ. Before the birth of Christ the cross was a pagan symbol used in Africa and China, as much as one thousand years before the birth of Christ. In fact it was simply a marker in many areas to noting the death and burial of a human. Some Jewish organizations have petition to use the star of David in deference to the cross as families prove that that particular soldier was a member of that faith. Many American soldiers of very diverse and varying religions or none it all died in the invasion and subsequent battles. Like a great uncle Charles many have been repatriated.
7
Not to mention the Virginia colony had an established religion. If one was not Anglican, discrimination was the order of the day.
7
@Bill T You use the Latin cross one thousand years after the supposed birth of Christ to a secular intent in the 20th century. That, my friend, is a leap of faith.
6
What I find galling about the conservatives on the Supreme Court is their eagerness to impose their own views, religious and otherwise, on all of the country, even though these justices reached the court by dubious, non-majority ways:
Both Altio and Roberts were appointed in 2005 by George Bush who was in the position to appoint them thanks to the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, which awarded the presidency, in a brazenly political decision, to someone who lost the popular (and electoral) vote.
Gorsuch owes his seat to McConnell's stall tactics which denied a president his constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by a president who received 3 million fewer votes than his opponent.
Only Thomas, in my view, made it to the court via a majority decision. But then again, he was part of the undemocratic Bush v. Gore decision that opened the court, eventually, to Alito and Roberts.
One would hope that, given this shaky history, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Roberts would demonstrate some humility, would recognize how limited the support is for their positions. Against this background, their aggressive pursuit of a pro-business, pro-religion, anti-regulatory agenda confirms that the Supreme Court is now merely a political body in robes, an institution that has lost any claim to objectivity or fairness or truth--or legitimacy.
4
Hard to see how someone can say the country is going in one direction when the last two Supreme Court justices, nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, are going in another.
Freedom to express religious beliefs is as important as being free from those expressing religious beliefs.
Each side has to give a bit.
No one is happy.
Democracy.
3
@Marty O'Toole...."Freedom to express religious beliefs is as important as being free from those expressing religious beliefs."....But I should not be asked to pay for your religious expression.
1
@Marty O'Toole - the constitution is very clear that there is no "give" in the law in this one regard. What happens in the marketplace is entirely unregulated. What happens in the government must forever remain uninvolved in any religion, lest it endorse a state religion to the exclusion and suppression of all others politically, or give ascendancy of one over another tacitly as the Christians clearly want to happen, and brooking no dissent.
Greenhouse is of course correct in noting that the Court is moving in the direction of recognizing that we are a Christian nation that promotes loyalty to the State of Israel because of the special place that the Holy Land has in Christian theologies.
Even non-progressive liberal moderately right-wing Democrats (like Nancy Pelosi) understand that Muslim women in Congress should not be allowed to challenge this reality.
It is high time that the Court reinforce these Christian values rather than the Constitution. After all, a truly originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution would recognize that our founding fathers never intended the Constitution to last this long.
Because the alternative is a pluralistic tolerant society based on universalist principle of democracy and human rights and this is clearly not what the country wants right now.
1
It seems that bringing this type of lawsuit at this time in the history of the Supreme Court is not a very good idea if one's goal is to pursue a greater separate government and religion.
Of the conservative five, it instructive to remember their provenance.
Two were appointed by G.W. Bush, himself appointed to his first term by a 5-4 conservative court. Two were appointed by Trump, whose election was enabled by the intervention of the odd couple, James Comey and Julian Assange, the latter at the behest of a hostile foreign power. The remaining judge was appointed by H.W. Bush at the age of 43 after 19 months of judicial experience, as a direct slap in the face of the remarkable individual he replaced and all he stood for: Thurgood Marshall.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind.
2
Frankly, an honest review of the effect and impact of religion throughout history would show it to be the most harmful and destructive man made creation by far. It has provided "moral justification" for countless atrocities and persecutions, slaughter, and the enslavement and subjugation of people. A more engaged deity would smite all those who claim to act in these ways under its blessing.
But since the Almighty - whatever form It takes - chooses to defer the smiting to mankind, we should shoulder the responsibility and eliminate organized religion altogether. Of course, each person would still be free to worship and believe however they choose, but no structure or organization should be allowed to shape, dictate, or coerce any religious dogma on people.
But I doubt the SCOTUS will rule in that direction.
4
Let’s try a thought experiment. The hammer and sickle were the image of the USSR. They were not a religious symbol. Suppose someone donated a 70 foot tall hammer and sickle to some town to erect in their town square AND the town did it? I think it would be incredibly offensive to many Americans, but would it be unconstitutional? After all it is not a religious symbol. Are there maybe some symbols that are just so societally offensive that they don’t belong in the public sphere? After all, in Roman times the cross was not a religious symbol but a symbol of public execution.
1
I truly appreciate the clarity and nuanced analysis Linda gives us on the Court.
4
Rather than address the issues of permissible religious expression addressed overwhelmingly in these comments, I am concerned about John Roberts himself and the direction of the court he heads.
I remember Justice Roberts' Senate confirmation hearings. Time and again he assuaged the concerns of Democratic members by reaffirming, over and over, his belief and reliance on the guidance of past court decisions, of Stare Decisis.
Recently it is reported that he is distressed that the court is increasingly seen as political.
So, why is the court trolling for cases such as Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and the Wedding Cake Man, unless it is to revisit and overturn past decisions and remake the laws of the land in its increasingly conservative and christian image?
9
@Edward
"So, why is the court trolling for cases such as Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and the Wedding Cake Man, unless it is to revisit and overturn past decisions and remake the laws of the land in its increasingly conservative and christian image?"
The Court is taking these cases in order "to revisit and overturn past decisions and remake the laws of the land in its increasingly conservative and christian image."
Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all lied repeatedly in their confirmation hearings. Thomas lied so conspicuously that it barely warrants mentioning. I missed Alito's hearings, but I assume he, too, lied. The difference between Roberts and the other four radical right-wingers is that Roberts, as Chief Justice, knows that history will judge "his court" so he is trying to do the bare minimum to hide his court's radical right-wing agenda. The others simply want to mold the country into a pro-business, pro-Christian, pro-wealth, and pro-Republican anti-democratic (note the lower case "d") state as quickly as possible. Roberts has the same goal, he just feels the need to pretend occasionally that he cares about the Constitution.
3
Some christians believe that prayers should not be communal, in fact to pray with others with different views and beliefs is considered a sacrilege. Why is this not considered within the legal arguments?
I live in country where there is no Establishment Clause and hence no debate like described here. It is understood in our society that religion cannot be imposed, directly or indirectly, on the general populace. We don't, for example, have any laws regarding control of abortions. Yet, it isn't a problem. It seems that the more precise you get, you wind up having more unsatisfactory outcomes. Watching conservative justices, who loudly proclaim how wonderful the US Constitution is, work very hard to circumvent some clauses, which shows how bankrupt their legal opinions are.
8
@D Marcot
" We don't, for example, have any laws regarding control of abortions."
I'm sorry, what country do you live in?
@D Marcot Oh, Canada... We look to you. Thank you.
Just as in the abortion debate where "protecting women's health" is the false flag under which anti-abortion laws have been advanced in many states, "freedom of expression" is the false flag under which conservative Christians hope to blur the lines between the secular and religious realms in our country. Make no mistake, their goal is something close to Christian theocracy. What's controversial about the proposition that if you operate a business in the secular world you don't get to refuse service to customers based upon some scrap of religious dogma you've latched onto concerning race or gender or sexual orientation? What's controversial about banning religious displays on public property or prayers at public events?
5
@Ray C I thought women's health was the guise under which the pro-abortionists argued their case.
Banning religious people from operating a business unless they agree to relinquish their First Amendment rights etc might be ever so slightly controversial and illegal.
1
@Ray C
"What's controversial about banning religious displays on public property or prayers at public events?"
It's controversial because right-wing Christians believe this is their country. The rest of us just occupy space and are undeserving of rights.
It's too bad the Roberts Court's religion decisions aren't "simply speech that no one ha[s] to listen to" or follow.
1
I get the arguments for why a cross on public land is problematic. Yes, even this one, which was erected 90 years ago on what at the time was private land, to honor war dead.
But how problematic, really? How is this particular symbol an imposition of religion, or government favoritism of religion? Are we to believe the parties which have brought suit are genuinely injured by the existence of this cross in Maryland, or that their interest in having it removed is motivated purely by constitutional fastidiousness?
In fact, this is one of those occasions where secularists and atheists look intolerant and vindictive. This is not a fight against compelled prayer or discrimination against non-Christians, or many other issues worth fighting for.
This is about a growing and intolerant demographic exercising power for power's sake. And progressives wonder why they are perceived as equally authoritarian as right wingers.
9
@Livonian Since this 'cross' must be considered an allowed 'secular monument' not in violation of the anti-establishment clause in order to not be considered promoting Christianity, what if future town members decide this 'monument' should now be dressed up with smiley faces and flower prints in bold colors? Do the future town members have the right to 'deface' this monument if they so choose, since it is their monument, or must it remain an unvarnished Christian symbol?
3
@Richard
I believe those future citizens would - and should - have the right to modify/decorate/deface the monument, if done so through legal channels.
My point is that this suit is unnecessary, egregious and just another skirmish in our endless culture wars, not some principled fight over the constitution. Even if the Court sides for the plaintiffs, we will not have become a more perfect union.
1
@Livonian I agree completely. This whole fiasco is absolutely ridiculous and I'm actually disappointed in my fellow liberals.
This particular case notwithstanding, the USSC and religious organizations should be careful of what they wish. There is not a very large gulf between expanding the rights of religious organizations in the public sphere as, for instance, allowing public moneys to flow to religious organizations, and making these religious recipients taxable entities.
Or maybe the USSC is also in favor of a constitutional amendment stating that religious organizations can have their cake and eat it.
1
It is 2019 and just yesterday while attending a city council hearing I was expected to stand and join in the “blessing” which was a prayer given by a local preacher. Everyone said “amen” at the end. Had I not stood, I would have been the only one and likely would have affected my client’s case in front of the council. As an atheist, it disturbed be to the core.
21
@SPH- Be brave. File a complaint after the fact. Express how you believe any other behavior would have would have prejudiced the outcome of the hearing. make a huge stink. Don't leave it alone.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
I've always found the First Amendment a bit on vague side where it says no law respecting an establishment of religion.
It's that business about "respecting" that is unclear to me.
To clear things up, I recommend adding the following language to the Amendment the next time we get around to revising it.
"The freedom to push one's religions opinions down the throats of other people who don't necessarily share those opinions is tyranny."
20
@A. Stanton Except that reads like Atheism, a religious viewpoint that tries to pretend not to be.
The respecting means as regards with everything following being a list. The state shall not establish a religion - at the time meaning the various Christian denominations, but is also prohibited from curtailing religious expression. In the same fashion Congress is also prohibited from limiting freedom of speech, the right to assemble peacefully, or the right to petition the government.
If you want to find something unclear try 'or of the press'. Presumably that means the freedom of the press but it's curious freedom of speech and the press are linked given the divide evident today.
1
@A. Stanton
"The freedom to push one's religions opinions down the throats of other people who don't necessarily share those opinions is tyranny."
Please define "push"
And why wouldn't the rule apply to people 'who push their political or economic opinions down the throats of other people who don't necessarily share those opinions'? After all, beliefs about the proper political or economic approach that should be taken are all too often based on nothing more than unproven dogma.
3
@John Smythe
First, atheism is not a religion. In it's various forms, it is A-theism, that means not a religion. There is no faith required for atheism and the only belief required of an atheist is a belief in demonstrable evidence supporting the explanation of reality.
Second, the founders knew of more than one religion. They knew of jews, muslims, indiginous beliefs and many others around the world that existed way back then. The prohibition against the state establishment of religion has more to do with protecting the state and its citizens from religion, not religion from the state.
I agree with Ms. Greenhouses' analysis, but would add this point. Thus far, the Supreme Court's recent decisions don't simply show a deference to religion. They show a deference to Christianity. Whether it is the Hobby Lobby, Bake Shop, or Town of Greece cases, all involve disputes about Christianity only. Contrast this with the Supreme Court's recent refusal to allow a Muslim man on death row to have his imam present at his execution.
The Supreme Court's language ostensibly "upholding religious freedom" is nothing more than placing Christianity at the apex of our legal system. That is, the Court majority has now required all of us, Christian or not, believer or not, to bow down before the only god these five men recognize -- and further, they place these religious requirements above the secular rights that we thought we all had in this country for more than two hundred years.
I've been an attorney for forty years. Never in my years in practice did I ever expect to see a Supreme Court write that a secular governmental body wasn't deferential enough to a particular religion, but it did just that in the Bake Shop case. Never in my practice did I ever expect to see a Supreme Court deny a religious request of a non-Christian man about to be executed, but this is exactly what happened to Domineque Ray.
We are no longer a nation governed by the Constitution. We are a nation whose citizens must now follow Christian observance, as this Supreme Court has dictated.
41
The contrast was even sharper, I would argue, between the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision and the Muslim ban at issue in Trump v. Hawaii. In the former, Justice Kennedy seemed personally offended by comments against religion made by one of one of the Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners. And of course, the baker in that case was a conservative Christian. But in the latter case, the court brushed aside Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric, which clearly was the basis for his executive order, and had no trouble upholding it.
What a difference being a Christian makes!
15
@Jena-Auerstedt More a case of flagrant unequal treatment under the law for Masterpiece whereas the so called Muslim ban doesn't ban Muslims but citizens from particular states. Non-Muslim citizens would be equally hardshiped.
1
Whatever is decided in this particular case, however it is rationalized (theistic religions based on a belief, where believing is not knowing), it ought not detract from the essential: a clear separation of religion from secular government. Have we forgotten that this country was founded, at least in part, by people escaping religious persecutions in the old country?
16
@manfred Marcus Actually it was founded by religious people fleeing state persecution in the old country. That the state also largely dictated religion just meant the state was more powerful in those days. Of course America is moving back that way - deciding whether an individual's religious beliefs are permitted to interfere with their daily life - Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece etc.
1
@John Smythe- actually there is no difference between your rebuttal and the OP's assertion. Persecution is persecution no matter where it comes from, even tacitly condoned by the state. Your second observation is also off the mark. The state today is just as powerful today as it was then, and in every regard. You just happen to enjoy living a secular society not governed by religious law, which is what this is like.
And what do you mean "of course"?? The move back to a theocracy is not natural. Rather it is an artificially induced plot and strategy by the Far Right to assure Christianity ascendancy over all other religions as the sole religion of this country, in both belief and policy, socially, economically and politically.
Lastly, right now there is no "limitation" on an individual's belief "interefering" in their daily lives. They may be "interfered" with as much as they want. However, there are strong and clear limits on what they can require other people to do to accomodate or even acquiesce to their personal beliefs.
