Supreme Court to decide fate of 'Peace Cross' memorial


Still_Small_Voice
 Share

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Scott said:

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 can't prove something that doesn't exist.

 

59 minutes ago, Scott said:

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.   

I don't care one way or the other if a cross stays.  I care that a monument stays in its full historical context.  It just happens to be a historical monument with a cross.  If it had the Star of David or the Eye of Isis, it doesn't change my position.

 

59 minutes ago, Scott said:


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). 

The disagreement is more on what constitutes a monument to be registered as a National Landmark (designated for preservation) rather than any monument getting erected by anybody.  You seem to think you can just erect a random monument for random reasons in random places and expect the government to preserve it as a national landmark (or take it down as the case may be).

 

59 minutes ago, Scott said:


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). 

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).

The issue is Constitutional under the establishment clause on a nationally recognized landmark and not just whether you can take it down for any other reason.  Sure, if a landmark is on the critical spot of a... say oil pipeline... then whether you can take it down or not becomes complicated business.  But taking it down under the establishment clause?  Holds no water... because there is nothing about that landmark that constitutes a government establishing a religion.

 

59 minutes ago, Scott said:

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. 

You and I agree on this one.

 

59 minutes ago, Scott said:

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:

 Image result for 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.    

That's what I said.

 

59 minutes ago, Scott said:

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.  

That's not what would make it different.... For example... a big cross built tomorrow honoring Christianity from a historical perspective:  "Herein lies the remains of the only known American descendant of a Knight Templar who defended Christianity, leading to the formation of X religion in the Americas" would not be unConstitutional.  What would be unConstitutional is... "Herein is a Cross in the halls of Congress as a reminder that all laws legislated must conform to the Laws of Jesus.".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The disagreement is more on what constitutes a monument to be registered as a National Landmark (designated for preservation) rather than any monument getting erected by anybody.  You seem to think you can just erect a random monument for random reasons in random places and expect the government to preserve it as a national landmark (or take it down as the case may be).

No, I don't think that.   I was referring to your previous statement:

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.

I disagree that it would fly if they did this.  

Quote

That's what I said.

And we agree.   I agree that the cross is there to honor the fallen and not the religion.   I am merely stating the issues that are going to come up in the court decision.   I am not on the side of the people that want the cross removed, I am merely showing the issues that they are going to present.  I think they will lose, but I also think that this will be a battle.

I think that the only way that favoritism could really be proven were if it could be proven that those who were killed who were not Christian were excluded from the monument or didn't get a separate monument.  If that happened, it really would be unconstitutional. 

Quote

 I care that a monument stays in its full historical context.  It just happens to be a historical monument with a cross.  If it had the Star of David or the Eye of Isis, it doesn't change my position.

I agree with you.  

Quote

That's not what would make it different.... For example... a big cross built tomorrow honoring Christianity from a historical perspective:  "Herein lies the remains of the only known American descendant of a Knight Templar who defended Christianity, leading to the formation of X religion in the Americas" would not be unConstitutional.  What would be unConstitutional is... "Herein is a Cross in the halls of Congress as a reminder that all laws legislated must conform to the Laws of Jesus.".

 

I mostly agree with you, but if paid for by taxpayer money on property paid for by taxpayer money, in my opinion at least, the historical cross used by the descendant of a Knight Templar should be the shape of the monument, if a cross was going to be the chosen shape of the monument.

Anyway, on the same topic, what do you think of the The Commandments Monuments at courthouses?   In my opinion, the Peace Cross is really just a minor issue since those opposed to it are most likely going to lose, even there is a battle.   The Ten Commandment Monuments are a much bigger issue in my opinion.   In that case, I really can see the side of those who oppose them.   Another issue is the requirement of swearing on the Bible in some courtrooms.  Those two (swearing on the Bible and the Ten Commandments) seem more "real issues" than the Peace Cross.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, I don't think that.   I was referring to your previous statement:

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.

I disagree that it would fly if they did this.  

They absolutely can.  All they have to do is buy up property, put up a monument.  Done.

