WASHINGTON - A 40-foot-tall cross-shaped war memorial standing on public land in Maryland does not constitute government endorsement of religion, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that leaves unanswered questions about the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state.
The challengers had argued that the cross violated the Constitution’s so-called Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and bars governmental actions favoring one religion over another. The court did not endorse a new more permissive test proposed by the American Legion veterans’ group, which joined the case in defense of the cross, that religious displays on public land be struck down only if they coerce people into practicing religion.
“A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach,” Breyer wrote in a concurring opinion. Conservative justice Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome but did not join Alito’s opinion. Both would make it much harder for religious displays on public land to be challenged.
I agree that it should stay in that it was constructed at that time as a memorial. You will find such things everywhere that people were killed during WWI. I do not see this instance as a religious symbol but only as a war monument. No more of them though.
What the fuck
'The court’s decision today is a win for protecting religious freedom and American historical tradition' - time to break out that Baphomet statue again:
Ok. Then also dozens of other religious symbols can as well. Atheist too.
Great verdict and welcoming it
Under His Eye
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »