Why Christians Should Care About The Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case
In 1922, Alabama Democrat Hugo Black pledged allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan while standing beneath the light of burning crosses.
In that same year the local American Legion post in Bladensburg, Maryland completed a war memorial in the shape of a cross—no flames—to honor 49 area veterans who had been killed in WWI.
In 1947, the very same Democrat Klansman, Hugo Black, now an FDR appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, penned the most “bassackwards opinion” in the Court’s history. An opinion that was no opinion at all, but a bigot’s farcical rant crafted to impede Catholic schools from receiving even the smallest government stipend. An opinion rapidly swooped upon by predatory progressives and other vultures to trample first amendment religious freedoms of American citizens.
Black’s cockeyed twaddle in Everson v. Board of Education Ewing TP (1947) has been exploited ad nauseum as a means to attack Christians, their faith, and America’s Christian heritage. The end to these means is no less than the complete eradication of Christianity from the public square and Christians from public office.
Today the stunningly unqualified Supreme Court Klansman’s bastardization of the Establishment Clause in Everson threatens Maryland’s Bladensburg Cross, as well as Pensacola, Florida’s Bayview Cross—another war memorial built in 1941, 6 years prior to the kluxist scourge on the First Amendment.
The humanists, in continuous intercourse with their cherished Klan member’s words, erroneously claim the crosses are an “establishment of religion.” Make no mistake about it. The sheer bigotry guiding Black’s opinion in the 1947 Everson case, is the same bigotry—on steroids—motivating the assault on these two crosses today—over seventy years later.
American Christians And the Bladensburg And Bayview Crosses
Christians should be especially concerned about the Supreme Court decision regarding the Bladensburg and Bayview Memorial crosses. Not from a sympathetic, commiserate, or even theological standpoint, but from a real concern for the constitutional religious freedoms of the United States.
Our Savior Jesus Christ died on a cross, so of course, crosses are important Christian symbols. However, we do not hold a monopoly on the image. Extremely recognizable, crosses are widely used throughout the world as iconic representations commemorating the dead—from family members to soldiers, from great leaders to unknown persons. For many people, regardless of religion or irreligion, a cross is highly personal, serving as tangible comfort of a loved one’s spiritual or angelic presence, the hope of being reunited in an afterlife, a marker commemorating the place of a person’s last breath, or a person’s freedom from suffering and/or injustice.
Aside from any theological or devotional meaning of a cross, however, we ought to consider what the removal of these specific crosses—in a lengthy succession of terrorism on Christianity—characterize in a progressive/socialist/Democrat/communist/neo-liberal mind—the silencing and eventual cleansing of the Christian faith from America.
Uniting In Prayer
The article’s main purpose is to encourage fellow Christians to unite in concern and prayer regarding the sinister attacks on Christianity via “Christian” symbols in public places by exposing the sham used as the attackers’ pretext. These attacks, at their core, stand as 1) attempts to rewrite the historical significance that Christianity had on the American founding, and 2) blatant attacks on followers of the Christian faith.
Mid-1900’s anti-Christian groups collaborating with a willing, though ignorant, U.S. Supreme Court justice, managed to bastardize the Establishment Clause. In turn, the malcontents have used this perversion to convey a whiff of legality to their malodorous “cause.” These virulent anti-Christian persons and organizations in the U.S. may not be suicide bombers yelling “Allahu Akbar,” but make no mistake, their goal is the same and the rallying call tailor-made: “Establishment Clause!”
These virulent anti-Christian persons and organizations in the U.S. may not be suicide bombers yelling “Allahu Akbar,” but make no mistake, their goal is the same and the rallying call tailor-made: “Establishment Clause!”
The article’s secondary purpose is to encourage followers of Christ to combat the misconceptions surrounding First Amendment religious freedoms and boldly proclaim our constitutional rights. To reject the anti-Christian forces of the progressives, leftists, Democrats, etc. To reject the bastardization of the first amendment that continues to assault Christianity with the mythical metaphor of “wall of separation” or the anti-constitutional term “separation of church and state.” Terms whose meanings the progressives have contorted for the serviceability of Christian oppression campaigns. Terms that have been subsequently criticized in multiple SCOTUS cases.
