Another example of blatant government hostility toward Christianity from OneNewsNow:
After last year's Independence Day parade in Chesapeake, Virginia, several groups were allowed to set up booths in the city's Lakeside Park. Christian Rights Ministries (CRM) set up its booth, which included a 12-foot-tall white cross. But city officials ordered the group to remove the cross, calling it "offensive," "way out there," and "blatantly Christian." When city officials refused to respond to calls and letters from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) on behalf of CRM's founder Steve Taylor, the group sued.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with our country?
8 comments:
"What's wrong with this picture?"
Most of it's missing, that's what's wrong! I was disturbed enough by the freedom of speech issue this story presents that I did a little digging, and it turns out OneNewsNow only reported part of the story so as to make it appear a strange encroachment on CRM's free speech. It turns out it's actually an issue of practical safety. At 12 feet, the cross is a safety issue, and CRM refuses to compromise on its size. OneNewsNow also fails to mention that "offensive", "way out there", and "blatantly Christian" are things Taylor alleges city officials said and are not direct quotes from city officials.
Do you (or the city officials) seriously believe this group wouldn't properly secure the cross so it wouldn't fall over? I'd like to give them enough credit to realize that braining someone with a falling cross isn't a good way to win souls.
As for the free speech issue, I take it the First Amendment has been amended to say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless the exercise is deemed too big; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech is deemed too loud..."
"Do you (or the city officials) seriously believe this group wouldn't properly secure the cross so it wouldn't fall over?"
Judge Robert G. Doumar found the safety concern and height restriction justified and satisfactory. Also, CRM is welcome to construct a more modest cross.
The free exercise clause is subject to "compelling interest" test.
The burden of the "compelling interest" is on the STATE, not the exerciser of the right. The state must show a compelling interest in restricting the right, and typically the threshold has been pretty high.
Given the legion of bad decisions to come out of the courts in recent decades, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Judge Doumar thinks. The ADF doesn't take frivolous cases.
"The state must show a compelling interest in restricting the right."
In this case, the safety of the public.
You don't have to be frivolous to be wrong.
I think I already addressed the public safety question: do you really think this group would be stupid enough to improperly secure the cross and risk hurting someone? I find that hard to believe.
What I unfortunately find easy to believe, however, would be an anti-Christian bias on the part of government bureaucrats. Such incidents are occurring with increasing and alarming frequency in this day and age of profound misunderstanding of "church and state" issues, not to mention radical secularism on the part of some.
And by "frivolous," I meant that ADF doesn't take up cases that aren't well-grounded in the law--which means their odds of being right are pretty good.
Judge Robert G. Doumar felt the safety concern was justified. I doubt he has a bias against his own beliefs, but you're welcome to make such speculation, and the first amendment protects your right to do so.
It's reassuring to be told ADF tries not to take on poorly-grounded cases. I doubt their legal team is infallible.
I, too, doubt the judge was biased against his own beliefs.
Whether he was biased against Christian beliefs or even the First Amendment itself may be another matter, given the anti-Christian and unconstitutional decisions that have come out of the courts in recent years.
Post a Comment