Evangelicals are working hard to assure they they can make you think, say and do everything they want you to. Pray god you never find out what I mean by that.
When Paul spoke of "the foolishness of the cross" he referenced exactly the opposite of what is represented in this monument, which underlines the fact that "the cross" has become respectable in the World, with no less than Christian Caesars, Christian nations, Christian generals, etc. It takes a lot of theology to get there from the literal Bible. "The common people who heard Jesus gladly" never could, any more than they would expect to hear "blessed are the poor in spirit....the pure in heart" at Caesar's table. The Patriot Cross (the symbol of war) is the exact opposite of the "preaching of the cross" (the tidings of peace). These are the empty relics of religion where "the glory has long since departed."
3
Would the SCOTUS protect the Star and Crescent? The lingam? The Chalice? .....you name it...on public land? The cross is the symbol of one religion and is promoted in this aggressive manner not by all Christians but by a narrow brand of aggressive Christianity which is anti-democratic, misogynist and racist. I doubt this case would have been brought before the SCOTUS by Unitarian-Universalists. If this isn't about establishing religion then what is? The test of that is what it does to all who do not adhere to this symbol of religion to see it aggressively displayed in the public square. It tells Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Budhists etc etc etc that they are second class in this society. It alienates them from the public square. Perhaps that is the real purpose of this case.
31
@reju lavtok
IMO the white christian evangelicals are attempting to mark their property - hence the fight to retain Confederate statuary and continual effort to retain/introduce Ten Commandment plaques and other Christian artifacts into the public space.
If the court rules in favor of the cross, what happens next? Do Jews demand the Star of David in a public park in NYC? Do Muslims demand a Crescent on public land in Houston? Or Hindus in California? Or Satanists pentagrams? Or, or, or. If the response to those demands is no, then the court will have essentially established the primacy of Christianity over all other religions in the US.
Is there no end to the slippery slope that Republicans started us down some 40 years ago?
107
@Matt
As the article states, the reasoning for USSC's decision will be as important as the decision itself. And surely the reason the monument was placed there 90 years ago will inform whatever decision they come to.
Was/is its intention to proselytize or establish religion, or is it no different than the Christian crosses, Stars of David and Muslim crescents etched onto the tombstones of soldiers buried in Arlington?
1
@Livonian There's a reason I'm not a lawyer, or a supreme court justice, what with the number of angels dancing on the head of pin.
The religious symbols on soldiers' tombstones is an acknowledgement of the individual soldier's religious affiliation. It represents nothing more or less, and it's significance is limited to that soldier and his/her family. It is not intended to represent anything other than that. A 4-foot cross on public land is something entirely different. And my original comment, and sentiment, is unchanged.
8
@Livonian What the reasoning 90 years ago is not relevant. You comment is like saying that slavery is OK today because we have to view it with the reasoning used in the Slave South. The world changes and society progresses.
13
Yikes. The preservationist in me thought it was a pretty straightforward case of historical value, and that a similar monument wouldn’t be be legal on public land today. I never imagined the conservatives would seize the opportunity to weaken the Establishment Clause. Using free speech to justify religious use of public property would be a total perversion of the First Amendment.
Two can play at that game. If the conservative justices establish a new precedent, I’m donating to the Church of Satan for a sculpture of the devil across the street from the Becket Fund’s headquarters in DC. There’s a small park there that’d be perfect.
29
It's all about power and a power grab. I understand that law has to go to the micro level of ideas and parse and dissect it down to the minutia. Having said that, sometimes a simple macro look at things will tell you what's really going on. Nobody has ever stopped anyone from believing anything. You are free to think about and believe every word in every or any religious book you can find. If you want to believe in things I find illogical go right ahead. But please don't make me have to take part in your beliefs by erecting monuments and statues. Believe what you like and keep it to your self. If you do that I promise not to go around building statues of Bertrand Russell.
21
So many gratuitous anti-Christian statements made in the comments - would they be so freely made (or published) if they were about any other religion? Further, other articles/comments talk about the problem for the Democrats of Beto O’Rourke or Joe Biden being white. Would similar articles about another racial group be published or views be circulated without disgust? How did we come to this? The left is again inviting the backlash that brought Trump. But, even more frightening, what does the left want if they win? It’s being to sound like vengeance.
7
@SAL
If other religions were being pushed into the public sphere, then yes, the comments would be about those other religions.
If there is an example of someone trying to preserve a monument of a giant Koran in a public park, I am all ears.
13
On someone's farm land, directly adjacent to Interstate 70 in Missouri, there is an enormous steel Latin cross. It is probably four times higher than the Bladensburg cross.
It has been placed where it is in order to proselytize/celebrate some private person's Christian beliefs, strategically erected in front of the captive audience of travelers on the highway, like all the other myriad billboards along I-70 in Missouri.
I find this enormous cross obnoxious and religiously narcissistic (in a very non-Jesus way).
Nonetheless, it is on private land only a few feet away from the boundary between private and public property, which is precisely what makes it constitutional.
16
The SCOTUS typically ignores the rights of atheists as if atheists are not entitled to the same rights as an "established" religion. Atheism clearly qualifies as, a "sincerely held belief," the same as "established religion." Why the double-standard?
11
@Glenn Thomas How does it ignore them?
1
I am old enough to remember covenants in real estate forbidding the sale of real estate in some subdivisions to Jews, Negros, Chinese, and other non Christians.
Good god fearing christians would not want to live with those sorts. God forbids. Biblical quotes about the need for separation.
I have experienced discrimination in employment my lifetime because of my religion, done by good christian people.
The camels nose in the tent. First the maintenance of a cross with taxpayer funds, then the erection of a cathedral.
No establishment of state religions. It's that simple.
21
@LawrenceAnd let John Gotti be interred in one of their cemetaries after the family(no pun) pays for indulgences.
Let us pray or let us prey-drive.
1
Imagine three countries where the governments' land ownership vary; in one, the government owns all the land; in the second, half the land; in the third, no land. If all three follow a strict separation, then, in the first one, no religious symbols would be allowed on any land; in the second, half the land would be off limits; in the third, no land would be off limits to religious symbols.
With strict separation, the larger the sphere of government, the more religion is crowded out. Many people like their religious symbol near burial grounds, hence the conflict.
It is the result of government -- the larger its scope the larger the conflict. For non-religionists, the 93-year-old cross is an imposition of religion; for the religionists, the scope of government crowds out religious liberty. However the SCOTUS decide, its going to impose on at least some. This type of conflict occurs elsewhere, e.g., government secular schools which crowd out religion. Whose ox is gored depends on which side dominates the SCOTUS.
8
The question I have is why would the American Humanist Association and the other nonreligious plaintiffs advance a case they know is ultimately going to hurt their cause. By this reading the only possible outcomes are bad and worse. If they had just left the cross alone, we wouldn't be discussing the potential fallout of the cross. It's a 93 year old war monument. You couldn't just leave that one alone?
If Bladensburg, Md were discussing the erection a new 40 foot cross on public ground, or any other religious monument, I would understand. Attacking this one seems like a fool's errand to me though.
8
@Andy That's a good question. Shortsightedness perhaps?
Or maybe they are blindly attempting oppress what they see as a threat to their power or a competing perspective. Christianity has certainly tried to dominate other religions in the past, even when it actively hurt their cause, why would atheism be any different? Atheism is, in some respects, no more secular than the Church, belief that there is no God is still a belief after all. (Really the only secular ones are agnostics or people who just don't care about religion at all.)
In Roman times the cross was a symbol of public execution. Now how’s that for your religious symbolism?
I was fine with this article with deals with finessing complex issues till the last sentence. It a pretty big reach and a clearly reflects Greenhouses own biases to claim the court is "hurtling in opposite directions from the rest of the country on major issues.
7
@Todd
I think she is correct, as fewer and fewer people actively practice religion or belong to churches.
6
@LES She also made broad claims about the court being against the will of the people on gun rights and labor laws where I think the evidence is far from clear and regardless to take some of the hottest button issues of our time and just wrap them up in a sentence like that seems lazy, incredibly biased, and factually indefensible to me. And even on the religion question just because people don't go or belong to church doesn't prove the point. I'm an agnostic who has no use for organized religion but that doesn't mean I need them to tear down a 100 year old WW1 monument put up with private dollars. As long as people tolerate my lack of faith I'm happy to tolerate their faith.
1
There are a lot of serious issues here, and Ms. Greenhouse has given us an intelligent analysis of the implications of various approaches the Court might take. There are political misuses of religion well worth contesting. My reaction to this cross case, however, is that people should pick their fights more thoughtfully. Legally right or not, this suit offends ordinary citizens and riles up people whose religious views I find scary. You can be right on principle, but pragmatically dead wrong.
11
I’m an ordinary citizen and the thought of a government imposed symbol of religion riles me up. Go find your ordinary citizens in Iran.
Only Chief Justice Roberts stands between the First Amendment and America as a Christian nation. It's a fair bet that Roberts is feeling a bit of pressure. Atheists and members of other religions are watching SCOTUS closely.
13
The Cross does not speak for this Jew. No way a cross can possibly be considered separate from its religious origins, when it was used over the centuries to murder, even commit genocide, against those who would not accept the religion it stands for. But I get that America has been stolen by pseudo-Christians who have kept the supersessionist beliefs of an earlier (but not distant) Christianity without any of the love supposedly preached by the man they claim to revere.
Get it out of my public space.
So much irony in this: the anti-government Right wants to hijack my tax money to subsidize their religion. And they are crystal-clear about wanting to establish their version of Christianity as our State religion. Revolutions have been fought over less.
50
@Ellen Tabor The establishment clause does not seem much of a deterrent to the Religious Right. Truth be told if you asked 1000 Americans chosen at random if this was a Christian country... you would be horrified at the percentage of "yes" responses.
I'm still attempting to discern the religious values of Evangelicals who so enthusiastically support a most unethical president. I share your dismay.
This particular SCOTUS, whose composition is the equivalent of a heavily gerrymandered state, is less an neutral arbitrator than it should be. Don't expect too much.
3
@Ellen Tabor
Closer to home, yours and mine, are two separate roadways, both named Jewish War Veterans Memorial Highway. The names of these roads are designated as such by state laws in New York and Connecticut with with signs for these roads paid for by tax dollars. What do we about this?
2
It's reassuring to know that we have so many "original intent" folks on the Court. I'm sure they will take the time to acquaint themselves with the writings of Jefferson and other founding deists of the time, whose main concern was to ensure that government played no role in pushing religion into the secular lives of all Americans.
Anyone else reassured?
26
THE ORIGINAL CROSS On which Jesus died was and continues to be an instrument of torture. It was used as a cruel and unusual form of punishment by the Roman. There is NOTHING benign nor sacred about any instrument of torture, past, present or future! During the Crusades, many so-called "christians" followed crosses from Europe to the Mideast, bringing violence, rape, murder and mayhem with them. Now the GOPper extremist political activists wish once again to legislate from the bench of the Supreme Court. They are following the cross, enabling an instrument of torture to remain in place under the guise of being an expression of religious freedom. Since when are instruments of torture freedoms of religious freedom? The GOPpers wail and carry on about abortion, without factoring in the mass rape that accompanied the cross on the crusades. Once again, the cross represented an instrument of torture, with rape being one of the war crimes perpetrated in the name of "christianity." In my view, rape is about as far as you can get from Jesus' saying, Love your Neighbor as Yourself. But the Christianist terrorists use the cross as an instrument of torture, while stripping the voting rights of millions, primarily persons of color. Is racial persecution, a form of enslavement, consistent with Love Your Neighbor as Yourself? The rank hypocrisy of the originalists on the Court is once again excruciatingly obvious. The original purpose of the cross was torture. Not freedom!
8
A four story war memorial erected as a cross? If that was erected to commemorate war heroes, why didn’t they construct the memorial as a bayonet, or two soldiers standing together to display comraderie? If, on the other hand, they used the cross, a historical symbol of a particular religion called Christianity, what was that intent? Was that because a hundred years ago many called America (and still do) a “Christian nation”? What about us Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists who worship other gods, or those of us who have no gods? What about our beliefs or sensibilities every time we look up at a publicly erected cross to remind us of how Christianian soldiers killed our cousins during the Crusades or Inquisition? Why, therefore, should public funds be used to pay for the maintenance of a Christian cross erected in the guise of a war memorial?
The other difficulty, travesty, and injustice is that a Supreme Court who we are told (per Justice Roberts) only calls “balls and strikes,” has a few justices scrounging around looking for choice cases to articulate their personal views of the Constitution. That justices have become advocates of their own myopic views of the Constitution, to say nothing of their propensity to be pro-business, or pro Second Amendment (ala Justice Thomas), adds to the lack of confidence in both the objectivity and independence of the Supreme Court.
22
@Martina Which is why we need to expand the court to put these conservative justices (some put on the court under dubious circumstances) in the minority, therefore assiromg representation for those of us in the majority when it comes to gun rights, etc.
5
@Martina
It does seem to me that all religions unfortunately have a propensity to attack their competitors in the pursuit of power.
1
1. Conveniently omitted from this piece: The cross in question sat on private land for decades until the land was acquired (with no objection) by the local government in MD. In other words, the monument existed (in the same place, for decades) long before it "sat on public land."
2. Following the loss of WW1, Germany was tasked with revisiting the battlefield and properly burying the dead. It was agreed that the graves of western/allied soldiers were to be marked with white crosses. Hence, the cross IS (among other things) a symbol of those lost in WW1.
11
@Stephen very helpful facts in understanding.
1
Although an atheist, I would be fine with more crosses in the public sphere if christianists followed Christ’s teachings and behavior.
However, when the cross has become the symbol of white rage and GOP hate, the faster it leaves the public sphere, the better.
23
@Djt Not sure what Christianists are but advocating the removal of the cross from the public sphere will be read by Christians as a direct refutation of the First Amendment.
I deplore the Hobby Lobby case and similar cases trying to carve out religious "freedom" exceptions to laws. One person's religious freedom is another person's religious tyranny. That said, I think Peace Cross should be permitted to continue to stand on public land because it is no more an establishment of religion than are crosses and Stars of David in US military cemeteries. The Ist Amendment prohibits "establishment of religion," not all public expressions of religion. It can be a hard line to draw, but that is where I draw the line.
4
@J. C. Beadles In yers past, Native Americans sought the freedom to smoke mesquite as part of their religious beliefs. Are you tyrannized by that particular freedom?
1. Conveniently omitted from this piece: The cross in question sat on private land for decades until the land was acquired (with no objection) by the local government in MD. In other words, the monument existed (in the same place) long before it "sat on public land."
2. Following the loss of WW1, Germany was tasked with revisiting the battlefield and properly burying the dead. It was agreed that the graves of western/allied soldiers were to be marked with white crosses. Hence, the cross IS (among other things) a symbol of those lost in WW1.