The Paradox Of Conflict And Victory
In his March 4, 1883 sermon “The Best Warcry”, Charles Spurgeon said “[The church of God] lives in conflict and victory; her mission is to destroy everything that is bad in the land.” America has some bad in the land. Now is the time for Christians to stand up, call out the lies, and denounce the bad—fearlessly.
The Apostle Paul said “We are more than conquerors through Christ Who loved us” (Romans 8:37). The Jesus haters shouldn’t be more confident than the Jesus followers. We have something, or better Someone, Who is infinitely more powerful.
They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, declares the LORD, to deliver you. Jeremiah 1:19
Where Did This Virulent Anti-Christianity Come From?
The Sham’s Foundation
Attacks on Christianity in the United States have increased substantially since the turn of the twentieth century. The base nature and reason for these attacks are traced to Marxist intellectuals immigrating from Germany to the U.S. in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.
Little by little the enemy sowed the seeds of Marxist/Communist/Socialist ideology through educational academies. They also had help from “liberal,” “modern,” or “progressive” Christians—an oxymoron of the highest degree—by fake-appealing to the much larger Christian population of that time. Eventually, American political thought began to move away from the Founder’s understanding toward German-inspired historicism and Progressivism.
German Marxists immigrating to America brought their failed “ideals” ashore—men who were produced by the same country, same generation, that produced the likes of Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels. Their floundering ideologies, perpetuated by the so-called Frankfort School, have done seemingly irreparable damage to our nation as founded. (As an example, look at the trajectory of their teachings. Look at all that has happened to Germany since the early 1900’s. And the Marxists imported that crap here? To a nation that allowed them to escape that crap? Politically, Germany remains beset with leftist crap.)
Communism And Socialism Are Antithetical To American Democracy
The Sham’s Machination
These human concocted ideals and utopias, along with the accompanying ideologues, alive and well in the modern Democrat Party, are antithetical to American democracy, a republic guided by Constitutional Law. Likewise, they are “anti-“ the people largely responsible for making such a system work.
Judeo-Christian values manifest in a society through responsible, moral people who exhibit obedience and respect of law, order, and love of neighbor. John Quincy Adams once said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
Law and order repress chaos, the realm of satan, i.e. Marxists, Communists, Democrats, etc., where everyone/everything has only functional value. Societal order inhibits the ravenous grasp for power and control from these blocs, thereby thwarting the promulgation of sinister policies which a) weaken, then b) crush, then c) control a country’s entire economic and political system. When economy is controlled, and/or basic institutions controlled economically (Google ACA), so are the people. (For further reading: Google “Venezuela Maduro” and “UK Health System”.)
The Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Democrat grandparents and great-grandparents of the modern left sowed seeds of contempt for Christianity in American culture. They published magazines, founded organizations, and disseminated their twisted, discordant, dissimulated anti-American ideology through news media, entertainment, and especially universities and colleges.
These same great-grandparents and grandparents shared Klansman Hugo Black’s vile, bigoted hatred of Catholics. Seizing the opportunity, they worked with Klansman Black, a Democrat Supreme Court “justice” appointed by socialist Democrat extraordinaire FDR, and together produced a bastardization of the First Amendment Establishment Clause that has been used by leftists to discriminate against religion ever since. More accurately, to discriminate against “Christianity” specifically, as opposed to “religion” generally.
The Supreme Kluxman
The Sham’s Concurring Dupe
How did Democrat KKK member Hugo Black manage to bastardize 1A religious freedoms in place for 150 years, much less an appointment to the Supreme Court?
