Supreme Court Rules That Cross Displayed On Public Land Is OK
And as an atheist, I agree:
A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court’s prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land.
A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge’s objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a stretch of the Mojave Desert to honor the dead of World War I.
Six justices explained their reasoning in writing, often using stirring rhetoric or emotional images of sacrifice and faith to describe how religion can both honor the nation’s dead and divide a pluralistic nation.
The bottom line, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, is that “the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”
That last statement from Justice Kennedy puts the issue in a nutshell, I think. The Constitution merely requires that government not establish a religion, nor favor one religion over another. But allowing acknowledgements of our various religions, and their role in the history of our nation, on public land or in public venue shouldn’t be a problem as long as, again, all religions are treated equally.
Our constitution was intended to secure liberty and freedom to the people. The “separation of church and state” zealots and their crusade against any mention of religion in government have little in common with the cause of liberty.
Tags: elena kagan, financial reform, government dependency, leafy spurge, Supreme Court
