Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times
September 26, 2010-How sad when, in the name of the First Amendment, judges make rulings which actually violate that very amendment. Although few are talking any more about recent eye popping “case law” from 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 3 judge panel, I cannot help but reflect upon their dangerous conclusion.
Supposedly, 14 crosses along public Utah roads honoring fatally wounded state Highway Patrol troopers convey special state leanings toward Christianity. The court’s August 2010 finding overturned a 2007 decision which presumed people would primarily associate the symbol of the cross with burial rather than any one specific religion.
Breathe in some words from the Circuit Court’s written opinion, because it is perhaps one of the most chilling statements you will ever read: “This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP.”
Reasonable observer? This is about as reasonable as banning the sale of bread because a diabetic might mistakenly conclude that he was actually purchasing a candy bar.
So judges now make rulings based not upon what is actually true, but upon what people might think is true due to an irrational fear.
Just for the record, Americans have looked at crosses as a part of gravestones and memorials for centuries without stopping to think about Jesus and the crucifixion. Having said that, supposing the cross did remind us of Jesus? Supposing it reminded us of Jesus every single time? Suppose it were our country’s way of endorsing a specific religion? Reality Check: Our Founding Fathers actually did go out of their way to specifically endorse the religion of Christianity. No, we do not find the term Christian in the Constitution, but the rallying cry of our American Revolution was, “No king but King Jesus.” And when Christmas was made a national holiday in 1870 by President Ulysses S. Grant, nobody seemed to feel that their civil liberties were being violated or that the holiday contradicted the original intent of our Constitution’s writers.
The First Amendment exists for freedom of religion and freedom from religion. But freedom from religion does not mean our government is not allowed to even remind you that religion exists. If a cross on public display honestly meant that Christian citizens were to receive preferential treatment, I would be the first to protest. But that’s not what it means, and the idea that such symbols must be removed simply because some paranoid person doesn’t understand the Constitution strikes me as a new low in the legal world, the intellectual world, and the world of disenfranchised dogs who are wagged by their own tails.
Ironically, if people violated some law they were unaware of, what would they hear in the courtroom? “Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You may have thought that it was perfectly fine to pick a rose from your neighbor’s front lawn but it wasn’t and you will have to pay a penalty.”
Get this? Laws cannot be broken based upon ignorance but laws can be passed (through judicial activism) as a means of catering to ignorance. Incidentally, these same brilliant justices felt the ignorance worked both ways:
“Unlike Christmas, which has been widely embraced as a secular holiday … there is no evidence in this case that the cross has been widely embraced by non-Christians as a secular symbol of death.”
Christmas, supposedly, is still allowed (at least for the time being) as a national holiday because ignorant people associate Christmas with secularism, not with the person whose very name is found in the title; Christ.
Today I am a Christian, but because I grew up as a Jewish atheist, I can honestly attest to walking in the shoes of a non-Christian at a time when our country was not so squeamish about church/state companionship. I saw crosses everywhere, not only in graveyards, but also around the necks of my friends. In elementary school (and I went to a public one) we learned and sang Christmas carols, and they weren’t limited to those stupid reindeer songs. We also sang about a baby in the manger named Jesus. I did not believe in Jesus. I thought those who did were gullible and simple minded. But not once did I ever interpret the Christian atmosphere as something that was going to force unwelcome beliefs upon me. The thought never occurred, not even for a second. If somebody wanted to follow some idiotic religion, who cared? It was no skin off my back. I am convinced the reason people are worried about it today is that activists sit them down and explain how concerned they should feel. “This acorn, you see, is not really an acorn. The entire sky is falling.”
What’s next? Will we outlaw the letter “t” because it is shaped like a cross?
Share this on
