{"id":28920,"date":"2019-06-23T06:35:04","date_gmt":"2019-06-23T10:35:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=28920"},"modified":"2019-06-23T06:35:04","modified_gmt":"2019-06-23T10:35:04","slug":"supreme-court-rules-to-protect-monuments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=28920","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court rules to protect monuments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. For the last 50+ years, atheists have been doing their level best to suppress religion in the United States, sadly with a great deal of success. They have been using the constitutional provisions against creating a state religion, (See Church of England or Islam), to remove any and all references to religion from public life.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This has included going after war memorials that were built in the shape of a cross. One such monument, known as the \u201cPeace Cross\u201d was built after World War One as a memorial to Americans killed in that war. A law suit was filed to force the government to tear down the cross. Last week, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, told them to go pound sand. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court<\/a> ruled Thursday that a Peace Cross<\/a> war memorial on public land outside Washington, D.C., can stand, determining in a 7-2 decision that it does not violate the Constitution. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Residents of Prince George\u2019s County, Maryland and the American Humanist Association (AHA) had sued to have the cross taken down, and the American Legion, whose symbol is also on the memorial, intervened to defend it. While the residents and AHA claimed that a cross memorial on public land violated the Constitution, the Court determined that factors, including the history of the memorial, support the idea that it is not religious in nature.<\/b><\/p>\n

Now here\u2019s where a it gets a bit interesting. The Peace Cross was not built with government funds on government land. The money was raised privately and the land was privately owned. However, in 1961 the memorial was turned over to Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, thereby becoming public property.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community\u2019s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought,\u201d Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court\u2019s opinion. Alito noted that while this particular cross does not serve a religious purpose, removing it because it is a cross would be a religiously charged action. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cIt 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 \u2018a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions,\u2019\u201d he wrote, quoting Justice Breyer\u2019s concurrence in the 2005 decision in Van Orden v. Perry. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This wasn\u2019t a 5-4 decision, there were only two dissenting justices. Who were the two justices? Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor of course. Bader-Ginsburg, who really hates the American Constitution, (and has said as much, preferring the South African Constitution), wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cJust as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion, where she was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The dissent claimed that by having the Peace Cross on a public highway, the government “elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.” <\/b><\/p>\n