Lying Preacher: A Liberal Supreme Court Would’ve Removed Crosses from Cemeteries July 2, 2019

Lying Preacher: A Liberal Supreme Court Would’ve Removed Crosses from Cemeteries

Right-wing preacher Lance Wallnau isn’t known for his intelligent takes, but his latest comments purposely distort the Supreme Court’s recent decision about the Bladensburg Peace Cross.

Quick refresher: The Court said the Giant Christian Cross on public land in Maryland could stay put in large part because it had been there for a long time. It had become secular over time, Justice Samuel Alito wrote (to the confusion of church/state lawyers everywhere). But the ruling was fairly limited in the sense that it really only applied to religious relics with an ostensibly secular purpose that had been around for a while.

It’s not like a stand-alone Nativity scene on public property was legal. It’s not like a public school could suddenly put up a Ten Commandments monument outside the building.

But according to Wallnau, who appeared on The Jim Bakker Show yesterday, Christians should be grateful for the decision since, otherwise, crosses would’ve been stripped off of tombstones.

… Imagine if… we lose this thing. It’s not incremental craziness. It’s exponential. All the crosses that are on cemeteries would then become… a pole would be put in their place, or something like that, because according to the leftists on the Court, they’re images of Christianity and everybody knows what a Cross represents, and we don’t want the government involved with it…

All of that is a conservative conspiracy theory. It’s a lie. Private cemeteries would’ve been safe no matter what. Same with public cemeteries. Arlington National Cemetery, with its variety of religious symbols on tombstones, would’ve been safe too.

The only issue on the table was government promotion of religion, which this Giant Christian Cross was, until Alito’s majority said it wasn’t a promotion of religion because a Cross apparently becomes less Christian over time.

Even if the other side had won, the Cross in question could have simply been transferred to private land. Problem solved.

But people like Wallnau can’t imagine that church/state separation proponents are interested in religious neutrality. He assumes they want to stomp out Christians because that’s what he wants to do to non-Christians.

He’s incapable of realizing that not everyone wants to force their beliefs onto everyone else.

(via Right Wing Watch)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!