Supreme Court: Cross Can Stand On Public Land In Separation Of Church And State Case

[SaysWho?]

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/731824045/supreme-court-cross-can-stand-on-public-land-in-separation-of-church-and-state-c

 

Quote

The cross "has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions," the court wrote.

 

"And contrary to respondents' intimations, there is no evidence of discriminatory intent in the selection of the design of the memorial or the decision of a Maryland commission to maintain it. The Religion Clause of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim."

 

Quote

The American Humanist Association challenged the placement of the cross, contending that "there is no meaning to the Latin cross, other than Christianity." A federal appeals court agreed, declaring that its placement violated the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion. The appeals court ruled that the cross should be moved to a private location and funded without taxpayer money.

 

Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling.

 

Based on the bold, does this make it easier for Islamic/Jewish/Satanist/Buddhist/Scientologist/etc. to stand on public lands? I always felt this stuff has to be all or nothing.

 

7-2 ruling, Ginsberg led the dissent and read it from the bench. Sotomayor joined in dissent.

[Jason]

So basically you can violate separation of church and state as long as you get away with it for long enough before getting sued. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The way Christian's whine you'd think the Jacobins were seizing church property.

[Guest]

Is this the case where the memorial was originally built with private money and on private land, and later some municipality took possession of the land or at least the maintenance?

[TwinIon]

San Diego has had a prominent cross go through similar issues for decades, and the supreme court refused to hear the case. In 2015 the case ended when the land under the cross was sold to a private entity.

 

I do now have to wonder if this case means that things like having the 10 commandments on court houses will be allowed. I feel like the legal reasoning here is pretty ambiguous and diverse, and it's unclear how broad this ruling actually is.

[Guest]

My main issue in reading through Alito’s opinion is his contention that old monuments are fine because we can’t know why they were erected, while new ones we would know the why.

 

That is beyond questionable.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Sure the cross can stand there, but may it stand there? 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

I’d be more comfortable with a decision that would let it stand but require that the state sell it to a private entity. (since it was originally built and maintained by a private entity before passing into government hands)

 

 

[Remarkableriots]

How about military graves with crosses or other religious markers on tombstones? Should all of those be removed?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

How about military graves with crosses or other religious markers on tombstones? Should all of those be removed?

Totally different situation as those represent the private religious beliefs of an individual and not the "official" state sanction of a particular religious faith.

[Anathema-]

There's also more than crosses in military graveyards.

[Keyser_Soze]

The rock’d!