• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Bladensburg Cross Unconstitutional?

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Is a cross a purely Christian symbol when it is used as a fallen veteran memorial? The SCOTUS will be making a decision on this matter in the next couple weeks.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association. The case involves the 40-foot-tall “Peace Cross” (a.k.a. the Bladensburg Cross), a World War I memorial in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

While supporters of the cross say it’s a perfectly legal war memorial, the AHA argues that it’s really just a giant advertisement for Christianity — maintained using taxpayer dollars via the Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission — and any reasonable person looking at the cross would agree. If they lose the case, we may see an outpouring of Christian crosses erected on public property for ostensibly secular purposes… even though the real reason would be obvious to everyone.

bladensburg cross.JPG

Reasons offered by the American Humanist Assn.
1) The Bladensburg Cross violates the Establishment Clause.
The cross is Christian. It’s the symbol everyone associates with Christianity. And if the government is promoting this cross/memorial, it’s aligning itself with a particular religion. That’s illegal.

2) The Bladensburg Cross effectively denigrates the contributions of non-Christian veterans.
If this really is meant to be a war memorial, then using a Christian symbol sends the message that non-Christians who sacrificed their lives for this country need not be memorialized. Supporters may argue the memorial represents all veterans, but the symbol they’re using is not some universal symbol of sacrifice. It’s a symbol of one particular religion. Obviously.

3) A victory for the government would be bad news for Christians.
If this cross is declared legal, think about what that would mean: The Supreme Court would basically be saying the cross is not a uniquely Christian symbol but rather some generic symbol representing death.

4) The fact that this Cross has been up for decades doesn’t make it legal.
History and tradition aren’t good reasons to let something illegal slide. The Supreme Court has even said as much when it comes to Establishment Clause cases. Hell, they struck down forced prayer in public schools even though we’d been doing that for a long time.

5) The Cross isn’t merely some passive display.
Supporters of the memorial argue that it doesn’t “force” you to become a Christian, so what’s the big deal? The AHA says that’s irrelevant. This is a giant cross in the middle of a busy intersection.

6) Saying the Bladensburg Cross is illegal would not affect other Christian war memorials.
Despite rumblings to the contrary, there are very few stand-alone giant cross memorials on public property. This one is uniquely illegal.

7) The Lemon Test is a good way to analyze the legality of religious displays, and we don’t want to mess that up.
The “Lemon Test” was established by the Supreme Court in 1971 as a way to objectively decide whether a religious statute violates the law.

8) No one’s asking for the Bladensburg Cross to be destroyed.
While one possible solution is to remove the “arms” of the cross and create a secular “obelisk” memorial, the AHA would be perfectly fine with it being moved to private property.

All quotes from [URL="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/31/heres-why-the-supreme-court-must-say-the-bladensburg-cross-is-unconstitutional/]Here’s Why the Supreme Court Must Say the Bladensburg Cross Is Unconstitutional[/URL]
 
Last edited:
The left's continue effort to destroy the Christian religion.
 
The cross was actually a pagan symbol long before certain Christian denominations adopted it, thanks to Constantine...

A Christian Symbol?

You may assume that Christians were the first to use the cross. The Encyclopedia Americana, however, speaks of “its ancient usage by both Hindus and Buddhists in India and China, and by the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians.” Similarly, Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, (1969 edition) says that the cross “was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long before the Christian era.”

Indeed, there is no evidence that early Christians used the cross in their worship. During the early days of Christianity, it was the pagan Romans who used the cross! Says The Companion Bible: “These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god . . . and are first seen on a coin of Julius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C.” The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a number of crosses.

How, then, did the cross become the symbol of Christendom?

Constantine and the Cross

In 312 C.E., Constantine, ruling the area now known as France and Britain, headed out to war against his brother-in-law, Maxentius, of Italy. En route he reportedly saw a vision​—a cross on which were the words “Hoc vince,” meaning, “By this conquer.” After his victory, Constantine made the cross the standard of his armies. When Christianity later became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the cross became the symbol of the church.

