Supreme Court to decide fate of 'Peace Cross' memorial

[Still_Small_Voice]

A 40-foot concrete and granite cross memorializing fallen World War I soldiers is the subject of a case before the United States Supreme Court, in a fight over whether such a symbol should be allowed to stand on public land.

What's the background?

The Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, was erected in 1925 — completed by The American Legion with private donations — to honor 49 local men who died in the war just a few years before. It was the brainchild of a group of Gold Star mothers in remembrance of their fallen sons.

The words "courage," "devotion, " endurance," and "valor" are inscribed on the sides of the cross, and the names of the 49 men are at its base. According to the Washington Post, all of the soldiers memorialized by the Peace Cross were Christian.

The monument is currently owned and maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission with taxpayer dollars. In 2014, the American Humanist Association filed a complaint against the commission, arguing that the Peace Cross clearly violates the separation between church and state, and should either be "removed, reshaped, or its ownership reassigned."

Read more at:  https://www.theblaze.com/news/supreme-court-peace-cross-memorial

[Still_Small_Voice]

That memorial has been there almost one hundred years in the state of Maryland.  A few people just cannot live and let live anymore it seems.

[Anddenex]

Another sign of the time. This is the result of weak minded individuals who interpret the Constitution for their own benefit. It is pretty pathetic.

[SpiritDragon]

I'll be interested to see how this goes. Perhaps there is an upside that the Supreme Court can uphold something good and honourable.

[prisonchaplain]

SCOTUS' decision will likely effect this monument too:

 

Erasing these monuments is not a matter of upholding separation of church and state, but rather of fostering a historic revisionist lie--the idea that religious faith and liberty had no part in our country's founding and values. If they succeed in destroying our foundation will they be surprised when they cannot rebuild atop the rubble?

[mordorbund]

19 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

In 2014, the American Humanist Association filed a complaint against the commission, arguing that the Peace Cross clearly violates the separation** between church and state, and should either be "removed, reshaped, or its ownership reassigned."

It's a clear violation. I'm sure the Senate chaplain agrees.

** I don't think that means what you think it means.

[Guest Scott]

15 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I'll be interested to see how this goes. Perhaps there is an upside that the Supreme Court can uphold something good and honourable.

That's not what the Supreme Court does though.  The Supreme Court's purpose is not to uphold something good and honorable; it is to hold up something that is Constitutional.  

This is going to be a both interesting and tough case.

Can anyone here prove or attempt to prove why the monument should stay or be removed using only the Constitution as a source?  It's not as easy of a case that it might seem.   

[unixknight]

26 minutes ago, Scott said:

Can anyone here prove or attempt to prove why the monument should stay or be removed using only the Constitution as a source?  It's not as easy of a case that it might seem.   

Sure.

Amendment X of the United States Constitution

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Simply put, the Federal Government has no authority one way or the other.

Nowhere in the Constitution do the words "Separation of church & state" appear.  Therefore the Peace Cross cannot be removed on Constitutional grounds.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, but the presence of the Cross does not impede anyone's rights.  

Now, if a group from a different religion wanted to erect a similar monument and were denied - that would be a violation.  

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

Can anyone here prove or attempt to prove why the monument should stay or be removed using only the Constitution as a source?  It's not as easy of a case that it might seem.   

Easy.  The monument was not erected by the government to honor government.  It was erected by the people to honor people.  The government cannot suppress religious liberty of its people, therefore, it cannot stop a monument referencing the religious participation of the people it honors from getting erected.  At the same time, the Constitution protects the liberty of said people by preventing the destruction of such monument.  People who object to said religion can erect their own monument for their own religious community right next to that monument and the Constitution will defend their right to do so as well.

[unixknight]

Just to provide a little context to the Peace Cross.

It's built in the middle of a traffic circle, near the border with Washington, D.C.  (That isn't evident from the photo in the article, which also makes it look a lot bigger than it is.)  That part of MD could use a little urban renewal.  It's in a relatively low income section and industrial area.  I've driven by it about a thousand times and it really doesn't attract that much attention.  To be honest, I didn't know until now that it was even associated with WWI.

Fun fact:  It's also not far from the location of the house where the real life case the movie "The Exorcist" was based on took place.

[Guest Scott]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's for powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.   Being neutral on religious matter is a requirement granted to the United States from the Constitution. 

[anatess2]

Just now, Scott said:

That's for powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.   Being neutral on religious matter is a requirement granted to the United States from the Constitution. 

That's a weird reading of the US Constitution.  The US Constitution is not required to be neutral on religious matters.  If it was neutral it couldn't PROTECT religious liberty.  Rather, the US Constitution LIMITS government by preventing it from institutionalizing a particular religion.

[Guest Scott]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The monument was not erected by the government to honor government.  It was erected by the people to honor people. 

This is true, but the issue is that it is currently on government land or land supported by taxpayers.   If it weren't, it would be easy and a non-issue.  Since it is, that makes it not so easy.   Otherwise it wouldn't end up in the Supreme Court.  

 

Quote

The government cannot suppress religious liberty of its people, therefore, it cannot stop a monument referencing the religious participation of the people it honors from getting erected.

This would be true of it weren't on land supported by taxpayers.  Can we go erect a statue of Joseph Smith on the White House lawn?

Quote

People who object to said religion can erect their own monument for their own religious community right next to that monument and the Constitution will defend their right to do so as well.

Really?   Do you think that can happen?   If I drive there right now and erect a monument of Russell M Nelson, it wouldn't be removed?  I'm willing to bet that it would.  

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's a weird reading of the US Constitution.  The US Constitution is not required to be neutral on religious matters.  If it was neutral it couldn't PROTECT religious liberty.  Rather, the US Constitution LIMITS government by preventing it from institutionalizing a particular religion.

I phrased it poorly, but the constitution requires to be neutral over favoring one religion (or lack thereof) over another.  

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, Scott said:

This is true, but the issue is that it is currently on government land or land supported by taxpayers.   If it weren't, it would be easy and a non-issue.  Since it is, that makes it not so easy.   Otherwise it wouldn't end up in the Supreme Court. 

Doesn't matter.  It wasn't erected by the government to honor a religion.  The monument getting passed to the jurisdiction of the government doesn't change that.  The issue of whether the government should have taken jurisdiction over the monument with religious symbolism is gone and past.  Taking it down and changing history makes the Government trample on the religious liberty of the people the monument was built for.

There are so many easy things the Supreme Court not only takes, but mangles.  Roe vs Wade is one of them.  Gay Marriage is another one.  The Constitutionality of forcing people to buy insurance is another.  And now we're facing the possibility of a Supreme Court having to hear a stupid case over whether a President has the Constitutional Authority to declare illegal crossings on the southern border a National Emergency.

 

Quote

  This would be true of it weren't on land supported by taxpayers.  Can we go erect a statue of Joseph Smith on the White House lawn?

No.  Joseph Smith has no history that connects him to the White House Lawn.  Now, if he was killed on the White House Lawn, then maybe you can petition to erect one there in his memory.

 

Quote

Really?   Do you think that can happen?   If I drive there right now and erect a monument of Russell M Nelson, it wouldn't be removed?  

I would remove it.  Russell M. Nelson has nothing to do with Maryland, has no historical ties to anything in Maryland, hasn't achieved popular sentiment that would make a monument built in his honor gracing that particular spot in Maryland make any sense.

Now, the Kirtland Temple in Ohio is a Federally recognized National Historic Landmark.  If the RLDS and LDS Churches ever run out of money or get defunct or something... the government can take that landmark under their jurisdiction and provide for its preservation.

Edited February 27, 2019 by anatess2

[carlimac]

47 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Just to provide a little context to the Peace Cross.

It's built in the middle of a traffic circle, near the border with Washington, D.C.  (That isn't evident from the photo in the article, which also makes it look a lot bigger than it is.)  That part of MD could use a little urban renewal.  It's in a relatively low income section and industrial area.  I've driven by it about a thousand times and it really doesn't attract that much attention.  To be honest, I didn't know until now that it was even associated with WWI.

Fun fact:  It's also not far from the location of the house where the real life case the movie "The Exorcist" was based on took place.

I live in MD, too but prob 40 miles away. Where do you live? Just wondering if you're in my stake. 

 

[Guest Scott]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Doesn't matter.  It wasn't erected by the government to honor a religion.  The monument getting passed to the jurisdiction of the government doesn't change that.  The issue of whether the government should have taken jurisdiction over the monument with religious symbolism is gone and past. 

