June 21, 2017

"The Bayview Park Cross has stood in Pensacola, Fla., for around 75 years after being originally erected in 1941."

"Now, due to the recent declaration of a federal judge, the park has 30 days to remove it."

59 comments:

Virtually Unknown said...

This is how the Democrats are going to turn Florida blue. Remove the magical tokens the Republicans are using to assert their power.

Fen said...

Awarded $1 in damages to the douchebag atheists who just couldn't resist making a fuss before moving to Canada.

Placing a cross in a park establishes a national religion?

File this under: "We'll start respecting your rights once you respect ours"

Dave from Minnesota said...

AA, as a law professor, can you tell us what has changed in constitution the bans monuments such as this.

Fen said...

But thank you for Florida's electoral votes in 2020. Stay in Canada.

traditionalguy said...

Those extraordinary Navy Carrier pilots in training arrogantly established a Religion, and them on the Federal payroll too.

It is about time a Federal Judge stopped them. Next thing you know, another John McCain could come forth and become the Navy's Pope. The cabal of the Naval Academy has at last been stopped. All they want is more 10 billion dollar aircraft carriers and not a dime for Transgender Justice.

Dave from Minnesota said...

By the way, Madison Wisc is hated in Belle Plaine Minnesota. A WW2 vet created a veterans monument. It is a metal item showing a soldier kneeling before the grave of a falling fellow soldier. And the creator of it died just before it was installed.
Madison sued to have it removed because the soldiers grave has a cross on it. Hate filled bigots are the worse people in the world.

If you go to the web site for the Madison hate group, you see a photo of rich white folk with smug smiles.
If you look at the photos of the veterans in Belle Plaine, you see normal people.
That is why Trump won.

iowan2 said...

I know it goes against the core of conservative values, but being nice, reasonable and rational has only encouraged these idiot judges. So its time to fight fire with fire. First file a demand for an environmental impact statement. Make the court pay for it. Then demand that any modification of the park must go through the Historical commission. Then refuse the work permit to remove the Cross, until safety protocols and emergency response forms are filed. (that could take a while because they haven't been created yet). I'm sure there is more red tape that can be erected and hoops fashioned to jump through.

Darrell said...

Turn it into a cell phone antenna.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Placing a cross in a park establishes a national religion?

Ask the bigots, what national religion is being established? What transfer payments are being made from the nations treasury to a church's bank account? What penalties are imposed to those who don't participate in this religion?

Darrell said...

Remove the Federal judge in 20 days. Problem solved.

Scott said...

Honestly, I think that it's about time to point out that the first amendment als0 prohibits laws barring the free exercise of religion. That's a pretty fertile ground to go after some sauce for the gander, starting with the use of anti discrimination laws as well as suing some of these groups like the American Atheists.

Two can play at this game after all.

Curious George said...

"In addition to the order, Vinson awarded $1 in damages to the plaintiffs, two of whom have moved to Canada, since the case began."

Alrighty then.

Ann Althouse said...

"AA, as a law professor, can you tell us what has changed in constitution the bans monuments such as this."

Over the last 40 years...

1. People with the nerve to bring the lawsuits. You don't get the interpretation of a constitutional text unless there are actual cases.

2. An emphasis in the Court's Establishment Clause analysis on whether a religious display makes some members of the community feel like outsiders. (Justice O'Connor played a big role here.)

traditionalguy said...

That will teach those Christians. Bragging about a Crucifixion is so old fashioned, anyway. And we have to follow China's example. They understand that Christianity is a radical subversion of the power of the Party to Govern.

The next Federal Judge will probably order the burning of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. It is also a radical subversion of the Power of the British Monarchy to Govern. In fact, God Forbid, it was written by Holy Scripture defending Protestants in rebellion.

Ann Althouse said...

3. The Court's Establishment Clause doctrine has been very confused for a long time. They just can't resolve the cross-currents. There's too much going on and an unwillingness to go to one of the 2 extremes. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. Scalia was the clearest, strongest member of the Court and at most Gorsuch can replicate him. The mushy middle has its charms. It's not like the way they simplified the Free Exercise Clause in Smith (the case the Religious Freedom Restoration Act tried to reverse).

Big Mike said...

@Darrell, go read the article. The judge clearly regrets the decision, but agrees that as a judge he has to follow the law. Would that more federal judges felt that way! Awarding the plaintiffs damages of one dollar seems to convey his feelings. They had to have spent more than that on lawyers.

iowan2 said...

