WW1 memorial cross can stay on public land, SCOTUS rules

[Alvecia]

You're calling an orange an apple on the basis they're both roughly spherical.

Because clearly, defacing a monument paying respects to fallen soldiers because you dont like that it is the same shape as a christian symbol is a better option than simply associating the symbol with the KIA symbol.

If you're this upset and offended by it, why not just advocate the erection of a star of david monument, and a crescent monument as well? Why do we have to destroy the original monument?

Alvecia suggested hacking the monument apart to make it an Obelisk.

I pointed out it was one of the possibilities suggested. The preferred solution was relocation.

This is a rather bad question, so I'll answer it with another question: why should we remove or replace a century-old war memorial just because some people are pissy that it's a cross?

"History and tradition aren’t good reasons to let something illegal slide."

Alternate solutions are to move it to private property, or shear off the sides to make it more of your typical obelisk memorial. The former being the most desired I would bet.

The former being the most desired I would bet.

The former being the most desired

[Ifreann]

If you're this upset and offended by it, why not just advocate the erection of a star of david monument, and a crescent monument as well?

There are more than three religions.

[Highever]

Because clearly, defacing a monument paying respects to fallen soldiers because you dont like that it is the same shape as a christian symbol is a better option than simply associating the symbol with the KIA symbol.

If you're this upset and offended by it, why not just advocate the erection of a star of david monument, and a crescent monument as well? Why do we have to destroy the original monument?

I pointed out it was one of the possibilities suggested. The preferred solution was relocation.

The former being the most desired I would bet.

The former being the most desired

Still not seeing why a war monument should be moved. Definetly not seeing how this is in any way a major issue to begin with either. Still seeing leaving a monument to fallen soldiers alone as the actual most desired solution.

[Alvecia]

Still not seeing why a war monument should be moved. Definetly not seeing how this is in any way a major issue to begin with either. Still seeing leaving a monument to fallen soldiers alone as the actual most desired solution.

The severity of the issue is rather irrelevant. We, collectively, have the capacity to tackle issues of all sorts of severities simultaneously. In fact we're rather good at it.
The why I've already explained to you

Or we could....not move or deface a war memorial simply because some people are pissy about its shape.

Or we could, because it misrepresents, or unrepresents, the people it allegedly memorialises.

[Vetalia]

"History and tradition aren’t good reasons to let something illegal slide."

I think that line of reasoning is a lot more troublesome than allowing the monument to stand...who determines what is "legal" or "illegal" and on what grounds? Allowing the state to willfully destroy items of significant historical or cultural value based on arbitrary legal positions is a terrible idea.

[Alvecia]

"History and tradition aren’t good reasons to let something illegal slide."

I think that line of reasoning is a lot more troublesome than allowing the monument to stand...who determines what is "legal" or "illegal" and on what grounds? Allowing the state to willfully destroy items of significant historical or cultural value based on arbitrary legal positions is a terrible idea.

That's a good point, and actually a criticism of this ruling.

The Judges decided that this monument could stay almost solely on the fact that it has been there for a long time.
However they haven't yet given any guidelines for this new criteria.

To quote the article I linked earlier, in light if this ruling:

We don’t know when a religious monument suddenly becomes historical and immune to Establishment Clause challenges.

Gorsuch doesn’t understand it either.

How old must a monument, symbol, or practice be to qualify for this new presumption? It seems 94 years is enough, but what about the Star of David monument erected in South Carolina in 2001 to commemorate victims of the Holocaust, or the cross that marines in California placed in 2004 to honor their comrades who fell during the War on Terror? And where exactly in the Constitution does this presumption come from?

[Loben The 2nd]

What disrespectful cunts ask for it to be removed?

[Gagium]

What disrespectful cunts ask for it to be removed?

Does that really need to be asked?

[Loben The 2nd]

What disrespectful cunts ask for it to be removed?

Does that really need to be asked?

Atheists?

