Latest Headlines
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Walnut Hill Man, Three Others Charged After Alleged Overdose On Embalming Fluid, GHB
- Escambia Man, 77, Charged With Shooting Multiple Rounds At Santa Rosa County SWAT
- Escambia (AL) Volunteer Fire Departments Receive State Grant, Present Service Awards
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Escambia County Corrections’ Wilson, Hankins Graduate From State Leadership Programs
- Escambia Commission Cancels This Week’s Meeting
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
Pensacola Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Bayview Park Cross Case
September 18, 2018
The City of Pensacola is asking the U.S Supreme Court to hear the case of the Bayview Park cross.
A wooden cross was first placed in Pensacola’s Bayview Park in 1941 by the Jaycees, a local community service group, as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. The cross has been a popular gathering place for over 75 years and is one of over 170 displays in Pensacola’s parks commemorating the city’s history and culture, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
In 2016, an atheist organization sued the city, claiming that the cross is “offensive” and establishes a government religion.
The appeal comes as the Supreme Court is considering a similar case involving the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a World War I memorial in Maryland. Pensacola has asked the Supreme Court to join the two cases together and decide if historic symbols like the cross are permitted in the public square.
“Religious symbols aren’t like graffiti that the government has to erase as soon as someone complains,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which is representing the city. “The Constitution lets the government recognize the important role of religion in our history and culture.”
The court of appeals based its ruling on the notorious “Lemon test”, which has been criticized by scholars and Supreme Court justices as inconsistent with the historical meaning of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court said the Lemon test hasn’t been “directly overruled,” so “our hands are tied.” Two of the three judges said the law should be fixed and the cross should remain.
“Pensacola is a diverse city that welcomes people of all faiths and none,” said Ashton Hayward, mayor of Pensacola. “The cross is a valuable part of our history; tearing it down would needlessly signal hostility toward religion. The city looks forward to a victory in the Supreme Court.”
Becket is representing the City of Pensacola free of charge together with Stanford Law Professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell. The city is also represented by J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane.
Courtesy photo for NorthEscambia.com, click to enlarge.
Comments
25 Responses to “Pensacola Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Bayview Park Cross Case”
I used to use that park daily when I lived on that side of town. I am a Christian and even though I knew it was there, I never really nooticed it. Its tucked in the corner not visible from the rest of the park. I don’t understand what the big issue is…that our tax dollars pay the park service to weed eat around it once a month? I mean, either the offended literally have nothing else to complain about or they just see an opportunity to get famous and make a buck over this. I see lots of things in daily life that I don’t like or feel offended by…but I just keep going and I don’t waste time on it, cause I have better, more important things to do. If I happened to be in another park and see something I didn’t like…I would just go to another park lol, it not the only one in the city. Of its something of value to another person, I’m not going to whine and bitch and complain and make them remove it….I just simply won’t use the area. The world doesn’t revolve around me, nor anyone else’s offended feelings. I think this boils down to a group of emotional people who can’t control their feelings and therefore, everything must be catered to them.
@simmer down TS mean I think I know who you are and your initials are TS.
After that I repeated myself.
I think the best thing is to Google the 11 court and read about the case for yourself. ..anybody who is reading this.
The 82 page appeal is enlightening.
Read what Rabun is and why is should he overturned and contemplate the possible consequences if it is not.
@ alex I respect your opinion, beliefs, and the way you communicated them.
@ The Truth 1) What does AKA TS mean? 2) If you’re concerned about tax money, the prudent thing to do is remove the cross. The lawsuit goes away and taxpayers don’t have to pay for the upkeep and lighting of the cross. 3) I am not offended by the cross or “In God We Trust” on our currency. I don’t think it belongs there, and I would have it removed if I could, but I’m not offended by it. I am offended that the state forced schools to spend taxpayer money to put “In God We Trust” in a prominent place in every school. 4) I’m not a Constitutional scholar like you seem to be, and I didn’t use the phrase “separation of church and state” in my earlier posts. I do think the 1st Amendment tries to keep the government from favoring any religion, religions, or lack of religion. The government paying for the upkeep of the cross, among other things, seems to favor one religion. Again, I’m no scholar. What does the 1st Amendment tell us about religious freedom?
