Posted on 05/21/2005 9:58:14 PM PDT by BigFinn
Perhaps you've been away too long.
Fifty years ago all religions were acceptable elements of public life, often even in conjunction with public affairs other than NASCAR and the US Congress.
The cross in question has been in place for a couple of generations, just as was the cross recently removed from the LA county seal.
After all, this is California, where the Hollywood(land) sign is a religious icon and a cross is a political challenge.
PS: I add, however, that today I watched a large group of (very formal) picnickers halt their social activities so the (men only) could lay out rugs and point their butts west whilst banging heads on the ground. No one that I know of fainted over use of public parks for religious purposes.
I'm surprised you aren't leading the charge.
I'm also surprised to read that you aren't totally thrilled with the EU.
And, :-) is only your opinion.
Ah, there's the key. The founding fathers would have saved us all that trouble by simply adding "to needsomereasonwhoeverthehellthatis" somewhere in the constitution.
Guess it's time to start over.
I appreciate you taking the time to give me such detailed answers. The subject is fascinating. So much has changed in the world.
So are the countries there really states of the EU? They are no longer individual countries?
How long have you been living there, in the EU?
What do folks there think of the United Nations?
Are you originally from Texas?
As you can see, I'm a fan of church/state separation and an agnostic, but I have no objection to religious symbols on headstones at Arlington, nor do I object to the much more overt religious symbols on graves in the American cemetery in Normandy, which I've visited more than once.
Do you actually know if the ACLU is fighting a lawsuit over this, or are you just making it up because you think it helps your argument?
Actually, if you'll excuse me jumping into this discussion, there are already multiple efforts against the crosses anywhere on federal property. Not just crosses, either--anything Christian. There are groups trying to get "In God we trust" off of money.
It goes beyond federal property. There are people here now being sued for displaying religious items on their PERSONAL PROPERTY. There are even lawsuits against people flying the American flag on their own private property. You will be shocked--it's hard to believe but it is already happening. Our constitutional rights are being trampled because of the easily offended who want a religion-free environment.
Let's see if I can dig up the individual cases to share with you here--freepers please help find these cases please.
One I know of right off the top of my head is a man who was sued for posting a small sign in the window of his new house thanking God for his blessing.
Ah, the old "boil a frog" scenario. One little change at a time, and hopefully no one will notice--until it's too late!
I am just stunned how Europe has changed, how much they've moved toward a centralized government. We don't hear a lot about that here in the USA.
Thanks for the link for the EU info. No problem, I am a fluent speaker of Spanish.
I live in Louisiana, but would love to live in Texas. Maybe one day.
needsomereason wrote:"Ah, the old "activist judiciary" argument again."
Engage or FO. It seems to me that you aren't able to deal with the fundamental issues and thus try to dismiss anything that obliterates your arguments. Further, I will note that the issue was the usage of personal ideology to judge rather than the principles upon which this country was founded.
In other words, the judiciary is interpreting the Constitution as meaning what *they* want it to mean as opposed to what *the founders* said it meant. This problem has plagued the Judicial Branch for a long time. The passage of time is not an acceptable excuse. The founding fathers of this nation left a wealth of reference documentation: articles, debates, letters, papers (particularly the Federalist Papers). As representatives of the People, it was their duty to establish a nation that would promote the ideals and intent of the People. It is the duty of the judiciary to use those documents as the lens by which the Constitution is interpreted and used for judicial review.
The intentions of the Founders cannot be ignored without disregarding the will of the People, for it was the representatives of the People that debated the issues that would shape the government and that voted on behalf of the People whether to accept this government. To disregard the history, intent, and spirit behind the three cornerstone documents of the United States of America is to break faith with the People.
The Judical branch was to be the Constitutional Guardian, the portion of the tripart system that would ensure that the government would continue to abide by the contract with the citizens of the United States. Judges were to be activists of the Constitution, promoting the foundational laws of the United States as the Founders intended, not activists of their own calling.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law, is the intention of the law givers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances, provided they do not contradict the express words of the law."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, 20 May 1808.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. [...]
A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcileable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course to be preferred; or in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. [...]
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78 28 May 1788
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.