Simple solution: sell the land. Let the private owners do what they will with
it. No longer a state/city issue.
Tear it down or sell the land. Christian hegemony has no place continuing to
dominate our secular government and public square.
Sell the land to a private religious group and let them use their
"charitable" donations to fund maintenance.
And to the Republic. Republic; a group of people working in the same field. This
is our country, our field we are working in. We are the group of people. Who are
we, We are people who can count on and depend on each other, it's what we
do. That's our religion.
Either the Constitution allows for any religious display on public land or it
allows none – what it clearly does not allow is the display of some and
the exclusion of others. When our public monuments are strewn with
gaudy icons from every religion around the world, Christians may rue the day
they chose to fight these silly and inconsequential battles (since they can
display whatever they want on private land… like churches).But
I suspect this fight is less a well thought out long term strategy and more
about all the warm & fuzzy feelings generated by being on the “side of
Jesus” in our ongoing (and largely make believe) culture war.
@ Tyler DYou posted: Either the Constitution allows for any
religious display on public land or it allows none – what it clearly does
not allow is the display of some and the exclusion of others. You
completely mis-repersent the constitution, particularly the 1st amendment which
reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"Congress enacted no law
that caused the erection of the cross in this article nor has there been any law
prohibiting it made by Congress. The 1st amendment actually forbids Congress
from enacting any such law. The supreme Judiciary Court would have to find the
1st amendment unconstitutional which they can't do because "it is"
the constitution. The lower courts can hear cases and rule but they are
inconsequential because the judiciary, which includes the Supreme Court has zero
constitutional law making authority. That is not to say that Congress has been
remiss in her duty to prohibit the judiciary from usurping the unconstitutional
power of legislating from the bench.Pretty simple really.
Your narrow and literalistic interpretation may have had some validity in 1787,
but with the passage of the 14th Amendment, the precedent set by Marbury (that
the SC - and by extension the lower courts - decides what is constitutional),
not to mention Article III and IV of the Constitution, I know of no legal
scholar today, liberal or conservative, who would agree with it.Further, I cannot think of anything the Founders said that would lead to your
view, but we can find evidence to the contrary – like Madison saying he
thought Chaplains in the military were unconstitutional and a violation of the
1st amendment.Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think
Chaplains are even appointed by Congress let alone by the passage of a law.So yes, I would say it is pretty simple but I fail to connect the dots
the way you did.
Ever noticed that no group forces their belifes on another more then the
Phillip M Hotchkiss wrote:"Ever noticed that no group forces
their belifes on another morethen the non believers?"Nope.
Probably because, unlike some people who believe in fantasies and fiction, most
of the rest of us only notice things that are real and true.