Democrat President FDR was ruthless and almost as corrupt as Democrat Hussein O. FDR needed judicial activists. He needed reliable yes-men. He needed unethical, unprincipled partisans. Hugo Black fit the bill. Corrupt? Check. Bigot? Check. Lack of conscience? Check. As the 2013 Supreme Court “saved” the Affordable Care Act twice, so FDR used the court to save his socialist “New Deal” multiple times.
Hugo Black was appointed and confirmed to SCOTUS within a week. For some reason, he had kept his Klan membership a secret. After his confirmation, however, a Pittsburgh newspaper broke the news of Democrat Black’s KKK brotherhood.
Thanks to the foreknowledge of the Grand Klan Poobah (more likely prior experience) a contingency plan had been made in the event of Black’s discretion being revealed.
When Black was elected U.S. Senator, Poobah had Black sign a letter purporting to disassociate from the club “just in case he needed it.” Filed away for the future, Klansman Black needed it when news broke of his enrollment in the Democrat Party’s vile hate group. On a radio address to the nation, he simply said he had long since separated from the group (a blatant lie). And that was that. The Democrat trademark—bigots with double standards.
The Depraved Dismantling Of The Thirst Amendment Establishment Clause
And how did Democrat Klanner, anti-Catholic Hugo Black bastardize the First Amendment? Like Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus, he waited until an opportune time. And he found it in the 1947 Everson case.
Through Black’s decades long hatred of Catholics, fueled by anti-Catholic activists, and pervasive dissemination of anti-Catholic writings by the forefathers of today’s anti-Christians groups, Hugo went for broke. The Democrat Klansman wrote the most bassackwards opinion in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, completely turning the Establishment Clause on its head.
Though Black found for the parents of Catholic school children, his reasoning betrayed the fact that he had already written against them. Justice Robert Jackson, who had originally planned to vote for the parents, dissented instead after reading Black’s opinion. Black wrote: “In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters.”
Invoking the name of Jefferson provided a melodious assent to the Founders in order to buttress Hugo’s malodorous finding.
Kluxman Black Cited Thomas Jefferson In His Opinion
Included in the Klanner’s “utterly discordant” tangent, he quoted an 1801 letter written in response to Baptist voters by newly elected President Thomas Jefferson that included the phrase “separation of church and state.” Invoking the name of Jefferson provided a melodious assent to the Founders in order to buttress Hugo’s malodorous finding. But the thing is, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Bill of Rights, and more importantly, Hugo’s veneration of the term had nothing to do with Jefferson.
The Supreme Kluxman Upholds His 1922 Oath
Biographer Roger Newman describes an event that happened twenty-five years earlier, when Hugo Black pledged allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan:
With other aspiring “knights” dressed in full Klan regalia, Black marched in a massive circle with military precision. He stopped every 150 yards at one of three ceremonial stations. Finally, his circumnavigation of the flaming crosses completed, Black raised his hand in a Nazi-like salute and repeated the oath of the most deadly and destabilizing hate group ever produced by the Democrat Party.
He swore to “most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve” white supremacy “by any and all justifiable means and methods.”
He swore to preserve “the sacred constitutional rights” of “free public schools” and “separation of church and state.” He swore to “die rather than divulge [secret information of the Ku Klux Klan], so help me God.”
Though the phrase “separation of church and state” does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, by Hugo Black using it in a SCOTUS opinion, progressives jumped on it like dogs in heat. They perpetuated the phrase into American vernacular. Still today, progressives, leftists, secularists, Democrats, etc. quote this go-to-phrase from the Ku Klux Klan oath, to attack America’s Christian founding and Christianity in the U.S.
In his book Our Lost Constitution, Utah Senator Mike Lee includes an excerpt from Newman’s biography describing Black’s purpose in dismantling the Establishment Clause.
[The opportunity to torture the establishment clause came up when the Everson case arrived at the Supreme Court.] The only problem for Black was that at conference, six of his colleagues voted to find the statute constitutional.
