Christian crosses on public land — happily grandfathering bigotry into the Constitution

21 June 2019

Today's gist

The Supreme Court's 7 to 2 majority evidently couldn't find or read the Constitution's intent in a well-lighted, tiny closet with a metaphorical Highest Archangel's flaming arrows pointing toward it.

Take a look at this Christian cross — on the American state of Maryland's public property

Click here.

After seeing that photograph (of the giant cross)

Read the Court's reason for leaving it there — in obvious violation of the Constitution's policy intent:

The cross "has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions."

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion for the court.

"And contrary to respondents' intimations, there is no evidence of discriminatory intent in the selection of the design of the memorial or the decision of a Maryland commission to maintain it.

"The Religion Clause of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim."

That airy rationalization, of course . . .

. . . is why we are allowing this giant cross to dominate a landscape — where no other religion's symbols are present.

Ergo

The more insightful (dissenting) Justice Ginsberg's counter-reasoning:

"Decades ago," Ginsburg wrote, "this Court recognized that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution demands governmental neutrality among religious faiths, and between religion and nonreligion. ... Numerous times since, the Court has reaffirmed the Constitution's commitment to neutrality.

"Today the Court erodes that neutrality commitment, diminishing precedent designed to preserve individual liberty and civic harmony in favor of a 'presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.'"

She adds,

"The Latin cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the 'central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.' ...

"Precisely because the cross symbolizes these sectarian beliefs, it is a common marker for the graves of Christian soldiers. For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized."

Yippee, skippy

So, who would not want a tiny panel of (usually):

conceited

plutocrat-supporting

democracy-and-minority hating people,

who (obviously) cannot read or intelligently interpret —

and for whom,

objectivity of any kind is anathema . . .

. . . determining the fate of 330 million mostly struggling, polyglotted people?

Oh Lordy, happy days.

Sure . . .

As a constitution-interpreting attorney myself, I could easily make the argument that the majority delivered.

But that's not the point.

The point is Ginsberg's. When you continue grandfathering every bigoted remnant from the past into the present, you obviate all of the Constitution's minority and freedom-protecting ideals.

This partly accounts for the United States' infatuation with imprisoning, killing, and maltreating African-Americans and all other manner of brown and red people.

After all — "That's how we used'ta do it, praise the Lord."

Not to mention complacently continuing women's status as the lesser gender.

The moral? — Is the American Constitution useful for more than just behind-wiping?

Let us all us gather round that (oh-so-fine) Maryland cross and pray.

No "Allah" murmuring, please.

PeteFree.com

Christian crosses on public land — happily grandfathering bigotry into the Constitution