A WW1 monument stood for almost 100 years, and now, it may be destroyed

[Johnboy60]

A 40-foot Latin cross-shaped monument in Maryland, built nearly a century ago to honor soldiers who died during World War I, has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, CNN reported


A WW1 monument stood for almost 100 years, and now, it may be destroyed

 

[USincognito]

Destroyed? Or removed?

edit - checking the source of the article, I can see why they have the clickbait headline.
Rare (website) - Wikipedia

 

[Tallguy88]

Very sad. Militant secularism strikes again. It apparently wasn't even built on public land or with public money. It seems it was privately funded and the land later became public land.

 

[USincognito]

Let's look at some of the details in the CNN article.

>> The court's decision does not address whether the monument should be removed or modified. <<

Nothing in the decision about it even being removed, much less "destroyed".

>> Kelly Shackelford, the president and CEO of First Liberty. <<

Kelly Shackelford? Oh brother! Let the histrionics begin...

>> "If this is the precedent, all (war memorials) are in jeopardy," Shackelford told CNN. "The kind of sandblasting and bulldozing we're talking about would be breathtaking to most Americans." <<

He's been screeching this emotional "bulldozing" garbage for over a decade now. I remember him first using that language during a 10 Commandments monument case.

>> In the majority opinion, Thacker and Wynn wrote that the parties are "free to explore alternative arrangements that would not offend the Constitution," such as removing the arms of the cross to create an obelisk.

Niose also suggested that the cross be moved to private property. <<

And here we have both the majority judges and the plaintiffs attorney suggesting ways to of preserving the monument while disentangling state and church, but nooooo, that's not good enough for the dominionists.

 

[drjean]

This is the goal of Islam, to remove / destroy ALL "idols" from the earth and they will use anyone for their cause. Anyone who doesn't believe muslims are behind this need to talk to ex-muslims!

 

[comana]

This is the goal of Islam, to remove / destroy ALL "idols" from the earth and they will use anyone for their cause. Anyone who doesn't believe muslims are behind this need to talk to ex-muslims!

There is nothing in the article even suggesting that Muslims are asking for this memorial to be removed.

 

[Dawnhammer]

Very sad. Militant secularism strikes again.

Yes, terrible that some people still try to safeguard the constitution and the principles it stands on.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes, terrible that some people still try to safeguard the constitution and the principles it stands on.

This monument is a real threat to the Constitution all right.

 

[mala]

There is nothing in the article even suggesting that Muslims are asking for this memorial to be removed.

there is if you're crazy enough to believe in it. some people see jews around every corner; others muslims.

 

[USincognito]

This is the goal of Islam, to remove / destroy ALL "idols" from the earth and they will use anyone for their cause. Anyone who doesn't believe muslims are behind this need to talk to ex-muslims!

What in the world are you babbling about?

 

[drjean]

Well I won't report you for flaming nor goading because obviously you don't understand Islam.

They are behind having ALL the statues and "idols" and monuments to our history, and indeed world leaders and history, because Muhammed told them it's an abomination to alla. You might think it's an organization or a single individual complaining, but behind the complaints and movements is evil. This is much deeper than most people realize.

Talk to an ex-muslim if you don't know these things, they can enlighten you to the WORLD battle of good and evil.

 

[Philip_B]

The nature of religious pluralism is that we agree to live together in peace, accepting one another for our position or lack of position in matters of faith. We run the risk of being reduced to compulsory a-theism in all expression, which is not the meaning of pluralism at all. We all need to accept more and be offended less. imho

 

[Desk trauma]

Well I won't report you for flaming nor goading because obviously you don't understand Islam.

They are behind having ALL the statues and "idols" and monuments to our history, and indeed world leaders and history, because Muhammed told them it's an abomination to alla. You might think it's an organization or a single individual complaining, but behind the complaints and movements is evil. This is much deeper than most people realize.

Talk to an ex-muslim if you don't know these things, they can enlighten you to the WORLD battle of good and evil.

The suit was brought by a humanist organization, not an Islamic one.

 

[Desk trauma]

The nature of religious pluralism is that we agree to live together in peace, accepting one another for our position or lack of position in matters of faith. We run the risk of being reduced to compulsory a-theism in all expression, which is not the meaning of pluralism at all. We all need to accept more and be offended less. imho

Not being allowed to erect religious monuments on public property, while being free to erect them on private property, is compelling atheism how, exactly?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well I won't report you for flaming nor goading because obviously you don't understand Islam.

They are behind having ALL the statues and "idols" and monuments to our history, and indeed world leaders and history, because Muhammed told them it's an abomination to alla. You might think it's an organization or a single individual complaining, but behind the complaints and movements is evil. This is much deeper than most people realize.

Talk to an ex-muslim if you don't know these things, they can enlighten you to the WORLD battle of good and evil.

And of course, your post about Islam and Muslims being behind this is CLEARLY NOT flaming an entire religion or its followers.

 

[USincognito]

Well I won't report you for flaming nor goading because obviously you don't understand Islam.

They are behind having ALL the statues and "idols" and monuments to our history, and indeed world leaders and history, because Muhammed told them it's an abomination to alla. You might think it's an organization or a single individual complaining, but behind the complaints and movements is evil. This is much deeper than most people realize.

Talk to an ex-muslim if you don't know these things, they can enlighten you to the WORLD battle of good and evil.

1. Asking you what in the world you're going on about when it is off topic is neither flaming or goading and give us all a break with trying to use the forum rules like a weapon.

2. I'm sorry, but this claim is absolutely nutty. If you seriously think the American Humanist Association is being controlled my Muslims then you have some serious Islamophobia issues.

 

[Hank77]

Not being allowed to erect religious monuments on public property, while being free to erect them on private property, is compelling atheism how, exactly?

Normally I understand others feelings about any particular religions symbols, rules, etc. on public property or maintained by public funds. However, when the monument is not there to promote a religion but rather as a memorial to public servants, such as military person's are, then I think they should be allowed, especially when those fallen were members of that community and their families approved of the memorial.
Not all cemeteries are privately owned or owned by churches. The cemetery where I live is owned by the town and maintained by the town, people of all faiths are buried there, and the headstones are very diverse.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You know what would be cool, if the city sold a private party just the actual property the sign sits on....

Wonder who originally made the complaint? and I'd love to see their face if that happened.

 

[Philip_B]

Not being allowed to erect religious monuments on public property, while being free to erect them on private property, is compelling atheism how, exactly?

To my mind it was not about erecting a new one, but recognising and preserving the history. Pluralism has some give and take or it does not work.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

If I understand this right the 40-foot high cross was built on private land and paid for by private donations and was then subsequently acquired by the state. Who have spent into six figures and have budgeted another six figure sum for maintenance of the site.

Surely the easiest way to deal with it within the constitution would be to sell the land at a fair market price (which bearing in mind the 40' war memorial on it, and it being right on a major road junction, would be tiny) to someone who will look after it (the local American Legion would seem the obvious choice, but any non-US government group, for instance the CWGC (who already look after 8 graves in Maryland) would do). Then it wouldn't be an issue at all.