Undeterred, Black hatched a plan. By voting with the majority, he would be able to write the majority opinion, which would establish rules binding on legislatures and lower courts. In that opinion, he would apply the establishment clause to the states. And he would interpret the clause to require an unprecedented degree of separation between church and state. Sure, he would have to say that the particular statute in this case did not violate that new principle of separation. But he would be able to establish a principle that could be used against Catholic schools in every court case that came afterward.
The result was one of the most transparently misleading and historically inaccurate opinions in Supreme Court history…
Lee summarizes “Mr. Justice Black left his sinister mark on the first amendment Establishment Clause by erroneously applying the establishment clause to state and local governments(!). An amendment intended to protect state governments from the federal government was turned against the states, a mark bedeviling jurisprudence ever since. Everson remains one of the “most transparently misleading and historically inaccurate opinions in Supreme Court history.”
Communists and Socialists in the 1940’s gamed the system to begin a dismantling of America as founded. They easily inflamed an already ramped up anti-Catholicism in a non-principled Democrat Supreme Court “justice.” At the time, they capitalized on exploiting people like Black—backward, biased, bigoted—by branding their hatred as “Catholic” hatred. In recent years, however, it has become clear that satan had much more than Catholics in view.
Everson remains one of the most transparently misleading and historically inaccurate opinions in Supreme Court history.
“God And Man In America”
Thomas G. West (about 100 IQ points higher than any of the aforementioned people) describes this phenomenon in his article “God and Man In America” a critical review of Philip Hamburger’s book Separation of Church and State. His summarizing words get to the heart of why Christians should care about the Bladensburg and Bayview Crosses and are worth repeating here in their entirety (emphasis mine):
Hamburger proves that today’s predominant version of separation of church and state is not only hostile to the founders’ understanding, but hostile to religion. Today’s separationism is different from an earlier, incoherent version of separationism (such as that of anti-Catholic Justice Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member, nicely exposed by Hamburger). This earlier position (popular in the 19th century and the first part of the 20th) insisted on separation when Catholics asked for government support of their schools, but inconsistently favored government support of generic Protestantism in public schools, chaplaincies, and government ceremonies. The separation promoted by today’s liberals is more consistent. It is uniformly hostile to any religious presence in public life, unless perhaps the religion in question supports the liberal agenda.
Today, however, “separation” tends to mean not only denial of all government support of religion, even when that support is given equally to other private associations, but complete exclusion of religion from public life. ….Thus religious liberty has come to mean disadvantaging religious organizations or punishing people for expressing religious views in the wrong place (in the legislature, at school, at work, etc.).
This is part of the larger story of the rejection of the founders’ understanding of liberty and justice over the past century and its replacement today by the progressive or liberal view of liberty and justice. This is the proper theoretical framework for understanding the dramatic change that Hamburger so convincingly details. It is not primarily Justice Black’s Ku Kluxism or the anti-Catholicism of some Protestants that animates the opponents of the founders’ understanding. They were simply made the dupes of liberals, who, as Hamburger emphasizes, made effective use of Protestant hostility to Catholicism in the service of a goal that was ultimately just as hostile to Protestants as to Catholics and Jews.
The main difference today? The Democrat Party and their minions are openly hostile toward Jews and all Christians. Openly insulting. Openly derogatory. Openly belittling. Openly intolerant. Openly bigoted. Openly hateful. The party of “tolerance and acceptance of all people” don’t even pretend any more.
President Trump has made some progress in leveling the playing fields between progressive ideologues versus Christians and Jews. But these progressive miscreants have been in this war for a long time—long before Christianity and Judaism realized the war had been leveled against them. Bottom line, these rabid, intolerant mongrels, being the sons and daughters of their father, have an inherent hostility toward Christianity and Judaism.
Judeo-Christian values, especially the worth of the individual, stand in stark contrast to the -isms. Judeo-Christian values are necessary for the American Republic to remain free, that is, to exist. In God and Government, Charles Colson says, “If the real benefits of the Judeo-Christian ethic and influences on secular society were understood, it would be anxiously sought out, even by those who repudiate the Christian faith.” Moral values are a bulwark in the maintenance of law, order, and respect of individual freedom.