The issue is not gone and past because taxpayer funds are still being used to maintain the site.

Quote

I would remove it.  Russell M. Nelson has nothing to do with Maryland, has no historical ties to anything in Maryland, hasn't achieved popular sentiment that would make a monument built in his honor gracing that particular spot in Maryland make any sense.

Constitutionally, it wouldn't matter if Russell M Nelson had historical ties to the area or if the monument made sense.   

As for me, I'd like to see the monument stay, but it's hard for me to prove that it has to using only the Constitution.  It wouldn't be that easy to prove that it should leave either.  

The best argument I can come with that allows the cross to stay is that the cross in this context is also a secular symbol of death and honor rather than Christianity.  The cross is only to honor the dead and not any religion. I think this is going to be the issue debated in the Supreme Court.  

On maps, including government ones, crosses are used to denote graves and churches.   Our church doesn't use crosses, but maps still use the symbol of a church with a cross to denote locations of LDS churches.   I guess I have never thought about it before, but if someone LDS was really offended, they might say that a government map using a cross to denote churches shows favoritism to (non-LD Christian churches.  I would hope that we would always take the high ground though.  It could also be argued that the map symbol is also used as a secular symbol to denote a church on the map.  
 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott

[unixknight]

11 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I live in MD, too but prob 40 miles away. Where do you live? Just wondering if you're in my stake. 

I live in not carlimac's stake.  (Not too close to the Peace Cross anymore) You?

Edited February 27, 2019 by unixknight
undoxxing myself

[carlimac]

33 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I live in [del].  (Not too close to the Peace Cross anymore) You?

Not in your stake. Due to all the things I've posted about our SP I prefer not to name the stake.  

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Not in your stake. Due to all the things I've posted about our SP I prefer not to name the stake.  

Fair enough, though I wish I'd known that before revealing my location.  I could have told you in PM.

[carlimac]

27 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Fair enough, though I wish I'd known that before revealing my location.  I could have told you in PM.

Oops, sorry. 

[Guest Scott]

Here's question that I don't have an answer to.  

Let's hypothetically say that because the monument is maintained by taxpayer funds and on land paid for by taxpayers, the Supreme Court sided with those opposing the monument.  I don't there is any where in the Constitution that says taxpayer funds must be used to remove the monument.

Relating this to a work experience I had, here's what happened in that case:

We were building a new bridge over the Colorado River south of Kremmling Colorado (a tiny town surrounded by mountains).   The old bridge was built in the early 1930's and was considered historic and had some unique traits and looks.    It would have been nice to keep the historic bridge next to the other one, but the DOT decided not to because they couldn't or wouldn't accept the cost and liability for maintaining the old bridge.  The State Historical Society objected.    The DOT then agreed that if the State Historical Society was willing to have the bridge signed over to them, including all maintenance and liability, then the DOT would save the bridge.   The State Historical Society wasn't willing to do this, so it was torn down.

Along these same lines, if the Supreme Court did rule in favor of removing the monument, could they force the government agency who maintains the land of the site to be the ones to pay for the removal, also using taxpayer funds?  From a legal standpoint, I don't know either way.   There are also State laws in Maryland protecting historic structures.  

More then likely, if the Supreme Court really did favor on the side of those who want the cross moved, I don't know if they can designate who has to pay for the removal in this case.   If the current agency maintaining the site refused to pay for the removal, even while agreeing that it could be removed under the State Supreme Court decision, who would pay for the removal assuming the current maintainers were not willing to?   The Supreme Court only makes the decision of whether or not the cross can be paid for and maintained on property paid for with taxpayer funds.    They don't (as far as I know) designate who has to pay for the removal.   Even if the Supreme Court did favor those who opposed the cross, there still could potentially be other legal battles over removing the cross.  

Thoughts? 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, Scott said:

The issue is not gone and past because taxpayer funds are still being used to maintain the site.

Taxpayers funding the preservation of American history - which includes religious history - is not unconstitutional.

 

41 minutes ago, Scott said:

Constitutionally, it wouldn't matter if Russell M Nelson had historical ties to the area or if the monument made sense.   

 
As for me, I'd like to see the monument stay, but it's hard for me to prove that it has to using only the Constitution.  It wouldn't be that easy to prove that it should leave either.  

