The ACLJ is seeking donations and signatures for their petition from any so inclined.

[pic of the memorial in linked article]


Supreme Court to Rule on the Bladensburg Peace Cross WWI Memorial

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will decide whether a war memorial cross is constitutional under the First Amendment.

As explained in more detail here, the Bladensburg Peace Cross was funded and erected nearly a century ago by the American Legion and others to commemorate the lives of local servicemen who made the ultimate sacrifice in World War I. The cross, along with other monuments in the vicinity that memorialize other armed conflicts, has long been a location for Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day ceremonies, as well as other civic gatherings.

In 2014, several generations after the Peace Cross was first installed, the American Humanist Association (“AHA”) and a group of individuals filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the monument. One of those plaintiffs, who passes by the cross when running errands in the area, is “personally offended” by the cross and “feels excluded” by the message he thinks it conveys.

After losing in the district court, where Judge Chasanow correctly ruled that the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the AHA the victory it was seeking. The Fourth Circuit held that, because a “reasonable observer would fairly understand the Cross to have the primary effect of endorsing religion,” the monument was unconstitutional and had to be dismantled. It ordered the district court to consider whether the arms of the cross should be “remov[ed]” or the cross entirely “raz[ed],” or other “arrangements [could be made] that would not offend the Constitution.”

Contrary to the plainly erroneous decision of the Fourth Circuit, a longstanding war memorial does not “offend the Constitution” by virtue of it being in the shape of a Latin cross, a common and well-known symbol of sacrifice, honor, and respect. What truly offends the Constitution in this case is not the Bladensburg Peace Cross, but the decision of the Fourth Circuit striking it down.

Indeed, the purpose behind the Establishment Clause was not to create “a wall of separation between church and state.” (As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals once noted, “this extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.”) The very same Congress (specifically, the First Congress) that approved the language of the Establishment Clause also provided for the appointment of chaplains in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. In fact, on the very same day that it approved the Establishment Clause, the First Congress also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

The Establishment Clause was originally adopted—as the very word “establish” obviously suggests—to prohibit the government from establishing a religion as the official religion of the country. Using a cross to honor the lives of 49 World War I soldiers from the local community is hardly tantamount to establishing Christianity as the official religion of Prince George’s County, Maryland. The kind of religious establishment prohibited by the First Amendment entails (among other things) coercing individuals to support or participate in religious practices—or punishing them for failing to do so. The Peace Cross clearly does nothing of the sort.

While Supreme Court decisions over the decades have expanded the Establishment Clause beyond its original meaning, creating a jurisprudence that Justice Thomas recently said is in “disarray,” the Court has nonetheless repeatedly acknowledged that “religion has been closely identified with our history and government,” “[o]ur history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance,” “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,” and “[t]he history of man is inseparable from the history of religion.”

Recently, and in keeping with a correct and historically-based understanding of the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court held that local governmental bodies may begin legislative sessions with religious invocations, including sectarian ones. If legislative prayer, even a sectarian one, is constitutionally permissible because it “expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society,” then it stands to reason that a publicly displayed symbol, even a sectarian one (in the eyes of some people) can be used for the same or a similar purpose.

While crosses have obvious sectarian symbolism in some contexts (such as in a cathedral), the message of the Peace Cross is not one of religious evangelization or proselytization. The message of that particular cross is, quite simply, to honor those soldiers from Prince George’s County who perished in the Great War, recognizing their valor, endurance, courage, and devotion (four words written in stone at the base of the cross).

As Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion involving another World War I cross (a decision nowhere mentioned by the Fourth Circuit!):

a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. . . . It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.

In deciding whether the Peace Cross can continue to stand in Bladensburg, Maryland, the Supreme Court will also decide the fate of similar monuments, markers, and statues throughout the country, such as the memorial war crosses found in Arlington National Cemetery. The Court must put an end to the anti-religious heckler’s veto, where one offended individual can use litigation to tear down a beloved monument not to his liking or that is hurtful to his feelings. The Establishment Clause was not intended to be weaponized in this fashion.

We will keep you posted as this critical case moves forward in the Court—from briefing, to oral arguments, to a final decision by the end of June 2019. The ACLJ will be proud to submit an amicus brief in support of those defending the Peace Cross before the Court. (Our previous amicus brief in support of the cross can be found here.) It is the least we can do to honor those fallen heroes that the Peace Cross commemorates.

