One could say the same for these…just saying
I agree with the court decision and I agree with most of your analysis, but I bristled at the notion of “seeing something you don’t like” which, following your example of a Jewish prayer suggests that a Jew might not like to see a cross. I think that is going a bit far. Chirstian symbolism is ubiquitous in our society and it hardly reaches the point of something which, speaking as a Jew, I like or dislike. I sometimes object when I feel that one religion is being given preference over another on government grounds. That’s an objection to a Constitutional matter – not to crosses. I may never join the faith but I will continue to admire and enjoy Bach’s Mass in B Minor, the Cathedral at Chartres, Michelangelo’s Pieta, Raphael’s Madonna of the Rocks and much more. If Congress were to declare (not too likely of course) that Bach’s Mass is now to be the “National Religious Anthem o the United States” that I would object to.
And you are welcome to your opinion.
1 Like
That was not my intention at all to suggest. I just happened to use the example as it was the first one that came to mind. You can easily substitute Muslim. Wiccan, Buddhist, etc. in for Jewish.
The above link is to the full opinion of the court with its concurrences and dissent.
I suggest that people read some of the actual opinion. This is the sort of thing that does not lend itself well to over-simplification or being taken out of context.
I think you will find that this decision does not, in any way, grant carte blanche to erect crosses willy nilly. Instead, this thoughtfully examines the full context and history of this cross and finds this particular cross, in context, does not offend the establishment clause.
1 Like
I don’t know why people are so threatened by religious images. Especially if they’re not financed by the government. Most of these stories certainly have nothing to do with establishing any religion.
City pays to restore it and upkeep
Yeah but not to promote a religion but to honor war dead.
That was the argument…
Agreed – what stimulated my reaction was the notion that one did not "like’ the cross.
I don’t believe separation of church and state is in the Constitution, either. It’s been a historical thing. And it’s under that I believe this was wrong.
This was not a good vote. Ginsberg is right. This was a ridiculous vote.
Its supporters, including the Trump administration, said it was created solely to honor those heroes and is secular in nature. Opponents called it an impermissible overlap of church and state, since it is controlled and cared for by a Maryland parks commission.
Had it been on private land and maintained by private money there would be no issue here
Since it’s not this was a bad ruling.
I agree. Some religious symbols are allowed to stand. Others are torn down.
The Court had muddled the issue beyond repair.
They muddled the issue beyond repair decades ago when the adopted the Lemon Test, which even the liberal justices agree is a failure.
The failure is an over-reading of the establishment clause at the expense of the free exercise clause.
The government does not need to be hostile to religious displays, merely neutral.
1 Like
I have no issue with religious displays on public property if the government is nonpartisan and allows all religion equal space.
Does this mean most will be Christian? Yes. But it also means Jewish and Muslim displays are allowed for those communities that want them
The govenemnt should only step in when local communities play favoritism and refuse equal access.
If a town want to display christian imagery they should also allow other religion the same access
Will most favor christianity? Yes because majority of American are Christian. But that isnt favoritism or an endorsement
When one stares out over our national cemeteries, both here and all over the world, observing all of the white crosses over those that gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country, the SCOTUS was spot on with their ruling. Amen.
They are both groups of idiots.
Well said.
