https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land
The Cross can stand, 7-2.
Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.
Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.
A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored. In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause. If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC. The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol. That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.
Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.
I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.
What’s the “ sort”you want.?
Your density knows no bounds.
Barton wrote: "I have to wonder if (Alito's) going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol. That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy."
I wrote: "I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort."
You wrote: "What’s the “ sort”you want.?" (sic)
The sort I want is the sort that Barton described, which I said I would love.
Caught up, yet?
No. Since you( nor Barton) have posed any Constitutional question.
Dolt.
You haven't used an English language sentence. We didn't pose a question, per se, but we did pose a situation. You just don't seem to be able to grasp what it was.
That’s because you have yet to pose one.
You can run, but you cannot hide.
You can lie and you can obfuscate, but you cannot be honest.
"I have to wonder if (Alito's) going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol. That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy."
There it is, Ward. Here, I will spell it out for you.
What if the same question that came up for the giant cross on public land came up, instead, for a monument of similar vintage and intent, but instead of its being a cross, it held a moon and star in the way commonly associated with Islam? How would Justice Alito handle it?
It is as much a constitutional question as the cross was, but with a less certain chance of a 7-2 result.
Posed. Reposed. Re-reposed.
You still have no meaningful answer but to pretend that somehow that is not a constitutional issue whereas the cross was.
Poll
5 (45.5%)