POPULARITY
The weekly news analysis from I Hate Politics: Montgomery County Councilmember Will Jawando makes a big political play on housing policy. State could cut 5 percent from the University System of Maryland budget. The Town of Cheverly in Prince George's County files lawsuits against the neighboring Bladensburg for trying to annex land on which a big development project is planned. Newly in public domain music from the 1920s: The Benson Orchestra of Chicago, the Paul Whiteman band, Carl Fenton, and Jan Garber.
The weekly news analysis from I Hate Politics: DC area towns Bladensburg and Cheverly fight over annexing a site ready for redevelopment. George Washington University Hospital narrowly avoids a medical resident strike. Silver Spring United Methodist Church unveils plans to build affordable housing on church grounds. A racist incident shakes Wootton High School. And more. Music by Sting Pain Index.
.
Tue, Jun 18 2:10 AM → 2:17 AM NY Bladensburg Radio Systems: - DC Fire and EMS
Emerging Revolutionary War returns to the War of 1812 with a discussion of the first part of the campaign that eventually led to the climatic Battle of Baltimore. This discussion will center around the action at Bladensburg and the movement to Baltimore. Joining Emerging Revolutionary War historian Phillip S. Greenwalt will be Daniel Davis, Senior Education Manager for the American Battlefield Trust.
The PoliticalGuy Podcast with Host Sean Michael Wilson in partnership with Prince George's Suite Magazine for the new “Inside Look” segment interviewed some of the Town of Bladensburg elected leaders which included Mayor Takisha James, Councilmember Jocelyn Route, and Councilmember Trina Brown. This particular segment titled “Who Runs the Town” highlights how the entire town elected leadership are all black women.
Kevin and Thom with an eclectic show that included discussion of hiking into Iran, bees, the Battle of Bladensburg, Bryce Harper and of course, plenty of Taylor Heinicke along with the Commanders' improved chances of getting back to .500 vs Sam Ehlinger's Indianapolis Colts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week we are joined by the Chocolate City Champion, #347 on the Pro Wrestling Illustrated list of the Top 500 Wrestlers in the World for 2022, The Belt Thief - CHRISTOPHER ANDINO! We're heading to Bladensburg, Maryland for the most honestly advertised and least imaginatively named attraction in all the land - Go Kart Track (that's the whole name). Andino is always entertaining and mildly controversial, with the hottest takes in show history, so get ready to laugh and shake your head in equal measure. We're down for some wacky racing as we talk all about pushing boundaries and poking the bear, the impact of consequences on growth and regret, and the relationship between fathers and sons. Learn which drivers make the Andino hit list and why, and we discover our new racing hero: the boy, the myth, the legend - Number 11. Is Go Kart Track something you have to do before you die? Listen and find out! COLLECTED POSSIBILITIES - E-Mail: collectedpossibilities@gmail.com - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/collectedpossibilities/ - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/collectedpossibilities CHRISTOPHER ANDINO - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/studio_and1no/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/Studio_Andino - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DirectorAndino GO KART TRACK - Website: https://www.gokarttrack.com/
After defeating the Americans at Bladensburg and burning much of official Washington, British General Robert Ross died in an American ambush on his way to Baltimore.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was just 208 years ago today, August 25, 1814, when according to some, the hand of God swept through the charred remains of our Nation's Capital, and sent the bloody British scurrying out, their cannons following them in the wind. That's right my readers, today is both a somber and joyous day, for as Americans worked through the rubble of our Capital, we also saw the backs of the British, limping their way along the coast. On August 24, the Battle of Bladensburg ended in an embarrassing defeat for the Americans. The British Army marched straight into Washington and... For the written story, read here >> https://www.signalsaz.com/articles/this-day-in-history-august-25th-2022-gods-providence/
For much of our series examining the War of 1812, we have focused on the Canadian front – Upper Canada and Lower Canada. We have touched in passing on some of the facets of the war outside of this area, but this week, we will be concentrating on a theatre of the war that was exclusively in the United States. And, unlike the other engagements we have talked about, will have no involvement of Canadian militia. This week, we look at the Chesapeake campaign, which started in the spring of 1813 and went right up to the fall of 1814. Visit us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/canadianhistoryVisit us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/canadianhistorywithstevenwilsonCheck us out on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNfOI7uxJ04GIn7O_b1yarACheck out our GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/ca5ddea0We are on Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@canadianhistorypodcast “Sinking” by Philip Ravenel, used under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Marines earned grudging respect from the British for their defense of the Capitol in the Battle of Bladensburg, Md., in 1814. We know from the Marine Corps Hymn that the Corps has traveled to the hall of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli. Many of our listeners may not know that the Marines also sloshed around in the swamps of Florida in the Seminole Wars. Joining us for this episode, the first of two parts, is Paul Westermeyer, historian at Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. He weaves the story of how the Marine Corps established a permanent institutional footing after a false start in the Revolutionary War. The Marines then performed heroically at sea and on land in the Barbary Pirate Wars and the War of 1812. They came ashore again along the gulf coast in the First Seminole War. Paul Westermeyer returns for the second part of this podcast series to look at the Marines in the Second Creek and Seminole Wars. The views Paul Westermeyer presents are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any government organization. Marines performed heroically at sea aboard U.S. Navy frigates, helping capture prize ships and counter the British navy's offensive operations off American coasts. Future Marine Corps Commandant Archibald Henderson served with distinction aboard the U.S.S. Constitution in the War of 1812. Host Patrick Swan is a board member with the Seminole Wars Foundation. He is a combat veteran and of the U.S. Army, serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Kosovo, and at the Pentagon after 9/11. A military historian, he holds masters degrees in Public History, Communication, and Homeland Security, and is a graduate of the US Army War College with an advanced degree in strategic studies. This podcast is recorded at the homestead of the Seminole Wars Foundation in Bushnell, Florida. Subscribe automatically to the Seminole Wars through your favorite podcast catcher, such as iHeart or Stitcher or Spotify, DoubleTwist, or Pandora or Google podcasts or iTunes, or ... Check it out so you always get the latest episode without delay where and when you want it. Like us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube!
Andy Calkins is the co-director of Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC) and helps to lead strategy development, organizational management, and program execution across all phases of the initiative. Dr. Carlos Beato is the newest crew member and also co-director at NGLC. Prior to joining he served as the founding principal at the International High School at Langley Park (IHSLP) in Bladensburg, Maryland. Highlights from their conversation with Rod and Jal include: optimism that the worst of the pandemic may be behind us; an updated vision for student success in the 21st century; the idea of symmetry across school systems - how adults need to model the same skills they hope to teach to their students; flipping the pyramid idea of hierarchical control on it's head; what our clothing habits say about power dynamics; how to shift away from command and control and move towards more collaborative and supportive environments; the importance of bringing people of color into positions of leadership; and some lessons we can learn from Hogwarts! Questions? Thoughts? Feedback? Email us at freerangehumanspod@gmail.com or Tweet us at @jal_mehta and @Rodroad219
Melvin E. Edwards joins Texas History Lessons in this episode to discuss his book The Eyes of Texans: From Slavery to the Texas Capitol: Personal Stories from Six Generations of One Family. The book is available from Amazon. Email Melvin at edwards21228@yahoo.com. Follow Melvin on Twitter: @edwards21228 "Once you meet Isaac Bladen, you'll never forget him. "The Eyes of Texans: From Slavery to the Texas Capitol" is a 2020 Kops-Fetherling International Book Award winner (Bronze Medal) by Melvin E. Edwards, an award-winning newspaper reporter/columnist, and a former legislative speechwriter for long-time Texas Lt. Governor and Governor Rick Perry. Edwards' thirty years of genealogy research confirmed family stories that had been told for decades, exposed some that weren't accurate, and discovered details that had long been buried. These "first-person" accounts will capture your attention and take you on a drive-by of the past 200 years of American and Texas history. Isaac Bladen was born into slavery on a farm just outside of Washington, D.C., in a town that is named after the family that enslaved him. He and his Virginia-born wife, Elvira, ended up in Texas in 1844 as enslaved farmers in Leon County, where they had a daughter, Louisa, who eventually married Amos Jones. Louisa and Amos became the parents of Walter Jones. Louisa was born 15 years before the Civil War and died four months after the end of World War II at the age of 99. Her son, Walter, and daughter-in-law, Anna Thorn, had a son they named Orlean Jones. Orlean and Alma Logan Jones became the parents of Ella Jones Edwards, the author's mother. The Logans and the Bladens lived in the same county at the same time as early as 1856, though it would take decades before they crossed family lines when Orlean and Alma married in 1923. For more than 100 years, beginning in 1844, their ancestors lived in Leon County, Texas, as farmers and cowboys, before moving to Houston for a “fresh start.” Nearly two centuries after Isaac's birth in Bladensburg, Maryland, his great-great-great-grandson rose to a key role at the Texas State Capitol just two hours away from where Isaac was enslaved for most of his life in Leona. This is a story of Texas through the eyes of true Texans. From a slave in the 19th century to a governor's speechwriter by the end of the 20th century. It is a creative re-telling based on actual events and family stories." *2021 Best Book Award by AMG Indie Book Awards. * *Bronze Award Winner for Memoir/Autobiography in the 2020 Kops-Fetherling International Book Award competition.* The Texas History Lessons Theme song, Walking Through History, was written and recorded by Derrick McClendon. You can preorder his new album, Interstate Daydreamer on February 14 and it will be released on March 5, 2022. Thank you Derrick! Twitter: @dmclendonmusic If you are enjoying Texas History Lessons, consider buying me a cup of coffee by clicking here! Help make Texas History Lessons by supporting it on Patreon. And a special thanks to everyone that already does. Website: texashistorylessons.com email: texashistorylessons@gmail.com Twitter: @TexasHistoryL Texas History Lessons Spotlight Artists Jerrod Flusche Rosmand – Mando Salas Zach Welch Seth Jones Derrick McClendon Kade Anson Randy Hoyet on Spotify Robert Herrerra Jacob Charles Chris Cunningham Tristyn Sanchez The Oliver White Group Podcast Recommendations: Wild West Extravaganza Podcast The History Cafe Podcast Hymns of the Highway Podcast Off Mic, Off the Record Podcast Texas River Tonk Podcast TXRiverTonk Podcast LINKS: If you have any photography, videography or aerial photography and video, go visit PANTHER CITY AIR to see how they can fulfill your needs. Tio Bruce's The Greatest Playlist In Texas and Hence the World. Texas History Lessons Spotlight Artist Spotify Playlist 301 Productions Spotify Playlist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We've all heard the phrase “separation of church and state,” but do we know where it came from? Guest Professor Philip Hamburger gets us into the history of the Establishment Clause, the flaws in the “separation” theory, and why a memorial cross on public property in Bladensburg, Maryland, deserves to stay.
POP UP EPISODE! Father Al and Veronica The Valedictorian sit down with friend of the show Kean to discuss his personal experiences at The Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross Ceremony. Kean offers a fantastic perspective and provides unique insight into everything that took place at the Bladensburg Waterfront Park on July 10th. Hail Satan and Hail The Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross!Watch The Ceremony *FREE* at the following link:Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross Ceremony – The Satanic Temple TVNEW WEBSITE! @ http://www.satanicstudyhall.comEmail us @ satanicstudyhall@gmail.comClick Here to become a supporter of our Patreon and get cool merch, Bonus Episodes, Behind The Scenes content, and more!Support the show (http://www.patreon.com/satanicstudyhall)
Hollywood Actor J. August Richards: Current TV Series: 'Generation' on HBO Max.......Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in the Maryland suburb of Bladensburg, Richards discovered his love for acting at an early age and enrolled in a performing arts high school where he appeared in several plays a year. Academically confident and determined to move out to Los Angeles to pursue his acting aspirations, Richards applied to only one college - the University of Southern California (USC). Not only was he accepted, he also won numerous scholarships and grants to study theater. Upon graduation from USC, Richards began working steadily in film, television and theater. Playing a rapping bike messenger who believes he is an alien abductee in the Mark Taper Forum's (Los Angeles) production of "Space," he began to earn recognition and rave reviews.Richards was introduced to fans of "Angel" during the series' first season the rogue, street-savvy vampire hunter Charles Gunn. In season five, his character was transformed into a "take-no-prisoners" lawyer at the evil law firm Wolfram and Hart. In "Conviction," Richards returns to the "letter of the law" in his role as Billy Desmond, an ambitious and brilliant assistant district attorney who does not lose.On the big screen, Richards has appeared in the feature films "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" and "Good Burger." He also starred in the television movies "Critical Assembly," "The Temptations" and "Mutiny." Richards also guest-starred on "The Practice," "Chicago Hope," "The Cosby Show" and "Any Day Now." Last summer, Richards won critical notices in Kenneth Lonergan's "Lobby Hero" at the prestigious Old Globe Theatre.- IMDb Mini Biography By: Kyle Avery Public Relations
On August 24, 1813, during the Battle of Bladensburg, Commodore Joshua Barney, along with 360 sailors and 120 Marines, defended Washington—fighting against the British hand-to-hand with cutlasses and pikes.
The collapse of the First 2 American Units along with Brigadier General William Winder's Ineffective Leadership that resulted in retreats from multiple directions. Learning about Commodore Joshua Barney's Last Stand and how British Forces treated him with great dignity while serving as a temporary prisoner of war. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/support
Learning about British Major General Robert Ross & American Military Man William Winder who would become Brigadier General in 1814. The expansion of British Ships present up & down Chesapeake Bay. History of Bladensburg, Maryland. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/support
Bio Bärí A. Williams is an attorney and startup advisor, previously served as Vice President of Legal, Policy, and Business Affairs at All Turtles, an artificial intelligence studio. Her primary practice areas include emerging technology transactions, privacy and data protection, and terms of service. She is the former Head of Business Operations Management for North America at StubHub, where she was responsible for business planning and operations to manage and oversee technical internal and external metrics, product innovation, and partnerships and drive P&L results across the company. Prior to StubHub, Bärí was a senior commercial attorney at Facebook supporting internet.org connectivity efforts, building drones, satellites, and lasers, and supporting the company's supply chain. She also successfully took on the passion project of creating and implementing Facebook’s Supplier Diversity Program, launched in October 2016. She has served as an advisor to startups in the enterprise and e-commerce space, including Blavity (and AfroTech), Bandwagon, Owl, and Telepath. Bärí is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley (BA, Mass Communications), St. Mary’s College of California (MBA), the University of California, Los Angeles (MA, African-American Studies), and the University of California, Hastings College of Law (JD). She is also a published author with bylines in the New York Times, WIRED, Fortune, and Fast Company. She recently gave congressional testimony on bias in AI in financial services in Feb. 2020. Her book, Diversity in the Workplace: Eye-Opening Interviews to Jumpstart Conversations About Identity, Privilege, and Bias, will be released on March 31. Resources Human Interest Bärí Williams, Diversity in the Workplace: Eye-Opening Interviews to Jumpstart Conversations about Identity, Privilege, and Bias (2020) Bärí A. Williams News Roundup Tech responds to coronavirus Tech giants are responding to coronavirus fears as Amazon reported that an employee contracted the illness. Facebook has cancelled its annual participation in SXSW. The social media giant has also pledged to give the World Health Organization as many free ads as needed to combat the virus. And Google has canceled its annual I/O developer conference which was scheduled for May 12th and 14th. Google has also halted international travel for employees. NYPD to remove innocents’ DNA profiles from its database The New York City Police Department has said that it will remove DNA profiles of individuals who haven’t been convicted of any crimes. The New York Times reports that some 82,000 DNA profiles in the NYPD’s database belong to non-criminals. NYPD had detained and collected DNA evidence from kids as young as 12. The Times reports that officers once offered a 12-year-old a soda during questioning then collected the boy’s DNA from the straw. Many other individuals who were merely questioned, who weren’t convicted or in many cases not even arrested, also had their DNA collected. The database will be purged in the coming weeks and, going further, the NYPD will collect DNA from children only in cases involving felonies, sex crimes, gun charges, and hate crimes. House seeks info from Ring on surveillance Raja Krishnamoorthi, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy wrote Amazon VP of Public Policy Brian Huseman requesting extensive information regarding its home security subsidiary Ring’s partnerships with law enforcement to surveil communities with Ring’s footage. Back in August, Ring began disclosing the police departments it has been working with which, as of today, includes some 967 police departments nationwide. In the DC area, participating police departments include Takoma Park, Bladensburg, Seat Pleasant, Prince George’s in Maryland, and, in Virginia, Alexandria’s Police Department is working with Ring. Judge: Instacart cannot misclassify workers as independent contractors A San Diego judge has found that Instacart cannot misclassify workers as independent contractors. In granting a preliminary injunction against Instacart, the judge ruled to enforce the new AB5 law which seeks to ensure that gig workers are classified as employees in order to access benefits and have the right to form a union. NBC News has more. Democrats split on cybersecurity The Hill reports that Democrats are split on what to do about reauthorizing the USA Freedom Act, the cybersecurity bill put in place following Edward Snowden’s revelation that the National Security Agency was storing millions of Americans’ phone numbers. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler are spearheading efforts to reauthorize the bill while more liberal Democrats, including Zoe Lofgren, are seeking more privacy protections. Many of Schiff’s allies during the impeachment hearing are now opposing his efforts to reauthorize the cyber bill and, interestingly, the White House has also weighed in saying the President, including Attorney General Barr, wants the full bill reauthorized without changes. The disputed changes involve the extent to which there should be more transparency in how the FISA court operates with regard to surveillance.
