Supremes OK Cross on PUBLIC Land!

[Philip]

In a 7-2 decision.

https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117

[RickD]

Who cares what they think? I mean, they were good singers, but unless they're the pope, they have no authority in my life.

[edwardmurphy]

It was a very narrow ruling, though, and it implied that while old, established monuments are likely to get a pass, that shouldn't be taken as a sign that new Christian monuments will be allowed on public land. It's actually not too bad, considering that the GOP packed the SCOTUS with right wing radical activist judges. Remember when they used to complain bitterly about judicial activism? Yeah, that was BS, too. Anyway, I expect that things will get worse.

Personally I agree with Ginsburg's dissent. There's just no way that a gigantic cross towering over an intersection can be taken as anything other than an endorsement of Christianity. This is universally understood, although some folks find it advantageous to pretend otherwise.

Also Ginsberg's dissent proves, yet again, that she's alive.

[PaulSacramento]

Personally I agree with Ginsburg's dissent. There's just no way that a gigantic cross towering over an intersection can be taken as anything other than an endorsement of Christianity

Sure, just as 100,000's of burqua's or hajib's can't be taken as anything other than an endorsement of Islam.

[Philip]

Ed: t was a very narrow ruling, though,

How is a 7-2 ruling "narrow?"

Ed: It's actually not too bad, considering that the GOP packed the SCOTUS with right wing radical activist judges. Remember when they used to complain bitterly about judicial activism? Yeah, that was BS, too. Anyway, I expect that things will get worse.

Ed, this doesn't mean that just because a monument has a religious meaning, the government is endorsing religion. That's just a ridiculous belief. ALLOWING does not mean endorsing!

BTW, Ed, what, would you have the U.S. take down all the crosses in Arlington Cemetery? Or in all the other military cemeteries around the country? Presidents are traditionally sworn in with their hand on a Bible - can't do that either? Fact is, the vast majority of people in this country believe in God - or some higher power. The influence of some symbol is largely irrelevant, as it's what the symbol means to people that's important. Now, has politics not repeatedly pimped out religiosity? Of course - by both parties - but that doesn't mean the government is endorsing any certain spiritual belief.

Government tolerance of religious expressions also means that we will have to likewise tolerate Islamic, Jewish, and whatever symbols on public land. I'm big enough to take that - and so should people so cranked up over a cross on public land!

Sometimes we see the extreme other spectrum of what free expression might require: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... an-prayer/

[edwardmurphy]

How is a 7-2 ruling "narrow?"

The narrowness of the ruling has nothing to do with the vote count. A broad ruling would have said that there's nothing wrong with religious monuments on public land and anybody who wants to can go ahead and buy a cross to put on the roof of their local courthouse. This ruling said that that particular cross could stay because it had historical significance above and beyond its religious significance. In other words, the court said that it would be anti-religious and oppressive for the government to systematically remove every public monument that included religious symbols, but that the court still recognized that there are people in the US who aren't Christians and the government is still secular, so people looking to build new Christian monuments on public property would be wise to reconsider.

See the difference?

Masterpiece Cakeshop is another example of a narrow ruling. The court could have said that Christians have the right to refuse service to anyone whose beliefs or behavior violates their religious sensibilities. Instead SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker on the grounds that the Colorado Commission of Whatever showed anti religious bias in that particular instance. The court didn't make any decisions one way or the other about whether or not Christians have the general right to violate anti discrimination laws.

Ed, this doesn't mean that just because a monument has a religious meaning, the government is endorsing religion. That's just a ridiculous belief. ALLOWING does not mean endorsing!

Sometimes it doesn't. Often is does.

BTW, Ed, what, would you have the U.S. take down all the crosses in Arlington Cemetery? Or in all the other military cemeteries around the country?

Those are graves, Phil. The message there is that the person who died was a proponent of whatever faith or tradition is represented on the cross. There are a lot of options other than crosses, mostly because the families of dead service members sued to make it that way.

Government tolerance of religious expressions also means that we will have to likewise tolerate Islamic, Jewish, and whatever symbols on public land. I'm big enough to take that - and so should people so cranked up over a cross on public land!

Phil, you're a member of the privileged majority. You know perfectly well that if there were a free-for-all to fill public spaces with religious symbols the overwhelming majority of them would be Christian. "Good news, everybody, there's now a Ten Commandments statue in every courthouse in America, and all it cost us was a puny star and crescent moon mural in Dearborn. Ha!"

And please, don't try to tell me that Christians wouldn't be doing their damndest to try and get rid of that statue if it was a depiction of Baphomet rather than a Christian cross. Christians have tried to ban Harry Potter for years. I personally know Christians who insist that there's a war on Christmas and who get offended when people say "Happy Holidays," as if there aren't two Christian holidays in the holiday season. What do you want to bet that it was Christians in the Kenai Peninsula Borough who made the rule that only people who belonged to official organizations with an established presence on the Kenai Peninsula could give an invocation? Have you seen Good Omens on Amazon Prime? It's funny. I watched some of it a couple of days ago. Anyway, yesterday I learned that American Christians are pushing Netflix to drop the show because it offends their religious sensibilities. And so on, and so on, and so on...

Phil, I'd be willing to bet that for every instance of a non-Christian protesting a Christian monument on public land or a Christian businessman's discriminatory behavior there are ten Christians trying to ban a book or movie, pass an exclusionary law, or secure a special privilege.

Sometimes we see the extreme other spectrum of what free expression might require: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... an-prayer/

That's a response to this policy:

She was among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit litigated by the ACLU of Alaska against the borough after it approved a 2016 policy saying that people who wanted to give the invocations at the government body’s meetings had to belong to official organizations with an established presence on the Kenai Peninsula, which lies 75 miles (121 kilometers) south of Anchorage. Other plaintiffs who had been denied permission to give the invocations included an atheist and a Jewish woman.

They had it coming. It's also worth noting that the Satanists (most of whom literally don't believe in Satan) only do this stuff in response to the kinds of unconstitutional Christian overreach described above. If the Christians stopped pushing for special privileges and making exclusionary policies then the Satanists, Pastafarians, atheists, and so forth would stop trolling them.