As Veterans Day and the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended WWI is just days away, join us in honoring the heroes that this cross represents and add your name to our brief through our Committee to Defend the Cross and Honor Heroes below.

[picture of Memorial, a Medal of Honor recipient, and others commemorated, at the linked article]

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial
November 2, 2018

(Left to Right: Medal of Honor recipient and Marine listed on the Bladensburg World War I Veterans
Memorial, Captain Henry Lewis Hulbert; the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial; African-
American soldier, Private John Henry Seaburn, Jr., honored by the Bladensburg World War I Memorial.
Photo may be used with credit to, “First Liberty Institute” or “FirstLiberty.org”)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it has accepted the appeal of The American Legion et al. v. American Humanist Association et al. The American Legion, represented by First Liberty Institute and the international law firm Jones Day, is asking the Justices to reverse a lower court decision that could lead to the bulldozing of the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

“There are some who want to erase the memory of the service and sacrifice of these 49 fallen servicemen of Prince George’s County,” said Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty. “If this monument is bulldozed to the ground, it’s only a matter of time before the wrecking ball turns on Arlington National Cemetery and the thousands of memorials like this one across the country.”

Michael Carvin, lead counsel for The American Legion, partner at Jones Day and First Liberty network attorney, said, “For nearly 100 years the memorial has stood to honor these 49 sons of Prince George’s County who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The Supreme Court should not allow their memory to be bulldozed.”

The Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial is a cross-shaped memorial erected in 1925 by local Gold-Star mothers and a local post of The American Legion to honor 49 Prince George’s County men who gave their lives while serving in WWI. The Gold-Star mothers who designed the memorial in 1919 chose a cross shape to recall the cross-shaped grave markers standing over the countless American graves on the Western Front of that war. One mother referred to the memorial as her son’s “grave stone.”

In 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled the memorial was constitutional, citing the use of crosses to mark the graves of fallen American servicemen overseas. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, declaring the cross shape of the memorial violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To learn more, visit DontTearMeDown.com.

Reporters: The proper reference to our clients is with the article, it’s part of the proper noun: “The American Legion” and, the correct style of the case is, “The American Legion v. American Humanist Association” not “American Legion…”

quote:

One of those plaintiffs, who passes by the cross when running errands in the area, is “personally offended” by the cross and “feels excluded” by the message he thinks it conveys.

This person’s feelings are personally offensive to me and I demand that he or she be razed to the ground.

There. All fixed.

I'm Jewish. It would be nice to see a Star of David too, if there are Jewish soldiers buried there, but the cross does not offend me.

How about spending some time and effort on things that will really make a difference, like all the money that flows into religious coffers, tax-free, no matter what it's being used for?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I'm Jewish. It would be nice to see a Star of David too, if there are Jewish soldiers buried there, but the cross does not offend me.

How about spending some time and effort on things that will really make a difference, like all the money that flows into religious coffers, tax-free, no matter what it's being used for?

I expect 99.99% of the members here would have no objection to a Star of David being erected along side a cross in any cemetery containing both Christian and Jewish veterans.

As an aside -- the largest Jewish military cemetery in the world (located outside of Israel) is in Richmond, VA. It contains the remains of Jews who fought for the CSA. Yes, they were American patriots!

This sort of thing disgusts me.

Fuck you if you're offended by a war memorial. The very idea means you don't honor the lives lost.

Usually when something offends someone, you ignore it. Why does this person just take a different route when running errands ? God Bless

I suspect this Supreme Court will have no problem finding that the memorial doesn't not run afoul of the establishment clause.

In fact, it probably doesn't even take a fairly conservative court. Only the rabid lefties would think this was a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
This sort of thing disgusts me.

Fuck you if you're offended by a war memorial. The very idea means you don't honor the lives lost.

Same here. And I do not understand why stars of David are not allowed, not to mention that it offends me!

In a word, or 3, if you do not like to see a public monument, then EITHER DO NOT GO THERE, OR LOOK THE FUCK AWAY!

Fucking spoiled little children who throw tantrums until they get what they want. and I have the solution to that.

