If a Cross falls in the middle of a desert and there's no one around to hear it, does it make any noise? This one does. *(text at bottom in case the link gets broken). Long story short is an 8 foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve has to go. And rightfully so. Though it's been a long on-going legal battle going back to 2001.
Anyway, the ACLU, no surprise, had another take on the matter.
Funny how the government thought they could get around the problem by a little land transfer. Yeah, right, like nobody would see through that little bit of sheistering. The federal appeals court saw through it. Thank God.
Funnier still (not) is how when ever the courts rule in favor of keeping religion OUT of government or publicly held places --like courthouses, schools, PARKS in keeping with the separation of church and state, it's called "legislating form the bench," (a term equally used in their dismay over equal rights rulings) but whenever the courts rule in favor of something these same religious radicals call it affirming this or upholding that.
Legislating from the bench is an oxymoronic notion anyway -- we all know judges don't really legislate and can't legislate (obviously) but merely determine if something is within the parameters of the law or not. It's truly one of those doublespeak Republican spin terms which, as usual, has little bearing to actual truth (or reality).
One of the single most galling aspects of the religious radical right is their continuous, deliberate, and adamant refusal to accept that this is not a theocracy and that not everyone is hoping to turn it into one -- a large number of Christians included.
* Judge Legislates From the Bench; Again
Since the basic rule of law had to be thrown out in order for a judge to legislate from the bench, then obviously, to any thinking person, the court that is null and void is not qualified to hand down any more rulings, and is itself held in contempt by default.
The 9th Circuit Court regularly over steps its documented charter, and is itself null and void from the first legislated decision it handed down many years ago. Courts can not legislate; that’s what elected officials are for.
The very title of the so-called news story below should be a tip off that “Something is Rotten in Denmark.”
There is nothing in the Constitution that claims that America is required to be antiseptic of Christianity. With our founding documents, including the Constitution, based on The King James Version of The Bible, we would be without a government; and the Constitution declared null and void if the 9th Circuit Court's legislation were correct.
Court forbids Mojave park's cross display
Andrew Edwards, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 09/07/2007 11:11:51 PM PDT
MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE - A cross that stands above the desert as a memorial for Americans who died in World War I represents an unconstitutional federal endorsement of Christianity, according to a legal opinion handed down by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The cross stands atop Sunrise Rock on Cima Road inside the Mojave National Preserve. The preserve is public land, part of the National Park System. Upholding a 2005 court decision, Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote that the cross would not be allowed even if the government traded Sunrise Rock for other land with a private party, thus removing the cross from public land.
The court published its opinion Thursday.
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, supported a land trade in a 2002 piece of legislation that would have transferred Sunrise Rock to a Barstow chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for a 5-acre patch of land.
Lewis could not be reached for comment Friday.
Mojave National Preserve superintendent Dennis Schramm said park officials have not yet determined the full impact of the court's opinion.
"I haven't heard anything from anyone yet," he said. "I'm still under a court order to keep it covered."
The cross could be viewed from Cima Road earlier this summer. The original monument, a wooden cross, was placed at Sunrise Rock in 1934, according to court documents. That cross has since been replaced by a metal edifice that was bolted into the rock in 1998.
Sunrise Rock has frequently been a site for Easter Sunday services.
Thursday's ruling stems from a 2001 lawsuit filed by Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent at the Preserve who was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Court papers from an earlier stage in the case noted that Buono was "deeply offended by the display of a Latin Cross on government-owned property."
Federal attorneys representing National Parks Service officials defended the cross's presence in the Preserve. Department of Justice spokesman Andrew Ames said that as of Friday, no decision had been made on whether to appeal the case.
2 comments:
seems there is a running theme here.
While on the one hand a cross in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to offend anyone simply burning it to the ground when no one is looking would seem to be a "blow to the civilized world" in favor of the self.
Leaving it up through legal wrangling or because the assumption is made that "it's just not that offensive" seems an equally brutal attack on the same civilized notion.
Who knew one cross could cause so much controversy in such a barren place.
This also seems like the perfect metaphor for a cross and everything it symbolizes.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment