Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Baxter wrong, even liberal WaPo = Peace Cross ruling = constitutional common sense
11 views
Skip to first unread message
a425couple
Jun 22, 2019, 11:57:29 AM6/22/19
to
from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-victory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.45138af62061
The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
The "Peace Cross" stands at a busy intersection in Bladensburg. (Michael
Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board June 20
BY A resounding vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that
the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Peace Cross may continue to stand on a
patch of public property in Prince George’s County. The decision was a
victory for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission,
which acquired the land in question from the nongovernmental American
Legion decades ago; for the state of Maryland; and for a majority of
other states, which supported the commission and its fellow litigant,
the American Legion.
Above all, the decision was a victory for constitutional common sense.
Rejecting the purist brand of secularism advanced by the cross’s
opponents, led by the American Humanist Association, the majority —
which included conservative Republican appointees, as well as two
Democratic appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — interpreted
the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishment flexibly. To
them, it requires not the purging of religious symbolism from the
American landscape but careful, contextual consideration of the many
such installations that are already in place.
Written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority opinion
acknowledged that the Latin cross, of which the Peace Cross is an
example, undeniably symbolizes the Christian faith. Still, at the time
it was erected — in the aftermath of World War I — that symbol also had
acquired an arguably more universal and secular meaning, derived from
the ubiquitous crosses that marked temporary U.S. soldiers’ graves in
Europe. This history, coupled with the fact that the Peace Cross has
stood so long — long enough, in fact, for its original meaning to become
subject to modern reinterpretation — created a strong presumption
against viewing it as a strictly religious installation, much less an
unconstitutionally religious one. Meanwhile, the court also declined to
adopt the radical views expressed in concurring opinions by Justice
Clarence Thomas, who argued that the establishment clause does not apply
to the states at all, or Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who would deprive
people offended by publicly subsidized religious displays of standing to
file suit.
This important ruling did not quite overturn the court’s modern doctrine
on the establishment clause, created in 1971, which has —
unsuccessfully, for the most part — attempted to evaluate public
policies based on their secular purpose, or lack thereof; whether they
advanced or inhibited religion; and whether they created an “excessive
government entanglement with religion.” The ruling did, however, reshape
the law, advancing an approach similar to the one Mr. Breyer has long
advocated, which acknowledges “there is no single formula,” as he noted
in a concurring opinion Thursday, and that the court should evaluate
challenged policies based on whether they fit “the basic purposes” of
the First Amendment.
Those purposes, as Mr. Breyer, joined by Ms. Kagan, also noted, are: to
reduce religious-based conflict; to assure liberty and tolerance for
believers and nonbelievers alike; and to avoid corrupting either
government or religion by inappropriate overlap between the two. It’s a
rough-and-ready doctrine, to be sure. Among many questions it does not
settle is what to do about the pending case of a cross that has been the
focal point of religious observances in a Pensacola, Fla., park since
1941, or a possible future one if a new cross is erected on public land.
Purists may not be satisfied with what the court has just done.
Pragmatists — which is to say, most Americans — probably will be.
128 Comments
Read These Comments new
That thing only represents Christians. Saying that it somehow doesn’t
represent Christianity is ludicrous. It should not be on public land.
Period.
14 hours ago
This is what Ill-informed intolerance looks like. The cross was
erected by a Christian community for their fellow slain Christians in
the Great War. It was set up on private land which was donated to the
state of Maryland with the promise of safekeeping.
Not today will you get to erase that history.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-victory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.45138af62061
The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
The "Peace Cross" stands at a busy intersection in Bladensburg. (Michael
Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board June 20
BY A resounding vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that
the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Peace Cross may continue to stand on a
patch of public property in Prince George’s County. The decision was a
victory for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission,
which acquired the land in question from the nongovernmental American
Legion decades ago; for the state of Maryland; and for a majority of
other states, which supported the commission and its fellow litigant,
the American Legion.
Above all, the decision was a victory for constitutional common sense.
Rejecting the purist brand of secularism advanced by the cross’s
opponents, led by the American Humanist Association, the majority —
which included conservative Republican appointees, as well as two
Democratic appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — interpreted
the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishment flexibly. To
them, it requires not the purging of religious symbolism from the
American landscape but careful, contextual consideration of the many
such installations that are already in place.
