Friday, December 04, 2015

Atheists and Muslims: "Cross is Offensive"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

This week, Maryland Federal Judge Deborah Chasanow did the right thing.

She threw out a lawsuit that was intended to tear down a 40 foot memorial that has stood for almost 100 years.

The memorial is a cross. This incident highlights an even greater conflict.

The American Humanist Association was demanding the monument in the shape of a cross be torn down, because, they said in the law suit, it's "offensive."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was attempting to join the atheists by filing an amicus brief in support of tearing down the cross, because they too found it to be "offensive."

Historically, there has always been those who work tirelessly to remove and discredit the cross.

The 40 foot tall monument has stood for almost 100 years at the intersection of Maryland Route 450 and US Route 1 in Bladensburg.

Dedicated in 1925, although private fundraising for the monument had begun in 1918. The monument is a memorial to veterans and those who died in World War II, Pearl Harbor, Korea and Vietnam, 9/11, the War of 1812 and the Battle of Bladensburg---a battle fought during the War of 1812.

The Bladensburg Cross has a plaque that says, "Memorial Cross is dedicated to the heroes of Prince George's County, Maryland who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world."

It also has a quotation from President Woodrow Wilson. Four words are inscribed on each face of the cross: "valor, endurance, courage, devotion."

Is that offensive?

The atheists and Muslims say they are concerned that since 1960, the monument, previously owned and maintained by the American Legion, is owned and maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Does this monument actually establish a religion?

The atheists and Muslims say it sort of does.

Stretching to their mental and legal limits, they point to a Washington Post story from 1931 which indicates there may have been at least 3 Sunday religious services held at the monument.

That's 84 years ago. And so what?

The atheists and the Muslims also include the "race card."

They try to dirty the water a bit by claiming that the Klu Klux Klan may have had some connection to the monument in the past.

The judge, to her credit, called it nonsense. She said their claim fails to show a violation of the Establishment Clause, the cross is, she says, "undeniably a religious symbol," but the Commission is driven by "secular purpose" in their maintaining and displaying a "historically significant war memorial, that has honored fallen soldiers for almost a century."

She says crosses are used all over the world to mark the graves of American servicemen who died overseas.

I suspect they will appeal. In fact, this is not the Muslims, nor the atheists first attempt to get rid of the cross.

This summer, Muslims were demanding crosses be removed from a Catholic school because, you guessed it---they are "offensive."

In fact, they said the crosses at Catholic University in Washington DC were so offensive that they were unable to pray to Allah.

This may say as much about Allah, as the cross.

But all this highlights a greater truth.

The cross not only offends atheists and Muslims---it also offends the intellectual elites.

Paul writing to the Corinthians (I Corth. 1: 18, 21-25, 27) said, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Paul then quotes Isaiah, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Paul says the Jews seek a sign, while the Greeks seek wisdom, but the cross is seen to them as foolishness and a stumbling block.

And this is where the gospel---the cross, clashes with contemporary secular progressive thinking.

In the mind of the secular progressive intellectual elite, right and wrong are what you believe them to be---there are no universal rights and wrongs.

Christianity teaches that we all have sinned. We are lost, and the cross is the means back to restoration, forgiveness and eternal life.

If sin is relative, or doesn't exist in the enlightened mind, then why would anyone need a "cross" or a savior?

The cross declares how dire our condition is apart from Jesus. It announces how deep the sin goes, how profound the rebellion is, how impossible is our plight apart from Help from the outside.

No wonder the cross is a problem to those who do not know the one true living God.

Isaiah the prophet recognized God's plan, which included the cross, and further recognized it would be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" ( 8:14).

The cross will continue to offend atheists, Muslims and others. In our attempt to "relate" to a lost world, I pray the Christian church will never attempt to hide the cross because it is offensive.

Paul taught we must "endure all things rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ" (I Corth. 9:12; II Corth. 6:3), "strain to become all things to all people, that by all means [we] might save some" (I Corth. 9:22) and do all in our power to "give no offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God" (I Corth. 10:32).

But this one offense---the offense of the cross---we cannot, must not, remove.

Be Faithful.

The cross declares how dire our condition really is.


  1. Perhaps the neighbors of the shooters , who were concerned about being offensive, had spoken up...fourteen peo[le would still be alive.

    1. Political correctness can be deadly. We can no longer afford to let that stop us.
      All of us have fallen short because of that or something it's rooted in, and it's not good.

    2. Spot on. Political Correctness is an attack on The First Amendment, hides the truth, and results in brainwashing. Check this Wall Street Journal piece by Peggy Noonan.

  2. Yes, it is absolutely a religious symbol, or you wouldn't be concerned. It definitely conveys support of Christianity by the government. Being offensive is not the issue. It's an inappropriate use of public property and public money.

    Don't get rid of it. Just move it off public land. I'm sure you could quickly crowd source plenty of money to move to somewhere just as visible.

    But that's not really the issue for you, is it? Your real goal is to keep that implied endorsement of your religion by government. Sorry, Gary, but those days are over.

    1. Yes, it's true. Government has supported the use of religious symbols for a long time. It's called the Constitution.

    2. Yes, I agree that the government has inappropriately supported the use of religious symbols, and we will correct that over time. Perhaps you could tell us which part of the constitution over rides the establishment clause?

    3. I take that you are just one of those who are not going to be stopped by political correctness, and so you thought you saw something, and so you thought you should say something.

  3. 10:39 Why then did both the humanist and Muslim groups refer to it as "offensive" if offensive is not the issue?

  4. If one ever is driving in their car and they happen to see a big cross by the roadside, it really doesn't matter whose property it is on, does it? But if it is on public property and you are offended, just carefully move the car over to that side of the road, signal your turn, go into the parking lot, park, take your keys, lock your car, walk on over to the cross, kneel down, and pray.

    And even if they were driving by and happened upon a bunch of armed goons in safety vests who were directing traffic by the use of orange cones into the parking lot, and ordering people out of their cars by force, and marching them over to the cross, these people still wouldn't have a case. The cross can stay. It would be the forcing that would have to go.

    For those of you here that need an education on the United States Constitution, do some research on The New England Primer. See what's inside of it. Read through the whole thing, or just order yourself a copy. It was the standard for public education for children learning to read for over a hundred years......Same book.....same Constitution......any questions?

    1. I have researched it, and I can't find any reference to the 'New England Primer" in The Constitution.

  5. Oh it definitely protects the use of it. Maybe you need to search deeper. Just try putting The New England Primer in your search engine, and learn what you can about it. It's quite a book.

  6. These complaining atheists and muslims were not even around for all the incidents and offenses. I find that to be sniping and fraudulent. It is also absurd to give place to a child who complains about a dinner he had three weeks ago. It is time to give some folks a 'time-out' or a ticket out of here.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.