But did such a vision actually take place? Accounts of this legend are, at best, secondhand and full of discrepancies. Frankly, it would be difficult to find a more unlikely candidate for a divine revelation than Constantine. At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god worshiper. Constantine even dedicated Sunday as the day for sun worship. His conduct after his so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Murder, intrigue, and political ambition ruled his life. It seems that for Constantine, Christianity was little more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire.

There is also little evidence that the type of cross Constantine “saw” really represented the instrument used to put Christ to death. Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had minted are X-shaped crosses with a “P” superimposed. (See illustration.) An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: “As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word ‘Christ’ [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with ‘the Cross,’” that is, as an instrument of execution. In fact, this style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun.

Why, then, was the cross so easily accepted by “Christians”? Vine’s Dictionary continues: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1987605?q=cross&p=sen
 
If Christmas (Christ's mass?) can be a declared a national holiday (holy day?) without that being considered establishment of religion then a local community can certainly erect and maintain a cross shaped war memorial. After all, the original cross was simply a secular device used to administer the death penalty - that it was also adopted by a group of religions does not invalidate (or patent?) that shape. If a religion was 'established' and chose to use the 5 pointed star as its official symbol would that require our nation (or the state of Texas?) to alter its flag?
 
It's worth noting that the American Humanist Association supported the Satanist statue of the deity Baphomet on public grounds.

Which is not to say that they support Satanists, but it is to say their objection to religious symbolism on public ground is selective and utilitarian.
 
It's worth noting that the American Humanist Association supported the Satanist statue of the deity Baphomet on public grounds.

Which is not to say that they support Satanists, but it is to say their objection to religious symbolism on public ground is selective and utilitarian.

No, their position is all or nothing when it comes to religious symbols on public grounds. They supported the Baphomet statue because Christian symbols were allowed. If Christian symbols were not allowed they would not support the Baphomet statue. Even the Satanists only wanted the statue to prove a point. And a valid point, IMO.
 
Today in 2019 and, more importantly, at the time of the making of this memorial the cross was, and is, definitely a Christian symbol. It isn't the kind of thing I lose sleep over, but I view the memorial as only paying respect to the Christians who died in WWI. It an exclusive memorial, not an inclusive one. As an atheist veteran I am not offended by it, but I wish they would just be honest about it. But then I guess if they were honest about it they would lose the court case.
 
No, their position is all or nothing when it comes to religious symbols on public grounds. They supported the Baphomet statue because Christian symbols were allowed. If Christian symbols were not allowed they would not support the Baphomet statue. Even the Satanists only wanted the statue to prove a point. And a valid point, IMO.

No, they explicitly approved of the statue as part of an effort to get the Ten Commandments removed, not as part of an "all or nothing" argument.

https://americanhumanist.org/press-releases/aha-approves-satanist-intervention-in-arkansas-fight/
 
^^^ The right's pathological dishonesty in claiming the the left is trying to destroy the Christian religion.

Already know that we see things very differently.

So then prove that the left isn't, in context with the many anti-Christian legal suits brought, anti-Christians media attacks, the near constant elbowing of the Christian religion off of the public square.
 
Exactly, they were trying to prove a point. A fair one, too.

In which case their objection, or non-objection, is selective and utilitarian.

Even by this description, they don't hold the principle of "all or nothing." They simply argued that in order to get the Ten Commandments removed.
 
Already know that we see things very differently.

So then prove that the left isn't, in context with the many anti-Christian legal suits brought, anti-Christians media attacks, the near constant elbowing of the Christian religion off of the public square.

I don't have to prove a thing. You made the assertion in the positive. It's up to you to back it up.

There simply is no credible evidence, nor can you provide any, that 'the left' is trying to 'destroy the Christian religion'.

It's an asinine claim not moored in reality, but it's great for emotional outbursts intended to replace actual thinking.
 
No, they explicitly approved of the statue as part of an effort to get the Ten Commandments removed, not as part of an "all or nothing" argument.

https://americanhumanist.org/press-releases/aha-approves-satanist-intervention-in-arkansas-fight/

I do not see where you are gaining a belief that the AHA and the Satanic Temple want the statue of Baphomet to replace the Ten Commandment marker?

from the AHA link you provided
Search

PRESS RELEASES
American Humanist Association Approves Satanist Intervention in its Arkansas Monument Fight
FACEBOOK TWITTER EMAIL SHARE
AUGUST 21, 2018 PRESS RELEASES
American Humanist Association Approves Satanist Intervention in its Arkansas Monument Fight

Contact:

Sarah Henry, (202) 238-9088, shenry@americanhumanist.com

Monica Miller, (202) 238-9088, mmiller@americanhumanist.com

(Washington, D.C., August 21, 2018) – Today, the Satanic Temple filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene in the American Humanist Association’s ongoing lawsuit challenging the Ten Commandments monument on Arkansas state capitol grounds.

In May 2018, the American Humanist Association (AHA), together with other secular civil rights groups and local citizens, filed suit in Arkansas federal court, seeking to remove this religious monument from public grounds at the state capitol. Late last week, the Satanic Temple protested the unconstitutional religious monument with a temporary installation of the occult deity Baphomet.
 
I don't have to prove a thing. You made the assertion in the positive. It's up to you to back it up.

There simply is no credible evidence, nor can you provide any, that 'the left' is trying to 'destroy the Christian religion'.

It's an asinine claim not moored in reality, but it's great for emotional outbursts intended to replace actual thinking.

It's also innate in their beliefs that any change from their past superior position over all other beliefs is nothing more than persecution to be equated with the Holocaust.
 
In which case their objection, or non-objection, is selective and utilitarian.

Even by this description, they don't hold the principle of "all or nothing." They simply argued that in order to get the Ten Commandments removed.

I think we are talking past each other.
 
It's also innate in their beliefs that any change from their past superior position over all other beliefs is nothing more than persecution to be equated with the Holocaust.

LOL! Yep, it's all hyperbole, all the time. Rather like Kavanaugh.

YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY FAMILY!!!!!!
 
I don't have to prove a thing. You made the assertion in the positive. It's up to you to back it up.

There simply is no credible evidence, nor can you provide any, that 'the left' is trying to 'destroy the Christian religion'.

It's an asinine claim not moored in reality, but it's great for emotional outbursts intended to replace actual thinking.

  • Persecution of the Christan baker in Colorado
  • Social media uproar over Pence teaching art at a private Christian school
  • Many other specific instances

Further:
Here in the United States, Christians and Christianity are mocked, belittled, smeared and attacked by some on a daily basis. This is a bigoted practice that is not only increasing exponentially, but is being encouraged and sanctioned by a number on the left.

Too many of those who worship at the altar of political correctness have deemed that Christianity should no longer be respected. Rather, they assail it on a regular basis in a coordinated campaign to weaken the faith and its base.

The prevailing view in much of the media is that Christianity is aligned with Republicans, conservatives, or the views of President Trump – and therefore must be diminished and made suspect.

The New Yorker just described the opening of a few Chick-fil-A restaurants in New York City as “Pervasive Christian traditionalism,” and a “Creepy infiltration of New York City.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/how-long-will-i-be-allowed-to-remain-a-christian

And in addition

Regular Christians Are No Longer Welcome In American Culture | Time
time.com/4385755/faith-in-america/

Jun 29, 2016 - For many American Christians who lean in toward traditionalism, these are anxious times. ... have added to the sense that religious expression is under attack. ... Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now.

You can deny it all you want, but I'm not going to be easily convinced that its not as I've stated.

So, your turn.
 
I do not see where you are gaining a belief that the AHA and the Satanic Temple want the statue of Baphomet to replace the Ten Commandment marker?

I never said they wanted the Baphomet statue to "replace" anything.
 