After the American Legion decision was announced, an activist group is trying to remove a cross from a memorial on Vero Beach. Removing the cross from the monument would reveal a hostility toward religion, which Justice Alito ruled against in The American Legion case. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. There has been a war on religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices occurring in public for some time. The Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA put an end to that, but some haven’t given up the fight. Back in 1964, residents of Vero Beach, Florida put up a “Lest We Forget” monument. The monument itself looks to be maybe four feet high and about as wide. On top, sits a cross, at the most 19 inches tall and 12 inches wide. In 2017, a group of activists threatened Vero Beach officials, demanding they remove the memorial or at least knock off the cross from atop the monument. But, nothing came of it. Now, after The American Legion v. AHA, the same group is making noise once more. I’m not sure why. As you may have recently heard on the First Liberty Briefing, the Supreme Court has explained that monuments like this are “presumptively constitutional.” The passage of time may further reinforce that this memorial is in keeping with the history and tradition of our country, but what is certainly true is that those opposed to the cross on top of this memorial have no neutral solution. Taking a sledge hammer to the cross atop this memorial would reveal a certain hostility toward religion that, as Justice Samuel Alito observed in The American Legion v. AHA, tearing down monuments in the name of the law would be “evocative, disturbing, and divisive” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The landmark decision in The American Legion case protects war memorials from destruction all across the country. Americans no longer need to fear these religious symbols on government property. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Over the last five episodes, we have been winding our way through the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case The American Legion v. AHA. Before we move on to other areas of religious liberty, let’s tie the whole thing together. It’s undeniable that The American Legionis a landmark decision. The days of activist courts catering to the offense of those who would illegitimately weaponize the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to attack religious symbols on public land are over. Not only is the Peace Cross safe from destruction, so are the hundreds of war memorials honoring veterans across the country. Our Founders would’ve been appalled at attempts by activists to purge the landscape of religious symbols in our country. We are a religious people, living in a diverse society. None of us should be surprised at the presence of religious symbols interspersed with secular ones in the public square. Quite simply, Americans need no longer fear reprisals against the display of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or the national motto on government property. It is fitting that a memorial to the men who died in the “war to end all wars,” now ends the war to end all memorials with religious shapes or symbols. Thanks to the efforts of The American Legion, and some good lawyering at First Liberty Institute, today we have more freedom than we did just a few weeks ago. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Lemon Test is the main proponent in religious monuments and symbols being torn down. While the American Legion case didn’t overrule the Lemon Test, the Justices expressed significant skepticism of it. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Over the last few episodes, we have been making our way through First Liberty’s latest Supreme Court case, The American Legion v. AHA. Today, it’s all about Lemon. Of course, we’re not talking about citrus, but the test stemming from the court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman from several decades ago. Lemonhas been the primary means by which opponents of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices have torn down, erased, or ended them. But, thanks to The American Legion case, those days are over. In the words of a plurality of Justices, “Lemon ambitiously attempted to distill from the Court’s existing case law a test that would bring order and predictability to Establishment Clause decision making.” But it didn’t. So, the plurality expressed significant skepticism of the test, but stopped short of overruling it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, evaluated all the ways the Lemontest has been applied, concluding that unless the state action is coercive, monuments and practices rooted in our history and tradition are just fine. Justice Neil Gorsuch called Lemon“a misadventure.” Justice Clarence Thomas, also concurring, agreed with the plurality’s thinking, but said, “I would take the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts.” Bottom line for those who wish to attack religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, they’re going to have to find another case. We’ll wrap up our evaluation of this case in our next episode. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The removal of the Bladensburg monument would not be considered neutral by the justices. The passage of time turns the monument into a historical monument, rather than the focus being on religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. In The American Legion v. AHA, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Peace Cross was, and is, a religious symbol. The Justices even noted that some who erected the memorial had a religious motivation in doing so. But, the majority of the court rejected the idea that that religious symbolism or religious meaning meant the memorial must be destroyed. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the Justices, “Even if the original purpose of a monument was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment.” Over time, he notes, “a community may preserve such monuments, symbols, and practices for the sake of their historical significance or their place in a common cultural heritage” and “as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established monument, symbol, or practice often multiply.” In other words, what was once viewed as religious may now simply be considered historical. But, the passage of time makes that line more difficult to see. But, that’s ok. As Justice Alito explained, “With sufficient time, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices can become embedded features of a community’s landscape and identity. The community may come to value them without necessarily embracing their religious roots.” And, if it is so firmly rooted to the community, he concluded, “removing it may no longer appear neutral.” On the next First Liberty Briefing, let’s talk about what The American Legion case means for the Lemon test. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Justices wanted to remain neutral and tearing down the monument would be hostile towards religion. They emphasized that respecting monuments and symbols of religion is the best way to remain neutral towards religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. This is the third in a series of episodes exploring the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case, The American Legion v. AHA. In this episode, we turn to the issue of hostility toward religion. It’s clear that the Justices wished to respect the presence of the memorial and what it has come to mean for the people of Bladensburg, Maryland. Though opponents of the memorial clamored for neutrality, removing the Peace Cross would not be a neutral act by the government. As the majority explained, “requiring their removal would not be viewed by many as a neutral act” and “would be seen by many as profoundly disrespectful.” Worse, the court’s majority observed, “a campaign to obliterate items with religious associations may evidence hostility to religion even if those religious associations are no longer in the forefront.” In our next episode, we will look at that last part and the evolution of this particular religious symbol into what it means today, but don’t miss this critical point: the Justices of the Supreme Court are communicating to the nation that genuine neutrality toward religion means respecting religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices, not destroying, altering, or hiding them. As Justice Alito explained in his majority opinion, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.” Stay tuned for more. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices rule that the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Prince George County, Maryland should remain standing. The majority opinion acknowledges that the memorial’s age makes it a part of the community. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It may have been a long time coming, but the freedom First Liberty Institute secured in The American Legion v. AHA is significant. You will recall that at issue in the case was the Peace Cross, a World War I monument Gold Star Mothers erected to remember 49 sons of Prince George’s County, Maryland who died in the Great War. That idea came in 1919 and The American Legion dedicated it in 1925. Everything was fine until 2013 when someone decided they were offended at the presence of a cross on public property, ignoring the surrounding memorials to other wars in what is known as Memorial Park. In June of 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision. Seven of the nine Justices wrote an opinion, making the decision somewhat difficult to decipher. But the clear majority of seven Justices ruled that the memorial should stay right where it is. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, explained the fact that the memorial bears religious symbolism does not mean the memorial must be destroyed or moved to private property. That is all the more true when memorials age and become a central part of the community itself. “The passage of time,” Justice Alito wrote, “gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.” In our next episode, we will explore what this “strong presumption of constitutionality” means today. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case considering whether state funding of a war memorial in the form of a religious symbol is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial cross (Peace Cross) in Bladensburg, MD, to honor 49 soldiers who died fighting in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) acquired the land and has maintained the memorial using public funding. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and other civil associations filed suit in District Court, alleging that the presence and publicly-funded maintenance of the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AHA sought relocation, demolition, or removal of the cross’s arms. The district court ruled in favor of the American Legion, applying the Supreme Court precedents Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005), concluding that the Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment, applying the same precedents as the district court--but concluding that the Peace Cross conveyed to a reasonable observer the impression of state endorsement of Christianity, and excessively entangled the Commission with religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Establishment Clause issue.By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that “[t]he Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito’s opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D was also joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, but not Justice Kagan. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Breyer in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.To discuss the case, we have Christopher DiPompeo, Partner at Jones Day.