7
Why should anyone be offended by a cross? Or a Star of David? Or a Pentagram? For the record, the Christian faith left me long ago so I am not defending them at all. Only the right to express religious faith. Freedom of religion means freedom for ALL religions.
These are symbols of belief in something larger than self and carry meaning to those who believe in a particular path. No one is inconvenienced by a religious monument; they do not threaten anyone else's belief or non-belief. Those transgressions are the sole actions of the believers themselves.
Fussing over every religious monument (admittedly most of which are crosses) erected across old generations is time wasted on trivial matters. How much time and money will be spent by our government undoing past actions? These monuments were erected in a different time when different standards were in force and should be respected based on those standards.
If any group wants equal time, erect your own icon to whatever higher power in which you believe. Just be warned: future generations may be offended and tear them down!
3
@B Dawson
I would rather not see a divisive symbol of any kind erected on public property in the US. Why not more plaques of the Constitution rather than the 'Ten Commandments'?
Unfortunately for the foreseeable future we have and will have a Supreme Court (as well as the lower federal courts) that represents the stalwart core of America's elite and powerful - and its self serving conservative cultural power, much as it did during much of our history. We all have memories of the progressive humanitarian sensibility of the Warren Court but that was an aberration. Now the Court will support all "conservative" efforts to protect their ways under stress from our country's rapid cultural evolution. As with political speech and corporations or gun control and individual rights, so with separation of church and state.
The only real question is: once the shelter of the Supreme Court is lost, how will the wide spread hurt and vulnerability of the broad diversity of an empowered contemporary America respond?
11
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew, Chapter 6 (Sermon on the Mount)
And then go out and construct a 40-foot cross!
4
Before the Court makes a decision, it should be strongly urged for all nine justices to visit the Middle East and see the horror story you get when you mix religion and state.
The ones that vote to let religion sneak into the tent of the state should be strongly urged to stay in the Middle East and not come back to America.
12
These religious rights distractions are useful for Republicans. They occupy the minds of the oppressed masses while they are being fleeced by legislation and court decisions unfavorable to their economic rights and wellbeing.
15
For those who support the expanded role of organized religion in the public sphere I suggest that you read through this essay again and replace every reference to a cross with a reference to the crescent, every reference to a church with a reference to a Mosque, every reference to Christian ethics with a reference to Sharia. Islam is the fastest growing faith in the US and it will not be long before its supporters use these precedents to expand it's role in the public sphere. Of course what the Court can and might do is simply distinguish between the Roman Catholic faith and all other second class faiths. The New York Times seems to take this position with its numerous columns by Ross Douthat regarding his faith and n representation of any other religious position from the editorial board.
10
It is a good thing that conservative justices do not have an agenda and only follow the law. Having said that, can I interest you in this bridge I'm selling in Brooklyn?
10
Hobby Lobby, Citizens United are instructive. The Catholic majority on the Court is dangerous. The inequity of Christian Symbols in the public square is obvious. The Korean Buddhist Hanji is a reverse Swastika that predates the Roman Empire, and Hinduism and Jainism share that symbol. These are the most offensive symbols in the West but have been representations of prosperity, and luck and an extension of the doubled Yin Yang in the east. The Cross is a reminder of the Crusades to Muslims (and as offensive as is the Swastika) as a matter of faith. The authors of the First Amendment had a close personal memory of religious wars, persecutions, imprisonment, torture and murder. Catholics in particular were distrusted as servants of Rome and it’s abuses. The establishment clause was meant to prevent religious entitlement while providing for private freedom of worship and to protect citizens from religious oppression sanctioned by law.
We are beginning to recognize the battle flag of the Confederacy and Confederate symbols as veneration of treasonous oppressors of 12% of our population. We need to recognize that religion is a private matter that is shared within a group. That group has the right to practice their faith so long as it does not threaten or endanger or oppress any other group or person. Those persons and groups who promote Christianity as our official religion are no different than Muslims enforcing shariah law. Sadly there are too many Catholics on the court.
10
@Joseph Huben
I don't know how upstate you are but these are the boom times of boom times north of your border.
I remember 50 years ago when we went south to experience America's bounty.
We have officially booted supernatural beings from our public places and no longer dependent on Her good graces we have created a prosperous egalitarian and optimistic society. One needs only to arrive at our border to realize that One nation under God can't hold a candle to government of the people, by the people and for the people.
How ironic that kicking religion out of our schools, hospitals and all public spaces has created a humane, egalitarian and free society and we ain't going back to when women were chattel and we were born into our station in life.
I understand the fear of the GOP whose leadership in a fair and more merit based country would see them compete against those whose abilities far exceed their own. It has been over a decade where 70% of new doctors and new medical students have been female in a strictly merit based system.
2
An excerpt from another NYT article: “The Gambino family was once the nation’s largest and most influential organized crime group, but several of its leaders were convicted in the 1990s of crimes that included murder and racketeering.”
The question is who the most influential organized crime group is today.
After the detailed investigation that lasted about five seconds, the answer is clear - the US Congress, without any reasonable doubt.
It has stolen about $17 trillion from the future generations on behalf of the political campaign donors over the last coup of decades.
If the US Congress fulfilled its constitutional duty and enacted the law authorizing the Fed Bank to print $22 trillion and pay off the creditors of the American government so the future generations wouldn’t be saddled with our perks and benefits, we could claim that the Congress isn’t an organized crime group.
Return the money, pay off the debt or be stigmatized as the organized crime enterprise prone to extortions and blackmailing to receive the campaign donations! They became addicted to them instead of financing their political activities through the membership fees...
It should be illegal to donate to the political parties or the candidates as is for the unions. It implicates bribery.
How could anybody lead this country in the best way if they see nothing wrong with wasting several billion dollars on the hatemongering political ads polarizing America.
That’s how our democracy has been destroyed!
3
People are leaving religion in America, but not fast enough. They have yet to understand the true and total danger of religion and the belief system in general. All of the world's unnecessary suffering and deaths can be traced back to beliefs, and the survival of our species relies upon us seeing what we're doing to ourselves and stopping it.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds would see the survival of a particular group of people or a belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
2
Being wholly irreligious in the conventional sense of this word, people may regard the cross as an instrument of execution, still used in China up to the early 20th century. Next in line for a symbol of adoration may be the tau-cross, Greek capital T. No need to elaborate its uses, "A hint suffices to a sage" (Babylonian Talmud).
Three people and the American Humanist Association against the memorial and the general public's desire to honor the WW l dead.....why is this even an issue that the SCUSA chooses to address. The Supreme Court of Maryland said it had to go...let the people of the state of Maryland react to it's destruction.
1
If the Court finds for American Humanist, it will at least be entertaining to witness the hysteria of conservatives; even more when the demolition workers arrive with an escort of police with heavy weapons.
@JS
So you enjoy other people’s suffering? That makes you a sadist.
Some day soon this Supreme Court will take up a case which blocks public funding of abortion in a freedom of religion argument. In no other issue does government collide so violently with religion. It won't seek to overturn Roe V Wade, but it will effectively do so if ruled as I expect from this court.
2
Arlington National Cemetery, a public space, has thousands of crosses and Stars of David. Should they be bulldozed because some "humanist" finds them offensive? It's my understanding that the Maryland cross was erected to honor local dead killed in WW1. If those dead were all Christian - which is probably likely - what's the difference between that cross and the ones at Arlington? I'm an agnostic BTW and find it quite frustrating that - considering all the problems our country faces - members of the perpetually aggrieved community have nothing better to do than making a mountain out of this molehill. That frustration is just my cross to bear I guess.
6
@John J.A cross or star, or other symbols on graves are specifc to loved one buried--each expresses the faith or none that the deceased identified with. This is not the same thing as a government sponsored memorial for all deceased. This is a false equivalency.
4
@John J. Whoa! Probably all the locals killed in WW1 were Christian?
You're an agnostic. I'm a member of a very small group of followers of a spiritual path that lots of Christians, at least those who believe that Christianity is the only way, would consider almost heretical. Members of my group in other countries and at other times have been persecuted and killed. I prefer a society that removes even small molehills of favoritism to any one religion.
Really, people have been killed over religion. We should all be careful of differing feelings about it. We should just focus on loving God and our neighbor. Jesus was by no means the only one who taught that.
The founders knew that people were persecuted and killed over religion. English history itself was full of it. They were very careful about it.
@jsk. There’s another comment that says that the cross in question was formerly on privately land, which colors the situation a bit, since public funds were not used to promote the cross. It would be nice to consider all the facts about how the city acquired the property where the cross now stands.
1
I'd like to see how this would play out if the symbol in question was an Islamic Star and Crescent. The hypocrisy of religious conservatives is appalling. They want to push their discriminatory beliefs into the public sphere under the banner of freedom of expression. But when then totally ignore the moral principles mandated by the religions they claim to support.
If the Ten Commandments were posted in the halls of Congress as required code to follow, 90% of the religious conservatives would be thrown out for violating at least one of them the first day. The false witness one be their undoing as soon as they opened their mouths.
We have a press secretary who claims to be a dedicated religious woman who actively defends an evil (satanic?) demagog who trashes every tenent of the her holy Bible every waking hour. We have a Christian conservative Republican party that violates every preaching of their claimed Lord and Savior with legislation that oppresses the poor and downtrodden to the benefit of the rich. And then claims that they are helping the poor and downtrodden by doing so.
This entire cross argument is one of manipulation by powerful people to stay powerful by using religion as lever to enslave the minds of their subjects. That's right, enslave is the correct word.
Therefore, this case has nothing to do with religion. It is a case about oppression of our people through the political manipulation of religious symbols. All done for power.
14
All this without any mention of Sen. Feinstein's totally inappropriate comment, during the confirmation hearings for a nominee to the federal appeals court, that she was worried about the nominee's faith--despite the Constitutional prohibition on any religious test. This issue cuts all kinds of ways. (Besides being an early indicator off how Feinstein's mental stability had slipped).
4
Perhaps we could apply “originalist” thinking to 2nd Amendment cases. At the time of our founding we only had muskets. That would now preclude the free display and public use of any weapon that is not a musket.
11
@Gordon Silverman
You don't understand. Originalist thinking is only a precedent when the Court majority wants it to be.
2
@Thomas Zaslavsky
But that doesn’t mean we can’t throw it back in their faces
1
There are a lot more significant considerations to be heard. Let the symbols stand and move on . . . please.
4
The only good thing about the trump administration is it's total lack of interest in religion except for sticking it's nose into Judaism. I hope never to see the rise of the crazy Christian right in this country again but cases like this tell me that they are lurking around. An example of a failed cross is in Edmond, Ok, where a huge cross was built for lots of money and is now eclipsed by all the other tall structures surrounding it . It serves no purpose but to glorify the crazy preacher who wanted it for himself.
2
“...vehicles for the court to expand the right of churches to receive direct public grants of money.”
But they already do, in a huge way. It’s called, “tax exemption.”
13
How would the Christians on the Supreme Court rule if the dispute was over a symbol of astrology rather than Christianity? Astrology has a much longer tradition than Christianity and probably a larger number of followers worldwide. Aren't the followers of astrology due the same respect/recognition as followers of Christ?
3
There are no finer hypocrites in today's America than the Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court, and the so-called "evangelical Christians," so may I suggest that all crosses in public places be replaced by a giant "H" or perhaps a giant "$" would be more appropriate representing the apparent true gods and religion of these folks, the oligarchs and major corporations.
8
@Cowboy Marine
See Brave New World, where the crosses are cropped into T's to celebrate the modern, industrialized society symbolized by Henry Ford's Model T.
3
The greatest disasters ever faced by this nation were when Congress added "under God" to our Pledge and "Trust God" to our money. These are two theological statements about the nature of God and man which, in my pantheist faith, are simply incorrect.
But pantheists don't count when it comes to the First Amendment; only rightwing fundamentalist Christians truly matter to our courts. The legal fiction of "ceremonial deism" is just that: a total fiction.
1
Dear American and Supreme Court,
To me it's as simple as:
I'm Jewish.
Others are not.
The public square belongs to us all.
I don't want your other religious symbols in the PUBLIC square. Feel free to erect them on your property.
No church-like artifacts, such as a cross, on public property.
Period.
Sincerely,
A citizen.
10
@Bob I guess this means that public radio and public television, both of which are heavily subsidized by government (taxpayer) money, should not play Christmas songs and Christmas-related programs at Christmas.
1
@Mal T That would be wonderful!!
The Christian White Male Supremacy Court is remaking our country into a reflection of itself - much the same as a lot of parents do with their children. The results are often disastrous. The federal courts are being packed with the same types.
Meanwhile, Professor Christine Blasey Ford and her family are in hiding and godless socialism is making a comeback.
1
If the court (and the public) are concerned to preserve the monument, it could easily be altered to remove its specific Christian content. Cut off the horizontal members and cut the top few inches into a pyramidal shape and we have an obelisk. The monument is preserved, the specific religious content has been removed, and all except those who desire that public monuments depict specific religious content can be pleased.
1
Why is "the Cross" or a Nativity Scene always the issue? Every year a huge Menorah is erected on the Oval in front of the White House. Hanukkah is not a religious holiday? The Menorah is not a religious symbol? Why haven't the Humanist Society and the Fundamentalist Atheists taken on that?
1
A clear account of the right-wing determination to promote christian nationalism. While most of the country sleeps. This will not end well.
2
What about all the crosses at Arlington Cemetery?
2
I must strenuously object to the author's use of the word "religion." The operative word, in all of these cases should be "christianity."
I can state, with little worry about accuracy, that this collection of christian dominionists would not extend such a decision to the public funding of Jewish or, heaven forbid, Islamic displays. Likewise, while they would like to overturn decisions regarding limits on the accommodations offered by employers , to employees' religious requirements, I doubt, very strenuously, that they would rule in favor of a Hassidic Jew requesting accommodation for the shabbat, or a Muslim during Ramadan.
Their agenda is clearly, and in the case of Mr. Kavanaugh, have clearly stated, that it is their intention to once again place their particular fairy tales in a place of dominance in American society and law.
4
As usual, well said, Ms. Greenhouse.
3
Mark Twain said of Montreal "I was in a city where you can throw a stone without breaking a church window.
Quebec had a quiet revolution. We are not perfect but we take care of all our children from before we are zygotes to when we return to dust. We try to provide healthcare, quality education and good food and safe shelter to everyone.
Even as we try and provide what all religions hold out as our moral obligations in a modern wealthy society sectarian symbols on public spaces is illegal.The debate whether public employees can wear crucifixes, Jewish skullcaps, hijabs , turbans or anything that may be interpreted that we are a nation under a supernatural being is illegal.
Our churches and synagogues are abandoned and everyday beautiful old churches become condos, dance halls, shopping centers restaurants and other utilitarian spaces.
