Thumbs Up: Court Rules the Old Rugged Cross Must Come Down

[Shadow Wolf]

you never saw Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' ... definitely took atheistic stances
and funded by government aid

I also just checked, Carl Sagan himself did not claim to be an atheist.

 

[DavidFirth]

"An old, rugged cross that has stood on public land in a Washington, D.C., suburb for almost a century has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (Oct. 18) that the so-called Peace Cross violates the establishment clause of the Constitution with “excessive religious entanglement.”

“The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” the court wrote in a 33-page opinion. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds.”

The cross is planted in the town of Bladensburg, a short drive from the U.S. Capitol, at the intersection of a state road and a federal road, and commemorates World War I veterans.
source​

Slowly but surely.

.

Don't worry, Skwim. They'll be killing and marrying us soon enough. Maybe not soon enough for you, though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, if USA had a Mayan pyramid, the government should tear it down instead of spending money to preserve it, as it represents the religion of the Mayans?

Mayan pyramids weren't built, funded, and maintained by a secular government. The government of America is secular, not Christian, and it's time we get back to that (back, as in, America didn't really get on a Christianity kick until after the Civil War, "in god we trust" wasn't put on the money until around the same time, and "one nation under god" wasn't added until the mid-20th).

 

[sayak83]

Mayan pyramids weren't built, funded, and maintained by a secular government. The government of America is secular, not Christian, and it's time we get back to that (back, as in, America didn't really get on a Christianity kick until after the Civil War, "in god we trust" wasn't put on the money until around the same time, and "one nation under god" wasn't added until the mid-20th).

If there were a Mayan pyramid here in US today, it would have to be maintained using government money. Should it or shouldn't it?
Same for historic American Indian sites of religious significance.

 

[Skwim]

you never saw Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' ... definitely took atheistic stances
and funded by government aid

Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos appeared over 35 years ago so I don't remember it all that well, but as I recall it had nothing to do with the denial of god. What do you remember about it taking an atheistic (denial of god) stance?

.

 

[Skwim]

So, if USA had a Mayan pyramid, the government should tear it down instead of spending money to preserve it, as it represents the religion of the Mayans?

No, because it's a temple, a place of religious worship just as churches and synagogues are, and I would imagine that just like churches and synagogues it would sit on private land.

.

 

[Skwim]

Don't worry, Skwim. They'll be killing and marrying us soon enough. Maybe not soon enough for you, though.

"They"? Who be "they"?

.

 

[Skwim]

If there were a Mayan pyramid here in US today, it would have to be maintained using government money.

Why? You are aware, are you not, that there are still Mayas around practicing their religion.

Contemporary Maya priest in a healing
ritual at Tikal
(source: Wikipedia)

.
​

 

[sayak83]

Why? You are aware, are you not, that there are still Mayas around practicing their religion.

Contemporary Maya priest in a healing
ritual at Tikal
(source: Wikipedia)

.
​

Are Mayan pyramids maintained by private Mayan religious groups in a private property, or are they maintained by the state and is a public property? If the latter, it's illegal to do so under a secular constitution and should be torn down according to you, correct?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am just not a fan of tearing down, and that includes religions iconography. I wouldn't have trashed the Bamiyan Buddhas, for example, or the status of a satyr in a park near where I live, or pretty much anything else that humans have created -- most often based on their beliefs.

However, I would suggest that it is inappropriate that taxpayers dollars pay for the maintenance of such things.

I have no objection to Christmas crèches, or Hanukkah menorahs, or anything else. In public spaces, I would permit individuals or private groups to put anything up they want, and to maintain them, so long as the taxpayer is not in any way on the hook.

And, since I mentioned the Bamiyan Buddhas, as someone who spends a great deal of time in art galleries and museums, I am acutely aware that an immense amount of human creative energy has been devoted to religious belief. And I am also aware that a lot of it has resulted in works of incomparable beauty. I cried when the Pieta (Michelangelo) was attacked, because I've seen it up close and it is so beautiful.

I don't believe very much of what a lot of other religious people believe -- and I'm not shy of saying so. But I'd never insist that be required to hide display of their beliefs. Those displays do not harm me in the slightest (unless, of course, I'm required to pay for them through my tax dollars).

 

[sayak83]

No, because it's a temple, a place of religious worship just as churches and synagogues are, and I would imagine that just like churches and synagogues it would sit on private land.

.

No they aren't and should never be. A private group can break and sell parts of the pyramid for profits, depriving the world of seeing such a famous heritage. Geez.

 

[sayak83]

I am just not a fan of tearing down, and that includes religions iconography. I wouldn't have trashed the Bamiyan Buddhas, for example, or the status of a satyr in a park near where I live, or pretty much anything else that humans have created -- most often based on their beliefs.

However, I would suggest that it is inappropriate that taxpayers dollars pay for the maintenance of such things.

I have no objection to Christmas crèches, or Hanukkah menorahs, or anything else. In public spaces, I would permit individuals or private groups to put anything up they want, and to maintain them, so long as the taxpayer is not in any way on the hook.

And, since I mentioned the Bamiyan Buddhas, as someone who spends a great deal of time in art galleries and museums, I am acutely aware that an immense amount of human creative energy has been devoted to religious belief. And I am also aware that a lot of it has resulted in works of incomparable beauty. I cried when the Pieta (Michelangelo) was attacked, because I've seen it up close and it is so beautiful.

I don't believe very much of what a lot of other religious people believe -- and I'm not shy of saying so. But I'd never insist that be required to hide display of their beliefs. Those displays do not harm me in the slightest (unless, of course, I'm required to pay for them through my tax dollars).