 

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

And we agree.   I agree that the cross is there to honor the fallen and not the religion.   I am merely stating the issues that are going to come up in the court decision.   I am not on the side of the people that want the cross removed, I am merely showing the issues that they are going to present.  I think they will lose, but I also think that this will be a battle.

The fact that you think this will be a battle is a sad tale of the state of the US Constitution in these United States.  

 

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

I mostly agree with you, but if paid for by taxpayer money on property paid for by taxpayer money, in my opinion at least, the historical cross used by the descendant of a Knight Templar should be the shape of the monument, if a cross was going to be the chosen shape of the monument.

Sure thing.  But it's a cross.  A Christian one.

 

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Anyway, on the same topic, what do you think of the The Commandments Monuments at courthouses?   In my opinion, the Peace Cross is really just a minor issue since those opposed to it are most likely going to lose, even there is a battle.   The Ten Commandment Monuments are a much bigger issue in my opinion.   In that case, I really can see the side of those who oppose them.   

There's several of them.  The one I am familiar with is the Arkansas one that was rammed by a car the day it was erected.  That 10 Commandments Monument do not belong there and should not have been approved for erection.  But the guy ramming the thing with his car is still guilty of defacing public property.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

They absolutely can.  All they have to do is buy up property, put up a monument.  Done.

Agreed, but the monument in question is on public property and maintained by tax money.   It wouldn't fly if they tried to built it there.   This is a side issue though and I assume that you don't disagree anyway.  

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There's several of them.  The one I am familiar with is the Arkansas one that was rammed by a car the day it was erected.  That 10 Commandments Monument do not belong there and should not have been approved for erection.  But the guy ramming the thing with his car is still guilty of defacing public property.

It sounds like we agree on this above.  I was just curious as to what you thought.

Anyway, it sounds like we mostly agree with most of this thread. 

I still think it could be a battle though.  Even if this particular decision is decided quickly, there will be more.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of note, I seriously doubt that most non-religious or non-Christians object to the Peace Cross.  I don't know what the percentage of people who are offended or object to the monument is, but I'm willing that is is very small, even among atheist and non-Christians.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Scott said:

Agreed, but the monument in question is on public property and maintained by tax money.   It wouldn't fly if they tried to built it there.   This is a side issue though and I assume that you don't disagree anyway.  

Not sure what you're getting at here.  The monument in question can stay where it's at.  Those who are offended by it can build their own monument to face it.  All they need to do is buy property and build their own monument. 

This is nothing new, of course.  The Charging Bull was not taken down (that would have been an easier legal battle than the Peace Cross due to the history of the Charging Bull's presence in NYC) and instead, the Fearless Girl was put infront of it effectively changing its visceral meaning.

 

24 minutes ago, Scott said:

It sounds like we agree on this above.  I was just curious as to what you thought.

Anyway, it sounds like we mostly agree with most of this thread. 

I still think it could be a battle though.  Even if this particular decision is decided quickly, there will be more.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of note, I seriously doubt that most non-religious or non-Christians object to the Peace Cross.  I don't know what the percentage of people who are offended or object to the monument is, but I'm willing that is is very small, even among atheist and non-Christians.  

Well, one of the reasons Trump was elected President was to change the composition of the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Not sure what you're getting at here.  The monument in question can stay where it's at.  Those who are offended by it can build their own monument to face it.  All they need to do is buy property and build their own monument. 

I don't think that's a good argument from a constitutional standpoint.   Those opposed to the monument could claim the same thing.   in fact, they are claiming that the cross should be moved somewhere else on bought property, rather than that supported by tax payers.

Quote

Well, one of the reasons Trump was elected President was to change the composition of the courts.

Maybe so, but I don't see that as a good thing.  I'm not talking about Trump specifically though.  The political parties and presidents (not just Trump) are turning the Supreme Court Judges into politicians with robes.  There should be no such thing as a conservative or liberal judge.

The Constitution does say that Supreme Court Judges are to be nominated by the president.  The original intent of this though, was that the judges were to be chosen on merit and not political alignment or beliefs.