Written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority opinion
acknowledged that the Latin cross, of which the Peace Cross is an
example, undeniably symbolizes the Christian faith. Still, at the time
it was erected — in the aftermath of World War I — that symbol also had
acquired an arguably more universal and secular meaning, derived from
the ubiquitous crosses that marked temporary U.S. soldiers’ graves in
Europe. This history, coupled with the fact that the Peace Cross has
stood so long — long enough, in fact, for its original meaning to become
subject to modern reinterpretation — created a strong presumption
against viewing it as a strictly religious installation, much less an
unconstitutionally religious one. Meanwhile, the court also declined to
adopt the radical views expressed in concurring opinions by Justice
Clarence Thomas, who argued that the establishment clause does not apply
to the states at all, or Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who would deprive
people offended by publicly subsidized religious displays of standing to
file suit.
This important ruling did not quite overturn the court’s modern doctrine
on the establishment clause, created in 1971, which has —
unsuccessfully, for the most part — attempted to evaluate public
policies based on their secular purpose, or lack thereof; whether they
advanced or inhibited religion; and whether they created an “excessive
government entanglement with religion.” The ruling did, however, reshape
the law, advancing an approach similar to the one Mr. Breyer has long
advocated, which acknowledges “there is no single formula,” as he noted
in a concurring opinion Thursday, and that the court should evaluate
challenged policies based on whether they fit “the basic purposes” of
the First Amendment.
Those purposes, as Mr. Breyer, joined by Ms. Kagan, also noted, are: to
reduce religious-based conflict; to assure liberty and tolerance for
believers and nonbelievers alike; and to avoid corrupting either
government or religion by inappropriate overlap between the two. It’s a
rough-and-ready doctrine, to be sure. Among many questions it does not
settle is what to do about the pending case of a cross that has been the
focal point of religious observances in a Pensacola, Fla., park since
1941, or a possible future one if a new cross is erected on public land.
Purists may not be satisfied with what the court has just done.
Pragmatists — which is to say, most Americans — probably will be.
128 Comments
Read These Comments new
That thing only represents Christians. Saying that it somehow doesn’t
represent Christianity is ludicrous. It should not be on public land.
Period.
14 hours ago
This is what Ill-informed intolerance looks like. The cross was
erected by a Christian community for their fellow slain Christians in
the Great War. It was set up on private land which was donated to the
state of Maryland with the promise of safekeeping.
Not today will you get to erase that history.
Baxter
Jun 22, 2019, 11:38:46 PM6/22/19
to
a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:qelj3...@news1.newsguy.com:
> from
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-vic
> tory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a
this country a theocracy.
news:qelj3...@news1.newsguy.com:
> from
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-vic
> tory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a
> -a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.45138af62061
>
> The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
>
No, it's a victory for those who want to overthrow precidence and to make
>
> The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
>
this country a theocracy.
a425couple
Jun 24, 2019, 12:01:21 PM6/24/19
to
The SCOTUS decision was 7-2.
Even SCOTUS judges like Kagan (named by POTUS Obama)
and Breyer (named by POTUS Clinton) agreed.
Those two are considered liberal.
Both of them are listed as having the Jewish religion.
Why would 2 that believe in Judaism try to join
Roman Catholics and a Episcopalian in making this
country a "theocracy" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Protestant_justices
BT
Jun 24, 2019, 3:28:45 PM6/24/19
to
Bax-Tart said:
> No, it's a victory for those who want to overthrow precidence and to make
> this country a theocracy.
BT says:
> No, it's a victory for those who want to overthrow precidence and to make
> this country a theocracy.
Well, no. Far from it, in fact.
This was just a slap-down of overly aggressive people who try to over-use
Jefferson's "separation of church and state" comment to completely wipe away any trace of Christianity (and less so other religions) from being seen or heard anywhere.
Just because a government (local, state, national) takes over a piece of
property such as this cemetery doesn't mean that it needs to erase any
religious symbol, phrase, etc. This cross is truly oversized and can be seen (oh my !) by motorists on the nearby highway, but that really doesn't matter. Most or probably all of the WWI soldiers from that town who were killed in that war were Christians of some type (quite a normal tally then),
so that's why it's there, and why it's a cross.
Quit exaggerating the meaning of this decision. It was simply telling you and other lame-brains to relax and find something else to do.
B. T.
BT
Jun 24, 2019, 3:30:40 PM6/24/19
to
a425 said:
> Even SCOTUS judges like Kagan (named by POTUS Obama)
> and Breyer (named by POTUS Clinton) agreed.
> Those two are considered liberal.
Well, no. They are lefties / progressives (so-called). Liberals
> Even SCOTUS judges like Kagan (named by POTUS Obama)
> and Breyer (named by POTUS Clinton) agreed.
> Those two are considered liberal.
they are not no matter how much theleft wants to call themselves
liberals. There is very little liberalism in leftism.