Religion is a private matter and for us even marriage is for all real definition is a private civil contract between two consenting adults defined by a notary who are the lawyers who represent the interest of we the people in contract law.
We have expelled the Priests from all our public temples and civic spaces and just as the nation that once upon a time declared a separation between church and state we are doing very well. I am a Jew and a Quebecer and I am hopeful for the future living in a truly "Christian" nation where regardless of where, if or what you worship you do it as Jesus would prefer in a closet.
5
I would pose two questions:
1. Which violates the establishment clause more, a cross on public property or a Christian prayer before a city council meeting?
2. Which is more entitled to free-exercise, a private company owned by private people or an employee?
My answers would be 1-prayer and 2-company.
Establishment meant and should mean more than a symbol, which should not be interpreted as an endorsement, rather as a recognition. Employees are free to choose their employer, and can choose one compatible with their beliefs or non-beliefs. A private company should be free to operate in accordance with their beliefs or non-beliefs (some exceptions). In the 18th century government was mostly invisible, except for the courthouse; now it is everywhere. The public is crowding out the formerly private square.
1
Once again, a thorough and lucid summary of the possibilities and ramifications of a single pending case. Bravo!
6
Again and again, we see how the decision to not vote of those Democrats who stayed home in the last General Election and/or the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014 has come back to bite us in the behind. Gave so much power to Mitch McConnel, tied Obama's hands behind his back and gave us Trump and the current SCOTUS.
10
The fundamental flaw of all religious claims is that they do not meet criteria that allows them to be accepted as knowledge. Kant said “ I have found it necessary therefore to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” What are religious claims then? They are declaration, fiats, originating in their most harmless form, as wishful aspiration of those with good intentions. But without any basis in knowledge, religious claims are beliefs that are likely to be illusory. Without a grounding in knowledge religious claims express many different views of truth and, given human nature, generate violent human conflict.
3
The article neglects to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars in local (before 1961) and state (after 1961) tax monies used to maintain this giant Christian symbol.
The original designers of this massive memorial ran out of money in 1922, four years after they began in 1918. They turned the project over to the American Legion, who finished the monument in 1925. Thirty-six years later in 1961, having tired of the the expense of the upkeep, the American Legion turned it over to the state, who since then has spent $118,000 on maintenance and set aside $100,000 for future repairs. One wonders if the sentiment to maintain in perpetuity the monument would be as deep if the symbol were instead a 4-story-tall six-pointed Star of David, a universal symbol of Judaism.
It would also be interesting to know if any of the 49 men who gave their lives in defense of freedom were Jews or Muslims or Atheists and how they or their families might have felt about their being memorialized within a religious tradition they themselves did not hold.
The memorial will eventually return, as we all do, to dust. The only question is when.
The desire on the part of Christian Nationalists to infuse public space with religious symbols, prayers and speech is something they share with Muslims, whose Islamic traditions encourage the totalistic envelopment of public space with religious sentiments.
Ultimately though, Jesus said prayer was private, not public.
20
@Kip Leitner
Nice. For that amount of money, they could commission an actual work of art! Bringing the whole community together -- and thus pleasing God...
Linda writes, “It is, rather, the heart and soul of a diverse country that is going in one direction while the Supreme Court — as in other areas, including labor law and gun rights — is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.”
Our structure is so dysfunctional because less than 30% of the people elect 70 Senators, and Mitch has been packing District and Appeals courts so efficiently that the next Democratic President will have little room to add to the courts
This is politically and inherently unstable
21
I've always wondered what necessitates these public displays for any faith that the believers, by definition, regard as the one and only true religion. Are they trying to convince us or themselves?
And perhaps the Court would be better occupied convincing us that they aren't the Roger B. Taney court of the current era rather than trying to convince us they are. History will judge them harshly. Guaranteed.
19
In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That is my first thought when hearing “World War I Memorial” and “cross”. I wondered if that was the intent when it was erected, and five seconds on Google revealed that the design was selected as it mirrored the cross structures used on soldiers’s graves in Europe. This to me is an argument for an “independent secular meaning”.
I wonder why that was not mentioned in the column. Perhaps it would have taken away space from the slippery slope arguments.
10
@Amy M I wonder why the lawyers arguing for preservation of the symbol did not mention it. Perhaps because it is spurious?
4
@Amy M This is perhaps our biggest slippery slope issue. A literal interpretation of plaintiff's case here would remove any religious symbols from all public places, including national cemeteries, war memorials, etc. The cross at hand here may seem excessive, but in the context of why it's there (a small town commemoration the deaths of 49 of its own young men in WWI) I do not find it offensive or proselytizing. We have to find some kind of acceptable balance.
4
@Amy M Yes, of course, because those crosses on soldier's graves had "independent secular meaning." As John McEnroe might say, "You can't be serious."
1
RFRA, and all its state equivalents, are facially unconstitutional, and unconstitutional as applied.
Facially, because the plain language privileges the sincerely devout to violate a generally applicable, religiously neutral law that the non-religious would always have to abide by.
As applied, because each use of RFRA by some religiously devout person installs in case law a particular privilege for one religious believer that a sincerely devout person of a different religion (or no religion) can't benefit from.
As one law professor once said, RFRA turns the law into swiss cheese.
RFRAs are theocracy lite.
10
@Doug McKenna: "Free exercise" of religion is strictly voluntary, not coerced.
@Steve Bolger
"Free exercise" of religion is strictly voluntary, not coerced."
Exactly, and when taxes are extracted from others to pay for your religious symbols that is coercion, not free exercise.
2
De minimis non curat lex.
There are so many areas where christian zealots are attempting to make themselves synonymous with reigious freedom (no others need apply) that it seems as if this is a tempest in a teapot.
It would be nice to see an issue of substance under consideration by SCOTUS. A case like this can serve only to muddy the waters. Unlike Hobby Lobby, no one is being harmed, or even inconvenienced by this cross. Though innocuous, if the supremes vote to leave it standing, it becomes a wedge for religious incursions into the public sphere that actually are both harmful and oppressive.
If the cross is taken down, it will be seen as an overreaction to hysteria against a relatively harmless symbol that can have multiple contextual meanings.
The law is concerning itself with trifles.
This trifle could grow int a monster that eats our understanding of religious freedom.
10
@michaeltide
Don't you think that members of the Supreme Court are smart enough to know this? Which means they are doing it on purpose.
@McGloin, Not a doubt in my mind. It still is worth saying, though
The greatest danger to our Democracy is to allow religion to over step it’s boundaries.The separation of Church and state must be upheld. Trump’s legacy will be the religious ,conservative Supreme court, which will divide this nation to a point of no return.Even the Cross in question must be taken down as an affront to the separation between Church and State.Christian symbols although beautiful & light up the cold nights of winter should not be permitted on public property.
To allow religion to dictate to the American population is the being of the end of our Democracy.
17
@Independent1776 I do not find beauty in this symbol of torture used by the Roman Empire for centuries to terrorize subject populations. I find it ironic that the ultimate symbol of Constantine's church remains with us today.
10
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row
That mark our place
Peace Cross commemorated the dead from "The Great War". The grave sign then was a cross. Not my sign, not a lot of peoples' sign, but the common sign. Today, in Arlington Cemetery there are Star of David's, Crescents, even Pentagrams! 100 years, things change, the dead remain.
5
People came to this country to escape religious repression. They were happy to be able to practice their religion in peace here. But even the settlers from the Mayflower in Plymouth were not all of one religious order, about a third were Puritan Pilgrims, so religious tolerance was needed from the start.
People being people are no longer happy simply having the freedom to worship as they please. The religious zealots want to impose their religions on others. Either codifying their beliefs into the law of the land or claiming the right of tyranny over others where their religion trumps the laws of the land. They will use any means, any trick, and slight of hand (it's not what it looks like it is something else), until they win outright and are free to impose a theocracy in their own image on the rest of us.
New England is dotted with some the loveliest churches, shrines, temples, and so on. They add to the historic fabric of our communities and the historic character of our towns. Many are filled with carrying people. I was brought up in several myself from Congregational to Episcopalian as we had to move. But none of them sought to dominate our lives and laws the way that today's evangelicals and other radical so-called Christians do who want everything their way as the only way.
Allow religion to exist and make no laws against it. However religion must do the same. You are free to practice but have no right to force your practice on others.
32
It’s also scary to consider these cases in the context of the religious anti-vaxxer movement. If the Court continues this trend toward giving free rein to religion, it doesn’t feel like a far leap to see them at some point taking up a case on mandatory vaccination and striking down those laws on religious grounds.
20
Separation of Church and State does not equate to government enforced secularism in the public square. The separation of church and state ensures the government does not endorse, favor or proselytize on behalf of any particular religion or belief system while also ensuring that people of all beliefs are free to practice and serve their government. It does not give the government a mandate to sanitize the public space from religion. When crosses are taken down, burkas banned in public and moratoriums on prayer imposed, the state is undoubtedly pushing and favoring a particular belief system, that of secularism, on its citizens.
7
@Jack
'Secularism' is not a religious denomination in competition w other faiths. There are not established and designated 'Secularist' churches, congregations or designated religious codices.
Given the recent increase in anti-Semitism within the US-- it is imperative that we heed the very clear directives from the founders to avoid establishment or privileging of any particular faith. They very clearly, did not intend or suggest a substitute faith.
7
@Jack
The people can use the public square to endorse religious beliefs. The government should not, because religion is invariably divisive and the government "belongs" to everyone.
9
@Jack: The absence of a religious symbol is not a symbol . When you enter a public space where there is no iconic symbol , do you see a no-cross? A no-crescent? A no-statue-of-Stalin? By your argument, wherever there is no tribute to a particular belief system, an opposite belief is being "pushed and favored."
Your argument is that public displays, (null or not), do, indeed, show government favor of particular belief systems.
2
I wonder how long those who cry "religious freedom" would do so if they had to support religious freedom for all religions, including those who are non-religious. Would they tolerate requiring their children to recite the prayers of other religions in schools? Would they enjoy five pointed stars, six pointed stars, cycles and stars, yin yang circles, trees of life,or images of green man in the public square?
I seem to remember a certain stripe of evangelicals, the ones who want to impose their versions of biblical law warning us of dire consequences of encroaching sharia law.
The issue is not one of freedom to practice religion. It is about the power to impose one brand of religion on everyone.
42
I'm definitely of two minds on this.
As an atheist I have no problems with this cross and other such monuments that were erected on private property but now are on public grounds.
I do object to ten commandments monuments on courthouses like the one Roy Moore tried to put in Alabama.
How long before statues of Lady Justice, derived from a Roman goddess, are attacked?
I would hope the court comes up with a ruling under which monuments that do not proselytize are deemed "safe".
9
@kwb In antiquity, ALL statues were first created for religious purposes. But as human society advanced, statuary began to include representations of human beings doing non-religious things. To argue that it is impossible to draw a line between secular symbols/figures and religious ones does not stand to reason. What some members of the Supreme Court are contemplating is affording the Christian majority the right to turn this country into a "Christian nation." In that nation there will be no Stars of David or crescent and star monuments in traffic circles because those whose symbols they are consist of members of religious minorities.
3
@Alan Mass I question your implication that the United States is a "Christian majority" country. At this point, our population is majority atheist-agnostic.
1
At least four justices on this court have their hearts set on using the ghosts of the founding generation as a vehicle to transform our government into one that is welcoming to Christianity as opposed to indifferent to it. The active government promotion of religion has done little to make the world a better or safer place; in fact, it could be argued that too intimate a bond between government and religion has been responsible for both bad government and extremist religious behavior across the globe.
The difference between protecting something--carving out a safe space for it to exist--and evangelizing may be narrow, but it is important. We can protect Second Amendment rights without actively promoting gun ownership, and we can protect religious practice and expression without privileging one religion or encouraging people to adopt religious beliefs or practices of any kind. The conservative members of this court (Roberts aside) don't seem to have an interest in neutrality, but rather act like evangelists for a variety of causes that move us back in time to a place that is so far out of step with the American public that we won't recognize ourselves in the Supreme Court for decades.
22
@Jason:
Your analogy of our protection of religious freedom-to practice or not any religious freedom is undercut by comparing it to the right to own guns.
Owning guns are for one group only; those who believe in the second amendment as their sacred right. As for that right infringing on our rights to feel safe in our homes and outside world; well good luck.
I'm a committed atheist in an area with a pretty dangerous highway, which has a death or two every year in a short stretch. People put up little white crosses to mark locations of fatal accidents, and I find that to be tolerable; it's a clear informative marker, simple and cheap to construct, and it's reminding people to drive sensibly. A war memorial in the shape of a cross is a little harder to support - how many of those soldiers would have wanted a different religious symbol, or none? - but again, crosses have become in some ways a general symbol for memorializing the dead, as much cultural as religious.
I have more trouble with more specific symbols like nativity scenes, and I especially have trouble with lists of the ten commandments in places of legal power, because they're absurd. Sassing parents or working on Sunday is a worse crime than murder? The use of a cross as a death marker might fall in a gray area, but explicitly religious symbols make people like me feel excluded, unwanted, and scorned.
22
@RM To be fair, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty firmly entrenched in the 10 commandments.
1
@RM
All this pro protestantism is getting scary. If it continues in the same vein, how long will it take before it starts burning non-believers at the stake?
Don't laugh. In some Islamic countries they kill those perceived as apostates.
No religion, no crosses on public lands, no promoting "christian" values...believe what you want IN PRIVATE and leave others to their own conscience with option to believe what the individual wants, not what is dictated by others. This country was found on freedom of religion, NOT on the christian religion.
43
"A diverse country that is going in one direction" ? I don't think that is possible.
4
The cross is also a symbol of state-sanctioned cruelty, intolerance, and suffering. Jesus was executed as an enemy of the state. As a Christian, I have never been comfortable with the cross as a public symbol of God's all-encompassing love and grace. It is still, for many, a symbol of fear, intolerance, and inhumanity.
27
@K Barr
Agreed. The Early Church had other symbols, like the fish or the Shepherd which are personally more appealing.
13
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
The words complement the cross and represent a view of loving sacrifice. Most consider the religious significance, but all understand the military significance (not to mention the relevance to police and firefighters).
The government must allow words and symbols that some consider religious and others consider historical and anthropological. The science of anthropology let’s all keep and practice a subjective religious context while maintaining mutual respect for other religious and non-religious views. The law should promote the same diverse views under the first amendment whether government or private property is involved.
If a statue, work of art, or monument has anthropological worth, it should be allowed. Since most religious items fall into that category, the courts should let them be.
10
@Eugene Patrick Devany There are thousands if not tens of thousands of war memorials standing on public ground throughout this country. They were constructed and erected either by government or with by permission of government. Almost all of them are secular in message, reflecting the diverse religious affiliations of the fallen. I have no idea whether the erectors of the cross in Maryland chose that symbol because they believed everyone in the town was Christian or didn't care whether local non-Christians would find this offensive. What's insidious about the possibility that our highest court will condone this prejudice is that it would create the kind of religious privilege that the Constitution was framed to prevent.