When our daughter was about 3 years old, she decided to throw a tantrum when her mom decided it was time to go back to quarters. When mom got daughter back home, daughter got her little ass beat. Solved that problem, once and for all.

I have a solution, lets do a go fund me and raise the money to move the monument to ground at the front of the cemetery on private property, we'll buy enough land to install it, in the same area, on the same path that little miss offended travels so she'll still have to see that cross every day and have no recourse.

Heck for that matter lets just buy the land currently under the cross from the feds and make it a private war memorial add some flags, bright lights for illumination at night maybe some loud speakers to play taps and reveille daily.

quote:

Originally posted by pillboxesghost:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I'm Jewish. It would be nice to see a Star of David too, if there are Jewish soldiers buried there, but the cross does not offend me.

How about spending some time and effort on things that will really make a difference, like all the money that flows into religious coffers, tax-free, no matter what it's being used for?

I expect 99.99% of the members here would have no objection to a Star of David being erected along side a cross in any cemetery containing both Christian and Jewish veterans.

As an aside -- the largest Jewish military cemetery in the world (located outside of Israel) is in Richmond, VA. It contains the remains of Jews who fought for the CSA. Yes, they were American patriots!

right across the street from Shockoe Hill
Cemetery,

lots of Rev War and 1812 vets buried in both

He feels "excluded?" Lets put up a statue of an asshole, that should include his entire lineage.

so I guess every cemetery he passes offends him?

have not passed on yet (and RVA has a bunch of them) that did not have a cross visible somewhere on the property from the road,

Homeslice should be thankful that this is the worst thing they got to deal with. They saw some religious imagery somewhere? Fuck my ass, that's the worst thing I've ever heard of! Tell them starving African kids their planeload of rice is on hold, we gotta deal with this disaster!

For real, guy? What a soft puss.

Should this suit succeed, then look for the ultimate challenge against the military concerning the award of the various Armed Services decorations (Distinguished Service Cross-Army, the Navy Cross, the Air Force Cross, and the Coast Guard Cross). Even though those awards were never associated with religion, they were influenced by similar awards of Allied nations during the First World War which did have religious connotations.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
This sort of thing disgusts me.

Fuck you if you're offended by a war memorial. The very idea means you don't honor the lives lost.

This +1

Have they fixed the intentional "loophole" in which the government reimburses the ACLU for legal fees for suing the government?

It's been a few years, but I was appalled when I learned that the ACLU was reimbursed legal fees for suing a California city that was originally a mission so it had a cross in its city seal representing the city's history. At the time, the ACLU was being reimbursed nationwide whether it won in court or if it was settled out of court. In other words, taxpayer money was being used to eradicate any symbol of Christianity.

I just cruised the American Humanists Assoc. website. All the social justice agendas are clearly present. And of course they want you to donate money (even roll over your IRA) to them.
And therein lies the problem: People donating to these bullshit causes and organizations that tear down our foundations.
Don't go away offended, AHA, just go away.

How is something paid for and erected by a non-government entity (the American Legion is private, correct?) any of someone else's business?

quote:

Originally posted by AllenInWV:
How is something paid for and erected by a non-government entity (the American Legion is private, correct?) any of someone else's business?

Just to add a little context to this story, I first learned about it a few days ago while listening to a radio interview with one of the ACLJ lawyers defending the cross. The Bladensburg Cross was originally built on American Legion property but years later, as the population and urban sprawl increased, the government used Eminent Domain to seize the land.

As a side note, many years ago I lived and worked in the area. Although I tried to avoid the area where the cross memorial is because of the traffic, congestion, and generally run-downed conditions and crime in the area, the times that I did see the cross it always bothered me to see how the urban growth had been allowed to encroach so closely to it. Streets, street lights, traffic lights, phone lines/ power lines, businesses (I think there was a pawn store and gas station nearby)...I'm not opposed to growth, it's inevitable...but when a local population feels the need to expand into it's own memorials and cemetaries I question what value they place on the people, service, and efforts of those who came before them and their need to expand. It says something very bad about a people who would desecrate or diminsh their ancestor's memorials.

As out of place as the Bladensburg Cross WW I memorial has become, when viewed from it's nearby surroundings, I always took comfort in what it stood for.