Supreme Court rules giant cross to veterans on public land is not gov't endorsement of religion

[Polybius]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by PunkinPi (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: NBC News

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a huge concrete cross can stay on public land in suburban Washington, D.C., rejecting a claim that its presence is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The court, reversing a lower court, said such monuments are essentially historic, not religious, a ruling that potentially extended protection to hundreds of similar tributes nationwide.

The decision was a victory for defenders of the Peace Cross, a 40-foot-tall structure that has stood for more than 90 years in Bladensburg, Maryland. It was built with private funds to honor 49 servicemen from the region who died in World War I. A state parks commission took it over in 1961 to provide for its maintenance, and it now sits in the middle of a busy traffic interchange.

The court rejected a challenge from the American Humanist Association, which filed a lawsuit claiming that the presence of the cross on public land was an endorsement of a single religious faith.


Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-huge-cross-remain-public-land-n1014661

[moreland01]

1. If a cross isn't a symbol of religion . .

what is? Are the 10 commandments just "historic"? Is the bible "historic" and not a symbol of religion? Good grief!

[tymorial]

5. It's a symbol but the government isn't affirming, endorsing or encouraging belief

That's the gist

[Freethinker65]

2. Is there an example of an originally publicly funded non-Christian religious symbol in the US

... in the US similarly maintained and protected with taxpayer money?

[tymorial]

3. Because these articles dont always list justices opinions

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 20, 2019. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

For the full text:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/the-american-legion-v-american-humanist-association/

[PunkinPi]

4. Locking...

This is a duplicate of https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142331123.

Please continue discussion there. Thanks.