3
“It is, rather, the heart and soul of a diverse country that is going in one direction while the Supreme Court- as in other areas, including labor law and gun rights- is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.”
Perfectly expressed as always. Ms. Greenhouse has hit the nail squarely on the head and we ignore this growing threat at our peril.
28
How much longer will the people tolerate this Supreme Court? And what happens if/when the People decide the Court is no longer a legitimate, co-equal branch of government? Term limits for all SCOTUS judges must be enacted by Congress before all integrity of the law is lost.
32
The cross was a billboard used by the Romans to illustrate bad behavior. Somehow, it is now a Christian symbol. I can't help but think this every single time I see it. Travelers entering Roman-controlled land passing lines of crosses were clearly being told, "Don't do the above inside our empire, or you might end up here, too"
Thousands of years later, we still have billboards everywhere. And so it goes...
12
A question I've had for a while, as a lawyer, is what is it that makes so many people assume that the "freedom of religion" right trumps every other right in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? All I have to say is "I'm practicing my religion" and it seems I have a right to interfere with everybody else's right not to. I have a right to discriminate against you by refusing to sell you a cake when I am a commercial baker because for my religious reasons I don't like the way you live your life. Back in the 70s I had a pharmacist refuse to sell me contraceptives because they were against his religion. It seems to me that my right to be treated nondiscriminatory ought to trump your right to practice your religion on me.
73
@Brookhawk But the baker and the had every right not to do business with you for nonreligious reasons. For instance, the pharmacist could have determined that the profit margin on contraceptives was insufficient, compared to other products that competed with them for shelf or storage space. I don't believe that religious reasons are inherently any better or worse than nonreligious reasons. Perhaps we should simply respect everyone's freedom of contract.
The fundamental issue is how "slippery" the concept of religion is. In an increasingly secular age, we are seeing the whiplash from the retreat of Judeo-Christian public norms. We see the residue in popular progressivism - "privilege" stands in for original sin, "intersectionality" and "social justice" stands in for the total depravity and original sin of humanity in need of atonement. You can't divine a moral "ought" from a scientific or material "is".
As educational, mainstream media, and major cultural institutions become increasingly polarized to the left, I believe we will see a reaction from those who feel that only *their* religious commitments and expression are under attack.
To make a relevant example, imagine that the NRA was hired to provide firearms training and instruction in our nation's schools. The right to bear arms is in our constitution. Safe firearms handling is a matter of scientifically-proven best-practices. Would liberal, pro-gun-control parents protest? Absolutely, because it is impossible to divorce values from instruction. If a firearm (or safe sex, to make an opposite analogy) is inherently dangerous and deserving of strict regulation and social control and skepticism - is that religious, or the secular truth from an expert who shares your religion?
3
@James If the NRA (formerly only a gun-safety group) was hired by a school district to teach gun safety and not preach gun rights I, a gun control advocate, would have no objection. I would imagine all but those with knee-jerk impulses would agree. Sorry if my view upsets your assumption that the Left is up to destroying America.
1
@James
"If a firearm (or safe sex, to make an opposite analogy) is inherently dangerous and deserving of strict regulation and social control and skepticism - is that religious, or the secular truth from an expert who shares your religion?"
Putting aside that safe sex is inherently NOT dangerous - that's why it's "safe" sex - no, your example is NOT religious, because it is based on data, facts, and common sense.
1
I'm old enough to remember that when John F. Kennedy was running for president, people objected to him based on his Catholicism. The concern was that he would be taking orders from Rome. That objection was lost as Americans voted for him for president, and he proved his independence, as did his brothers in their service to the U.S. in the Senate and other positions.
But I wonder if we were wrong. As I have watched the Catholic Church over the years order its members to oppose abortion, birth control, and other issues on purely religious grounds, I believe we were too cavalier. It is especially galling that the very people issuing these calls to action were themselves (as we now know) seriously morally compromised. But we can be sure that Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas are highly influenced by their church's teachings. Thus they issue rulings in direct contravention of the separation of church and state for which our founding fathers called.
And to claim that the cross is not a religious symbol, used historically to proselytize, is simply ridiculous.
31
Here we get back to the idea of Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom From Religion. We know that despite federal mandates - colleges are allowed to opt out of Title IX & groups/businesses are not obligated to include birth control as part of their health coverage plans. Personally, I see these both as forms of discrimination. It's as if we have to choose between true equality between all people - no strings attached - or equality based on however a particular religion/denomination defines it. It's not just a cross, it's the idea that someone's religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone. Thanks to Ms. Greenhouse for clearly spelling out the complexities, nuances, and overall meaning of this case.
24
If the court votes to scrap the big cross or there is a close vote, then . . .
Some republican states will put on ballots in 2020 a proposal for crosses to stay up on roadsides and wherever.
Then, there will be a bigger turnout for Mr. Trump.
Should he win, he will appoint more judges of odd qualities who will support the cross issue.
There may also be more republican representatives and senators to back him up.
I am a serious Christian, but I live under no illusions: Crosses on the roadside mean somebody has died. It does not matter if the crosses are large or small. God has expressed no opinion of whether such crosses help anything or not.
Really big crosses on church yards mean that the preacher has an ego problem.
Crosses on crusaders have no connection with the carpenter of Galilee.
Fights over public crosses have as much to do with Christianity as does Mr. Trump. To be clear, I mean they have nothing to do with real faith. I would hope this battle does not bring us another four years of the greatest heathen to sit in the Oval Office.
31
@whe Crosses erected on roadsides where a traffic fatality occurred are not put up, encouraged or facilitated by government. They are private acts -- usually by those in grief and tolerated by government for a time.
While I am normally a very strong proponent of the separation of church and state, I will not at all if The American Legion (and the cross) prevail in this case. The reason so as described in Ms. Greenhouse's essay is that the cross has achieved a certain level of secular symbolism in Western civilization as being a universally understood symbols of caring for the living and respect for the dead. After all, consider just these 3:
1. The Red Cross (along with the Red Crescent) as organizations associated with rescue and healing.
2. Ambulances having crosses on them.
3. Crosses being used in typography to indicate deaths.
While the origins of the symbol of the cross no doubt have their basis in Christianity, uses such as these have been ubiquitous in western civilization for centuries that the cross has attained a secular meaning.
This sort of symbol language evolution is no different than the evolution of verbal language. Despite any etymology a word has, its meaning is how it is currently being used.
In this American Legion case, the cross here is being used in such a way: reverence for the fallen soldiers - soldiers of any religion just like the American Legion itself is not a Christian organization.
8
@VJR
The red cross is the Swiss cross, which is not the same, symbolically, as the Latin cross.
Try designing a Christian church using the Swiss or red cross and see what kind of religious objections arise.
2
@VJR A cross is a cross is a cross...NOT. An elongated cross is specifically intended to symbolize a crucifix, a fundamental Christian symbol of their faith and beliefs. Drop the elongation and you have a simple cross. Rotate it 45 degrees and you have an X. Rotate a crucifix 45 degrees and you have sacrilege.
2
@VJR "the American Legion itself is not a Christian organization."
Really? Start your education with this brief paragraph from Wikipedia, and then go further if you dare:
The American Legion has criticized the ACLU for using the threat of attorney fees to pressure locally elected bodies into removing religion from the public square.[103] As such The American Legion states that it "is leading a nationwide effort to combat the secular cleansing of our American heritage",[103] stating that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere mentioned in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution[103] The American Legion released a document titled "In the Footsteps of the Founders – A Guide to Defending American Values" to be available to the citizens of the United States of America.[103] The veteran's organization has done this to curtail religious-establishment cases against the Boy Scouts and the official display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols on public property,[103] in coordination with other Christian Dominionists.
The American Legion is also homophobic and sexist. Inform yourself before you offer your opinion.
3
Appreciate your analysis of the arguments, I used to actually read the texts of older Supreme Court rulings, but for the last 20 years or so, I've begun to think of the Supreme Court as a relic of the past. I have no respect for most of the judges - their bad behavior, their clear and unapologetic involvement in causes that obviously affect their decisions, and in some decisions, their contempt for people who don't agree with them. I have more faith in Congress, actually, since we, the people, do still have the right to vote them in or out. That Supreme Court justices have life time appointments - well that's been ruinous for our country. I listen to Clarence Thomas and I think, "This man is living in not only another decade, but another century. What on earth do his opinions have to do with my life?" Nothing. I still have hope for this country, but enlightenment is not coming from this group.
53
@Joanna Stelling
Thanks for your comment. I agree w/our comments about the Supreme Court and felt that Scalia and his mentee Thomas were in fact naive or more for their strong views on originalism of the US Constitution. How quaint to support 1777 or 1787 when it was finally ratified. Amendments and review of the words show it to be a living document, otherwise, we would have sunk to or remained at the level of that time. The Court is now so conservative and the excellent points made by Linda Greenhouse about hurtling towrad dangerous and uncertain areas are important.
8
Some focus on the past and how this symbol was used and why it was used. It was then a private affair, it is not now. How the SCOTUS decides this will decide how it is used in the future. This symbol will be used like a salesman getting his foot in the door and having the SCOTUS decision giving him a right to full entry. Proselytizing religionists are in a sense salespeople and if they win this case they will have a foot in the public door to proselytize and eventually expect public funding to sell their product. A right no other business has.
10
Christmas is a legal holiday.
Just about every business (aside form movie theaters and restaurants) are closed on Easter.
The United States is still fundamentally a Christian country and as an Orthodox Jew I have no problem with that.
This is still the greatest country in the history of the world as far as religious tolerance goes.
It is a mistake to attack our fellow citizens for their erecting religious monuments in public spaces.
They are not preventing me from living my life as I wish, and I sincerely hope that they be allowed to live their lives as they wish, as long as it hurts no one.
We are making an issue here where none exists.
If we were all a bit more tolerant of each other, we would all be a lot happier (and save a ton on litigation costs)
19
@G
"This is still the greatest country in the history of the world as far as religious tolerance goes."
Might we have some statistical support for this?
Or is it just a kind of gut-feeling?
Are you familiar with religious tolerance, or lack of it, in all other countries "in the history of the world"?
As explained in the OpEd, the interpretation of the US Constitution and related legal precedents is at stake here, so what you happen to see as a "non-issue" might well be seen by others as the thin edge of the wedge.
I understand your view of the matter.
Do you appreciate mine?
14
@G "The United States is still fundamentally a Christian country..." No it is not; at least, not anymore. Given the large numbers of people leaving churches and the rise of other more eastern religions over the last 60 years especially, I challenge that notion.
I see the display of crosses or something like the Ten Commandments as nothing but a desperate grab for power by white Christians. They know their power is on the wane across the world and they are doing everything and anything to hold onto it.
Perhaps it doesn't affect your life but it does mine. I'm genuinely afraid of these religions as they try and impose their will through a supportive Supreme Court. Minorities must be protected against the tyranny of the majority. Sadly, you won't see that from this Supreme Court.
4
@G
No. Let the religious put their monuments on their own land; I don't pay taxes to help fund their beliefs and monuments.
2
When I was publishing The Oracular Tree (one of the first literary e-zines), one of my writers was a native Israeli of Jewish descent. He was a great writer. This was back in the late 90s. I spoke to him once about the Jewish Renewal Movement, because it is a very interesting Jewish group. He told me never to email him about that again because that movement was outlawed in Israel. He noted some people had gone to jail over this matter.
Israel may be a democracy, but they are very controlling about who can live there and what form of Judaism they must practice. I never mentioned the Jewish Renewal Movement to him again.
White Evangelical Christians are that controlling about what version of Christianity they feel should be allowed and they are trying to force that on the rest of us here in the United States. Fortunately, we have the First Amendment: Freedom of Religion. Has our form of government so failed that the Supreme Court will uphold this?
20
We all want fewer unplanned pregnancies. It seems that the best way to prevent those is through education, access to contraception and better jobs for women. These have been proven to be effective. If we limit unwanted pregnancies, then we limit abortions.
Where are the religiously outspoken in regards to this? Yes, they demonize abortion and say terribly violent lies about it for political gain, but what about contraception access? The biggest teaching of Jesus seemed to be love everyone and don't judge. Great. Let's do that. And, if you want to limit abortions, please be realistic and help us with educational needs, giving better access to contraception and helping everyone have better jobs/lives.
20
@ttrumbo
Because the Catholic Church is against contraception too.
Marital sexual relations only and then only for procreation. Crazy stuff huh? Who, in their private lives, actually follows that? Religious zealots claim to but there are plenty of sinners who are absolved and forgiven on a regular and weekly basis.
Contraception is the way to halt most unwanted pregnancies and abortions. So where is the logic that if your goal is to reduce and eliminate abortions you also want to make contraception expensive and hard to get?
Sex is always going to occur. If Adam and Eve couldn't restrain themselves in the Garden of Eden, what makes anyone believe anyone else will not succumb to temptation, especially hormone driven teenagers?
I suspect it's conservative misogynists seeking power and control of women.
For Pete's sake - men see to it Viagra is covered by insurance and condoms are readily available in gas station men's rooms. So what's up with not covering birth control pills and slashing budgets for PLANNED Parenthood?
It's all about control. Who gets to tell OTHER people how to live their own lives.
Live and let live. Right up there with The Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments.
1
@Butterfly
No, I want contraception available and accessible. I agree with most everything you say.
I am a secular Jew and an atheist but I am not offended by this particular memorial. I do agree that the grandfathering argument has some merit. But also that the monument can be viewed in its historical context as a memorial to the (probably) Christian men of that community at that time who died in World War I. I have no problem with that.
But, our society today is much more diverse and sophisticated than it was when this monument was built. We now have large numbers of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists, living amongst the Christian majority, so of course building such a memorial today would be offensive to many people. Just look at the power of Maya Lin's Vietnam War Memorial that honors every American who died in that conflict no matter who they were. The forty-foot cross in Maryland may well have had the same affect one hundred years ago. Why not just leave it alone?
13
@Elizabeth Miller
Quick question: how is one a secular Jew and an atheist.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
1
@Butterfly I guess you're not Jewish? Well, I for one consider it my ethnicity and a lot of other non-religious people of Jewish ancestry feel the same.
As an American Christian, this topic fascinates me. I get to practice my religion freely in my personal life and unimpeded in the public sphere. I'm not discouraged from praying quietly before a restaurant meal, nor for reading my Bible while I wait for a bus. My yard can be festooned with Christian sentiment, my house a billboard for my beliefs. I'm free to identify myself in editorials I post espousing my values, and Christian bookstores do business in peace and respect all over America.
