[Pyro7480]

I've driven past this cross on a couple of occasion on the way to nearby Hyattsville.

These "freethinkers" dishonor and desecrate the memory of the honored dead. They should be resisted to the last breath.

[Pyro7480]

A letter writer put it best in the Post:

..."Since its dedication in 1925, it has become part of the cultural foundation and unity of all people. To remove it would be a travesty. This would be as blatant an act of religious destruction as the Taliban's demolition in Afghanistan of two of the largest Buddhas in the world."

[athelass]

Amen. It’s so beautiful. Only a black and shriveled soul could hate it.

[353FMG]

It’s not so much the “freethinkers” who distance our country from God but those who have the last voice in these matters — the deciding judges.

[Pyro7480]

Catholic ping!

[varmintman]

Anybody who’d want to remove the Peace Cross needs to be handed over to the nearest psycho ward on a permanent basis.

[DJ MacWoW]

One of the individual plaintiffs, Steven Lowe of Washington, contends that the cross "associates a Christian religious symbol with the state and gives the impression that the state supports and approves of Christianity, as opposed to other religions," the suit says.

He is exactly correct. This is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Too bad that he hates God.

[Talisker]

...and gives the impression that the state supports and approves of Christianity, as opposed to other religions...

Faulty logic You could just as easily say that it gives the impression that the State affirms the right to religious expression.

In addition, ATHEISTS HAVE NO STANDING.

Atheism is NOT a religion, by definition.

[Dagnabitt]

The plaintif may as well sue the State of Maryland to change its name while he's at it.

It appears to endorse the mother of that C-word guy.

[TBP]

I do not mind Atheists. As Jefferson said, they “neither break my leg nor pick my pocket.” But when they try to force their religion on the rest of us, then I have a problem. The militant Atheists must be opposed, just like the militant Muslims.

[cloudmountain]

Is Steven Lowe of Washington an atheist?

What a jerk!

Ain't HE going to be in for a giant SURPRISE when he meets our Lord?

[cloudmountain]

Steven Lowe isn't taliban as the taliban BELIEVE that God in on their side. Lowe is living in his own little godless world where he doesn't want God to exist.

The Taliban and Lowe will get their day before the Lord.

[Impy]

Do these groups do anything besides suing to get rid of crosses on public land? Anything at all?

[AndyTheBear]

"associates a Christian religious symbol with the state and gives the impression that the state supports and approves of Christianity, as opposed to other religions,"

The understanding the founding fathers had when they agreed to the US Constitution and BIll of Rights is the only understanding which is not based on fraud. A Constitution is like a contract for a nation. It means what it means. If the meaning is changed because some party wants to change it, it is a breaking of the agreement which the Constitution embodies. Shortly after signing the Bill of Rights, both houses of congress and the President did much more than allow crosses on state property...they declared a day of thanksgiving to God with non denominational Christian language. Obviously then, the meaning of the First Amendments Religious Liberty clause did not include the fraudulent meaning these anti-religious nut jobs are trying to assign to it.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness....Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

[ForYourChildren]

This was recently posted on another thread and I liked it.

CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE "THE WORD OF GOD" PUBLIC LAW 97-280 OCT. 4, 1982

[kinsman redeemer]

This is called the “Peace Cross” and it is one of my oldest memories, dating back to the 50’s.
It was a landmark on our trips to my grandparents.

My understanding the meaning of “peace” has changed over the years. It is especially important to me now that it is the Peace CROSS because I have peace with God BECAUSE of the Cross!

I would hate to see it taken down but it is not stained with the blood of Jesus Christ. I would hate to see it taken down if even one person were to ever look at it in the future and ask, “How can I be saved?”

I rest knowing that God is in control, not His enemy. His enemy was DEFEATED at the cross. Satan HATES the Cross.

I love it.

[Gene Eric]

Atheists are idiots.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Dedicated in 1925. They had 90 years to get rid of it, why is it upsetting to them now?

If they didn’t like it they should have filed suit before 1925.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If you search the Constitution for “nobility,” you get two hits:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Naturally, then, if no title of nobility is to exist in the United States, we can conclude that “Lord” will not appear in the Constitution? Not so:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Now the question naturally arises, “What ‘Lord’ was conventionally thought, in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States, to have been born 'one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven’ years earlier?” The answer is plain as the nose on your face. The explicit name “Jesus” is not mentioned in the Constitution - but to say of the year thought to have been the birth of Jesus “the year of our Lord” - capitalized, no less - is to say, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” In sum, it is to claim to be a Christian. And this was in the document which was ratified by the states.

It is illogical to claim that the Constitution is a warrant to tear down Christian crosses.

[1010RD]

If you know of a good legal history/philosophy treatise that shows how the Freedom of Religion became the “freedom from religion” please share it.

I understand that most law schools are liberal run and liberal taught, but this is inexplicable. The Constitution is clear. The government may not establish a state religion. This isn’t establishing anything because it lacks the force of law and government coercion. Ignore the cross as you would any ad you don’t like.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Somebody wants to get rid of a WWI memorial? I wonder what kind of person would do such a thing. Of course there’s this one;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glade_of_the_Armistice