Again, this isn't a knock against Trump.  Hillary would have done the same thing.  So have and will a lot of presidents.    That's not the original Constitutional intent though.  The three branches of government are supposed to check and balance each other and the judicial branch should to be used for partisan advantage.  

That's one of the reasons I don't like the two party system.   

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scott said:

I don't think that's a good argument from a constitutional standpoint.   Those opposed to the monument could claim the same thing.   in fact, they are claiming that the cross should be moved somewhere else on bought property, rather than that supported by tax payers.

That's not the same thing.  There's a big difference between you doing something versus you forcing me to do something using the police power of government.

 

13 hours ago, Scott said:

Maybe so, but I don't see that as a good thing.  I'm not talking about Trump specifically though.  The political parties and presidents (not just Trump) are turning the Supreme Court Judges into politicians with robes.  There should be no such thing as a conservative or liberal judge.

The Constitution does say that Supreme Court Judges are to be nominated by the president.  The original intent of this though, was that the judges were to be chosen on merit and not political alignment or beliefs.

Again, this isn't a knock against Trump.  Hillary would have done the same thing.  So have and will a lot of presidents.    That's not the original Constitutional intent though.  The three branches of government are supposed to check and balance each other and the judicial branch should to be used for partisan advantage.  

That's one of the reasons I don't like the two party system.   

I agree with you 99%... except judges are supposed to be conservative.  Conservative means strictly abiding by the established traditions and law of the land (in the USA that would mean being a strict originist-Constitutionalist).  Being liberal means to put individual liberty over the law of the land (in the USA that would mean changing the law or superceding existing law with new law).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with these discussions, in general, is the notion that somehow the 1st Amendment means "The Government shall do absolutely nothing whatsoever that can even be remotely construed as supporting anything religious."  This is based on a certain interpretation of the phrase "separation of Church and State."  

The intent behind the 1st Amendment is to protect religious freedom by preventing the Government from establishing a religion (or none at all) which would then have power over other religions.  People squawk when any Government institution spends money on items of religion as if that were the same thing.  Paying a Chaplain in Congress isn't establishing a religion.  Supporting a landmark or art that is religious in nature isn't establishing a religion.  Holding prayer at public events isn't establishing religion...

IF

One belief system isn't favored over others.  So the Peace Cross isn't a violation provided that a Peace Star of David or a Peace Crescent Moon aren't being denied on the grounds that they aren't Christian.  This is why military chaplains have to represent a variety of different systems, no matter what their personal religion is.  

Every single piece of artwork, every single monument, every single memorial represents some sort of belief, whether religious or not.  That's by definition.  If you're going to put up a statue of a person it's because you believe in what they stood for.  (On the flipside, wanting to rip down statues because of what they stand for is also an example of this.)  The very fact that only overtly religious monuments are under attack on Constitutional grounds is an inversion of the entire point.  I don't agree that Civil War statues in the South should be torn down, but at least the motives are understandable and clear.  In trying to rigidly enforce notions of "separating church and state," religious history, belief and the representation of religious people is actually being sanitized away, and that's the opposite of the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2019 at 5:31 AM, Scott said:

Can we go erect a statue of Joseph Smith on the White House lawn?

Yes

Brigham Young is a marble statue by Mahonri Young representing the Mormon religious leader of the same name, installed in the United States Capitol, in Washington D.C., as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_(Mahonri_Young_statue)

 

Young.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the statue of a pagan goddess below receives quite a bit of tax payer funded support. 

Statue of Liberty 7.jpg

The Statue of Liberty is a figure of Libertas, a robed Roman liberty goddess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

Until just now, I'd always thought that the Statue of Liberty was a tribute to the pagan goddess of fire torches and spiky crowns given the prominence of those two items in the statue. I guess its all in the eyes of the beholder and a matter of subjective interpretation - kind of like peace crosses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

I'm surprised Breyer and Kagan came around.

Breyer has gotten more moderate as he has aged, and Kagan, while no conservative, has always had an independent streak, especially on religious issues. I think they both sided with the baker in the recent supreme court case too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Breyer has gotten more moderate as he has aged, and Kagan, while no conservative, has always had an independent streak, especially on religious issues. I think they both sided with the baker in the recent supreme court case too. 

Good point. Sometimes it's too easy to paint people into their respective corners and forget that most people are not 100% Liberal or Conservative and that moderates do exist.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Good point. Sometimes it's too easy to paint people into their respectice corners and forget that most people are not 100% Liberal or Conservative and that moderates do exist.

Exactly.

Because we are so tribal and divided in this country, we label people immediately. It makes it easier to insult them. It's hard to make fun of those idiot liberals or those cruel conservatives without the political label. You'd just come across as nasty, mean and brutish. 

Like virtually all political junkies know, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were extremely close friends. They didn't agree on much. Can you imagine them insulting one another like people do on online forums? Of course not. Even if their dissenting opinions got tart, I highly doubt they acted that way face to face. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Like virtually all political junkies know, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were extremely close friends. They didn't agree on much. Can you imagine them insulting one another like people do on online forums? Of course not. Even if their dissenting opinions got tart, I highly doubt they acted that way face to face. 

I doubt many have the experiences that forged that temperament in each of them.  They both spent their formative years of their careers in an era when judges simply did not insult or show emotion.  They both were highly educated in real forensic debate, logic, law, and legal argumentation.

Ginsburg said that whatever the disagreement, she appreciated the manner in which he expressed his opinions.  And his disagreements were so thoughtful and well thought out that it grew her ability to provide a better argument for her own opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Good point. Sometimes it's too easy to paint people into their respective corners and forget that most people are not 100% Liberal or Conservative and that moderates do exist.

This really bugs me.  Even Trump uses this rhetoric and it irritates the heck out of me.  There is no difference between Liberal or Conservative judges - whether Liberal or Conservative it still indicates that Judges judge by political rhetoric instead of CONSTITUTIONAL MERIT.

Scalia ws not a "Conservative" Judge.  He was a conservative (small c) judge - meaning that he is a originalist constitutionalist - CONSERVING the merits of the US Constitution against individual liberty REGARDLESS of what the Conservative political affiliates say on the matter.  Not all Conservatives - big C to indicate political partisanship - are constitutionalists.  

There should be no Liberal, Conservative, nor Moderates to quality for SCOTUS.  There should ONLY BE constitutionalists.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 hours ago, Mores said:

I doubt many have the experiences that forged that temperament in each of them.  They both spent their formative years of their careers in an era when judges simply did not insult or show emotion.  They both were highly educated in real forensic debate, logic, law, and legal argumentation.

Ginsburg said that whatever the disagreement, she appreciated the manner in which he expressed his opinions.  And his disagreements were so thoughtful and well thought out that it grew her ability to provide a better argument for her own opinions.

They also both made the time to get to know one another, which helps greatly when there is a political difference. After all, one of their traditions was to spend New Years Eve together. 

When you really take the time to get to know someone it makes it much harder to dismiss them as a liberal, a conservative, a jerk, stupid,  a snowflake, a bleeding heart, heartless, :: insert your favorite political insult here:: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This really bugs me.  Even Trump uses this rhetoric and it irritates the heck out of me.  There is no difference between Liberal or Conservative judges - whether Liberal or Conservative it still indicates that Judges judge by political rhetoric instead of CONSTITUTIONAL MERIT.

Scalia ws not a "Conservative" Judge.  He was a conservative (small c) judge - meaning that he is a originalist constitutionalist - CONSERVING the merits of the US Constitution against individual liberty REGARDLESS of what the Conservative political affiliates say on the matter.  Not all Conservatives - big C to indicate political partisanship - are constitutionalists.  

There should be no Liberal, Conservative, nor Moderates to quality for SCOTUS.  There should ONLY BE constitutionalists.

 

Agreed 100%. I truly wish all Justices no matter who nominated them would fall into this category. It's the only way to preserve the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share