Why would I expect more than that in a secular republic founded in individual freedom? I wouldn't expect my religious belief to supplant science, especially in America. I don't need to take away a Muslim woman's right to a head-covering any more than I do a Catholic woman's expression of piety. In my opinion, any further rights for my Christian beliefs are gov't establishment of one religion over another, which is anti-American. It's not hard for me to walk the line between faith and country, just as it wasn't that hard for your ancestors. Now Christians feel entitled to government laws that permanently favor them.
This explains, for real, their willingness to hold their noses, ignore their actual professed Word, and follow a liar like trump in order to get their sectarian religion enshrined in national law. Sharia anyone?
118
@deb: I, too, am an American Christian and the topic is fascinating--and confusing since I have never once thought that my right to practice my religion has been infringed by anyone. We cannot ignore the FACT that since the fundamentalist Christians created their unholy alliance with the Republican party in or about 1980 there has been a disingenuous power push to circumvent years of judicial precedent to benefit a religious minority. They have made themselves victims and, not coincidentally, they elected themselves a "victim president". The only people who think their religious liberties have been infringed upon are those who are making a living off of this lie. In reality, they are dividing the nation into pieces.
17
@deb
Well argued, and correctly, IMO.
I'm an atheist who opposes these encroachments by the militantly religious, but I would never oppose your freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.
1
How times have changed. Back in the dark ages, when I was in high school, Fort Hamilton created a flower display of a cross on a hillside visible throughout the neighborhood As one of the few Jews in the area, which then was largely Christian, I wrote a letter protesting this violation of the separation of church and state, Fort Hamilton being a federal enclave. Believe it or not, the flowers were removed -- or rearranged. No need to go to the U.S. Supreme Court which, with its make up then, would surely have supported me.
9
To use the Christian symbol as a memorial to World War I soldiers denegrates the notion that those soldiers fought and died to protect and preserve the blessings of a free democratic society where the government did not recognize one religion over another, or over no religion.
It also assumes the soldiers were all Christians. No atheists in foxholes? There were plenty of them. What kind of god would allow the cruel obscenity of modern warfare? I sure as heck wouldn't want my name on that cross.
20
My issue with this is that the defenders of crosses on public land talk out of both sides of their mouths.
You have to leave it up because it’s just a cultural symbol of remembrance, and if you take it down you’re attacking Christianity.
39
@Di
Brilliant observation, Di. Why isn't that argument presented in court? I hope it is --- it's so smart. Thank you.
2
@Mary and Di
Oh, wait. I'm not certain that observation works after all, Di. Have been thinking...
Christians could actually claim the cross has become a *cultural* symbol, and at the same time claim that the people who want it removed are are the ones defining it as a *religious* one.
1
Every time conservative Christians win a case to put up a Christian symbol, the answer is simple:
Put up a statue of a dancing Shiva, or Krishna playing his flute, or the laughing Buddha, or quotes from the Koran.
You want to say the Lord's Prayer in school? Sure, just as long as you don't mind my chanting this ancient Chan text after you finish:
The Perfect Way knows no difficulties
Except that it refuses to make preferences;
Only when freed from hate and love,
It reveals itself fully and without disguise;
A tenth of an inch's difference,
And heaven and earth are set apart;
If you wish to see it before your own eyes,
Have no fixed thoughts either for or against it....
Infinitely small things are as large as large things can be,
For here no external conditions obtain;
Infinitely large things are as small as small things can be,
For objective limits are here of no consideration.
What is is the same as what is not,
What is not is the same as what is:
Where this state of things fails to obtain,
Indeed, no tarrying there.
One in All,
All in One –
If only this is realized,
No more worry about your not being perfect!
Where Mind and each believing mind are not divided,
And undivided are each believing mind and Mind,
This is where words fail;
For it is not of the past, present, and future.
11
Do the justices Ms Greenhouse mentions have a dual loyalty to the Roman Church? Should they recuse themselves?
16
Excellent thought! Devout religionists should recuse themselves. If you attend a church you should not rule on church matters.
2
When I hear someone proposing that we should allow religious symbols and statements into public spaces, I sometimes have the impulse to say, "I agree, I think that there should be Shinto shrines in every public library and city hall and courthouse, don't you? ...Oh, I see, you weren't talking about religion, you were actually talking about *your* religion."
40
So exactly why does my tax dollars have to entertain a myth?
14
So the Supreme Court may "embrace an overtly more religion-friendly approach..." Seriously how much more pro religion can this country be? We've elected a president that was put in office on the backs of evangelicals and the worst elements of christianity (if that's what they choose to call the religion they practice). The hypocrisy of these religions has been exposed for exactly what it is - hypocrisy. There is no longer any need to know tow to religions that supported, and continue to support, a man who embraces everything christianity claims not to be. In trump's favor he has stripped the right wing religious zealots of their phony "holiness" and exchanged it for right wing political opportunism.
Never cared what they believed but to have still another cross shoved in my face I find totally offensive when hanging on that cross is a symbol not of a loving god but of the republican party.
10
"The court’s most conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — are currently trolling for a case that would provide a vehicle for reinterpreting the Free Exercise Clause to give the same robust protection for believers as the statute, in the court’s view, currently does."
This lays bare the lie that those confirmed to the Supreme Court enter their roles without a political agenda, as Chief Justice Roberts recently implied. In this day and age, they and it, the court itself, very obviously and unconscionably and unconstitutionally, do.
8
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. This administration supports evangelical christian religions and actively discriminates against other religions. No muslims here, people who discriminate against Jews are "good people," no family planning for women, and more. This Court is increasingly the administration's enabler. A Muslim ban is somehow not discrimination based on religion? But a mention of christian religion in denying services to a gay person somehow becomes unlawful discrimination? There is no reason there, only the Court's own discrimination.
Symbols are important and the government should be meticulous about enforcing the constitutional requirement that the state stay out of religion, and particularly that it does not discriminate based on religion. No religious symbols should be on government property, no matter when or why they were erected. This reinforces the rule that government supports no particular religion. Keep it that way. We expect the Court to apply the law even when it is not easy. So far they seemingly are more interested in justifying government support for the religious right. Stop it now.
12
Let's not forget how the cross came to be, it was erected without malice as a beautiful and lasting memorial to the war dead of this small town by the people of this small town. There was no intent at establishment of religion or making religious speech. This was accepted architecture for a war memorial 93 years ago. Fast forward to our hyper litigious age and it must go for what it it might mean, ok, I accept that. Would the public good not be better served to simply transfer ownership of this small parcel to the American Legion removing the government sanction that is perceived by the plaintiff.
11
@Mkm
Really? There was war. There were soldiers who died. It wasn't a religious war. It was horrible war. The other war memorials I have seen centered on those who died, even their likeness, or the actual things of war. Cannon. Tanks.
Are the names of those who died on the Peace Cross? It just don't coincidentally resemble a cross, it is the Peace Cross as if only Christians can represent peace.
But yes, "he public good not be better served to simply transfer ownership of this small parcel to the American Legion" as I understood that it was on private land that was taken for public property, with the cross, for highway construction.
1
Let’s be honest. That cross isn’t offending anyone. This is just the ACLU picking another fight with Christianity.
Well, Christianity is tired of turning the other cheek. From now on, we will fight the forces of darkness that seek to oppress us.
5
@Greg
Is your religion truly oppressed by the forces of darkness? Wake up and face the fact that the country is moving away from Christianity as "state religion" and embracing more diverse faith traditions. That is hardly oppression. I suggest a trip to locations where free exercise is truly oppressed. Try practicing your faith in China or Pakistan for example and experience real repression.
@Greg--Get over yourself. There are no forces of darkness seeking to oppress you. Christianity is the major religion in the US. We celebrate Christian holidays as a nation. Christian prayers are offered up at almost every public gathering, from small town council meetings to football games to Congress. You can't be a member of any civic organization in any town and not be subject to prayers before the meeting starts. Christianity is everywhere, inescapable, overwhelming and pushed in our faces. There is no threat to Christians in the US. Quite the opposite--it's the rest of us that are under attack.
2,000 years ago the cross had no religious meaning and was not a piece of jewelry. When Jesus said "Pick up your cross and follow me" everyone then understood he was issuing a political statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.
Also Jesus was never a Christian for that term was not coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth as a social justice, radical revolutionary nonviolent Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already loved them just as they were: 'Sinners', poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners living under a Roman Military Occupation.
15
Do you want literal armed revolution, with fighting in the streets? Because this kind of tilt in favor of religion and against individual human rights is how you get armed revolution with fighting in the streets.
6
Thank you Ms. Greenhouse!
7
About 52% of Americans are Protestants, 24% are Catholics, 10% are agnostic/atheists and 1.8% are Jewish.
But six of the Supreme Court justices are Catholics and three are Jewish. Any case involving religion is fraught with dangers fur a civil secular nation.
The Supreme Court of the United States sits at the pinnacle of the least democratic branch of our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states.
Mixing and matching faith and state is a dangerous and duplicitous diabolical deception. While America neither has nor denies any faith, the reality of the meddlesome troubling power of the white Christian majority is undeniable.
The basic ethical obligation of the legal profession is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
16
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, itching to get into the thick of it. The "it" being religion and their hope for some kind of christian American revolution.
Dangerous men in a dangerous time.
Gorsuch, elevated to the court through the machinations of a venal, cynical and destructive republican politician, Mitch McConnell.
Kavanaugh, who never fully answered the allegations made against him. The questions where interrupted when the republicans became alarmed as Kavanaugh began to come apart at the seams during a hearing.
After he had been coached at the White House.
Both men placed on the Supreme Court by a man who may ultimately prove to have gained his office through a criminal conspiracy.
What is the remedy for that?
46
Kavanaugh ought to be in jail for lying to Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee ought to investigate when he learned about the Ramirez allegations.
With Injustice Gorsuch having taken a seat that the GOP controlled Senate stole from President Obama and the millions of Americans who voted for him, the SCOTUS is illegitimate.
17
What is now in play is a nation where the voice of the people is stolen then silenced by the Republican Party.
There is no Republic in Republican. The Republican Party has been stealing elections (see Dr. Anderson's compelling article, "The Real Theft of American Democracy" in today's NYT.)
Besides stealing elections and ignoring the will of the people, how else can Republicans dictate their will? They have turned the Supreme Court into a wing of the Papacy. The Supreme Court is now an official office of Christian ministry.
I would like to see Islam, by way of a Muslim mosque, bring religious discrimination charges against a state and or the federal government for unequal treatment with Christians before the law. Judaism should do the same. As should Wicca and every Native American belief system.
Give the In-Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas a little time, we will all be incarcerated for failing to attend mass on Sundays.
12
Ms. Greenhouse has more business being on the Court than most of the current Justices.
54
Most of us who do not want the United States government to promote religion are certainly not suggesting that the Constitution requires the government be hostile to religion – just neutral.
Is it just a coincidence, or is it evidence of a bias and hidden agenda, that the often-flamboyant governmental support for religion always seems to be siding some form of Christianity?
31
I grew up in the public school prayer era when kids were required to recite and sing Christian prayers. Most of my classmates and I were Jewish, but it didn't scar us or cause our loss of identity. It just reminded us we lived in a majority Christian nation. We see lots of crosses in the course of a day, but who is "converted" or even slightly affected by them?
10
@Richard ---it was a long time ago, but I too, in Philadelphia, did the same in the morning before classes and most of us wereJewish too. It did not a thing in our lives but possibly be more open to other's preferences - at the time.
1
@Richard- I was affected. As a non-religious Jew who had to recite a Christian prayer every morning in my public Georgia school, I was distinctly uncomfortable every morning from kindergarten to 12th grade.
After years of being forced to sing Christmas carols every year at the school Christmas party, the one year the school had just one class sing one single Hanukah song (there were many Jews in the class), there was an uproar from the Christian parents.
13
Let's go back to the very basics of the ideas of the establishment of religion with Engle v Vitale. Hugo Black, generally a literalist, viewed voluntary prayer as against the Establishment Clause because it broke down the wall of separation between church and state. That is probably still the best way to view public religiosity given that intent is so hard to garner.
13
Whether or not this particular statue will stay is not the issue. The question to me is what are the long term, and perhaps unintended, consequences of permitting Christian prayers at a governmental meeting; allowing Christian employers to refuse certain medical benefits to their employees based on their subjective religious beliefs; and allowing public lands to be used for religious expression. The old adage applies: Be careful what you wish for, it might just come true. Christians seem to think that they are the only religion in the U.S., and hence, all free use of religion in the public square belongs to them. Given the changing demographic in this country, if the laws get changed in the direction they are going, they should plan on hearing Muslim, Jewish and Hindu prayers at their public meetings--and if the Supreme Court goes "full throttle" in favor of public financial support of religious schools, they should plan on having their tax dollars used to support madrassa or other religious schools which do not reflect their religious beliefs. Christians have somehow come to believe that they are victims and the Christian lobby has gained tremendous power over the past thirty years--but this is a false premise. Absolutely nobody is interfering with their "free exercise of religion". Most of us just don't believe the founders intended to establish a religious state.
91
@Richard Winkler
Agree with your sentiments, but disagree whether this statue is an issue. Like everything, public policy is just a collection of instances and details, and the principles set forth by the highest court in the land create a legal precedent that apply to ALL individual cases.
Whether the cross stands or goes is really immaterial. If our government truly respects the separation of church and state, it should abolish the tax-free status and other perks granted to all religions and outlaw their participation in lobbying and all forms of political activity. That includes barring prosperity preachers, evangelists, ministers, priests, rabbis and all other "reverends" from seeking public office.
33
@Christy
Thank you for suggesting that religious organizations be taxed. They are free riders.
2
What is glaringly missing in this discussion is the subtle reference to "religion" solely as Christian religions.
Let's just say that Muslims wanted to erect a 4-story overtly Muslim symbol a block down the street from the cross.
Just exactly how do we all think that would go? We already know, don't we! Muslims (or Native Americans, jews, Buddhists ...) are smart enough to realize that the courts are fighting for establishment of Christian religions. The court will find whatever loopholes it can to be sure that every decision is made in favor of [Christian] religion to the exclusion of others.
Our forefathers had no long term view of freedom of religion as many would love to believe. They were smart enough to see that anger and antagonism were arising between various Christian sects in 1780 and that the only way to put together a union was to remove the public power of all Christian and other sects.
If that coach, mentioned in this article, really wishes to appeal to a Christian God, he would know full well that he could kneel down in his office and pray for the success of the football game. Or do it at home with his wife and children. God would hear his pleas.
48
@dpaqcluck Maybe our forefathers saw that a government could use an established religion to control the people and that is the reason for the establishment clause. And sure if 99% percent of the soldiers who perished in one of our many wars were of a particular faith, let that faith erect a monument to them on public land.
1
As is the case with every outrage Trump commits, one asks, what would the conservatives do and say if President Obama had done the very same thing? (signing bibles is one recent outrage that comes to mind.) If the symbol in this town square were as easily recognizable symbol of Islam as this cross is for Christianity, what would this now dangerously conservative court do?
