Here we go again. In a long-running battle of many years, the notoriously left-wing 9th Judicial District has ruled that a giant cross must come down at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in Califronia because it supposedly violates the "establishment of religion" prohibition in the First Amendment, because the cross is on public land. Thus we are again presented with a deliberate judicial distortion of the historic meaning of that clause as part of a long-term pattern of such obtuse rulings dating back at least to the New York Board of Regents school prayer case in 1962.
Anyone familiar with the history of the First Amendment knows the intent of the founders was that America would not have an official state denomination such as the Church of England under King George III. The intent was to safeguard the freedom of many different forms of religious expression, not to make America offically secular or hostile to the role of religion in the lives of citizens. The second part of the First Amendment also says Congress shalll not "prohibit the free exercise thereof." There is nothing in the Federalist Papers to suggest that the founders intended to abolish religious expression in public places. Yet a long line of activist judges such as those in the Ninth Circuit continue to sew deliberate confusion when they willfully misrepresent the First Amendment by claiming that any recognition of God or religion is the same thing as "an establishment of religion" prohibited to Congresss by the First Amendment. This claim has been a very long-standing example of deliberate intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of the intent of the founders for many years. The 9th Circuit apparently chooses to ignore the fact that there are many other relgious symbols at the same memorial on public land including stars of David. The doctine of stare decisis gives some cover to the exremists now that there have been so many cases involving the same distortion in the past 50 years. But a line of bad precedents, no matter how long it might be, is still without a solid foundation in the intent of the Constitution by any honest reading. Badly decided cases do not aquire more legitimacy just because they are based on flawed precedents from other bad case law.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the claims of the Ninth Circuit would mean the removal of tens of thousands of white crosses, stars of David, and Crescent moons at Arlington National Cemetery and many other national cemeteries in the U.S. and overseas. If that is not chasing religious symbols from the public square, what would be? The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear this case once before but it might now be forced to take it up on appeal. On the day of that hearing, it would be ironic to hear the Clerk of the Supreme Court say before the justices enter the chamber, "God save this honorable court."