Appeals Court Decrees That A War Memorial Must Go Because It 'Endorses Religion'

Forbes ^ | April 18, 2018 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” So begins the First Amendment to our Constitution. Those words have been turned into a “law” that allows courts to demand an impenetrable wall of separation between religion and government. A recent case shows how amazingly far they will go to ensure that.

In 1925, a group of citizens in Bladensburg, Maryland wanted to honor 49 men from Prince George’s County who had lost their lives during the First World War. The local chapter of the American Legion and families funded a memorial usually called the “Peace Cross” at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Maryland route 450. It stands 40 feet high. A plaque at its base reads, “valor, endurance, courage, devotion” and the names of the fallen are also engraved.

In 1961, the land on which the Peace Cross sits was taken over by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which pays for the upkeep of the monument and grounds. No one had much cared about that until the American Humanist Association (AHA) filed a lawsuit in 2014.

At the first stage of the litigation, federal district judge Deborah Chasanow ruled in favor of the defendant(Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission), holding that, “The ownership, maintenance, and display of the Monument by the Commission do not violate the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment.”

But the AHA appealed to the Fourth Circuit, a court that was packed with “liberals” during the Obama years. In October of last year, a three-judge panel decided(2-1) to reverse the district court and hold that continued government support for the Memorial is unconstitutional.

[ArmstedFragg]

“The goal is eradicating history.”

Including the historical fact that half the colonies had state religions, and the purpose of that first amendment clause was to prevent the Federal government from telling them they couldn’t.

[ArmstedFragg]

“Respecting”, in that context, means “in regards to” or “with respect to”.

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes, and "an establishment" doesn’t mean "in regards to the creation of" religion.

If instead, the first amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of hamburgers," "an establishment" would mean not favoring McDonald's over Burger King; it doesn't mean favoring hamburgers over hot dogs.

The First Amendment doesn't ban favoring religious over non-religious, it bans favoring Methodists over Protestant, or Catholics over Jews.

-PJ

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Liberal judges: is there anything they DON'T know???

Maryland "Freak State" PING!

[MarvinStinson]

This case is a manifestation of a wider trend sweeping America – aggressive intolerance that demands the obliteration of anything that offends, annoys, or merely bothers Americans who hold “progressive” beliefs.