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case considering whether state funding of a war memorial in the form of a religious symbol is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial cross (Peace Cross) in Bladensburg, MD, to honor 49 soldiers who died fighting in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) acquired the land and has maintained the memorial using public funding. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and other civil associations filed suit in District Court, alleging that the presence and publicly-funded maintenance of the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AHA sought relocation, demolition, or removal of the cross’s arms. The district court ruled in favor of the American Legion, applying the Supreme Court precedents Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005), concluding that the Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment, applying the same precedents as the district court--but concluding that the Peace Cross conveyed to a reasonable observer the impression of state endorsement of Christianity, and excessively entangled the Commission with religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Establishment Clause issue.By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that “[t]he Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito’s opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D was also joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, but not Justice Kagan. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Breyer in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.To discuss the case, we have Christopher DiPompeo, Partner at Jones Day.
Today's episode welcomes Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association, back to the show! Miller, as you know, was the lead counsel and presented the AHA's argument before the Supreme Court in the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n case involving the 40-foot Latin cross on public property in Bladensburg, Maryland. Andrew and Monica spend the entire show doing a deep dive into the decision, trying to figure out issues like (1) is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test really dead?; (2) how can we make sense of the court's admonition to "respect the beliefs" of those who oppose taking down the cross?; (3) how can local activists proceed in light of this decision, and much, much more! After a wide-ranging interview, it's time for the answer to what Andrew has dubbed the Worst, Stupidest Bar Exam question -- this one involving the "equitable conversion" doctrine in the sale of land. Did Thomas somehow manage to get a crazy, stupid, awful real property question correct? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
What does the Supreme Court's most recent church-state decision mean for all of us? BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler and General Counsel Holly Hollman examine the Court's splintered 7-2 decision in the Bladensburg cross case and discuss what it means for the future. The post Examining the cross case decision with Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman appeared first on BJC.
The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a sobering 7-2 decision to protect the Bladensburg, Maryland "Peace Cross," a 40-foot religious symbol erected as a memorial to the veterans of WWI.The Court's majority opinion declared that the cross' removal would constitute "hostility" to religion.Monica Miller is Senior Counsel at the American Humanist Association. She actually argued the case at the Supreme Court. She joins Seth Andrews to talk about the implications.Watch the VIDEO of our conversation here: https://youtu.be/m7Z2RYG2vAIMonica's links:www.americanhumanist.orgmmiller@americanhumanist.org@Mon_L_Miller @americnhumanist
The Supreme Court has ruled that a 40-foot-tall Christian cross in Bladensburg, Maryland is actually a suitable war memorial for all war dead, even if they weren't Christian. I speak with Monica Miller, who argued the case before the Court on behalf of the American Humanist Association. We also talk about Monica's work with the Nonhuman Rights Project, an organization that seeks "to secure fundamental rights for nonhuman animals through litigation, legislation, and education." Monica and I also discuss the Court's refusal to hear a case brought by long-time activist Michael Newdow, challenging the phrase "In God We Trust" on all currency. (David Driscoll and I talked about Mr. Newdow back in show #84 in 2010, and I actually interviewed him waaay back in the pre-podcast days of 2002. Have a listen!) Theme music courtesy of Body Found. Follow American Freethought on the intertubes: Website: AmericanFreethought.com Podcast Page: http://americanfreethought.libsyn.com Twitter: @AMERFREETHOUGHT Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/21523473365/ Libsyn Classic Feed: https://americanfreethought.libsyn.com/rss Find out how to support the show here and here. Contact: john@americanfreethought.com
This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. Among the decisions coming out of the Supreme Court this term was a big case on religious liberty. By a 7-2 margin, the court found that the memorial cross in Bladensburg, Maryland could remain. The 40-foot cross—now on public land—has honored the World War I dead for nearly a hundred years. It’s an enormous win. A very key take-away is what the court did with the “Lemon Test”—the test of the constitutionality of government involvement when it comes to religion. The problem with the Lemon Test—resulting from a 1971 case—is that it has always been subjective and often used in ways that are hostile to religious expression. In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch declared simply, “Lemon was a misadventure”—and a majority of the justices made clear that “the Lemon Test” is no more. That’s good news. And by a convincing 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court of the United States said that the Bladensburg cross, and thus other similar crosses and religious expressions, can stand. That, too, is very good news. I’m Albert Mohler.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
FFRF attorneys sent more than a thousand letters to public school districts warning of the dangers of bible classes. We complain about an Appleton, Wisconsin, school board member who is a pastor who is flagrantly mixing religion and government. We talk with FFRF lead attorney Rebecca Markert about the disappointing decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing a large Christian cross to remain on public land. Then we interview, by phone from London, journalist and author Catherine Nixey, about her book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World.
On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen of World War 1 in Maryland. The memorial stands thanks to a 7-2 decision by the justices yet the opinion of the court was fractured. Jeff, Travis, Steven, and Chelsea circle up on the afternoon the opinion came down for this special episode to discuss the case, the opinion, dissent, and what it all means for the future of Establishment Clause. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUS | Opinion & ERLC Amicus Brief & SCOTUSblog case page ERLC press release | ERLC President Russell Moore Commends Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Bladensburg Cross Memorial ERLC article | Top quotes from the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court win Capitol Conversations episode | Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case ERLC article | What's at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Runner's World article | Running of the Interns at the Supreme Court
Iran continues provocative actions in Strait of Hormuz. Shoots down US drone. Iran claims it violated their airspace; US says it was in international airspace. Some on the Left are not sure who to believe. Trump ordered retaliatory airstrike, then calls off mission. Planes were in the air. Ships were in position. Who is the real problem here? State sponsor of terrorism. Proxy wars. Human rights violations. Death to America chants. Destruction of Israel. US presence in region is required, in large part, because of Iran and the terrorism they support. Supreme Court rules 7-2 that the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, does not violate the First Amendment. Good.
Bookmark today’s show as one of your classics. Today, I explain, once and for all, using several recent Supreme Court opinions, why the Supreme Court is nowhere close to having an originalist majority and why there is only one consistent originalist. Kavanaugh and Roberts are completely problematic. I delve through three cases – the Bladensburg cross case, a capital conviction case, and a criminal alien gun conviction case – to demonstrate why the Supreme Court is a one-way street and a dead end for conservatives. Even if we had five Clarence Thomasas, we should never legitimize judicial supremacy. But we only have one. The result? We get the worst of everyone’s sensibilities and the Left keeps winning, even when we win narrow defensive victories on a few cases in the Supreme Court out of the many they allow to stand in their unconstitutional status at lower courts. Show links Flowers v. Mississippi Rehaif v. U.S. Bladensburg Cross case My take on Bladensburg Cross My 2016 piece on Roberts and overturning capital convictions on nonsensical grounds Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Iran continues provocative actions in Strait of Hormuz. Shoots down US drone. Iran claims it violated their airspace; US says it was in international airspace. Some on the Left are not sure who to believe. Trump ordered retaliatory airstrike, then calls off mission. Planes were in the air. Ships were in position. Who is the real problem here? State sponsor of terrorism. Proxy wars. Human rights violations. Death to America chants. Destruction of Israel. US presence in region is required, in large part, because of Iran and the terrorism they support. Supreme Court rules 7-2 that the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, does not violate the First Amendment. Good.
On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen of World War 1 in Maryland. The memorial stands thanks to a 7-2 decision by the justices yet the opinion of the court was fractured. Jeff, Travis, Steven, and Chelsea circle up on the afternoon the opinion came down for this special episode to discuss the case, the opinion, dissent, and what it all means for the future of Establishment Clause. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUS | Opinion & ERLC Amicus Brief & SCOTUSblog case page ERLC press release | ERLC President Russell Moore Commends Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Bladensburg Cross Memorial ERLC article | Top quotes from the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court win Capitol Conversations episode | Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case ERLC article | What’s at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Runner’s World article | Running of the Interns at the Supreme Court
Iran continues provocative actions in Strait of Hormuz. Shoots down US drone. Iran claims it violated their airspace; US says it was in international airspace. Some on the Left are not sure who to believe. Trump ordered retaliatory airstrike, then calls off mission. Planes were in the air. Ships were in position. Who is the real problem here? State sponsor of terrorism. Proxy wars. Human rights violations. Death to America chants. Destruction of Israel. US presence in region is required, in large part, because of Iran and the terrorism they support. Supreme Court rules 7-2 that the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, does not violate the First Amendment. Good.
Bad news for state/church separation: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Bladensburg cross to be constitutional, and intolerant right-wing ideologue Tony Perkins (president of the Christian Family Research Council) has ironically been appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. FFRF's full-page ad in the New York Times challenges the Christian-nationalist attack on reproductive rights. After hearing Ta Nehisi Coates' reasoned plea for reparations, we talk with author and screenwriter (Bill & Ted movies) Chris Matheson about his video "God's Art Museum" and about his upcoming book, The Buddha's Story.
The Bladensburg cross may remain.
New York Timesauthor, Linda Greenhouse reveals how much of the mainstream media really views the fight for the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It is always interesting to read how the mainstream media views things like the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Timesrecently authored a lengthy commentary. Her conclusion? That the folks trying to destroy the memorial are going to lose, but that’s about it for the good news. According to Greenhouse, a growing faction of conservative Justices of the Supreme Court that are increasingly committed to interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as permitting the display of religious symbols on public property and the Free Exercise Clause as providing, in her words, “robust protection for believers.” To Greenhouse, this is not good because, she says, “the heart and soul of a diverse country . . . is going in one direction while the Supreme Court . . . is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.” But, that is factually untrue. For one thing, according to recent polling 80% of Americans agree that memorials using religious imagery to remember our war dead is perfectly reasonable. Those are the real“heart and soul” of this country. Removing religious imagery from public display does not make us more diverse. It sends a message contrary to the constitution’s promise that religion in American is to be respected in personal and public life. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association and (we think!) the second-youngest person ever to argue before the Supreme Court! Just last month, Monica argued the AHA's position in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association before the Supreme Court, and we get to learn all sort of amazing behind-the-scenes information about the case. We spend the full hour with Monica Miller and learn how the AHA came to take this case, the roller-coaster-highs-and-lows of prevailing in the Fourth Circuit only to see it get taken up by a very conservative SCOTUS, and you get Monica's prediction as to how she thinks the Court might rule... as well as which members of the Court's conservative bloc were receptive to her arguments. Along the way, you'll also learn exactly how Monica got ready for her big day! After that, it's time for the answer to T(&M)TTBE #123, the dreaded real property question involving the subsequent sale of property, the doctrine of merger, and... well, let's just say this was a hard one! Did anyone get it right? You'll just have to listen and find out. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent the government from establishing a religion, not keep religion out of the public sphere. First Liberty argued before the Supreme Court and asked the Court to change its perspective. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Many of you have followed First Liberty’s case before the Supreme Court of the United States over the Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial. We hope the case will provide much needed clarity to the interpretation of the First Amendment. The Framers intended for the Establishment Clause to guard against the government establishing a national church. Read more broadly, it prevents state officials from coercing the religious beliefs and actions of its citizens. Unfortunately, as Justice Clarence Thomas has said, this area of the law is “in hopeless disarray.” We can lay the blame at the feet of a case from 1971 called,Lemon v. Kurtzman. That decision has led to variety of confusing, court-created tests. Local officials, not knowing what to do, often ban religion. That kind of hostility to religion is something the Founders never intended. We propose an alternative: that the U.S. Supreme Court replace those tests with an alternative more in keeping with what the Founders had in mind. Unless the state coerces someone into a religious belief or exercise or enacts laws or policies that purport to actually establish an official religion, there is no violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Passive displays do nothing to coerce anyone into belief or religious exercise. They just stand there, reminding us of the service and sacrifice of something we would forget if we did not see a visible reminder. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Two virtually back to back conflicting decisions by the Supreme Court on the right of prisoners to have a spiritual guide of their own choosing in their death chamber highlight a new frontier on the separation of church and state. In one case a black Muslim man was refused an imam in his final moments and the Supreme Court did not stop the execution. Domenique Ray was put to death on February 7th. Less than two months later a white Buddhist in Texas is also refused a spiritual advisor in his execution chamber, and this time the Supreme Court halts the execution. The Joint Baptist Committee for Religious Freedom is a faith-based lobbying and advocacy group based in Washington DC that seeks to preserve and defend the separation of church and state. To understand what these decisions mean, Executive Director Amanda Tyler spoke with Beliefs producer Jay Woodward via Skype. Transcript: Amanda thank you for joining us on Beliefs. Thank you and welcome. Oh thanks so much for having me We asked you to come to Beliefs this week because you recently wrote an opinion article for Religion News Service about two Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom and the death penalty. Tell us about the first case, the execution of Domenique Ray. Sure. So The issue there was Mr. Ray who had committed a heinous murder back in the 90s while he was in prison. He had converted to Islam and he had been working with a spiritual adviser with an imam who was provided through the Alabama Department of Corrections for several years. A few weeks before his scheduled execution date, the prison official came to talk to him about what was going to happen on the day of execution. And at that point he learned that the Alabama's policy was to have a Christian chaplain accompany him into the execution chamber and be with him at the moment of death. He objected to this practice. He said I don't want a Christian chaplain with me in that moment I do want to see mom who's been working with me I would like him in the chamber and at that point the state denied his request and when it came to the Supreme Court the majority justices said that Mr. Ray had waited too long to race these claims and Mr. Ray was was executed on February. So so that's Dominique Ray. He's scheduled to be executed on February 7th and 10 days prior to which he learns that his mom will not be allowed in the chamber with him at his moment of passing. So tell us about the second case Patrick Murphy. Yeah. So this case comes out of Texas. Patrick Murphy again committed a heinous crime. And while he was in prison, I believe, he also converted to Buddhism. And so Texas had a similar policy to Alabama that they would only allow state officials who were chaplains into the execution chamber and the only chaplains the at the state employed for this purpose were Christian or Muslim no Buddhists. So you know he requested to the state that his that he have his Buddhist advisor present with him in the execution chamber. Again the state denied that request. He did not file his claim his with the federal court in this case until two days before his scheduled execution. So this time the courts said that his execution could go forward. On the same sort of reasoning from the Ray case that he had just waited too long this time it works its way up to the Supreme Court and they come up with the opposite decision. They say no that the state of Texas cannot go forward with this execution until it allows a Buddhist spiritual adviser in the chamber with him. Well that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense..!? This is really shocking to a lot of court watchers. We felt like this court which has been very solicitous of free exercise claims very interested in protecting religious liberty in in other contexts that they would deny this prisoner. His imam was very shocking. And then less than two months later the Court issued, basically, the exact opposite opinion. Yeah. So we had 10 days in the Ray case two days in the Murphy case so it can't be that that it wasn't an issue of timing. And so I think a lot of people then ask the question you know what. What's the difference between these two cases right? So that leaves us with only a couple possibilities for what that means, right? One, that the court took on board some of the public outcry regarding this decision and it affected their thinking so much that they made a contrary decision. Or two, we have to acknowledge that Dominic Ray was a black Muslim whose execution was allowed to proceed, but Patrick Murphy is a white Buddhist and so in considering his situation, the court reversed itself inside of two months. Yeah… I tend to think it is more the first. That the justices who changed their votes in these cases were really swayed by the public outcry and the advocacy both by their colleague Justice Kagan who wrote the dissenting in the Ray case which she called the court's ruling that the execution could go forward as profoundly wrong. But the fact that the court got it right to me on the second case is small solace for Mr. Ray of course who was killed without a spiritual adviser at his side. Now in addition to this being a fascinating moment for Supreme Court watchers, it also is important for understanding what is the state’s role in the spiritual lives of US citizens, specifically a conversation on the separation of church and state. Your organization, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty advocates and lobbies in this space. Can you tell us about what you do? Sure. So at B.J.C. see we defend and extend religious freedom for all people. We do it from a uniquely faith based perspective from the Baptist faith tradition and in doing so we are the only denominational based organization that works solely on religious freedom and separation of church and state. We're located in Washington right across the street from the Supreme Court. We've been doing this work for more than 80 years and a lot of our work is done with the Supreme Court filing friend of the court briefs in nearly every church state case that comes before them as well as working in advocacy with Congress and doing education with groups around the country. A faith based perspective on religious freedoms cases is a unique perspective isn't it? There aren't many faith based organizations that so actively pursue the separation of church and state, and the rigorous enforcement of the Establishment Clause like you do. Is that correct? I think that's true I think because we see religious freedom as uniquely protected in this country by robust protection of both of our First Amendment protections that government will not establish religion that government will stay neutral in matters of religion and that that will lead to the greatest freedom possible for all faiths and for people of no faith at all that both of those are