President Bush signed legislation Monday that immediately transferred ownership of the Mount Soledad Cross, the monument at its base and the half acre parcel of surrounding land from the city of San Diego to the federal government.Yeah, 'cause the "desires of a vast majority" determine moral rectitude, don't they, Mayor? The Mayor asks, "What in the hell is 'protecting the minority's rights via a Consti-frickin-tution?'" Bend over, and I'll show you, sir!
By signing the transfer Bush used his power of eminent domain to seize the property for the federal government, effectively replacing the city in the 17- year legal battle that has surrounded the fate of the 43-foot cross and handing cross supporters new hope. While proponents of the cross have declared the transfer a victory, Bush has set the stage for a new legal battle over the constitutionality of the religious symbol on public land, as well as the transfer itself.
"I believe the president substantially improved the chances that the desires of a vast majority of San Diego voters -- all those votes to preserve the integrity of the memorial -- will finally be fulfilled," said San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders at a press held in the shadow of the cross Monday afternoon.
After all, that's the exact same argumentum ad populum fallacy that politicians use every time they want something unconstitutional done...say, slavery, disenfranchisement, etc...worked before, and so it's gotta work again. And it does. For dolts and suckers.
For expert legal reviews of the situation, see here and here. (HT: UTI)
________________
Technorati tags: Theocracy
Might I enquire, Daniel, just where in the US Constitution or law of the land it says 'no tax dollars to promote religion'?
ReplyDeleteHere in Wales, we do not have an established Church. However, the Government happily gives dough to Church in Wales schools where the day opens with prayer and the values of the Church in Wales (or of Islam, in the case of Muslim Schools) are taught. Wales is not a theocracy, nor is England, which has an established Church. Polticians are firmly in control, and the people can vote them out any time they wish.
Establishment means state endorsement of a particular church over all other religious groups, and a theocracy is what you have in Iran, that is direct rule by clerics, or strong indirect rule by clerics. I don not see that happening in the USA any time soon.
You want a fully secular state. Fine by me (after all, I don't live there), but please don't use alarmist language. It's silly and it devalues political debate.
For what it's worth, I believe that so long as the Government treats all groups equally and guarantees equal access to the public square, no civil rights are trampled upon.
Hiraeth,
ReplyDeleteYour view is not the Constitutional one, articlated thusly:
"Government in our Democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, [393 U.S. 97, 104] and practice. It must not be hostile to any religion or the advocacy of no religion; and it may not aid, foster or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion." (Epperson vs. Arkansas 1968)
Giving tax dollars to a cause which clearly supports and aids, fosters and promotes one religion is obviously unconstutitional.