AA I thought the question meant, has the constitution been amended? The plain language states "congress shall make no law" Congress has nothing to do with a Cross in a City park. History tells us that States, did in fact, create State Churches. SCOTUS amending the constitution from the bench seems to be the rub.

Fen said...

Hey is that MLK statue sporting a clergy collar? Tear it down.

That 100 year old document about "being endowed by their creator will certain inalienable rights"... throw it out.

Fen said...

Prof Althouse, thanks for the prompt response. I'm curious too. I was snarky, but I know it's more complicated than whether a cross in a field "establishes" a religion.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Can I get a judge to stop Minneapolis from hanging the homosexual rainbow banner from all the downtown city light poles during gay sex week?

Dave from Minnesota said...

iowan...that was my point. The constitution doesn't ban an occasional memorial or monument. But suddenly it does? Two points.

A) Supposedly.....much of this goes back to a Democrat KKKer on the USSC. Hugo Black, like most KKKer, hated Catholics, so these rulings started with him as a way to remove Catholic from public life.

B) Living in Minnesota, you can't help but come in contact with anti-Christian bigots. These types of court cases have nothing to do with the constitution. These people are very open about their hatred of Christian-American and use these cases as a way to promote their hate.

Ann Althouse said...

"AA I thought the question meant, has the constitution been amended? The plain language states "congress shall make no law" Congress has nothing to do with a Cross in a City park. History tells us that States, did in fact, create State Churches. SCOTUS amending the constitution from the bench seems to be the rub."

You're aiming at one of the extremes in interpreting the EC. That argument has been made by Justice Thomas, which, to put it in legal terms, is that the 14th Amendment Due Process clause does not incorporated the EC. You'd have to overturn old precedent to get back there.

Dave from Minnesota said...

AA, can cases be appealed (huge bucks needed of course) to fix this? In my opinion, the constitution doesn't ban community memorials.

The problem is that the angry racist left "makes them play by their own rules" then and puts up offensive things just as an F.U.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's Thomas making that point and not even getting Scalia to join him.

That's how far outside the mainstream your idea is.

Ann Althouse said...

Of course it can be appealed. You still have to win, though.

Fen said...

"Can I get a Minessota judge to stop - "

Depends on how mainstream your opinion is. Apparently, the Bill Of Rights is a popularity contest.

clint said...

Lots of reasonable ways to fight this within current law -- assuming the decision is as unpopular as the judge's reluctance suggests.

Example: sell the land and the monument (for $1) to a private non-profit trust.

Some of the best parks in my area are privately owned by conservation trusts.

Virtually Unknown said...

An emphasis in the Court's Establishment Clause analysis on whether a religious display makes some members of the community feel like outsiders.

Now it makes complete sense. The wrong people were "feeling like outsiders."

iowan2 said...

Yes I know SCOTUS will not cede the power they have stolen, nor will congress exercise their power to slap them back. But don't take my dreams from me.
I just find the notion that if I don't actively advocate for something I am Personally guilty of some form of ism. No longer is it acceptable to 'just' refrain from voicing an opinion, I cannot feel uncomfortable, or be offended. The left on the other hand demand constitutional protection from mere notions they imagine offense of.

The claims of standing, damage, in this case are unsupported by tangible measure.

Dave from Minnesota said...

An emphasis in the Court's Establishment Clause analysis on whether a religious display makes some members of the community feel like outsiders.

Oh, the hurt feelings clause of the constitution. See my post above about the government putting up homosexual rainbow flags.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Example: sell the land and the monument (for $1) to a private non-profit trust.

The bigots have tried to stop that also.

Dave from Minnesota said...

But to make me feel better that Anthony Wiener wannabe in Georgia spent $24,000,000 to lose an election.

Darrell said...

The judge clearly regrets the decision

That's his first mistake. Leftist judges never regret making new law and are never held to account for that. This is a war. Not pulling the trigger is going to get your side killed. The good-old-days are gone forever.

Tom Gallagher said...

The next headline may read, "All cities named after saints ruled uncontitutional after 3 people were offended."

Dude1394 said...

Democrats will not be happy until we are a godless nation, under fascism.

Dave from Minnesota said...

You would think there would be an historic monument designation that would work. There are efforts in southern states to do that for Confederate statues.

Gahrie said...

Fucking atheist assholes.

No one is forcing you to believe in a religion, but you are forcing all of us to follow yours.

Fernandinande said...

Superstitious self-righteous Fen said...
Awarded $1 in damages to the douchebag atheists who just couldn't resist making a fuss before moving to Canada.


