The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Supreme Court hears memorial cross case

by Rachel Lynn Aldrich
Posted 2/27/19, 01:08 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of a threatened World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Md. First Liberty President Kelly Shackelford, who argued the case before the high court, said the lawsuit is a chance to clear up the confusing legal precedent about public displays with religious imagery, which he said everyone seemed to recognize “is in hopeless disarray.”

“We were very encouraged by the way things went today and are really hopeful,” he said at a news conference directly after the arguments.

The American Humanist Association sued the town of Bladensburg for the cross memorial, which an American Legion post erected in 1925 to honor local men who died in World War I. A U.S. District Court judge in Maryland ruled the memorial could stay in 2015, but a three-judge panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the cross a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse the ruling, the memorial must be removed.

The justices likely will not issue their ruling until June.


Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Rachel Lynn Aldrich

Rachel is an assistant editor for WORLD Digital. Follow Rachel on Twitter @Rachel_Lynn_A.

Read more from this writer

Comments

  • Bob C
    Posted: Wed, 02/27/2019 04:24 pm

    This cross does not establish a church.

    The cross does not force you go to any church or to believe in Jesus.

    The purpose of the “establishment clause” is to avoid having a state church and this cross does not establish any church.

    If the AHA did not know what the Cross represented to Christians, it would not mean anything to them.

    The reality is that members of the AMA know they are guilty, and the cross convicts them of their sin and reminds them of their lost-ness, so they need it removed so they can feel good. The Constitutional Amendments have no restrictions on conviction of sin.

  • Greg Mangrum's picture
    Greg Mangrum
    Posted: Wed, 02/27/2019 06:49 pm

    Well said.

  • news2me
    Posted: Wed, 02/27/2019 08:02 pm

    Yes, Bob C.

ADVERTISEMENT