B. T.
Baxter
Jun 24, 2019, 7:59:59 PM6/24/19
to
a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:qeqs4...@news2.newsguy.com:
> On 6/22/2019 8:38 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:qelj3...@news1.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> from
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-v
>>> ic
>>> tory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b5
>>> 8a -a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.45138af62061
>>>
>>> The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
>>>
>> No, it's a victory for those who want to overthrow precidence and to
>> make this country a theocracy.
>>
>
> More proof of left wing Baxter being deranged.
> The SCOTUS decision was 7-2.
>
> Even SCOTUS judges like Kagan (named by POTUS Obama)
> and Breyer (named by POTUS Clinton) agreed.
> Those two are considered liberal.
> Both of them are listed as having the Jewish religion.
> Why would 2 that believe in Judaism try to join
> Roman Catholics and a Episcopalian in making this
> country a "theocracy" ?
>
------------
Finally, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor)
wrote an impassioned old-fashioned separationist dissent. Two thousand
years of history have not wiped away the Christian symbolism of the
cross, she wrote, and the majority’s suggestion that 95 years have done
that to the Bladensburg cross is spurious. “An exclusively Christian
symbol, the Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith,” she wrote.
Quoting an earlier dissent by retired Justice John Paul Stevens, she
added, “‘Making a … Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross
secular,’ it ‘makes the war memorial sectarian.’”
https://is.gd/InB1HG
----------
One would expect to find a Christian cross — the pre-eminent symbol of
Christianity — on government property in a Christian theocracy, not in a
country that was first among nations to separate religion from
government.
The decision was fractured into seven separate opinions, concurrences and
dissents over 87 pages, ...
Using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular
symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized,” the dissent
states. “By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the
[Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning] Commission elevates
Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”
Ginsburg persuasively lays out how such public crosses alienate a large
and fast-growing segment of the U.S. population.
https://is.gd/bUu42l
news:qeqs4...@news2.newsguy.com:
> On 6/22/2019 8:38 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:qelj3...@news1.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> from
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-v
>>> ic
>>> tory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b5
>>> 8a -a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.45138af62061
>>>
>>> The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
>>>
>> No, it's a victory for those who want to overthrow precidence and to
>> make this country a theocracy.
>>
>
> More proof of left wing Baxter being deranged.
> The SCOTUS decision was 7-2.
>
> Even SCOTUS judges like Kagan (named by POTUS Obama)
> and Breyer (named by POTUS Clinton) agreed.
> Those two are considered liberal.
> Both of them are listed as having the Jewish religion.
> Why would 2 that believe in Judaism try to join
> Roman Catholics and a Episcopalian in making this
> country a "theocracy" ?
>
Finally, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor)
wrote an impassioned old-fashioned separationist dissent. Two thousand
years of history have not wiped away the Christian symbolism of the
cross, she wrote, and the majority’s suggestion that 95 years have done
that to the Bladensburg cross is spurious. “An exclusively Christian
symbol, the Latin cross is not emblematic of any other faith,” she wrote.
Quoting an earlier dissent by retired Justice John Paul Stevens, she
added, “‘Making a … Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross
secular,’ it ‘makes the war memorial sectarian.’”
https://is.gd/InB1HG
----------
One would expect to find a Christian cross — the pre-eminent symbol of
Christianity — on government property in a Christian theocracy, not in a
country that was first among nations to separate religion from
government.
The decision was fractured into seven separate opinions, concurrences and
dissents over 87 pages, ...
Using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular
symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized,” the dissent
states. “By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the
[Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning] Commission elevates
Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”
Ginsburg persuasively lays out how such public crosses alienate a large
and fast-growing segment of the U.S. population.
https://is.gd/bUu42l
BT
Jun 24, 2019, 11:24:23 PM6/24/19
to
Baxter, quoting the Wicked Witch of the West, wrote:
> “Making a … Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross
> secular,. . .[it] makes the war memorial sectarian.”
BT says:
The memorial was for locals who were killed in the war and apparently
all were Christian to some extent, which was common then. Maybe one
wasn't, but that wouldn't change much. Just because the government
takes control of the cemetery doesn't mean that they get to blow up
these things.
One thing is certain - if the government took possession of a cemetery
that had a gigantic Islamic symbol dominating a nearby highway, people
like Baxter would not want it touched.
Leftwingers are "tough" when it comes to Christianity, pounding their
chests to show how tough they are removing Christian symbols and references, etc. But that's because they can. They are afraid to do the same
with Islam because they know they'll get murdered. That makes them afraid
of Muslims. That makes them the real Islamophobes. That makes them cowards, too.
B. T.
> “Making a … Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross
> secular,. . .[it] makes the war memorial sectarian.”