Yes, it would definitely matter.  The federal or state government doesn't take into its jurisdiction just ANY monument erected.  It has to have state or national significance.

 

41 minutes ago, Scott said:

 
The best argument I can come with that allows the cross to stay is that the cross in this context is also a secular symbol of death and honor rather than Christianity.  The cross is only to honor the dead and not any religion. I think this is going to be the issue debated in the Supreme Court.  

On maps, including government ones, crosses are used to denote graves and churches.   Our church doesn't use crosses, but maps still use the symbol of a church with a cross to denote locations of LDS churches.   I guess I have never thought about it before, but if someone LDS was really offended, they might say that a government map using a cross to denote churches shows favoritism to (non-LD Christian churches.  I would hope that we would always take the high ground though.  It could also be argued that the map symbol is also used as a secular symbol to denote a church on the map.  
 

Again - 

Taxpayers funding the preservation of American history - which includes religious history - is not unconstitutional.

And I'm going to once again give the example... The Kirtland Temple is a National Historical Landmark and could possibly end up under the care and jurisdiction of either the State of Ohio or the US Government.  This wouldn't be unconstitutional because of the historical significance of Mormon history on the American societal fabric.

 

 

 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's question that I don't have an answer to.  

Let's hypothetically say that because the monument is maintained by taxpayer funds and on land paid for by taxpayers, the Supreme Court sided with those opposing the monument.

If the Supreme Court's reasoning for siding with the destruction of the monument is the First Amendment, then the Supreme Court is, once again, legislating off the bench.

[Guest Scott]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Taxpayers funding the preservation of American history - which includes religious history - is not unconstitutional.

It can still be unconstitutional if it can be proven in the courts that it favors one religion over another, even if historical.  In this case though, it seems that it can be successfully be argued that the cross was erected to honor the fallen and not their religion.   This is what it's going to come down to in the Supreme Court.  My guess is that those who want the monument removed will lose this battle along the grounds you are referring to, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a battle.

You and I both want the cross to stay.  Just because I said that it might not be that easy to prove that it should stay using only the Constitution doesn't mean that I want to see it gone.  

Anyway, if this site weren't historical, there would be less grounds in keeping the cross.   If someone wanted to erect a monument right now on the same lands, it is unlikely that it would stay (this is where you and seem to disagree, but that's really a side issue).  

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And I'm going to once again give the example... The Kirtland Temple is a National Historical Landmark and could possibly end up under the care and jurisdiction of either the State of Ohio or the US Government.  This wouldn't be unconstitutional because of the historical significance of Mormon history on the American societal fabric.

I was going to bring this up too, using a different example.  Martins Cove is not that far from where I just moved from and I was going to use that as an example.  It is currently on Federal Land and taxpayer funds are used to maintain it.

Anyway your example above is along the same lines .  It could be argued that preserving the Kirtland Temple using taxpayer funds is done with the intention of preserving a historical site, not a religious one.  National Park Lands (Kirtland Temple is not on this, but..) for example, often preserve religious sites for historical preservation purposes under the Antiquities Act.  There are a lot of religious, but historical sites protected on those lands.    That's a different land designation and act though.   The National Forest protects religious sites that are historical.   The chapel on Mount of the Holy Cross, which isn't that far away from where I live is another example.

The Peace Cross is on the National Register of Historic Places, but they don't have the same protections and designation (a landowner can still tear down a building or object on the National Register of Historic Places).

Anyway, I'm going to guess that those opposing the cross are going to lose this one.   The cross is there to honor the fallen and not the religion.  I'm pretty sure that those opposing the cross are more interested in making a statement and testing the courts than expecting a huge win.

There is no way that it will be ruled that no religious symbols at all can be present on taxpayer funded properties.   Imagine, if for example, it was said that all the crosses and other religious symbols had to be removed from all of the graves at Arlington National Cemetery:

 

To me, this would be the best example that could be used in the case of the Peace Cross.   The cross is there to honor the fallen, not their religion, even if it has a religious symbol such as at Arlington.   It could also be argued that in the case of the Peace Cross, a cross is often used as a secular symbol to mark graves (such as on maps) rather than always being religious. 

Now if a big cross were erected today on taxpayer funded properties and the cross was there to honor Christianity, that would be completely different.