Nonetheless, morality flies in the face of Marxist/Communist/Democrat group think. Personal freedoms are not allowed in societies ruled by these systems. Only the top crust elitists have any freedoms. Or money. Or toilet paper (Google Venezuela again). And money means power. And here lie the true motivators of socialism, communism, and the Democrat Party—greed and power.
This explains the attack on the American soul. Emptiness enables and gives rise to chaos (Matt. 12:43-45).
The Progressive Dupes—The Sham’s Functionaries
Of course, progressives and Democrats need “boots on the ground” to continue their assault today. Ideological dupes are exploited to drive the progressive, socialist, Democrat, etc.narrative while legal dupes exchange a perfectly good law degree for a meaningless existence..
Progressives and their so called “church and state protection” goons tolerate and incentivize Muslims. This seems antithetical, doesn’t it?
Muslim countries execute gays, yet progressives/globalists profess total support for the global/open borders LGBTQ community. Likewise, more rare than a unicorn is a Muslim lesbian or transsexual, considering they are hiding or dead. Yet Progressives embrace Muslims while convincing non-Muslim American lesbians and transsexuals that they have no rights in America(?) because of Christians and Conservatives (?).
Muslims view and treat women and children as substandard human beings. Many Muslim women have no rights apart from their (often abusive) husbands. But progressives profess equality for women of the world? And they perpetuate America’s so-called “patriarchal” society while they completely ignore the real, 7th century A.D. patriarchal society found within Muslim culture.
Considering only these two examples, and the elephant in the room of Muslims being driven by the religion of Islam, is there a starker contrast than the one that exists between progressives/Socialists/leftists/Democrats and Muslims?
Muslims are embraced by progressives because they share a common goal besides pedophilia. As is commonly known, Islam does not mean “peace”; Islam means submission, as in the world to Islam. Therefore, Islam and progressives share the same objective: world domination, aka the globalist moniker “new world order.”
As the progressives/globalists/communists/etc used Hugo Black’s anti-Catholicism to attack all Christians, now the same leftists exploit Muslims to aid in the accomplishment of the so-called new world order agenda. Muslims are the perfect progressive dupes to drive a negative narrative against “the Christian west” and “Judaism and the land of Israel.” (Google “New Zealand mosque” and compare the headlines with “Sri Lanka Easter”).
Progressive duping is not relegated to ignorant people—they also make use of the educated. Progressive billionaires pay bigoted organizations like the American Humanist Association (AHA), Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to name the most vile, to terrorize every small town or city that has a cross on public grounds. Why? It causes chaos. It disrupts civil society. It’s the persecution of Christians. It’s rewriting the history of the American founding. Jesus vs. Satan in the desert. The Serpent in the Garden. Good vs. Evil.
Failing to see their place in the archetype, i.e. having no real essentiality, the humanists prop up their unimaginative minds and empty souls with the progressive “purpose.” Of course, there’s also the money, but make no mistake, the greatest quest of these poor souls is meaning.
The globalist manipulators use whomever is at their disposal. And like a disposable diaper they snuggle with them in the most confidential and visceral places. Then after serving their purpose of doing all the sh*t work, the progressives wad them up and toss them in the trash—exploiting is a foundational tenet of the -isms, Communism, Socialism, progressivism, globalism, liberalism, leftism, and of course the Democrat Party.
Hope For A Revitalized Establishment Clause
Recovering From the Sham
In one of many attacks on the Second Amendment, D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court made a landmark decision on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, another right attacked ad naseum by the same groups mentioned earlier. Unique to this ruling, Heller was the first Court decision to carefully scrutinize the text of the Second Amendment and its purpose from both a linguistic and historical context.