One of the plaintiffs is a Satanist, IOW, a Christian variant.

Placing a cross in a park establishes a national religion?

So you'd be supportive of taxpayers maintaining Satanic or Islamic symbols on public property?

Fernandinande said...

Gahrie said...
Fucking atheist assholes.


Fucking superstitious fool.

No one is forcing you to believe in a religion, but you are forcing all of us to follow yours.

The other superstitious fools were forcing everyone to pay for their magical symbols, which is exactly the opposite of your foolish comment.

Otto said...

It's revealing to see these resentful disgruntled socialist flitter between collectivism and individualism to suit their objective. Over or under that yev will weigh more than dworkin when 50 ? Ugly women.

Jim Gust said...

That Thomas opinion is brilliant! I see nothing to criticize. It ought to be the law.

Thanks for posting the link.

Gahrie said...

Hey..I've got an idea! How about we file lawsuits and ban Christianity from our popular culture and public spaces! I mean what could possibly go wrong? It's not like that would cause:

an increase in divorce
an increase in single motherhood
an increase in abortion and infanticide
an increase in crime
a culture dominated by obscenity, pornography and violence

Dave from Minnesota said...

Bigots like Fernandinande are why Trump won and why Handel won yesterday.

Michael K said...

Example: sell the land and the monument (for $1) to a private non-profit trust.

I believe that was successfully done in California a few years ago.

Fen said...

"Superstitious fool, the other superstitious tools were forcing taxpayers to pay"

1) That's an argument surrounding county and state budgets. My tax dollars are used for a host of issues I don't support, so is everyone's. So your rebuttal has nothing to do the 1st Amendment's prohibition against establishing a State Religion.

2) Thank you for mocking the Christian faith by demeaning them as "superstitious". Now that I know you are a bigot, I will treat you accordingly.

3) I'm not even a Christian, you presumptuous asshole.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"One of the plaintiffs is a Satanist, IOW, a Christian variant."

Nonsense. Satanist Anton LeVey admitted he didn't really believe in Satan and was an atheist. The "church" he founded was a deliberate mockery of Christianity, a childish "epater de bourgeoisie" akin to covering a statue of the Virgin Mary in dung. They are not about worshipping Satan; they want to offend Christians.

Fernandinande, I like and frequently agree with your comments when they do not concern religion, but I don't think you have much understanding of the religious impulse or any knowledge of theology.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Fernandinande, you might be doing just fine without a belief in a Creator, but it's pretty clear that most of these militant atheist assholes who file these suits are leftists and have substituted one faith for another.

Etienne said...

In 1941 Americans had blacks in the back of the bus.

You want 1941 again? Yea, ask a black person if that sounds like fun.

"Get ya water from dis fountain boy, not dat fountain..."

Richard Dolan said...

The article says that, in reaching his conclusion, the judge applied the Lemon test. Perhaps this case will be the vehicle to take that back to SCOTUS, where some justices have expressed misgivings about it over the years.

Etienne said...

State sponsored religion is unconstitutional.

If you want to show your religion is better than another, but the f'n land.

Don't get Muslims and Hindu's to pay for your religion.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Don't get Muslims and Hindu's to pay for your religion.


Seems the least they could do.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...1. People with the nerve to bring the lawsuits. You don't get the interpretation of a constitutional text unless there are actual cases.

People used to be a lot more tolerant, I guess. Sad.

Etienne said...

but the f'n land.

Interesting that the "t" is next to the "y" on the keyboard.

Well, interesting in an Arabic sense. Right to left, left to right...

Gahrie said...

3) I'm not even a Christian, you presumptuous asshole.

I'm not either.

virgil xenophon said...

Well, I guess we'll have to immediately start removing the crosses from every military cemetery in the nation, starting with Arlington, n'cest-ce pas? Isn't that the demented logic of this line of thinking?

ken in tx said...

Pensacola should sell the park, on easy terms, to a special non-profit made up of local churches and civic groups, with an easement to allow public access.

Etienne said...

...demented logic of this line of thinking?

Wait, the Constitution is demented? The part about Americans having freedom from religion, is demented?

More to the point, should the government even have any cemeteries? The proper thing to do is cremate the remains and dump the ashes into a volcano.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Weaksauce, Etienne. Surely you can get more use out of a dead body than that! Cogeneration, gold fillings, organ donations, stage props...

Gahrie said...

The part about Americans having freedom from religion, is demented?

Yes...because the Constitution doesn't give you the right to be free from religion....it is freedon of religion, not freedon from religion.