equally important and protecting religious freedom that that serves well both people who are in a majority religion status and those in a minority status including people who don't claim a faith tradition. So, as I understand it, that’s how we’ve been looking at these cases for the past 10 or 20 years, that we are exploring the distinctions between the freedom TO… exercise freely, and the freedom FROM interference with our practice. Are those things in tension? Are they harmonious? Is one becoming more prominent? Yeah. I think religious freedom requires both… that they're not mutually exclusive and that in order to have freedom to practice your religion you also have to have government not taking a side in that, and that view that government must remain neutral in matters of religion is not anti-religious. If we look back at the founding of the country and the drafting of the First Amendment it was people of faith including many Baptists who insisted on government neutrality in matters of religion as a way to protect their religious exercise. That's because when governments take sides they necessarily pick and choose and religion is best left in private hands and that the government's involvement will only dilute religious practice and could of course harm it for those who are being persecuted. So then what do the decisions in these two cases mean for your work at the Baptist Joint Committee and where are we as a country in this new turn in the conversation about how religious liberty should affect not just prisoners, but convicts on death row? Well one I think we're having a pretty robust conversation about what religious freedom means and what it means in a pluralistic society and it's been heartening to see groups that don't always agree on these issues coming together really in defense of allowing all faiths to have representation there in the death penalty chamber. I do think it's important to look at what Texas did after the court's decision and Murphy the decision from the court again which was unsigned just said that the state may not carry out Mr. Murphy's execution unless they permit his Buddhist spiritual advisor or another Buddhist referent of the state's choosing to accompany Murphy into the execution chamber during the execution. I was reading the entirety of the opinion there was that one statement. In Justice Cavanaugh's concurrence. Again this isn't the force of the whole court it's what he thought. He gave the state kind of he thought the state might have two options. They could either allow a Buddhist Reverend or they could say no Reverend at all. And it's that second option that the state has said. They said look you know if this is gonna be the law then we're just not going to have any spiritual advisers in the chamber. And I think that's the exact wrong direction we B.J.C. say when anyone's religious freedom is denied everyone is threatened and I think that's what we see here. You know here we saw Mr. Murphy is having his religious freedom denied when his request was refused. But the state's response isn't to accommodate that religion. It's to say well if we have to provide it to you then we just won't provide it for anyone. And that of course hurts not only Mr. Murphy but every other prisoner who might be executed now without a spiritual adviser at his side. That seems strangely petulant... As though you could say Justice Kavanaugh provided an absurd alternative by saying either provide for all faiths or no faiths. Do you suppose it was imagined that Texas would actually turn around and say well we'll choose no faith guide comfort for prisoners being put to death? I think we see courts having a strong deference to the state in matters Prison Control and particularly in matters of execution. And so I think the Justice cabinet suggestion there was a sign of deference because of course the state's arguments in both of these cases have been, this is all about prison security. Their argument isn't that that these other faiths don't deserve representation but they say well it would somehow impact the security of the execution process. And so I think to see Texas go in that direction they're really just hunkering down on that argument. I think many of us in the religious freedom world think that that's not right. So it will be interesting to see if we see future litigation of this case as it relates to Mr. Murphy and what impact that might have. And if the court will indeed say there is actually a first amendment or a statutory right under something called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that provides extra protection for prisoners that they actually have an affirmative right to have a spiritual adviser in the death chamber. That could be a question that we'll be seeing in the coming weeks or months the court address. Well that was my next question: What is the horizon for death penalty cases religious freedom cases what are we going to be talking about for the next three to five years. Well I do think that this kind of situation where we're finding policies that are both written and then executed in a way that show a preference for a majority religion… Christianity are going to be challenged in this way by minority religions and by people who ascribe to people who identify with minority religions. It'll be interesting to see if the states respond in a similar way that instead of accommodating minority religions will just take away the accommodation for all this Supreme Court has been very solicitous of free exercise rights, but those cases have been coming up recently mostly in the context of Christians raising those claims. When we start saying free exercise rights cases coming from minority rule elections in will be it'll be interesting to see if the court is consistent in its application of the law for them. But this particular controversy about religious freedom in the death chamber - it feels like we haven't heard the end of this because the justices are having conversations with each other in these opinions. And I think they might be reflective of conversations they're having inside and with each other at the court. And we'll see if we see future. Arguments or decisions. I do think this is an evolving area. It's. It's an interesting one and it's one that has gripped the attention of court watchers and in everyday Americans as well. Is there anything else that you think we’ll be talking about in religious freedoms coming up? What’s going to be next? Well the Supreme Court has another church state case pending right now. It's called American Legion vs. American Humanist Association. It's also known as the Bladensburg cross case And this is the World War One Memorial Cross that sits at a traffic intersection, right? That’s right. And the question before the court is whether a 40 foot cross on government land constitutes an establishment of religion. The parties who are looking to keep this cross in place have made an argument that the cross is a secular symbol. and a secular symbol that it just stands for death in general and honoring war dead, and therefore it can stay on government land. And it's in the middle of a very busy intersection and the American Humanist Association challenged this crosses and establishment as the government taking sides and sponsoring a Christian symbol. And so the justices will have to decide the fate of this particular cross. But also. They're asking the question would you know future such memorials be allowed. So we'll see the decision on the court in this case probably this June. And it will be the BJP has been involved in this case we filed a brief saying that yes this is an establishment of religion because the cross is a religious symbol and we were responding to arguments from the other side that the cross is just a secular symbol. We say the cross is a religious symbol in fact it is the preeminent symbol of Christianity and for the government to claim that it is merely a secular symbol is offensive to Christianity as it attempts to strip the cross of its religious meaning. Amanda Tyler thank you so much for joining us and beliefs. Thanks so much for having me.
This week on the podcast I welcome friend and Co-host Jamie Cluck as we discuss the church's best strategies when facing the unrelenting assault on the church, symbols of faith, and morality in our culture. We discuss whether the battle will be won in the courts, or somewhere else.
The Bladensburg WWI veterans memorial is a symbol of honor and sacrifice of the 49 men from Prince George’s County, Maryland who fought and died in service to their county during WWI. First Liberty is fighting to defend the veterans memorial from destruction. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. They came from many walks of life. Several were simple laborers. One was a well-known surgeon. Another, a legend and past recipient of the Medal of Honor whose heroism in World War I earned him the Distinguished Service Cross. But, they all came from Prince George’s County, Maryland. Educated or not, white or black, rich or poor, their bodies were interred under small grave makers in cemeteries far too distant for their families to ever visit. In 1925, a local post of The American Legion erected the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial to honor 49 men from the county who gave their lives serving in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War I. The Fourth Circuit determined the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional. First Liberty Institute, and our network attorneys at the international law firm Jones Day, appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. By June, we should have a decision. I think the Gold Star mothers who designed the Bladensburg memorial in 1919 would be pleased. They chose the shape of the memorial to recall the crosses marking the countless American graves on the Western Front of that war. Surely the Constitution permits Gold Star Mothers to erect a simple memorial that mirrors those that marked the graves of their sons buried on the battlefields of Europe. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Christian Citizen contributors, the Rev. Daniel Headrick with his essay, “The meaning of the Bladensburg cross,” as read by Christian Citizen editor Curtis Ramsey-Lucas; the Rev. John Zehring encourages “Probing questions in Lent;” and the Rev. Mindi Welton-Mitchell shares “A communion legacy.”
Interview with Monica Miller. She is the Senior Council at the American Humanist Association (AHA). On February 27, 2019 she argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was all about the Bladensburg Cross. We also discuss AHA and her loss of faith story.Investing Skeptically: The cushion - What is in it?Extra audio - Sam Kinison
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices must answer the constitutionality of a war memorial in the shape of a cross seated on government-owned property. On this episode, we go inside the courtroom with journalist Tom Strode who gives us a behind-the-scenes look at the case. Then Travis, Steven, and Jeff discuss the Establishment Clause and what makes America's idea of separation of church and state unique. Guest Biography Tom Strode serves as the bureau chief and Washington, D.C., correspondent for Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Convention's news service. He is also a pastor at Covenant Community Church in Fredericksburg, Va. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUSblog Case Page | The American Legion v. The American Humanist Association SCOTUS | ERLC Amicus Brief ERLC article | What's at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Tom's BP article | Court Signals it May Change Church-State Doctrine
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices ...
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices ...
