by jimwalton » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:06 am
I don't agree with what the Christians are doing, but neither do I agree with the judge's ruling. A cross on public property is not establishment according to the writers and drafters of the Constitution. There is an almost endless string of quotes from the Founding Fathers (as well as case law from 1790 - 1947) about the appropriateness of the government expressing religious ideas and allowing others to express religious ideas (it's called religious freedom, and it includes politicians and governing entities). The establishment clause pertains to the Congress forcing people to believe in a certain way and worship in a certain way, which the cross on the lawn doesn't do. It wasn't until 1947 (a good 150 years after the Constitution) that judges began changing the definition of establishment to suit their own preferences. So it's been 70 years now that the Constitution has been misinterpreted to such flagrant nonsense as to consider a cross such as in Pensacola a violation of the establishment clause. Unfortunately, this is the trend in courts in recent decades and continues on to the ignoring of the Constitution, building up more case law and more precedents in total defiance of the intent of the Bill of Rights.
But none of that justifies Christians acting like twits, name-calling, or running people out of town. I can understand their being peeved, however. I think, if I understand correctly, it wasn't any townspeople who initiated the suit, but a group from California, which doesn't seem right either. The cross wasn't illegal (according to the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and it wasn't bothering anyone in town. What's it the business of this group to run into town to stir up a hornet's nest where there isn't one?
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:06 am.