Podcasts about Bladensburg

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2019 1:42

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 American Legion Case is a Landmark Decision for Religious Symbols

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2019 1:33

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.

Bladensburg’s Meaning on the Lemon Test

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 30, 2019 1:41

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 Passage of Time Turns a Religious Monument into a Historical Artifact

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 23, 2019 1:49

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.

Bladensburg Peace Cross and Hostility Toward Religion

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2019 1:45

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.

american peace americans religion cross maryland court supreme court states worse supreme legion aha briefing hostility samuel alito justices american legion first liberty bladensburg peace cross bladensburg peace cross

Victory from The Supreme Court of the United States in the American Legion Case

america american video thinking christianity cross court supreme court privilege andrews atheists atheism wwi humanists senior counsel monica miller american humanist association seth andrews bladensburg

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 2, 2019 1:36

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.

united states american peace americans war gold cross victory maryland court supreme court states mothers supreme legion aha wwi briefing supreme court justice great war samuel alito prince george justices american legion memorial park first liberty institute first liberty bladensburg gold star mothers peace cross prince george county bladensburg peace cross

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - Post-Decision Podcast

SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 23, 2019 17:22

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.

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - Post-Decision Podcast

SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 23, 2019 17:22

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.

OA295: A Bladensburg Post-Mortem With Monica Miller

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2019 64:56

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!

maryland supreme court latin lemon aha post mortem podcast awards kurtzman monica miller american humanist association bladensburg skepticrat

Examining the cross case decision with Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman

BJC Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 3, 2019 22:03

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.

cross court supreme court decision examining bjc amanda tyler bladensburg holly hollman

The Supreme Court and The Cross: with Monica Miller

TheThinkingAtheist

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2019 51:20

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

279 - Bladensburg Cross Revisited

American Freethought Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 29, 2019 50:53

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

cross maryland court supreme court rights scotus in god we trust body found podcast page nonhuman monica miller american humanist association nonhuman rights project bladensburg bladensburg cross david driscoll newdow michael newdow libsyn classic feed

Albert Mohler: Supreme Court Signals an End to the “Lemon Test”

Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2019 1:09

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.

united states maryland supreme court lemon signals town hall neil gorsuch albert mohler bladensburg lemon test

The Darkening Age

freedom religion cross foundation wisconsin supreme court atheists atheism barker appleton darkening gaylor classical world markert ffrf bladensburg catherine nixey

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2019 49:24

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.

Supreme Court rules 7-2 for the Bladensburg Cross

Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2019 33:43

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

world church culture politics running news christianity heart events maryland supreme court decision world war interns sbc supreme court rules russell moore erlc establishment clause bladensburg bladensburg cross bladensburg peace cross dr. moore

Trump Orders Strikes Against Iran, Then Calls It Off

Todd Huff Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2019 56:51

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.

Ep 437 | We Are Nowhere Near a Conservative Majority at SCOTUS

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2019 75:22

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

left supreme court conservatives roberts scotus brett kavanaugh majority bookmark bladensburg bladensburg cross

Trump Orders Strikes Against Iran, Then Calls It Off

The Todd Huff Radio Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2019 56:51

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.

Supreme Court rules 7-2 for the Bladensburg Cross

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2019

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

world church culture politics running news christianity heart events maryland supreme court decision world war interns sbc supreme court rules russell moore erlc establishment clause scotusblog bladensburg bladensburg cross bladensburg peace cross dr. moore

Trump Orders Strikes Against Iran, Then Calls It Off

The Todd Huff Radio Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2019 56:51

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.

The Trouble With Buddha

Supreme Court decision syllabus (SCOTUS)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2019 49:24

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.

Am Legion v Am Humanist Assoc. (establishment clause)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2019 20:00

The Bladensburg cross may remain.

supreme court legion scotus establishment assoc humanists establishment clause bladensburg

How the Mainstream Media Sees Bladensburg

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2019 1:38

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.

OA274: Arguing Before the Supreme Court (with Monica Miller)

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2019 64:46

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

court supreme court scotus aha arguing planning commission fourth circuit monica miller american humanist association bladensburg maryland national capital park

The Establishment Clause and Lemon v. Kurtzman

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2019 1:45

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.

The case of religious liberty and the Supreme Court, with two inmates on death row

Beliefs

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 6, 2019 18:44

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.

Weapons of Warfare

Headline Theology

Play Episode Play 30 sec Highlight Listen Later Apr 5, 2019 30:22

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.

jesus christ church bible cross legal supreme court spiritual warfare courts weapons of warfare bladensburg peace cross

The Story Behind the Bladensburg WWI Memorial

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2019 1:38

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.

The meaning of the Bladensburg cross

Justice. Mercy. Faith.

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 19, 2019 20:38

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.”

family church meaning supreme court rev lent first amendment church and state probing christian citizen bladensburg bladensburg cross

299 Monica Miller & Bladensburg Cross

The Phil Ferguson Show

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 15, 2019 66:29

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

united states american interview religion christianity cross investing court supreme court monkeys supreme aha humanists cushion sam kinison monica miller bladensburg bladensburg cross

Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2019 44:53

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

Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2019

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices ...

supreme court justices bladensburg bladensburg cross

Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2019

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices ...

supreme court justices bladensburg bladensburg cross

May Reason Prevail

the Profane Argument, atheist podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 7, 2019 50:04

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.)

america education freedom religion foundation board supreme court international women atheists atheism prevail mccollum ravel seidel ffrf bladensburg secular coalition andrew l seidel annie laurie gaylor

Ep#137: Bladensburg, Cohen, Bolton, and Anti-Vaxxers

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 6, 2019 74:34

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

donald trump phone buffalo hiv grades bolton cpac anti vaxxers transgender ban bladensburg

The Peace Cross and the Supreme Court

The BreakPoint Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 1, 2019 3:55

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

Reflections on Supreme Court arguments in the Cross Case

BJC Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 1, 2019 30:00

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.

cross reflections court supreme court arguments bjc amanda tyler bladensburg holly hollman

Why Millions are Leaving Islam

the Profane Argument, atheist podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2019 49:24

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.

freedom religion foundation satan portland supreme court muslims islam millions parenthood planned atheists planned parenthood trump administration atheism islamist kolbe ibn ffrf leaving islam bladensburg avijit avijit roy warraq ibn warraq

Episode 63: Atheists Try to Destroy a WWI Memorial Cross

InfluenceWatch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2019 7:47

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

Ep#136: SCOTUS, Pell, Pope, Cucker, and Happer

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2019 67:17

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

catholic pope scotus blitz seizure pell happer bladensburg

At a Crossroads: The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause Jurisprudence

Heritage Events Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2019 59:25

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.

christmas congress maryland supreme court crossroads ten commandments first amendment heritage foundation jurisprudence establishment clause american humanist association bladensburg america join

Hugh Hewitt and David Cortman on WWI Memorial Cross Deserves to Stand

Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2019 18:35

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.

stand cross vice president maryland memorial deserves adf alliance defending freedom hugh hewitt american humanist association bladensburg david cortman

U.S. Court Denies Review for Cross-Shaped Veterans Memorial Deemed Unconstitutional

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2019 1:46

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.

Bladensburg Refusal Could Lead to the Tear Down of Other Memorials

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 15, 2019 1:46

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.

Three-Judge Panel Determines Cross-Shaped Veteran’s Memorial Is Unconstitutional

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 11, 2019 1:41

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.

Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial Under Attack