FFRF’s director of strategic response, Andrew L. Seidel, joins host Annie Laurie Gaylor for a lively dissection of the oral arguments last week in the Supreme Court’s Bladensburg cross case, including clip excerpts of the arguments and Andrew’s eye-witness impressions. Then they interview David Steketee about his exciting win Monday in FFRF’s successful challenge of billions of tax dollars for church repairs, in clear violation of the N.J. state constitution. This week the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of FFRF’s victory, making it final. Then we play a rousing, timely pep talk on the recent threats to secular government by Larry Decker, until recently the executive director of Secular Coalition for America, who spoke at FFRF’s 2018 annual convention. By the way, you’ll hear musical teasers of Ravel, an atheist who was born on March 7, 1875. We also give a shoutout to International Women’s Day and the anniversary of the landmark McCollum v. Board of Education case (both on March 8.)
Bladensburg @1:22 More than 100 priests in Buffalo link to sex allegations @6:22 State News: TN Bakery @8:05 Bill to ignore same-sex unions @8:24 Trump Updates: Cohen @14:05 Bolton @20:29 Trump's Grades @22:26 Transgender Ban hearing @28:15 Senate to vote by 15th on Trump emergency @41:37 21 states to file suit against family planning ‘gag rule' @44:30 Congress Updates: Do No Harm amendment @45:30 In the News: Study on vaccinations @49:05 Teen testified before congress @49:46 2nd HIV patient “cured” @57:06 Phone monitoring shutdown @1:01:29 OMG --- the dumb @1:02:53 Trump at CPAC @1:07:26 AZ - Rebranding anti-vax @1:12:29
Last September on BreakPoint, we told you about the constitutional challenge to a World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, known as the “Peace Cross.” The Cross was erected on private land in 1925 by the American Legion. It was to be a memorial to 49 men from that area who died in the Great War. Their names are listed on the plaque at the base of the monument. In 1961, the state assumed control of the land, and therefore responsibility for the memorial's maintenance. For more than fifty years, no one protested the Cross's presence on public land or the state paying for its maintenance. But in 2014, the American Humanist Association challenged the constitutionality of the Peace Cross in federal court. They lost the initial case in Federal District Court, but they prevailed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and this past Wednesday heard the oral arguments. There was a lot at stake. If the American Humanist Association prevails, the implications would reach far beyond this memorial in Maryland to any and all memorials on public land everywhere in the country. Any of them with anything resembling a cross or religious symbol of any kind would be fair game. The justices, or at least most of them, seemed aware of the stakes and a bit skeptical that after all this time the Peace Cross suddenly presented an immediate threat to our republic. Still, some of the justices' comments were less than a ringing endorsement of the place of religion in the public square. Most notably Justice Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General defended the presence of a cross in the Mojave National Monument, emphasized the historical context. At the time of its erection in 1925, she pointed out, crosses were common in war memorials and were not intended to convey a specific religious message. As she put it, “All the words on the memorial are words about military valor and so forth. So why in a case like that can we not say essentially the religious content has been stripped of this monument?” For Kagan, crosses were “the preeminent symbol for how to memorialize the war dead at that time.” In a somewhat ironic twist, it was the lawyer for the American Humanist Association who then insisted that “a large Latin cross can't be stripped of its religious meaning. I don't think it needs special words to . . . announce that this is . . . a religious symbol,” he said. We should be sincerely grateful that, as The New York Times and the Washington Post both agreed, a solid majority of the justices seem to be for allowing the Peace Cross to remain on this public land. If the case were to go the other way, we could be looking at a scenario raised by Justice Breyer: wholesale demolition of suspiciously-religious historical monuments across the country, possibly starting with Arlington Cemetery across the Potomac and its hundreds of thousands of crosses. But the argument, like the case itself, underscores the allergy to religion that permeates Establishment Clause jurisprudence, especially from the left. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, apparently the only kind of godliness that's “acceptable” these days is one that denies the power thereof. So religious symbols must be, as Justice Kagan put it, “stripped” of “their religious content” if it's to pass constitutional muster. That would mean that the image of Moses found on the walls of the Supreme Court, must be nothing more than equivalent to the images of Augustus, Hammurabi, John Marshall, and Napoleon — a grouping that would surprise many rabbis, not to mention Moses himself. So I pray that the New York Times and the Washington Post are correct in their reading of the justice. But we shouldn't break out into our best end-zone celebrations just yet. Even a victory in this case could still leave the public square a little more naked. http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/03/breakpoint-the-peace-cross-and-the-supreme-court/ Resources Supreme Court seems to seek narrow way to uphold cross that memorializes war dead Robert Barnes | Washington Post | February 27, 2019 Supreme Court appears inclined to let 40-foot ‘Peace Cross' stand on public land Bill Mears | Fox News | February 27, 2019 First Liberty website
BJC's Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman share their takeaways from the oral arguments in the Bladensburg cross case, including their analysis of what they heard in the courtroom and the scene outside the Court. The post Reflections on Supreme Court arguments in the Cross Case appeared first on BJC.
We review major news of the week: The pope blaming Satan instead of the church for child abusers within its ranks; oral arguments in the Bladensburg cross case before the Supreme Court; the 4th anniversary of the murder of atheist author Avijit Roy by Islamist terrorists, and the Trump Administration’s new assault against Planned Parenthood. Cheryl Kolbe, director of FFRF’s Portland chapter, joins us to talk about how she just persuaded Portland’s city council to give nonbelievers protected status. Then “Why I Am Not a Muslim” author Ibn Warraq tells us more about atheism and freethought in the Muslim world and why millions are leaving Islam.
In this episode: conservatives debate the effects of the Janus decision on public sector unions and what needs to be done to help workers exercise their rights, researchers put a price tag on the Green New Deal, and the fate of a war memorial cross goes to the Supreme Court. Subscribe to the podcast on your platform of choice at: https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/capitalresearchcenter Twitter: https://twitter.com/capitalresearch Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/capital.research.center/ Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/capitalresearchcenter/ YouTube: https://bit.ly/CRCYouTube
Bladensburg peace cross - SCOTUS/Kagan @4:31 SCOTUS on Seizure of property @7:26 Justice Thomas plans? @9:21 Pell conviction @13:09 Pope's uselessly decries tools of satan @18:34 Cardinal says church destroyed documents @23:25 State News (aka Blitz update): CA - bill to force Catholic priests to be mandatory reporters @26:04 AR - trigger law @34:25 IN - Creationism bill amended to exclude creationism @42:00 In the News: YT demonetized anti-vax channels @45:35 Cucker interview doesn't go as planned. @49:13 National News: How Planned Parenthood is being attacked @54:43 Trump panel on climate change @57:15 William Happer to lead panel
Though the First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is straightforward, the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is anything but clear. To determine if a government action amounts to an establishment of religion, the Supreme Court has developed a number of tests looking for excessive entanglement, endorsement, or coercion, to name a few, that are inconsistently applied. When it comes to the constitutionality of passive displays on government property, such as the Ten Commandments, Christmas decorations, and war memorials with crosses, the lower courts are divided about how and when to apply the various tests, leading to unpredictable results. In The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court has been asked to review the constitutionality of a 93-year-old World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland that includes a 40-foot cross. Will the Supreme Court seize the opportunity to bring much-needed clarity to its Establishment Clause jurisprudence? What impact could a broad ruling have on religion in America? Join us at The Heritage Foundation the day after the oral argument at the Supreme Court as a panel of experts discuss these and many other questions surrounding this important issue. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Hugh Hewitt and ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman discuss the supreme court case surrounding the WWI Memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association wants to tear down the memorial because it is in the shape of a cross.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently denied review of the court that declared a cross-shaped veterans memorial unconstitutional. A number of judges on the court disagreed with the decision and made their stances known. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to review a decision of that court that said the cross-shaped Bladensburg World War I Veterans’ Memorial is unconstitutional, not all the judges agreed. Chief Judge Gregory noted his dissent. He said, “Nearly a century ago, Maryland citizens, out of deep respect and gratitude, took on the daunting task of erecting a monument to mirror the measure of individual devotion and sacrifice these heroes had so nobly advanced. The panel majority says their effort violates the Constitution the soldiers fought to defend. I, respectfully, think otherwise.” Judge Niemeyer said with some exasperation, “Until this action was filed by persons who claim to be offended by the presence of the monument, no complaint had been made about its presence . . .” But, Judge Wilkinson was poetic in his dissent. He wrote, “The dead cannot speak for themselves. But may the living hear their silence. . . This memorial and this cross have stood for almost one full century. Life and change flow by the small park in the form of impatient cars and trucks. That is disturbance enough.” He concluded simply noting that the park in which the memorial stands, “may not be Arlington National Cemetery, but it is the next thing to it. I would let the cross remain and let those honored rest in peace.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