BT says:
The memorial was for locals who were killed in the war and apparently
all were Christian to some extent, which was common then. Maybe one
wasn't, but that wouldn't change much. Just because the government
takes control of the cemetery doesn't mean that they get to blow up
these things.
One thing is certain - if the government took possession of a cemetery
that had a gigantic Islamic symbol dominating a nearby highway, people
like Baxter would not want it touched.
Leftwingers are "tough" when it comes to Christianity, pounding their
chests to show how tough they are removing Christian symbols and references, etc. But that's because they can. They are afraid to do the same
with Islam because they know they'll get murdered. That makes them afraid
of Muslims. That makes them the real Islamophobes. That makes them cowards, too.
B. T.
Baxter
Jun 25, 2019, 10:52:31 AM6/25/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:84fe1c70-0128-42bd...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter, quoting the Wicked Witch of the West, wrote:
>
You lose any argument you might have had.
news:84fe1c70-0128-42bd...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter, quoting the Wicked Witch of the West, wrote:
>
Al Czervik
Jun 28, 2019, 9:03:28 AM6/28/19
to
On 6/22/2019 8:38 PM, Baxter wrote:
your right to be an asshole. Just imagine how unhappy you'd be living in
Corpus Christi, St. Louis or Los Angeles?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Baxter
Jun 28, 2019, 11:12:27 AM6/28/19
to
Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qf536v$uf$1...@dont-email.me:
They didn't die for a Christian symbol.
news:qf536v$uf$1...@dont-email.me:
BT
Jun 28, 2019, 12:18:49 PM6/28/19
to
Baxter put the cork back in and wrote:
> They didn't die for a Christian symbol.
BT says:
> They didn't die for a Christian symbol.
True, but their Christianity was a large and important part of their lives,
and headstones (more then than now) usually reflect someone's religious
background, and or family ("Husband of...", "Son of...", etc.)
That's why it stays, even if it is an in-your-face size.
It won't be a sign of a free society to see government agents with sledgehammers wrecking all kinds of things.
And like I said, if the government took possession of a small cemetery with a huge Muslim symbol for a dozen or so ear dead buried there, the Left would
not touch it, and would in fact make sure it gets cleaned more often than
any other.
So shut up.
You Village Idiot
B. T.
Baxter
Jun 28, 2019, 10:59:47 PM6/28/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bcca3ce2-eb1c-4800...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter put the cork back in and wrote:
>
>> They didn't die for a Christian symbol.
>
>
> BT says:
>
> True,
And that's the entire point.
news:bcca3ce2-eb1c-4800...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter put the cork back in and wrote:
>
>> They didn't die for a Christian symbol.
>
>
> BT says:
>
> True,
BT
Jun 29, 2019, 12:55:43 AM6/29/19
to
Baxter said:
> And that's the entire point.
BT says:
> And that's the entire point.
It's hardly a point at all in the entire picture. The US government owns
LOTS of cemetery land with LOTS of Crosses, and gravestones with crosses,
Jewish symbols, even Muslim symbols. We don't chip them off just because
there are aggressive Christian haters demanding this (they won't do this with Islam), and the symbols are not tolerated because they are small compared to
this large cross in Maryland.
B. T.
Baxter
Jun 29, 2019, 10:23:04 AM6/29/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:53530817-4118-4277...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter said:
>
>> And that's the entire point.
>
>
> BT says:
>
> It's hardly a point at all in the entire picture. The US government
> owns LOTS of cemetery land with LOTS of Crosses, and gravestones with
> crosses, Jewish symbols, even Muslim symbols.
And those relate to the individual grave and to the individual person - not
an in-your-face monument to a particular religion -- a monument on par with
those monuments to slavery and treason.
news:53530817-4118-4277...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter said:
>
>> And that's the entire point.
>
>
> BT says:
>
> It's hardly a point at all in the entire picture. The US government
> owns LOTS of cemetery land with LOTS of Crosses, and gravestones with
> crosses, Jewish symbols, even Muslim symbols.
an in-your-face monument to a particular religion -- a monument on par with
those monuments to slavery and treason.
BT
Jun 29, 2019, 3:09:17 PM6/29/19
to
Baxter said:
> And those relate to the individual grave and to the individual person
BT says:
> And those relate to the individual grave and to the individual person
It was to a group of them, and when that was the only religion
of almost everyone. So what.
Baxter said:
> - not an in-your-face monument to a particular religion -- a
> monument on par with those monuments to slavery and treason.
Now you're just being an asshole (i.e. being yourself).
I can't be bothered with this.
B. T.
0 new messages