[Alvecia]

Does that really need to be asked?

Atheists?

We’re coming for your Christian exceptionalism. WoooOOOoooOOOooo.
Watch out, or we’ll eat your babies too!

[Vetalia]

I think that line of reasoning is a lot more troublesome than allowing the monument to stand...who determines what is "legal" or "illegal" and on what grounds? Allowing the state to willfully destroy items of significant historical or cultural value based on arbitrary legal positions is a terrible idea.

That's a good point, and actually a criticism of this ruling.

The Judges decided that this monument could stay almost solely on the fact that it has been there for a long time.
However they haven't yet given any guidelines for this new criteria.

To quote the article I linked earlier, in light if this ruling:

We don’t know when a religious monument suddenly becomes historical and immune to Establishment Clause challenges.

Gorsuch doesn’t understand it either.

That's a very good question; I think it's best to err on the side of prudence in these matters to preserve items of potential historical significance rather than risk losing them.

I just don't see what the problem is with these things. A Star of David or a Cross erected for purposes of commemorating the deceased isn't exactly on the same level as establishing a state-sponsored church or teaching religious education in public schools.

[Fartsniffage]

What disrespectful cunts ask for it to be removed?

In the last few years the Manchester Cenotaph was moved so a tram intersection could be built. There is nothing inherently disrespectful about moving war monuments.

[Beggnig]

The Cross Wins!

[Gagium]

Does that really need to be asked?

Atheists?

Nah, rather the usuals. Y'know, I won't say people of a certain political party or leaning or anything, but..

[Salandriagado]

Nothing in law is all that permanent, really.

Usually when the Supreme court rules on something that makes it rather hard to rule again for some time. Hence all the ineffective attempts by states to go around Row versus Wade.

So again, put up a Star of David memorial instead of hacking apart an old monument because some dont like that it's in a specific shape.

Symbols have more than one meaning and a cross is commonly used for military decoration and memorial.

Again like I pointed it out, it also looks like the symbol for killed in action, which is a downward facing sword that looks like a cross.

An easy solution would be to publicly acknowledge that is what the symbol of the statue represents.

Yes it might offend a few Christians to say that but it'd still be correct to state it's a downward facing sword.

You could even go full on Cross of Sacrifice, and attach a physical sword to it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Here's a quote from an essay from the international encyclopedia of the First World War that explains why the cross in this context is not necessarily a religious symbol:

The wartime American context presents myriad challenges to this schema. First, a dizzying array of traditions, sub-traditions, and sub-sub-traditions creates such a range of beliefs and practices to consider as “religion” that the territory marked out as purely secular all but vanishes. Second, many wartime behaviors that it makes sense to at least consider as “religious” (embodied demonstrations of ultimate allegiance to the nation, for instance) are only loosely related to the major religious traditions, falling instead into the realm of civil religion or religious nationalism. Finally, men and women from the top to the bottom of American society forged and perpetuated discourses that explicitly blended the religious and the martial, finding in war moments of revelation, expressions of religious belief, and the working out of salvation.

Any attempt to take the measure of the role of religion in the American war experience must do more than follow chaplains and Bible-toting soldiers from Fort Dix to the Meuse-Argonne. American Christians blended American and Christian myth, symbols, and history as they blended sacred and secular work, rhetoric, and ideas. This mixing was evident from the very top of the American chain of command down to the most junior enlisted personnel, from revivalist clergy in the United States to Episcopal ministers in Paris.

[Alvecia]

That's a good point, and actually a criticism of this ruling.

The Judges decided that this monument could stay almost solely on the fact that it has been there for a long time.
However they haven't yet given any guidelines for this new criteria.

To quote the article I linked earlier, in light if this ruling:

That's a very good question; I think it's best to err on the side of prudence in these matters to preserve items of potential historical significance rather than risk losing them.

I just don't see what the problem is with these things. A Star of David or a Cross erected for purposes of commemorating the deceased isn't exactly on the same level as establishing a state-sponsored church or teaching religious education in public schools.