Educate me, please. Thanks! 5) What’s not a theory? You rambled a bit.
@ Tabby So acting unethically to keep the cross where it stands is appropriate? Do all of the Christians reading this message board agree with Tabby?
Peace!
@Simmer Down
Either way, it’s what needs to be done to block idiocy.
One of the athiest groups is Freedom From Religion Foundation out of Wisconsin. They are the same group that pushed to remove the nativity scene in Century and Jay a few years back. Most of their comments are of hate and belittling of any one believing in our Lord. Chech out their web page and their face book page. chi
@Simmer down (AKA TS)
This has nothing to do with inclusion. This has to do with removal.
This has to do with whether an offended person has *standing* or not– to tie up the court systems for a pay check from tax money that should be used else where. They are like ticks on a hound dog. Parasites.
This is about the Constitution first amendment and IT IS going to the supreme court and needs to be heard. That horse has left the barn.
Not a time for compromise. The mayoral candidates are blowing smoke to sit on the fence for votes.
Does “In God we trust offend” you on a dollar bill? Well then lets turn them all in and it will cost too much to print more let’s just go full electronic. The that is way a hit to the power grid or internet will stop us dead in their tracts.
The free thinker, pagan, christians, jews and nones and all others need to see this.
This particular plaintiff has already announced they are standing by to file law suits all over the country. Do you in your critical thinking mind think this has to do with ethics of separation of church and state, which BTW is NOT in the constitution.
Google Vero Beach. Brevard County.
Look at what the Democrats are doing for the Supreme Court nomination.
It’s not a theory.
@simmerdown
I may be offended by other religious symbols but I would not tell them to take it down. I would ignore it because my God is stronger. He is in charge and their symbols mean nothing to me. they are empty signs of not knowing Jesus, if it comes down or stays up they have already lost. I read the book.
@ Tabby,
Will they make sure the lease looks fair and impartial, or will the lease actually be fair and impartial?
The first is possible but unethical. The second is ethical but impossible. You’re in favor of the first option, aren’t you?
Peace!
“Towering cross-shaped monument on public land is unconstitutional, court rules”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/towering-cross-shaped-monument-on-public-land-is-unconstitutional-court-rules/2017/10/18/b26e4afe-5b47-11e7-9b7d-14576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.d63ac55a2045
I have one question for the people who support keeping the cross where it is: Would you have the same conviction if it was a Star of David or the symbol of any other religion?
If you honestly would defend another religion’s symbol you’re still wrong, but at least you’re not intolerant.
People who think the cross should be removed are not necessarily Communists, as Tabby so delicately opines, nor are they necessarily tooma’s cloven-hoofed pagans. I am neither, and I think the cross should be removed because, in my opinion, it conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by unduly favoring one religion. Again, in my opinion, protecting the Constitution is most important, because the Constitution also has a Free Exercise Clause which guarantees your right to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose. If you want to get rid of the Establishment Clause, you have to let go of the Free Exercise Clause too.
Peace!
@TheTruthWillSetYouFree
Anne, is that you? More InfoWars madness.
@2 Cents
Our tax dollars don’t pay for Pride events/parades.
Our civic areas are for everyone to enjoy, not just those of a certain faith.
All or none, in my opinion. If the cross stays, there should be ample space set aside for all other religions. That or a non-denominational area of reflection.
Are there truly atheists (one whom does not believe in God?) Personally, if there are true atheists why would they fight so hard against The One they don’t believe exist. One day every knee shall bow and confess Jesus Christ is Lord!