16
The next step for those who would promote extreme expression of religion will be attempts to legislate blasphemy laws and enforce them against citizens who want nothing to do the exclusiveness of most religions. The ability of religions to discriminate with prejudice against humans who do not fit preconceived notions of good people have the ability through pious hypocrisy to get their own way with lawmakers to formulate laws which do harm to other good people. The founding fathers knew from experience how religions discriminate through processes of politics and law to skew justice systems against other good citizens. For over two hundred years the good justices on Supreme Court have managed to support the intent of the founding fathers to keep religion out of our politics, Republicans have managed to put judges on the court whose ability to understand the intent of the founding fathers is questionable. Never allow specific groups of humans to become targets of pious religious hypocrisy.
15
That the cross in question has stood as a silent memorial to the soldiers lost in World War 1, and hasn't bothered anyone until some anti religious person decided to be "offended," after 93 years, is a sad testimony to how nit picky we've become as a society. I mean, really, with all the issues we have in our society overall, people really have to waste the time and go to the expense of taking it to the Supreme Court for such as this? Give the dead their due and let them, and the rest of us, rest in peace.
10
@Patrick--Would you feel the same if the memorial had been a giant Star of David erected in honor of fallen Jewish soldiers? Unfortunately, that is a question that cannot be answered, because such a large Jewish memorial would never have been erected on public land. When a court considers public accommodation of religion, it only applies to the Christian religion.
18
With all due respect, this is the thread that unravels the fabric of separation of church and state, and as such, is not just a "nitpicky" issue. Indeed, to minimize it is dangerous stuff indeed.
5
I don’t think it means that we have become nit pickers , it just mean that we are now starting to put ourselves in “other people’s shoes” and, with this insight, starting to understand the importance of the importance of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment in our constitution.
I do not want Christian symbols on MY public land !
5
I think these issues are more complex than many believe. Are Pell grants that benefit universities that are overtly religious unconstitutional? What about tuition vouchers for private schools. Can religious schools be excluded or is that a case of "freedom from religion" which is unconstitutional?
I wouldn't want public money going to Islamic madrassas or the yeshivas the NYT has documented as being 99% religious instruction.
The cross, which doesn't compel anyone to do anything is an insignificant problem. There are much greater issues to resolve.
9
The S. Ct has its thumb on the scale. It’s destroying the Establishment Clause while enshrining the Free-Exercise Clause. But there’s only one “right” in the Bill of Rights that has a specific congressional prohibition: religion. The “right” to free speech, press, assembly, petition your government for redress of your grievances don’t have a congressional/legislative prohibition. Congress/any legislative body cannot publicly respect a religion nor prohibit its private practice. A 40-foot cross at an intersection is pretty respectful.
7
Could this be solved by merely selling the land to a church? No more conflict. Seems like a simple solution admittedly simplistic but please explain why not.
4
The whole issue of government involvement in religion is of course a land mine which the founding fathers tried to avoid with specific references to government from the establishment of religions. if the SC decides to allow this cross how will they decide when it could be a Buddha or Star of David that might be erected on public land? Will the government be required to fund Mosques or Temples and their programs? Or is this whole issue only about the sanctioning of Christian prayers or symbols? We are needlessly approaching dangerous grounds here as religious ideologues dive into this issue willy nilly.
36
There's a simple solution to this issue: The town or village or state could simply auction or sell the land to a private citizen. Then that person can handle the matter without risking the dissolution of the republic. If this country had any real wisdom, we'd come up with solutions like this. I for one do not want the government involved in any way with anything even remotely related to religious symbolism. Look what it's done to the Middle East and Europe and South America and Asia and ....
13
@Joe The defendants don't want a simple solution. They want to extend the principle of religious liberty beyond the sanctuary.
16
An odd Op-Ed, in that Greenhouse's background analysis is fairly straightforward. Resolving the tensions between free exercise and establishment is often difficult, and the court cases turn on very fact-specific analysis. The cross in question certainly appears to have acquired and independent secular meaning; that's why no has been bothered much with it for 93 years. But all of these cases are functionally unique; there is most certainly a 'just this one cross' argument, because each case is fact-sensitive. I don't know what Ms. Greenhouse means by a "breathtaking convergence" - but the compromises between religious America and secular America have gone on since the Mayflower Compact in 1620 (signed by "Puritans, adventurers and tradesmen" to quote Wikipedia). The American ideal has always included people with very distinct and strongly-held religious beliefs (e.g., Puritans, Quakers, Anabaptists), and people who had no interest in such topics at all. The NYT will publish this post, in which I openly avow my faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Resurrection from the dead. By doing so, the NYT has not established a religion (even if it gets government benefits in various forms), and the people reading this post have not been oppressed by my expression of religious faith; they are entitled to agree, disagree, ignore me, or reply with their own point of view. Although I am an attorney, I need not invoke any legal right to do so, nor do my adversaries or critics.
10
@ Tom Wolpert
"The cross in question certainly appears to have acquired and independent secular meaning".
A cross never has a secular meaning, nor do symbols of other religions.
You might remember the case of Judge Moore and the display of the Ten Commandments of public ground in front of the court. The argument was always that the moral of the Ten Commandments apply to everyone.
Forgotten was that there are three different versions of it, the original being the Jewish one, the second the Catholic and the third the Protestant.
3
How high must the cross be before it is deemed intimidating to those that do not share a belief that the cross represents?
13
The Supreme Court is not only skewed towards Capital vs Labor, towards Business vs Unions, towards law enforcement vs civil rights but now, with six of the nine Justices, two-thirds, having a Catholic background, towards Religion vs Secularism.
19
Driving around the DC beltway one comes upon a church with a glowing cross of gold atop the steeple strikingly visible for millions of motorists every day. It's on church land but it's like a Christian road sign found on many public roads; church ahead 3 miles. Originally erected and paid for by a private group, the Bladensburg Cross sits on land that was subsequently purchased by the government due to the construction of the highways that encircle it. It does not speak. There are no Christian or biblical words written on the cross and the 52 honored dead were all Christians. Contrary to the alarmists, the court will rule narrowly on this singular cross and it will not set a test or expand this decision to decide other cases. There are cases when it is best to right the wrongs of the past(removing Confederate statues) and other cases, such as the Bladensburg Cross, when it is best to honor the past.
10
@dudley thompson
Were there any “unhonored” dead from that locality that were not added to the list of names on the cross because they were not Christian? If so, to me, it loses its secular purpose and expresses a religious purpose. If this is the case, suppose that the other names were added to the cross. That would make the secular purpose be of greater prominence. Although, I could see the families of such newly honored dead objecting to having the names of their fallen soldiers put on the cross, as the instant (if mistaken) reaction of anyone seeing those names on a cross would assume that the fallen soldiers were Christian, which would not honor their memory.
In my reading of the Founding Fathers there is one interesting congruence. Jefferson and Adams, while mostly good friends, were very often on different philosophical sides, but they both agreed, in many ways, that religion should purposefully be left out of government. And, according to my research a very low percentage (I recall an estimate of less than 20%) of Americans in the 1780s (when the Constitution was written) were members of a church. Go forward 30 years and that is no longer the case, with the Second Great Awakening.
2
As religion declines in the United States, the religious right and “their” Republican judges think allowing favoritism will stall this. It won’t. Young people are leaving religion in part due to its politicization.
56
True enough, though it is the organized religions whose dogmatized rhetoric is what questioning people rightly eschew.
One need not look too far for a spiritual home that provides renewal, compassion, and open mindedness. Those religions (eg. Unitarianism) welcome diversity of thought and value secularism.
2
@Demosthenes
Agreed. It strikes me that the religious right lives in palpable fear of marginalization.
6
I’ve been to the American Cemetery at the Normandy beaches. There are a heck of a lot of crosses there, and some Stars of David as well.
Let this memorial stand.
13
@Abe Cohen
Abe: There are a number of problems with yoru argument:
- Normandy is in France, not America. That land is governed by french law, not ours.
- A cenetary is an inherently spiritual place; corner of two hiways isn't.
- At Normandy, different symbols were used for people of different religions. In this monument, even Jews are being "comemorated" by a Christian symbol, inferring that that symbol is a "universal" symbol of salvation. As a Jew, I find that offensive.
- If a town erected a giant Star of David or a Muslim symbol (or a Zoroastrian eagle) as the ONLY religious symbol in a town park, you can bet there'd be an outcry from the Christian Right.
Besides, the Radical Right keeps complaining about "activist judges" legislating from the bench. Yet they're fine with it from the Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and "I still beer" Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. They're all hypocrites.
25
Normandy is not in the United States.
2
@Abe Cohen
There are no Stars of David or symbols of other non-christian religions or secular groups on the public property in Bladensberg, only the gigantic cross. That is the problem.
11
It is my understanding that this monument was erected to honor the war dead of that particular town. There are, I believe, 52 names inscribed on the monument, and all 52 were Christians. It is common practice at Arlington National Cemetery to mark the graves of Christians with a cross, so this could be viewed as more of the same.
OTOH I don't know what other inscriptions are on that memorial that might suggest it is supposed to honor all war dead.
Normally I would object to using Christian symbols for war memorials, but the circumstances surrounding this one are not so clear cut.
6
@vibise
Let private citizens buy the land at market value.
3
Opponents of the monumental cross at issue in this case are not trying to exclude religious symbols from public view. Religious symbols already have public visibility, without being erected on public land. They appear on churches, synagogues and mosques throughout the country. They even appear on billboards. There is no danger that a visitor to the United States will fail to recognize the prominence of religion in the social life of the nation. It's many symbols are seen everywhere one goes.
Those persons who complain that religion is excluded from the "public square" want more. Their aims are overtly political. One aim is symbolic. Those who pursue this aim want the state to recognize the Christian religion as fundamental to the nation's identity. For them, erecting a cross on public land is a way of proclaiming that America is a Christian nation. The second aim is easier for other religions to get behind. It concerns having state funded benefits directed to religious entities, like schools and churches. The third aim is also ecumenical and has to do with religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, as in the Hobby Lobby case.
The first and third aims are the most dangerous. The first invites religious conflict, the second threatens harm to women and minorities. The United States is a civic nation tolerant of all religions but identified with none. It must remain that way.
111
@Stephen N Well said. A book I am reading, Costly Grace by Robert Schenck, an Evangelical Minister who was able to insinuate himself into the halls of Congress and was able to meet and speak with Supreme Court Justices. I am a secular Jew who belongs to a Reconstructionist Synagogue and reads books with my Episcopalian friends. I too remember not saying the Lord's prayer in school and feeling quietly defiant at an age too young for this experience. The cross in question is less the issue than where a decision by the conservative justices will lead us.
21
It is both amusing and absurd to imagine a deity so powerful that (according to Christian mythology), standing outside space and time, had the unimaginable power to create an entire universe, then carefully monitor all the goings-on of billions of sentient creatures — up to and including their private thoughts — for thousands of years, being somehow offended that those beings failed to honor it (the deity) by placing monuments on public land.
Yet that is, purportedly, the justification behind certain American Christians' continual efforts to slap crosses, chunks of rock bearing the Ten Commandments (which set? There are more than one, of course) and nativity scenes on public land.
Really? That supposed super-powerful deity *cares* and is somehow hurt or offended when such monuments are placed on private land, or heck, not placed at all?
Of course, the real reason is that insecure believers simply want to force their view of reality on those who don't share their beliefs.
53
@CB Evans Almost 100% correct. However, as a convinced atheist, and civil libertarian - but also a pragmatist - I'd opt to leave it alone. This particular cross was at one time private, and erected primarily as a monument to WWI dead (rather than to proselytize), in an era more religiously homogeneous (granted, not totally so). So, razing it could be construed as a slight to the honored dead soldiers. As for the cost to the taxpayers of razing vs maintaining - I suspect that the marginal cost to the highway department of a few more square feet of grass to mow wouldn't be that much. And leaving it standing wouldn't make me run out and get baptized; although might encourage me to read up on the fallen of WWI.
21
@CB Evans
I would add that it seems illogical that the #1 symbol of Christianity represents the tortuous execution of its most 'recent' founding member rather than something of a more 'kinder, gentler' nature akin to what was taught in Sunday school.
3
@CB Evans "... insecure believers simply want to force their view of reality on those who don't share their beliefs". Indeed, this was the conclusion of Ernest Becker, whose books Denial of Death and Escape from Evil trace much, maybe most, violence - from jihadism to the Crusades, and on and on - to an attempt to silence the inner doubt that remains in the minds of the dogmatic about their solution to our inevitable mortality.
3
My guess is the Court will say the cross may remain if private funds are now used for its maintenance.
5
One of the bits of wisdom I took away from practice as an appellate lawyer is the simple truth that "bad facts make bad law." By "bad facts," one means either a case so fraught with emotion that even the most dispassionate jurist cannot simply apply cold logic, or one in which the facts are deceptively simple and actually excessively complex so that whatever the decision is its application to future disputes will work injustice. I suspect this case is of the latter. Whether the justices rule this public memorial constitutional or unconstitutional, the decision will be "bad law." These cases simply are not amenable to simple yet inevitable "yes" or "no" of the courtroom. The Humanists are likely to lose and the decision will be foundational for permitting even more egregious displays of government support for religion. If they win, it will encourage more divisive litigation which will expend the public fisc and, more importantly, drain away what little "social capital" (see Robert Putnam's work) remains in our "bank."
26
We risk losing the thread of the original argument here. It is the establishment of state religion that is the threat. The challenging nuance is in the slippery slope that leads to it.
I am less concerned about a historical statue that implies soldiers went to their God. I would be more concerned if access were denied to a star of David or a secular monument on the same site.
The real fight is over the insidious efforts of fundamentalist Christians to reframe our country as a Christian nation since it's founding in violation of the historical and constitutional record. Their agenda is a Christian state where Biblical inerrancy could take over. Believe me, I stand opposed to a Christian version of a caliphate, but wonder have we become forced into a position where diversity must be disposed of? I am not against the exercise of religion. And yet I would be castigated as a secular-humanist for my belief in balance over religious advocacy by Christians. By losing the balance between accepting diversity and opposing advocacy, we feed the delusion of victimization promulgated by Christians and the right. Better to keep forces in balance by delineating fair play rather than banning all expression outright. Certainly public events and business should be free of religious practices imposed on others. But monuments to those who died who believed are acceptance of their reality, and should be reminder of who they were, the same as a monument created by a labor union for lost members.
17
The elephant in the room is the sweeping change in American attitudes twaord Christianity. Into the 1980s, many who didn't practice religion had participated in some form of organized religious exercise and had some understanding of religious practice and basic tenets of Christian faith. Most who didn't practice faith felt they should. Today, the opposite is true. Though the majority of Americans still identify as Christian, they cannot define the term and actively oppose religious practice.
