FFRF attorney writes for Slate: Supreme Court says enforcing the Constitution is hostile to religion

Andrew SeidelThe shockwaves from the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bladensburg cross case haven’t subsided and FFRF is fighting back. FFRF Director of Strategic Response Andrew L. Seidel, a constitutional attorney, wrote another article on the decision, this time for Slate, focusing in on one very alarming aspect of the court’s decision, and Seidel didn’t pull any punches:

In ruling to let Maryland’s “Bladensburg Peace Cross” remain in place, the court maintained that longstanding religious monuments have “secular meaning” and that curing old First Amendment violations would show “hostility toward religion.” Until now, the Supreme Court had repeatedly rejected that second line of argument, going all the way back to its first state-church decision.

The hostility argument seemed to demonstrate a severe persecution complex on the part of Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion. It simultaneously assumed that the cross does violate the core First Amendment principle that the government should remain neutral when it comes to religion, but that a free pass is warranted for old (read Christian) symbols. The backwardness of the logic at work is clear: If removing the cross is hostile to religion, then displaying the cross promotes religion—it is not neutral and should be found to violate the establishment clause.

Read the rest of his incisive analysis on Slate and be sure to share the article on your social media. The public needs to understand just how backward and absurd this decision truly is.

Photos by Chris Line

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Send this to a friend