SCOTUS, Including Jews, Still Skewed Christian

I’m not offended by the mere sight of a cross, even a big cross, in an American graveyard, when it marks the grave of a Christian; or exclusively Christians.

Moreover, I’m usually critical of the liberal radicalism of SCOJUS RBG. Still, when she’s right, she’s right; and deserves to be commended for it!

When a Jew attempts to reduce the U.S. Constitutional position on Church and State to “the legal prohibition against a state church”, however, then (s)he has grossly misquoted, misconstrued and distorted the U.S. Constitution–and revealed herself/himself to be a lackey Jewish “Uncle Tuvi”.

Because the Bladensburg “Peace Cross” is erected on public land, not over a Christian graveyard exclusively of fallen Christians, SCOTUS has erred in failing to recognize that a cross representing fallen non-Christian Americans is an enormous insult and disrespect to fallen non-Christian Americans; a misrepresentation that most certainly was imposed on the fallen, against their will, and who cannot complain on their own behalf. What Jew or Muslim fallen would agree to a cross representing them?

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court concerning the Establishment Clause wrote. “Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a ‘wall’, is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.”

Although I don’t accept Wikipedia as authority, the following is a pretty basic fact. “Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the “Lemon Test”. First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion.”Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).

That it is a three-pronged test itself attests that the first test, alone, is insufficient. Thus, the SC argument (that, while it would be unlikely today to impose a cross to represent non-Christian fallen, the cross was erected by Christians of yesteryear who didn’t know any better) doesn’t stand on its own merit alone. That argument is no different from defending Jim Crow arguments because they were emplaced by Christians of yesteryear who didn’t know any better! Or defending biases against women’s rights by the same argument. Of course, the original erectors of this cross understood, and intended, it to be a religious–Christian–memorial on public land. The Bladensburg “Peace Cross” fails the first prong of the Lemon Test.

The assertion that placing a cross above fallen non-Christians doesn’t advance religion–and by imposition over unwilling fallen non-Christian Americans, no less!–is, simply put, a self-evident false statement. It not only advances religion, it imposes a particular religion, Christianity, over unwilling fallen American warriors who cannot complain for themselves. Under no circumstances can acceptance on the part of non-Christian fallen Americans be simply assumed (as the Supreme Court, apparently, has). This decision also fails the second prong of the Lemon Test.

It is diametrically wrong to represent that “what [the Constitution] does not do is to ensure a right to protect Americans from being confronted by symbols of faith or to treat religion with hostility”. In fact, to the contrary, the core point of the Constitution is to protect American minorities from the imposition, in-your-face, of a particular religion, including its symbols, in any way given preference by the State–and that includes protection from being “confronted by symbols of faith”, which is frequently the same as treating a minority religion with disrespect or hostility. Seeing them on a person (a necklace, shirt, or the like) isn’t necessarily confrontational. But when it crosses the line to an in-your-face menacing threat, then such confrontation regularly results in assault, riot-violence and leads directly to persecution of the minority religion–especially where it blurs with racism; i.e. whether miso-Judaic White Supremacy Nazism, Antifa or BLM. These are each unequivocal government “entanglements” in promoting an imposition of Christianity over unwilling non-Christian Americans. Ignoring these implications clearly fails the third prong of the Lemon Test as well.

From media reports, it appears that the Supreme Court ignored that the cross memorial represents numerous American soldiers who were not Christians (though one would be too many); and who who would feel ignored and disrespected at being misrepresented by a cross. The cross memorial ignores, and disrespects, minority religions who gave the ultimate sacrifice for America no less than Christian Americans did. That is, most certainly, not even remotely acceptable by the Constitution.

3 thoughts on “SCOTUS, Including Jews, Still Skewed Christian

  1. Since constitutional law is not my expertise I shouldn’t say that the decision was possibly just to avoid white riots.


  2. If they can tear down and replace Confederate figures,, thus altering USA history, then they can tear down a Constitutionally unfit cross on public lands!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s