Christianity is no longer a majority practice and practicing Christians are an increasingly rejected minority according to Pew research announced in this newspaper. How does religious symbolism change in public meaning when religion is not or soon will not be a dominant social force?
12
By dragging the Constitution into this, Congress is made irrelevant. The Court will simply rule Congress in violation of the Constitution to force the Court’s interpretation upon the Country.
Of course, the Court wants to insure fundamentalist archaic Christian belief. Just how they will talk their way around State support of every screwball sect and all other major religions is an interesting point.
Somewhere far down the line the Supreme Court is going to find itself firmly reorganized and restricted.
4
@John✔️❎✔️Brews
Hopefully a few amendments to the Constitution and a few appointments of less biased justices will suffice. If wholesale reordering of the court is attempted, it will turn out badly for everyone.
And when those who want to practice Christianity in the public square have removed all legal restraint what will prevent other religions from doing so as well? Could it possibly be in the public interest that religions duke it out on wider and wider stages?
As someone whose God speaks in a still small voice, I want regulations that quiet down public expressions of piety.
71
@flosfer
Since when has it become necessary to stand in a public square and shout out your devotion to God?
What happened to the notion that God is all around us and everywhere and we can be as close to God in our own home quietly contemplating life as we can in a formal, communal place of worship?
Old country advice: when the man who sings loudest in church is coming to visit, make sure your barn door is locked.
In other words, you don't need a television show, a pulpit or a town square to announce your faith to the world. If you truly believe in your God and live your life by the principles of your religion - that's enough.
9
Great article. It matters little what interpretations the Court elects to adopt. The nation should be concerned about the Court's opting to foster ever increasing attempts by fundamentalist Christians to either maintain or spread their beliefs in government, education, the workplace and other areas of our daily lives. And, as you note, why is this taking place when an ever increasing majority of citizens no longer identify with organized Christianity as their religion? Will the Court support similar efforts by Muslims? I think not.
307
@Disillusioned
That's not the issue. The question is was it the original intent of the cross monument to reflect the dominance of the Christian religion in the USA?
Or was the intent based on the reflection of all those crosses erected in Flanders Field after WWII?
There are no similar symbols of other religions erecting monuments to our fellow citizens who died defending our country.
Do not be disillusioned. A "secular legislative purpose" is obviously found in an understanding of those historic times no long passed and know there was no offense meant to other religions at that time.
Therefore to extrapolate a motive from our times to those times is insulting, contentious, and wrongheaded.
5
@Disillusioned
It would be interesting if the challenge did come from a Muslim organization.
The result might be the same as in Dunn v. Ray: not the same rights for non-Christians. would make the Supreme Court's position very clear.
8
@Disillusioned
"why is this taking place when an ever increasing majority of citizens no longer identify with organized Christianity as their religion? "
What ever increasing majority? From Gallup:
PRINCETON, N.J. -- On the eve of Christmas 2015, a review of over 174,000 interviews conducted in 2015 shows that three-quarters of American adults identify with a Christian religion, little changed from 2014, but down from 80% eight years ago. About 5% of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion, while 20% have no formal religious identification, which is up five percentage points since 2008.
I say this as a Christian who could not possibly care about spreading my beliefs into yours or anyone's daily lives. Your life. Your eternal soul. Your choice. I have my plate full just dealing with my own sins.
Which is why I am not offended by a Cross, a Star of David, or a Crescent. To each his/her own.
7
The most insidious issue which will eventually confront the SCOTUS was sidestepped by the court in last year's Masterpiece Cake case.
Rather than confronting the real issue of whether or not the Free Exercise clause gives a business owner the right to engage in raw bigotry against gays, because of the owners religious beliefs, the court made remarks by members of the Colorado Civil Rights commission the dispositive issue. Opening a business is a voluntary act and utilizes public services ( police, fire, road maintenance etc) paid for by public tax dollars, therefore, the business must be required to serve all the people. Make no mistake, based on previous opinions, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, are prepared to cynically endorse religious bigotry against the LGBT community, under the guise of religious freedom.
124
@Don Shipp.
Exactly. Very clear and simple point.
But then again, let's just ignore that.
5
@Don Shipp. All of us, even those who do not own businesses, use those public services. Does that mean we can be made to give up our right to decide who is welcome in our homes if we use those services?
@rella Your home is not a public place.
1
I think it helps to realize something specific about all conservatives. There are no documents more hated by conservatives than the constitution of the US, especially the Bill of Rights, and the New Testament of the Bible, especially, the four gospels. In the case of the constitution, they didn't like it then and have spent 240+ years finding ways to ignore it. For the most part, they have been wildly successful. Consider just the original and modern versions of Jim Crow.
As for the Bible, it is now millennia of efforts to wipe out the gospels. With five religious conservatives on the court, what we are seeing is a reversion to the mean for the US. Most of our history is about conservatives running from the founding documents they claim to revere.
It is difficult to see a way in which this does not return the US as a society to the 1850s in practice.
63
@DanH
The path we are on is to have 1850s-era laws conflicting with 21st-century society. Pew Research studies are showing about 25% of the US population now considers itself non-religious, and that was the only category in the study that showed growth, with all religious categories showing at least minimal decline. It will be interesting to see if the 2020 census reveals even greater trends toward a secular society.
6
@DanH
Who is a "conservative" if you are going to talk about "all" of them as "hat[ing]" the Constitution? As a self-identified constitutional conservative, I do not hate the Constitution, but defer to it.
As to the example you raise of Jim Crow, that was a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, and we'd all have been better off if the 14th Amendment had been honored to quash Jim Crow.
As for religion, the original understanding was that the states could establish religion, and several of the original states had established religions. MA, for instance, only disestablished in 1837. Yes, that flexibility diminished with Court interpretations after the Civil War amendments shifted power away from the states. But the basic tolerance for religion, even in the public square, has long been a U.S. feature, for instance in the Pledge of Allegiance's reference to being under God, and in the line imprinted on our money, In God We Trust.
That last line is particularly interesting in the Gospel context that you raised in light of Jesus distinguishing between God and Caesar, as to which you make a good point. But would you rather have it, "In [Caesar/Trump/Obama] We Trust"? Alternatively, we are in an environment now in which the true line should be, "Only in My Party do I Marginally Trust, and I Even Don't Trust Those Idiots". Do you prefer that?
Thank you, but I'll stick with trust in God over the politicians, and in the Constitution over the legal anglers.
3
@DanH
Exactly. They are against your freedom from their religion. They want to use their interpretation of the Bible to impose their wishes on the rest of us.They routinely violate the separation of church and state.
They also consistently call the rest of the Bill of Rights, which is supposed to protect citizens from government overreach, "technicalities" and continuously make exceptions to them because they prefer militarized law enforcement over "Justice and tranquility."'
The Constitution clearly states that Congress is supposed to tax and regulate trade, so they call oppose both. The Constitution says promote the general welfare so they promote the participle welfare of the owners of capital.
They are now supporting a president who clearly attacks the separation of powers, and demands personal loyalty from public servants sworn to uphold the Constitution.
They attack the judiciary from individual judges to the entire thing.
Trump is stealing the power of the purse to build his wall, she all they do is chant build the wall.
They also are against everything Christ said. Jesus said help the poor and heal the sick that the greedy are unlikely to get into heaven, and that god is love and peace. They oppose helping the sick or poor and are for hate, greed, and violence. The only thing Jesus said that they believe is that they can sin all they want, and they will be forgiven. How convenient.
Read your Constitution and follow what it plainly says. Stop believing liars.
6
That this memorial stood for 93 years and only became objectionable recently, shows it as a waste of judicial time in efforts to revise history. If the memorial was to be built or still needs public money for maintenance, then protests are tenable. I am not a religiously observant person, and do not support the use of public monies to support any religious operation but, I can't see where this memorial, erected in the mid-1920's should be an issue.
Such legal battles are just fodder for the right-left fighting that takes up so much of our energy. After 90 years of being a road side landmark, is it really an expression of religious practice that is being supported by public monies or is it just an historical artifact of how we expressed our nation's grief. I think of how the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues as a tragedy. While only 90+ years old is not historically equivalent to the 1300 year old statues, it was still an expression that was rooted in the history of the time. The memorial is also not the equivalent of Civil War Memorials whose intents was to continue the expression of white supremacy and celebrate the history or rebellion.
I would much rather that the Court spend its time addressing public money supporting religious excesses today. For example, I would rather see the Catholic Church having to defend its religious tax exempt status in the face of clear evidence that it operates as a criminal enterprise facilitating child sexual abuse.
66
@Zinkler
"If the memorial was to be built or still needs public money for maintenance, then protests are tenable. "
The cross was originally built on private lands, but the lands were turned over to the state's Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission in 1961. The Commission has since overseen maintenance of the memorial. i.e. public money.
33
@Zinkler It did not "just recently" become objectionable. Those who objected in the past had no voice, no power, and no choice. It has just recently become possible to overcome centuries of religious bias enough to speak out about oppressive religious practices without suffering social and economic discrimination.
38
@Zinkler
Please note that this is just another case in which the conservatives (religious right) are chipping away at the concept of church and state separation. This one cross may not be significant alone, but it is another building block for the religious Christians to influence as much as possible.
Per your last paragraph, don't disagree.
12
"The appetite of the two newest justices, Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch, for cases that would enlarge the constitutional playing field for religion appears nearly boundless. Along with Justice Alito, they are looking for vehicles for the court to expand the right of churches to receive direct public grants of money."
And once they do, what's to stop them from actually discriminating against specific religions?
Legislating what up to now would be clear violations of the establishment clause is a slippery slope indeed. Once into the tent, offering religions public funding to make them "equal" with secular causes, there would be no end in sight.
So my question is, at what point would "religious liberty" be broken down to prefer one over the other? The huge fight in Congress now over comments made by new Muslim representatives should give us all pause--should political parties seek cases for the court to test religious preferences.
Hobby Lobby showed we're already there in changing expectations for religious exemptions to secular federal laws. First an exemption, next a preference.
I'm as religious as they come, but I worship in my church, not in the public square.
108
@ChristineMcM
I distinctly remember a small item in the Times years ago that stated SCOTUS was 'trolling' for a case they wanted to confront. They wanted a case to decide on campaign contribution, and not satisfied with one about a Hillary Documentary asked for and got one that resulted in Citizens United, a blight on all our lives if ever there was one. When I saw that small item it seemed to me that the act of advertising this was an indication of settled intent.
As to this article, where I live it is 'Thank You Jesus' lawn signs within eyesight of each other, and yet some here including family members are convinced of their 'persecution'. Including repetition of 'This Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values'
The preference is already clear and continues despite the overall diversity that seems so threatining in their minds.
12
Will the humanists then demand to have the crosses removed from Arlington National Cemetery? These crosses are representing those who fought and died for our country and its freedoms and should remain. This is absolutely disgraceful that anyone would try to remove these crosses which have been standing for years. All crosses wherever they are found should remain and the Supreme Court will most likely vote in their favor to stay. The humanists are fighting a losing battle.
8
@WPLMMT I
I believe the crosses atArlington represent the religious preferences of the deceased. There are symbols of other religions, not just Christianity . No reason to remove any of them.
34
@WPLMMT -There are no crosses at Arlington National Cemetery.
2
@WPLMMT When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression.
5
What about the following: Navy Cross, Army Distinguished Service Cross, the Air Force Cross, and the Coast Guard Cross.
One would think that today somebody would challenge this and seek a more neutral symbol.
Or perhaps the Army Distinguished Service "Triangle" would be less impressive?
8
@Joshua Schwartz
Actually, a triangle would be a GREAT symbol, because it stands for LGBT people (because it was used to label them during the Holocaust). Using it would remind the world that LGBT people have been persecuted throughout history (and still are).
@Joshua Schwartz None of the medals you indicate has a religious connotation. I'm sure a graphic designer could come up with a good alternative, however. Each of the medals is pretty boring in and of itself.
@Joshua Schwartz How about a nice classical Greek column or a tree? Philosophical not religious. Natural strength. So tired of imposed religion, especially when it has abandon morality for GOP hypocracy.
1
How about an "Earthquake" test, or for those who just can't get enough irony, an "Act of God" test? If the giant cross in Bladensburg, Md. were suddenly destroyed by a natural disaster, townspeople there would have the opportunity for a do-over. If it would be wise to build a new memorial with a secular sensibility, then why are folks waiting for the ground to shake?
2 possible solutions to keep this out of court: 1) a consortium of christian churches buys the land on which the cross stands or 2) the town would agree to absorb the cost of moving the memorial to privately owned land.
22
I doubt our founding fathers would have objected to the cross, and I suspect they'd object to the Supreme Court being the deciders whether it is destroyed or not.
After a century of murderous religious war and centuries of persecution that inspired many Europeans to immigrate to the colonies, a constitution that clearly divided church and state was sensible. However, displaying Christian symbols on public land is a far cry from the Inquisition.
The reason the Supreme Court has become so politicized is because it is doing the work our legislators should be doing. It seems to require the protection of a lifetime appointment to give people the bravery to do what they think is right.
Although I agree with Roe V Wade and the legalization of gay marriage (if the government must play a role in defining marriage), I wish our legislatures could be counted on to do the right thing without relying on the Court to do the heavy lifting.
Using the Supreme Court has led to its extreme politicization. The lifetime appointments render it an undemocratic source of power and it has also become a distorter of our politics in general.
How many bad leaders have come to power via anger over court decisions?
19
@alan haigh I doubt whether many of our "founding Fathers" would have objected to slavery or to women's not being able to vote.
4
@Larry Dickman Good point, but I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted the Supreme Court to be used on issues like this. I really think it is something that should be dealt with by elected legislators who are the ones that gave women the right to vote and also abolished slavery.
Religious freedoms are best protected when practitioners understands there liberties are only guaranteed by staying on church grounds, in the home and religious institutions. Crossing into the public square only weakens religion as Thomas Jefferson and other founders understood. In Virginia, religiousness, gained powerful standing during those times and Baptist ministers were often thrown into jail as heretics. The troubles and why there is separation is to protect one set of beliefs against others. Opening up religion to the public square pits religions against each other while the atheists laugh. Of course, SCOTUS member wants their specific beliefs symbolized everywhere such that all modern heretics might be tossed into jail.
144
Professor Greenhouse's last comment, about the Court hurtling in one direction (toward less restrictive establishment clause interpretation and more deference to free exercise), while the nation goes in another direction, is mistaken. Simply as to crosses, there are 50 around the country that will be affected one way or another by the American Legion case now at the Supreme Court, including the Bayview Cross case in Pensacola now before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Even Rep. Omar might well appreciate a little more support from deference to free exercise, which she in fact received on her hijab accommodation by Congress, which had had a rule against head coverings. It is not clear to me that the Court's stirrings in this arena are out of touch with the nation's moorings, its recent history, or its likely evolution.
7