This kind of BS is getting so old.
Anti-ACLU (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
MIDDLEBORO (CBS) — A statue that has stood in the same spot for 53 years is now at the center of a Constitutional debate.
In 1959, Middleboro Kiwanis Club erected a 12-foot brick cross bearing the word “worship” on a traffic island on Route 28.
Recently, the statue caught the eye of a Boston attorney who has since filed multiple complaints with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. The state declined to release the name of that attorney.
The cross sits mostly on town land. The state owns a small fraction of the traffic island where it is located, and thus, the ACLU says, the cross violates church and state separation laws.
A number of locals who spoke to WBZ-TV defended the statue, including Bob Kinney of the Middleboro Kiwanis Club. They argue that the statue is a local landmark.
“For someone to go by it one time and complain, I think that’s sad,” he said.
But the state and the ACLU want to see the structure come down.
No more comments from me, lest I break my “no F-Word rule”
darcprynce
Dave C
Gatordoug
That is very good question.
Of course it is, I ask all the good questions
I’m tempted to blame this on my home state, but I can’t. The ACLU would go after this anywhere, and does.
They just know that they’ll get more resistence in some states than others.
“America: Land of the Offended; Home of the Aggrieved”
The real question is why you would direct your ire at those (and they’re not all atheists) who seeks to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class and principals hanging banners in schools), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
But with respect to your question, a word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.