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Heller totally denounced the socialist/Democrat/leftist arguments that bearing arms depended on the presence of a militia, blah, blah, blah—a leftist legal interpretation analogous to a drunken Twister game. Stating otherwise, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion containing the careful exegesis of the Second Amendment (which required no bending backwards or stepping on other people.)
Since the 1947 Everson case, multiple SCOTUS Justices have suggested doing something similar for the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. Though Hugo Black’s “impregnable wall” has been criticized and debunked multiple times, many conflicting opinions remain on record.
With the sane heads of Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsich, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Alito, perhaps they will do this service for the American people with the Establishment Clause. Justice Thomas has spoken of leftist snowflakism previously, writing in Town of Greece v Galloway:
At a minimum, there is no support for the proposition that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment embraced wholly modern notions that the Establishment Clause is violated whenever the “reasonable observer” feels “subtle pressure,” ante, at 18, 19, or perceives governmental “endors[ement],” ante, at 5–6. For example, of the 37 States in existence when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, 27 State Constitutions “contained an explicit reference to God in their preambles.”
Thus, to the extent coercion is relevant to the Establishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion that counts—not the “subtle coercive pressures” allegedly felt by respondents in this case, ante, at 9. The majority properly concludes that “[o]ffense . . . does not equate to coercion,” since “[a]dults often encounter speech they find disagreeable[,] and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum.” Ante, at 21. I would simply add, in light of the foregoing history of the Establishment Clause, that “[p]eer pressure, unpleasant as it may be, is not coercion” either. Newdow, 542 U. S., at 49 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).
Could this be any clearer? What part of “put on your adult panties” do the leftists not understand?
Prayer Works So Let’s Pray!
For the record: Praise be to Our Sovereign Lord God who doesn’t require or need humans to defend His honor. We are never compelled to shoot people who write and draw things we don’t like. Nor are we compelled to strap on bombs and run in a building of worshipers. To the God of Judaism and Christianity belongs all power, glory and honor. He can certainly champion Himself and His people. With that said, however, there is no excuse for doing nothing.
It appears the opposition is big. But our God is “way bigger.” Let us pray earnestly, with boldness and confidence, lifting up to the very throne of our Lord God this injustice perpetrated on the American people.
- Pray that the unambiguous jurisprudence on First Amendment religious freedoms will be rewritten.
- Pray that the gross error of applying the Establishment Clause via the 14th amendment to the states, will be reversed and made applicable only to the Federal government as originally written, that is, as the Founders intended.
- Pray that the Court will irrevocably erase Kluxman Hugo Black’s bastardization of the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
- Pray that the Supreme Court will allow the Bladensburg Cross and the Bayview Cross, both decades old memorials dedicated to area veterans in WWI and WWII, respectively, to remain standing for the communities involved, and as a testimony to the constitutional protection of religious freedom.
And Pray Some More
The Bible makes it clear that we should expect no less from hardened, power-hungry people than tyrannical, hateful behavior. Jesus said:
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin,1 but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also. John 15:18-19, 21-23
This doesn’t mean we should act passively while leftists bully us out of public squares and participation in politics and political office. We have been commissioned by Christ. We are witnesses of the resurrection. Effective witness is not possible while kowtowing to a bunch of cowardly ideologues who do the bidding of a defeated enemy.
It would be tragic to take a defeatist posture regarding the Bladensburg Cross, the Bayview Cross, and the next cross or nativity that is attacked. While praying for God’s mercy on the leftist thugs, we must also stand up to them, now and until Jesus returns. At that time, if not before, may the Lord indeed have mercy on their souls.
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:44-45
**Be sure to check out:
Church And State Truths Never Presented By The So-Called “Mainstream”
Perpetuating The Sham
The Democrat Party, its factions, and their propaganda machine, parrot and repeat phrases with the intention that this disinformation will indoctrinate the public. Knowing the other side of the argument is a must for effectively calling out these lies. Study and commit to the heart what principled and honest scholars and lawyers say/have said about the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.