  • Persecution of the Christan baker in Colorado
  • Social media uproar over Pence teaching art at a private Christian school
  • Many other specific instances

Which does not support your hair-on-fire, emotional claim about 'the left'. Whatsoever.
Further:


And in addition

Regular Christians Are No Longer Welcome In American Culture | Time
time.com/4385755/faith-in-america/

Jun 29, 2016 - For many American Christians who lean in toward traditionalism, these are anxious times. ... have added to the sense that religious expression is under attack. ... Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now.

You can deny it all you want, but I'm not going to be easily convinced that its not as I've stated.

So, your turn.

Yawn. That simply doesn't support your claim. I understand that's nice and comfy pretending that it does, but that won't change the reality of it. Regular Christians are everywhere and welcome in today's society, no matter how badly you and others need to pretend that they're being 'persecuted'.

What isn't respected, since it's missed your notice, is that laughable and rank public hypocrisy, dishonesty and biblical pig-ignorance of those who claim to be Christians but clearly aren't. Mocking, smearing and belittling, when deserved, and that's quite often, simply isn't 'destroying'.

You seem not to understand that wishing a thing were true will not actually make that thing true.
 
Which does not support your hair-on-fire, emotional claim about 'the left'. Whatsoever.

Yawn. That simply doesn't support your claim. I understand that's nice and comfy pretending that it does, but that won't change the reality of it. Regular Christians are everywhere and welcome in today's society, no matter how badly you and others need to pretend that they're being 'persecuted'.

What isn't respected, since it's missed your notice, is that laughable and rank public hypocrisy, dishonesty and biblical pig-ignorance of those who claim to be Christians but clearly aren't. Mocking, smearing and belittling, when deserved, and that's quite often, simply isn't 'destroying'.

You seem not to understand that wishing a thing were true will not actually make that thing true.

"You seem not to understand that wishing a thing were true will not actually make that thing true."
I'm seeing nothing but the same in your denials.

How about we try this for a change?
How about we leave Christians alone for awhile, and just let them practice their religion in peace?

Or is it that the secular left 'religion' is so fearful of anything that is not it, that it needs to promote itself, as well as the government, as the 'new' and only politically correct 'religion'?

Do recall that the separation of church and state was in response to state churches and state religion. It does not refer to freedom from religion in the public square.

Practice nearly whatever you will, however you will, in your home and in your optional place of worship. The government has no jurisdiction in these venues.
 
"You seem not to understand that wishing a thing were true will not actually make that thing true."
I'm seeing nothing but the same in your denials.

Indeed! I am denying that you've made any rational case supporting your asinine claim, and I'm right. Yay!
How about we try this for a change?
How about we leave Christians alone for awhile, and just let them practice their religion in peace?

That's already happening. They're free to practice their religion in peace. Your wish has already come true.
Or is it that the secular left 'religion' is so fearful of anything that is not it, that it needs to promote itself, as well as the government, as the 'new' and only politically correct 'religion'?

Irrelevant to anything I've stated.
Do recall that the separation of church and state was in response to state churches and state religion. It does not refer to freedom from religion in the public square.

I have not claimed otherwise, so spare me the strawman.
Practice nearly whatever you will, however you will, in your home and in your optional place of worship. The government has no jurisdiction in these venues.

OK. We agree. Nice place to end up.
 
Indeed! I am denying that you've made any rational case supporting your asinine claim, and I'm right. Yay!

That's already happening. They're free to practice their religion in peace. Your wish has already come true.

Irrelevant to anything I've stated.

I have not claimed otherwise, so spare me the strawman.

OK. We agree. Nice place to end up.

OK Fair. Seems that the only real place we are disagreeing is about the attacks on Christians from nearly every angle.
This would be factual, so, not so sure about the foundation of your position. :shrug:
 
OK Fair. Seems that the only real place we are disagreeing is about the attacks on Christians from nearly every angle.
This would be factual, so, not so sure about the foundation of your position. :shrug:

Where we actually disagree is that those 'attacks' constitute an attempt by 'the left' to 'destroy' the Christian religion.

The foundation of my position is that there is no credible evidence to support that claim. Full stop.
 
Back
Top Bottom