If Jagermeister were a goverment corporation, festooning public places with its logo in the name of a god, then yes, it would be hypocritical. But the fact is, they're a private company selling booze. They have the same right to advertise their brand as, for example, churches have to rent a billboard. Christians can't ask the government to shield them from offense. That's why we no longer have blasphemy laws.

The issue here is whether a public space should have a permanent religious display on it, paid for and maintained with tax dollars, including the tax dollars of atheists. That is a case of the government promoting religion, not a company promoting a product.

And it's rather hypocritical to pretend not to understand the fundamental difference between government sponsorship of religion, and a private company's use of a religious symbol on their logo.

@Paul4747 I understand what you are saying, but the issue is whether or not the crosses are religious icons or if they are neutral symbols. To attack a hundred year old war memorial seems rather small-minded to me. There are many thousands of crosses in national cemeteries. Do you advocate removing all of those?

@WilliamFleming A religious symbol as a grave marker presumably indicates the religion of the person buried there. It serves a purpose for the family of that person. It's not there to proselytize. People don't go to the cemetary other than for the purpose of visiting graves; they should reasonably expect to see grave markers.

On the other hand, the cross in Pensacola is not a war memorial. Citing the court decision: 'In 1941, the National Youth Administration erected a wooden cross in the eastern corner of Pensacola’s Bayview Park to be the “focal point” of what would become an annual Easter sunrise program. The program itself was organized by the Pensacola Junior Chamber of Commerce (a/k/a the “Jaycees” ) and soon became a tradition, with people gathering for Easter services during World War II to pray, among other things, for “the divine guidance of our leaders” and for faith to “see through the . . . dark days of war.” ' It was set up by an adjunct to the Chamber of Commerce, a functionary of the city government, for an Easter program in a public park: how much more overtly proselytizing can you get? How much more of a religious icon do you want?

Because it has been a religious icon in the same place since 1941, doesn't make it "neutral"; it just makes it an old religious icon. That's akin to saying Notre Dame is just an old building in Paris; it misses the point that its main function is "cathedral".

@Paul4747 OK, maybe you’re right. Is it the end of the appeal process? It would be simple for Pensacola to deed a little corner of the park to a private organization. So far as effect on the public, not one thing would change.

Having waited 75 years to challenge the thing seems to tell me that for all these years nobody objected in the least. I suspect that even today the cross offends very few.

@WilliamFleming Nobody objected, or nobody realized there was a legal avenue to pursue? Or nobody was prepared to spend the time and money going to court over the matter, and make themselves a pariah in the proocess? You do realize how unpopular someone can become once they're known as "that atheist who sued to take the monument down"? It takes a lot to put yourself and possibly your family through that sort of ordeal.

Anyway, whether anyone objected or was offended is beside the point legally. It's a government endorsement of religion. Are you saying that government-sponsored religion would be perfectly legal as long as nobody objected to it?

@Paul4747 Government can not sponsor a religion under the constitution. The question is about what constitutes sponsorship, and the answer to that question is not cut and dried. If there were a definite answer there would be no controversy.

At the courthouse is a deed indicating that a city owns a piece of real estate. There is a religious icon on that property. Does that mean that the city is establishing a religion? I lean toward thinking not. An entire church might be sitting on land owned by some entity. The owners of the land might have no interest in the religious practices of the church members, and they are certainly not establishing or promoting the religion. As I said above, it would be simple to transfer ownership of a corner of the park, but that seems almost silly and would change nothing in practice.

Suppose a city owns a museum, and in that museum is a picture of a cross. Does that mean the city is establishing a religion? I realize this case is different—I am pointing out that the question is not black and white and that allowances have to be made, just as the court did in this case.

If Pensacola issues the following edict: “All citizens will report to the city park at 6 AM for Easter services”, then I’ll be on your side.

I found it ironic that your story about the Jagermeister logo, one that I'd missed [thank you for calling our attention to it], took place in a nation whose flag, along with a number of others, contains a cross.

When the right spouts "freedom of religion and not freedom from religion" it shows that they still want to believe that America was founded on principals of religious freedom. This has to be coz they want a "Christian Nation." It's all lies. If any religious group was not wanted in Europe back then it certainly had nothing to do with American Evangelicals today.

"Freedom from religion" is implied in "Freedom of religion". It is basically a prohibition of government forcign religious beliefs onto others who don't share those beliefs.

@snytiger6 your correct in that we ARE protected in the courts(for now anyway) but you can see how far the Religious Right are pushing to take it.

@phoenixone1 Yes, they want nothing less than a theocracy. Of course if they get to that point, the various denominations will turn on each other over slight differences in interpretations, theologies, doctrines and dogmas.

The only use of the word 'freedom' in the First Amendment applies to speech. The so-called Establishment Clause is meant to constrain the Federal Government from selecting a 'national religion,' as was the case for all of Europe. The states, however, were not quite as constrained, and the laws in many are the direct result of religion's influence.

The First Amendment is quite succinct, but it has served us well.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

@phoenixone1 that’s why we need someone like Sen. Bernard Sanders, he has a track record of standing to for All of us, Nina Turner does too. Vote vote vote!

Exactly. We need Bernard Sanders in, he has a track record of fighting for All of us not just those he thinks of as “correct”. That’s the thing about Bernie, he thinks people have the right to believe or Not believe in whatever they want. You know?

@TattedIrishXx I totally agree but I fear he is going to get railroaded again just like he did in 2016...people are so ignorant when it comes to his philosophy and that ignorance is being used to control the Democratic Party outcome...that and all the "Backroom Deals" that "We The People" have no control over. I hope this doesn't happen again but it may be inevitable...both parties are corrupt and anyone with any intelligence knows it...just saying.

@phoenixone1 totally agree! I just do not really believe that Biden “won” in S. Carolina. DNC will fuck it up again. We told ‘em Bernie or Bust and look what happened. You know?

A theocratic dictatorship is exactly what the evangelical Christians want.

@anglophone
Yes,
While the destroy our environment, protections, and safeguards to hasten the Rapture that will take them to their religious paradise!!!

@of-the-mountain Quite!

@anglophone What they THINK they want. This will only be the start of competition between the sects.

@of-the-mountain So much for religious morality. At some point every religion is guilty of atrocities.

@JackPedigo Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, American style perhaps?

@Novelty LOL
Was already thinking about how to weaken the base, so it'll come down more easily during the next big "blow".
LOL

@KKGator

Let them gather up and destroy themselves and all things that they hold sacred so they can hasten the Rapture they want so badly!!