Memorials are symbols meant to remind the living of the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny an en banc review of the Bladensburg Veterans Memorial could be setting a dangerous precedent. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Veterans’ memorials are symbols meant to remind the living of the service and sacrifice the fallen made for freedom. That is why Gold Star mothers in 1919 started work on the Bladensburg World War I Veterans’ Memorial. They did not want the world to forget the sacrifice their sons made. So, they, along with The American Legion, erected a cross-shaped memorial. The design mirrored the universally accepted symbol erected over the thousands of graves of men who died in Europe defending freedom. No one complained for almost 100 years. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to overturn an opinion of a panel of that court that would direct a federal district to consider whether the monument should have it’s horizontal arms removed or be razed to the ground completely. Such a decision sets a dangerous precedent for veterans’ memorials across America. If this decision stands, other memorials will be targeted for destruction as well. We will appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. I encourage you to go to DontTearMeDown.com and join us in defending this memorial to the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland killed in the line of duty during World War I. We forget what we do not see. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the Bladensburg memorial and similar memorials in close by in Arlington National Cemetery may disappear as well. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
After over ninety years of peaceful silence, the Bladensburg World War I Memorial is in jeopardy of being torn down because of it’s cross-like shape. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. In 1919, American mothers who lost their sons in World War I set about developing a war memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland. And, there it has stood in peaceful silence for over ninety years, a visible reminder of the cost of freedom. But, in October of 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reasoned that, because these mothers chose to memorialize their sons with a cross-shaped monument reminiscent of the grave markers of the thousands of American soldiers buried across Europe, the monument violates the Constitution. Not all the judges agreed. Chief Judge Gregory issued a strong dissent reminding the court that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not require the government to purge any reference to religion from the public square. He concluded: “This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland ‘who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.’ I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend.” We agree with Judge Gregory. This is a Veterans Memorial. We will not break faith with the Gold Star mothers and The American Legion veterans who chose to remember their sons and brothers with this cross-shaped memorial. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
The Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial was erected to honor 49 veterans who gave their lives for their nation—but one group is suing to tear it down. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. In 1925, the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial was erected to honor the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland, who gave their lives in WWI. It stands outside of Washington, D.C., in the median near the National Defense Highway. This memorial—one of the oldest memorials on U.S. soil to honor the fallen of World War I—has stood without complaint for nearly a century. For the first time in over nine decades, the American Humanist Association voiced a complaint. They filed a federal lawsuit seeking to topple the memorial because those who erected it chose the shape of a cross to honor the fallen. One of the mothers who supported the memorial early on noted to her senator that her son died and was buried in Europe. Though she could not visit his grave there, she said, she considered the Bladensburg World War I memorial to be her son’s grave marker close to home. First Liberty Institute, along with our volunteer attorneys at the law firm of Jones Day, represents the American Legion who erected the memorial in 1925. This memorial was erected to honor heroes who gave their lives in defense of freedom. To tear this memorial down now would not only desecrate their memory, it would demonstrate a level of hostility to religion that our Founding Fathers warned against. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
I interview Monica Miller, Senior Counsel for the American Humanist Association. Ms. Miller will be representing AHA before the Supreme Court in February, arguing that the 94-year-old, four-story-high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, Maryland is an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the government. For more info visit americanhumanist.org. Plus: More SCOTUS talk! I ramble on about David Kaplan's book The Most Dangerous Branch, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic On the Basis of Sex, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg documentary RBG, Jane Sherron de Hart's book Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Life, and Forrest Gump. Also mentioned: an article from a few years ago that argues he Religious Right isn't so concerned about Roe v Wade as they are about using abortion as a stalking horse for keeping segregation alive by protecting private schools. Liberty Counsel (an evangelical non-profit that frequently gets involved in legal controversies) wants LGBT people removed from the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, passed last month by the US Senate. Although this bill tweaks and narrows the proper meaning of the word "lynch," it's an important step forward in preventing mob violence against historically persecuted minorities. Theme music courtesy of Body Found. Follow American Freethought on the intertubes: Website: AmericanFreethought.com Podcast Page: http://americanfreethought.libsyn.com Twitter: @AMERFREETHOUGHT Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/21523473365/ Libsyn Classic Feed: https://americanfreethought.libsyn.com/rss Find out how to support the show here and here. Contact: john@americanfreethought.com
[From CBN] Masterpiece Cake shop back in court, this time re transgender customer"Help, I'm being oppressed!"Canada's Supreme Court rules LGBT rights trump religious freedomThe Non-Prophets 17.23 2018-12-19 with Denis Loubet, Jamie Boone, Kevin Stein, & Eric Murphy[From CBN] Attacks on (Bladensburg, MA) Peace Cross would unleash "a bulldozer which would run from coast to coast"American Humanist Association are plaintiffs in the case.Call for fan art submissions for "not-peace" crosses:* Anger cross* Passive aggressive cross* Silent judgment cross* ...?First Presbyterian Church in Miami, FL hit with $7 million tax bill. Court ruled that the profits the church made from renting out property to school and food trucks is not tax exempt."Slave Bible" at Museum of the Bible[SHIT] Dennis Prager: "Happy Holidays" is the end of civilizationDenis: Does it have to be "Merry"? Can I wish someone a Scurrilous Christmas?Jamie: Happy Fucking Christmas![Denis has an observation] Christians love to pull out Pascal's Wager. It casts suspicion on the motives of all Christians that they are terrified that they will be found out that they only say they believe because they are under duress from the threat of going to hell.Ontario (Canada) woman charged with pretending to practice witchcraft. (Days before law was scrapped.)Jesus was a lich. Not a witch, zombie, ghoul, wight, vampire, ghost, or wraith.
The Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear an appeal for a case involving a memorial cross. This large cross stands in an open field in Bladensburg, Maryland, and commemorates the sacrifice of 49 local servicemen who gave their lives in World War I. We talk with Jeremy Dys of First Liberty, the organization which is defending the memorial against the American Humanist Association. We also cover these stories:--The midterm elections are today--and the Justice Department is not going to tolerate fraud. Officials will be monitoring voting in 19 states.--The U.S. government restored economic sanctions that the Obama administration lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal. The sanctions target Iran’s energy, shipping, and banking sectors, among others.--Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the United States will hold accountable the men who murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, while still maintaining the strategic U.S.-Saudi relationship.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On part II of the War of 1812, America bites off more than it can chew as it is kicked out of Canada and begins to burn down Canadian towns in anger. The American Militia is routed from the fields of Bladensburg, leading to the burning of the White House. Follow the podcast on twitter @lions_by Follow Joe @jkass99 Follow nick @nickcasm1 Donate to the Patreon for bonus content! https://www.patreon.com/lionsledbydonkeys
On August 24, 1813, during the Battle of Bladensburg, Commodore Joshua Barney and 360 sailors and 120 Marines defended the Washington—fighting against the British hand-to-hand with cutlasses and pikes.
Karen Conrad and Richard Harris are joined by Lathan Watts, Director of Communications for First Liberty Institute as they discuss: Current Supreme Court cases: Coach Kennedy (fired for silent prayer after each football game) and Bladensburg, MD WWI Memorial (memorial to be torn down because it’s across) The importance of Circuit Court of Appeals judges Your vote can keep Trump’s judge nominations going Free Resources on your rights, how to defend them, and getting help from First Liberty Jack Phillips (baker targeted again) suing the State of Colorado and Oregon baker put out of business by the government fine California’s alarming decision making homosexual conversion literature, etc. a crime What YOU can do And much more! Learn more truth at TruthandLiberty.net
With the British no longer in a war with France, they are now able to focus on the American front, and they deal a major blow to Washington DC, due in part to errors by the American commanders.
AFTERBUZZ TV -- AfterBuzz TV's Spotlight On edition, is a long form interview series featuring Actors and TV personalities discussing their roles and shows as well as their thoughts, passions and journeys. In this episode host Kristin Carole interviews J. August Richards. J. August's bio: Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in the Maryland suburb of Bladensburg, Richards discovered his love for acting at an early age and enrolled in a performing arts high school where he appeared in several plays a year. Academically confident and determined to move out to Los Angeles to pursue his acting aspirations, Richards applied to only one college - the University of Southern California (USC). Not only was he accepted, he also won numerous scholarships and grants to study theater. Upon graduation from USC, Richards began working steadily in film, television and theater. Playing a rapping bike messenger who believes he is an alien abductee in the Mark Taper Forum's (Los Angeles) p --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app