Courts Rule City Cannot Display Crosses, Cites 'Establishment Clause' As Justification

[James Madison]

Nevermind that it's a gross misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause, things like this really piss me off. As if now -- all of a sudden -- people care about the Constitution, but only when it's a bunch of two-by-fours nailed together. They should just claim that it's art.

What does this mean for religious symbols displayed at National Cemetaries? How is that any different? Oh, but those people died in service to the State, which is the highest honor in the eyes of Americans of any creed. :rolleyes:
------------------------------------------
EVANSVILLE, IN (WFIE) -
A final legal decision has been made regarding the crosses placed at the Evansville riverfront, but a new wrinkle could mean the crosses will still be displayed downtown.

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled the crosses will not be allowed to be displayed along the riverfront in Downtown Evansville. In the ruling he said the "Cross the River" display would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But now a lawyer for West Side Christian Church tells 14 News, the Kunkel Group has offered the McCurdy building lot, on Riverside drive, as a potential site for the Cross the River display.

Chris Wischer says they are reviewing the decision and options and no decisions have yet been made.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court made by two Evansville residents who were trying to prevent the city from displaying the 30 crosses along the downtown riverfront.

Plaintiff Nancy Tarsitano says this was never an attack on religion, but about protection of Constitutional rights.

The crosses were set to be installed along the busy downtown riverfront. They would have been there for two weeks, running through August 18.

The 30 crosses, standing between six and eight feet tall, would have been decorated by children attending a Bible school camp, and then placed along Riverside Drive; between Court Street and Locust Street.

http://www.14news.com/story/22978586/crosses-will-not-be-allowed-on-evansvilles-riverfront

[Dr.3D]

What the city should do is offer the property to a private individual or perhaps even one or two of the churches in the area. It should then donate the crosses and installation to those churches. This seems to me like it would make it appear as a private display and thus legal.

[Carlybee]

I have no problem with it if its on private property but don't think tax dollars should pay for religious symbology. Not everyone is the same religion.

[James Madison]

I have no problem with it if its on private property but don't think tax dollars should pay for religious symbology. Not everyone is the same religion.

That's the problem with public funding. The people that act so offended by the city displaying crosses have no problem using tax dollars to fund literally anything else. And that's the main reason I posted this story. That and how the Establishment Clause is to forbid Congress signing treaties with political establishments of religion (Vatican, Church of England).

[eduardo89]

This is bullshit. SCOTUS needs to rule on this once and for all.

[Carlybee]

That's the problem with public funding. The people that act so offended by the city displaying crosses have no problem using tax dollars to fund literally anything else. And that's the main reason I posted this story. That and how the Establishment Clause is to forbid Congress signing treaties with political establishments of religion (Vatican, Church of England).


Nope..they need to be consistent...no crosses...no star of Davids...no statues of Abraham or whatever muslims worship..really nothing religious based IMO...that's what churches, synagogues and mosques are for. We have a church on every corner here and most of them have some kind of cross. But yes they need to not spend money on stupid crap either. Unfortunately people are stupid.

[Southron]

I didn't know Evansville was part of Congress.

[James Madison]

Nope..they need to be consistent...no crosses...no star of Davids...no statues of Abraham or whatever muslims worship..really nothing religious based IMO...that's what churches, synagogues and mosques are for. We have a church on every corner here and most of them have some kind of cross. But yes they need to not spend money on stupid crap either. Unfortunately people are stupid.

It shouldn't be limited to displays of religious origin. What about art that could be deemed offensive or just plain stupid? Same with the crappy music public funded orchestras play. I'm in favor of eliminating all public funding, but to declare this a violation of the Establishment Clause is ridiculous.

[Carlybee]

It shouldn't be limited to displays of religious origin. What about art that could be deemed offensive or just plain stupid? Same with the crappy music public funded orchestras play. I'm in favor of eliminating all public funding, but to declare this a violation of the Establishment Clause is ridiculous.

The way it is worded is open to interpretation but not sure it applies at the local level.

[torchbearer]

how about eliminate coercive government and get rid of the problem?

[Legend1104]

My biggest problem is the federal government using a misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment to misunderstand the 1st Amendment and apply it wrongly to the states.

[Christian Liberty]

+rep.