There is a forty foot granite cross, called the peace cross, that stands in the town of Blandensburg, Maryland. It was erected in 1922 following WW1. On it are inscribed the names of those from Prince Georges county that paid the ultimate price in that conflict. A total of 49 names. Now, a gentleman has filed a lawsuit demanding the cross be removed. It does stand on government owned property. His contention is that it sends the wrong message. He believes that agnostics,humanists and others that do not believe in God or Christianity will not want to live in Blandensburg. In his words, a clearly Christian symbol should not be displayed on public land. He does not want it destroyed, but moved. He cites the establishment clause as his reference. The separation of church and state. It is true that similar cases have been ruled upon in the lower courts and prevailed. By a strict interpretation of the law no religious symbols of any kind may be placed on publicly owned land. The supreme court has refused to hear any appeals on the topic. He also states that a war memorial should be all inclusive and recognize the service and sacrifices of all those that served, whether they be Christian or not.
In listening to this story on the morning news my initial reaction was anger. Why would anyone want to remove a monument to fallen veterans simply because that monument was a cross ? The American Humanist Association is behind this. It is their belief that this monument in some way influences people as to religious affiliation, that this monument somehow makes non believers uncomfortable. I admit that is a sentiment I do not understand. I do not believe in unicorns, but statues of them do not make me uncomfortable. If one truly does not believe, why would a symbol bother you ?
Yes I understand the law. I also understand that that monument was placed there in 1922 and has become a landmark. To me, monuments such as those honoring our veterans take on the same quality as a headstone. They should not be moved because they are inconvenient ! And it is my belief that is the crux of this matter. Those that claim to have no religious affiliation at all, find it inconvenient. Could it be that it jogs the conscience ? Could it be that it leads to considering other possibilities ? The big question in my mind is, why would anyone feel antipathy by seeing a cross ? I do not understand why those feelings would be strong enough to be willing to cause such a disturbance. What is the true harm here ? Surely these " humanists " as they call themselves, can not be that upset about a 92 year old violation of the establishment clause.
I can only think it is their desire to push their agenda. I can understand that part of it anyway. They feel they are correct in their beliefs, even though it is really unbelief. What I don't understand is the intolerance. I mean, these people claim to be intelligent people. In fact, some claim superior intelligence over those of us that believe in God. They are supposed to be so enlightened, so smart and sure of themselves. They act like bullies !
I hope a satisfactory resolution to this can be found. I do not want this memorial moved. As far as it being a Christian symbol, yeah it is. All forty nine names inscribed upon that monuments were Christians, what symbol would you expect ? It is true that our constitution prohibits the establishment of any state religion. State in this context meaning Government, federal or otherwise. The constitution does not prohibit displays of your religion however. The land that it sits upon is public property. In 1922 the public decided to allow the use of that land for this tribute. Yes, it was in contradiction to the establishment clause as that clause is interrupted today. That was not the case in 1922. There is one inconvenient truth in all of this, the United States of America was founded by Christians, on Christian principles. There are those that will argue vehemently against that statement, but it will not change the facts. If you are a humanist that is a bit of an inconvenience.
In listening to this story on the morning news my initial reaction was anger. Why would anyone want to remove a monument to fallen veterans simply because that monument was a cross ? The American Humanist Association is behind this. It is their belief that this monument in some way influences people as to religious affiliation, that this monument somehow makes non believers uncomfortable. I admit that is a sentiment I do not understand. I do not believe in unicorns, but statues of them do not make me uncomfortable. If one truly does not believe, why would a symbol bother you ?
Yes I understand the law. I also understand that that monument was placed there in 1922 and has become a landmark. To me, monuments such as those honoring our veterans take on the same quality as a headstone. They should not be moved because they are inconvenient ! And it is my belief that is the crux of this matter. Those that claim to have no religious affiliation at all, find it inconvenient. Could it be that it jogs the conscience ? Could it be that it leads to considering other possibilities ? The big question in my mind is, why would anyone feel antipathy by seeing a cross ? I do not understand why those feelings would be strong enough to be willing to cause such a disturbance. What is the true harm here ? Surely these " humanists " as they call themselves, can not be that upset about a 92 year old violation of the establishment clause.
I can only think it is their desire to push their agenda. I can understand that part of it anyway. They feel they are correct in their beliefs, even though it is really unbelief. What I don't understand is the intolerance. I mean, these people claim to be intelligent people. In fact, some claim superior intelligence over those of us that believe in God. They are supposed to be so enlightened, so smart and sure of themselves. They act like bullies !
I hope a satisfactory resolution to this can be found. I do not want this memorial moved. As far as it being a Christian symbol, yeah it is. All forty nine names inscribed upon that monuments were Christians, what symbol would you expect ? It is true that our constitution prohibits the establishment of any state religion. State in this context meaning Government, federal or otherwise. The constitution does not prohibit displays of your religion however. The land that it sits upon is public property. In 1922 the public decided to allow the use of that land for this tribute. Yes, it was in contradiction to the establishment clause as that clause is interrupted today. That was not the case in 1922. There is one inconvenient truth in all of this, the United States of America was founded by Christians, on Christian principles. There are those that will argue vehemently against that statement, but it will not change the facts. If you are a humanist that is a bit of an inconvenience.
No comments:
Post a Comment