Umm so a nation shouldn't pay to maintain such famous landmarks as the pyramids (Egyptian religion), Taj Mahal(Islamic mausoleum) or any of the ruins of Roman and Greek Pagan temples, or Stonehenge.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Umm so a nation shouldn't pay to maintain such famous landmarks as the pyramids (Egyptian religion), Taj Mahal(Islamic mausoleum) or any of the ruins of Roman and Greek Pagan temples, or Stonehenge.

Okay, I do see where you're going, and what I wrote probably deserves that response.

But that is why I referenced the Bamiyan Buddhas, and all the other "religious iconography" (that's what I did say). And that's because these things cease to be "merely religious" but become part of our history, an integral part of culture. I'm not a fan of destroying those. I have difficulty, for example, when some people wish to excise the "Oriental dance" from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker. Yes, it reflects a notion of another culture which we might not like today, but why should we judge yesterday's notions by today's standards.

Just saying, I see your criticism, and accept it. I wouldn't wreck a single piece of historical art, and the vast majority of it (like Stonehenge and temples and mausolea), I would spend taxpayer dollars to keep in good repair.

You caught me out. I spoke intemperately.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I also just checked, Carl Sagan himself did not claim to be an atheist.

It's clear he isnt a theist either. I've always got the kind of impression he viewed the universe in a way that it takes care of itself just fine without any of the bells and whistles.

 

[sayak83]

Okay, I do see where you're going, and what I wrote probably deserves that response.

But that is why I referenced the Bamiyan Buddhas, and all the other "religious iconography" (that's what I did say). And that's because these things cease to be "merely religious" but become part of our history, an integral part of culture. I'm not a fan of destroying those. I have difficulty, for example, when some people wish to excise the "Oriental dance" from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker. Yes, it reflects a notion of another culture which we might not like today, but why should we judge yesterday's notions by today's standards.

Just saying, I see your criticism, and accept it. I wouldn't wreck a single piece of historical art, and the vast majority of it (like Stonehenge and temples and mausolea), I would spend taxpayer dollars to keep in good repair.

You caught me out. I spoke intemperately.

Cool.
The OP post requires some discussion. On the surface it looks like a very well maintained aesthetic looking cross that is a century old. It does look like a historic landmark. I have seen far more cheesy things labeled as "historic" in US everywhere.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's clear he isnt a theist either. I've always got the kind of impression he viewed the universe in a way that it takes care of itself just fine without any of the bells and whistles.

True, however, it's more accurate to say his views were outside of the conventional atheist/theist dichotomy, and most certainly the accusation of "aggressively atheist" is false.

 

[Grandliseur]

"An old, rugged cross that has stood on public land in a Washington, D.C., suburb for almost a century has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (Oct. 18) that the so-called Peace Cross violates the establishment clause of the Constitution with “excessive religious entanglement.”​

“The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” the court wrote in a 33-page opinion. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds.”

The cross is planted in the town of Bladensburg, a short drive from the U.S. Capitol, at the intersection of a state road and a federal road, and commemorates World War I veterans.
source​

Slowly but surely.

.

Thumbs seriously down. Not that I want to erect a cross anywhere. However, if you look at what the Muslims have done to their historical monuments, destroying old history that has been there for a long time, and no longer can be studied or seen as to what was, what came after it - destroying historical things just because they go against one's beliefs - is no better than Hitler burning books, or Muslim exploding their historical monuments.

Anyone who supports this, unless - they were monuments dedicated to remembering Hitler, or some such, -- is taking the Muslim road. A road I detest.
When I go into a German Catholic Cathedral, or the Catholic churches of Rome, in no way do I desire to see these grand buildings destroyed - though, I have no love for the Catholic church. This kind of history should be treasured to some degree, as long as it does not hurt our taking care of the poor or children's need in schools, etc.

I admit that anyone who takes the path of the Muslim world with their historical monuments scare me; they remind me not of Western type societies but of fanatics who don't want to remember where their country came from. One doesn't have to revere historical monuments, but leave them be. They remind us of what made us to be what we are, one way or another.

 

[Skwim]

Are Mayan pyramids maintained by private Mayan religious groups in a private property, or are they maintained by the state and is a public property? If the latter, it's illegal to do so under a secular constitution and should be torn down according to you, correct?

Yup. And I'll run the wreaking crane, thank you. .. Our Constitution trumps nostalgia and historical tradition every time.


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thumbs seriously down. Not that I want to erect a cross anywhere. However, if you look at what the Muslims have done to their historical monuments, destroying old history that has been there for a long time, and no longer can be studied or seen as to what was, what came after it - destroying historical things just because they go against one's beliefs - is no better than Hitler burning books, or Muslim exploding their historical monuments.

ISIS took over and destroyed monuments that came from ages past. It would be like if we had those Mayan pyramids here and destroyed them. That would be a crime. But our state taking down state property that was built and maintained by the state that does not represent the foundations of that state nor reflect its values is an entirely different subject. It's like having a monument of the 10 Commandments in a court house. It doesn't belong, and for a reason.

 

[Grandliseur]

ISIS took over and destroyed monuments that came from ages past. It would be like if we had those Mayan pyramids here and destroyed them. That would be a crime. But our state taking down state property that was built and maintained by the state that does not represent the foundations of that state nor reflect its values is an entirely different subject. It's like having a monument of the 10 Commandments in a court house. It doesn't belong, and for a reason.

I know what you are saying. However, just lately a sanitation philosophy has been activated that takes away statues and famous things from the past, also, isn't this cross quite old, like nearly a 100 years. (I didn't read the news, just got a glimpse of something),

This kind of ideology is too reminiscent of the Muslim mind set -- which I detest. I agree that in some places in Europe where there is a church in every village where perhaps 5 out of 10 no longer serve a purpose should be re-purposed, and some taken down if they force too high a cost to the community. Still, history should be treasured. Even history as young as plus 50 years.