The severity isn’t really relevant.
It should be noted that the main suggestion was just to move it, so it’s not like it’s going to get demolished.
Arguably moving it away from that busy intersection it’s on would do a better job of preserving it. Only take one drunk driver to pole into the side of it.

[Hanafuridake]

If someone is mad that a cross merely exists on public land, then it's pretty clear they're hostile to Christianity as a whole and don't just support separation of Church and State.

[Fartsniffage]

If someone is mad that a cross merely exists on public land, then it's pretty clear they're hostile to Christianity as a whole and don't just support separation of Church and State.

Tell you what. If you want government money spent on maintaining religious symbols on public ground/buildings then the government gets to tax churches to help with the costs. Deal?

[Hanafuridake]

If someone is mad that a cross merely exists on public land, then it's pretty clear they're hostile to Christianity as a whole and don't just support separation of Church and State.

Tell you what. If you want government money spent on maintaining religious symbols on public ground/buildings then the government gets to tax churches to help with the costs. Deal?

How much money is being spent maintaining this cross?

[Fartsniffage]

Tell you what. If you want government money spent on maintaining religious symbols on public ground/buildings then the government gets to tax churches to help with the costs. Deal?

How much money is being spent maintaining this cross?

Does it matter? Deal or no?

[Hanafuridake]

How much money is being spent maintaining this cross?

Does it matter? Deal or no?

It quite obviously does when you were the one who brought it up, much more than your one-sided conversation which assumes my religion and country.

[Vetalia]

The severity isn’t really relevant.
It should be noted that the main suggestion was just to move it, so it’s not like it’s going to get demolished.
Arguably moving it away from that busy intersection it’s on would do a better job of preserving it. Only take one drunk driver to pole into the side of it.

Severity is relevant, though, when interpreting the language of the First Amendment and making a decision that will form precedent in a common law system. Erring on the side of being overly aggressive could cause serious damage to this country's historical landmarks and even go in the opposite direction where the country's government is not solely secular but actively antireligious.

I would agree that moving it would make sense for the reasons you described but this isn't the motivation behind the desire to move the monument. I really just don't get why anyone would raise a fuss about this nor do I see how it in any way constitutes endorsement of a religion. It's a monument put up by the mothers of sons killed in WWI as a way of commemorating their loss, not a religious shrine or church.

[Alvecia]

Here's a quote from an essay from the international encyclopedia of the First World War that explains why the cross in this context is not necessarily a religious symbol:

The wartime American context presents myriad challenges to this schema. First, a dizzying array of traditions, sub-traditions, and sub-sub-traditions creates such a range of beliefs and practices to consider as “religion” that the territory marked out as purely secular all but vanishes. Second, many wartime behaviors that it makes sense to at least consider as “religious” (embodied demonstrations of ultimate allegiance to the nation, for instance) are only loosely related to the major religious traditions, falling instead into the realm of civil religion or religious nationalism. Finally, men and women from the top to the bottom of American society forged and perpetuated discourses that explicitly blended the religious and the martial, finding in war moments of revelation, expressions of religious belief, and the working out of salvation.

Any attempt to take the measure of the role of religion in the American war experience must do more than follow chaplains and Bible-toting soldiers from Fort Dix to the Meuse-Argonne. American Christians blended American and Christian myth, symbols, and history as they blended sacred and secular work, rhetoric, and ideas. This mixing was evident from the very top of the American chain of command down to the most junior enlisted personnel, from revivalist clergy in the United States to Episcopal ministers in Paris.

The ruling of the court was that while this cross is explicitly a religious symbol, basically, it's an old one, so it gets to stay.

[Fartsniffage]

Does it matter? Deal or no?

It quite obviously does when you were the one who brought it up, much more than your one-sided conversation which assumes my religion and country.

We're talking about a cross in America here. Your country and religion is irrelevant.