If you live in the city, vote Grover Robinson for mayor. Look at his plan for the cross if he gets elected in November. It sounds like what they should have done to start with. Stop all the appeals, wasting time, resources, and money. Donate a parcel the cross is on or do a 99 year lease to a private organization. Problem solved.
Don’t like that idea and want to vote for the other guy ? No worries. He has the same plan. So either way, the cross stays. I’m sure you communists will file a lawsuit but don’t worry, they’ll make sure the lease looks fair and impartial.
The cross celebrates and affirms the rights of people who believe – Christians – so to the cloven hoofed pagans that profess to believe in nothing and not acknowledge the sacrifice of our Lord which is offensive, take your non believing ways to a gathering place of like minded atheist’s and have a celebration of nothingness. It will be your doom…
Well does this mean all the crosses on soldiers grave sites that fought for our freedom will be removed as well that are buried in a public cemetery !!!! Come on Americans lets get strong with junk like this !!!
I really don’t see what’s wrong with this cross staying right where it has been for all these year’s.
If they think the cross is offences they should put a stop to the gays and lesbians parades that is offences it is a disgrace. I rather see the cross it is more important than gays and lesbians parades.
Looks like to me the so-called christians are picking and choosing what type of christian cross they want to be placed in Bayview Park! If they win, I’m going to place one of each of these christian crosses in the park! Shucks I might start making them tomorrow and start placing them all over the park!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross_variants
Simple, If You dont like it . Dont look at it . plus the jokers that sued dont even live here anymore.
The Supreme Court will agree with the Appellate Court. I will follow the guidance of Jesus…..render onto Caesar what is his…….yep, I understand the cross is going to be moved off public land, but not until politicians put on a show and lawyers cash in on taxpayer money.
Since the cross is offensive I find it necessary to oblige this group by confiscating any and all cash in their possession as every bill and coin is stamped with “IN GOD WE TRUST”. I will use their funds to ensure their travels to a place more suitable for their needs.
So if we take a vote and the population of Pensacola votes to keep the cross, then it’s not government. It’s the will of the people. It’s not like the government paid for it either. It was donated and paid for by a individual group. If this atheistic group from an outside perspective wants to donate something I mean we can vote to keep it or get display it.
Good because if they don’t stop this it will domino and the domestic terrorist will attack more municipalities. It has nothing to do with this object nor religion all in all.
The so called militant atheists are waiting like vultures to attack more towns all over the USA via the court sytems, draining already struggling towns and cities.
Next it would be dollar bills..recall them ..turn them in, go full electronic funds transfer..vote in socialist and take most of your savings. NOT
It is a dark conspiracy. Vote Republican. Mid term elections are key or else the USA is about to fall.
Get Kavanaugh on the Supreme court. When ever in our history has there not been a peaceful transfer of power? Now.
The people filing these suits are putting out front men and getting paid.
They know the ongoing constitutional argument about separation of church and state was a vulnerability to file lawsuits and pay them selves.
They use militant atheists that think they are free thinkers but really don’t know what they are talking about.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom From Religion and the Square does not have to be sanitized..and the concept of “separation of Church and state” is Not in the Constitution, First Amendment.
Stop give me all your Dollars bills!!! next..because it has something on there that might**offend some body** Give me a break. We see your con. Thieves.
Stop it here. The AntiFa is the FA.
Over turn Rabun and Lemon.
All the way to the TOP!!
#MAGA
Why are so many people OFFENDED in our society today? If it’s not one thing, then it’s another! I’m truly offended that this group of atheists are offended. The tail is wagging the dog one more time…!
“In 2016, an atheist organization sued the city, claiming that the cross is “offensive” and establishes a government religion.”
No, they claimed it violated the establishment clause.
“The cross is a valuable part of our history; tearing it down would needlessly signal hostility toward religion.”
No, it’s a part of CHRISTIAN history; that’s the problem. Keeping it up would needlessly signal hostility towards non-Christians.