Could you give a link to some news coverage of that? This is first that I have heard of this. Or was the problem that the federal government was afraid of the ACLU suing them for allowing a new religious symbol to be put up, but figured an existing symbol that had been there for decades probably wouldn’t be a problem?

Keep in mind that Christians haven’t had a problem with other religions being allowed their place in the public space as well. It has been the ACLU’s insistence that religious symbols aren’t allowed–but that a menorah isn’t a religious symbol!

And yet the following year, the Massachusetts courts upheld a blasphemy conviction where the defense attorney made your very argument.

Some Christian Nationalists, however, argue (using that very quote) that the original meaning of the religion clauses protects “Christianity only.” And if that’s the case then one has to define “Christianity” (so we know what gets protected). And then we get into the whole muck of whether one who denies the Trinity is a Christian or not.

Story thought he was a Christian, and called himself that, even some Christians today (and then) wouldn’t agree. I’m prepared to accept a pretty broad definition of that term. A law that discriminated against other religions might run into equal protection clause implications (at the federal level, or through the 14th Amendment at the state level) for such discrimination. But the ACLU’s definition of “establishment” is vastly broader than that.

“I’m hard pressed to see how the entire First Amendment (along with Amendments 2 through doesn’t get incorporated.”

Amar’s book on the BOR deals with this.

Indeed it does. I have it, literally, at hand, since I have been citing from it for an upcoming law review article. I just don’t find his theory of incorporation anymore plausible than the current selective incorporation practice. (I hesitate to call the current practice a “theory,” because there is no theory there–just a series of “Well, we want to believe it” statements by various collections of Supreme Court justices.)

Oh, well . . .
I have never met Garrison Keillor. I do not believe he exists either.

There’s good evidence for it. He has a national radio show that your tax dollars and mine fund. Where are the national radio shows (or even local ones) hosted by dominionists?

So again, we am to take your fear mongering as superior to anyone else’s.

I see no difference between you and the radical atheists claiming that the existence of a bible in the Library of Congress constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion, or similar absurdity, in terms of trying to use fear to drive an agenda.

What “fear mongering” am I promoting?

The same applies to you.
Pretending that the original intent was not for the Courts to interpret the Constitution and their rulings should no longer be binding because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable for you does not make it so.

Where did I claim this? I don’t make that claim in this article, and have never found it plausible. I do claim that the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Constitution in a way that makes some justices comfortable, without regard to the facts.

There are equally objective facts of non-Christians being forced to participate in Christian practices by order of the government, be it federal or state. Just because you do not care about such because you feel your research has “proven” to you the existence of sufficent objective facts that the Constitution was not intended to prohibit such does not mean that others take the existence of those objective much more seriously, and consequently reject your insistence on original intent as constituting binding constitutional precedent.

Which Christian practices does our government force you to engage in? You aren’t allowed to murder people, or commit rape, certainly. But those are hardly specific to Christianity.

Baloney.

I have every right in the world to go put up a cross on land owned by the United States, and the federal government is specifically prohibited from preventing me from doing so by the establishment clause.

The suit is total hogwash, and never should have been allowed in court.

Not a 1A issue.

Now, if the feds had tried to pass a law preventing someone from putting up a cross (or a Buddhist shrine), then you would have grounds for a suit against the feds.

That would be a 1A issue.

Private citizens should be free to do that on lands owned by the United States. It’s our land, it doesn’t really belong to the government.

In this case, private citizens wanted to erect a Buddhist shrine in the same vicinity and were denied that right. Therefore this monument is being given special treatment based on the religion it represents.

Not a first amendment issue (i.e. Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion here). The SCOTUS needs to butt out.

It would not have been a first amendment issue if there were no discrimination being perpetrated by the government.

Now, if the federal govermnet had passed a bill and paid for the monument, then you might have an argument on 1A grounds.

Essentially, that is what the land trade in this case would amount to – a bill passed to provide special rights to the supporters of this monument. To establish the cross as the official memorial, to the exclusion of other religious symbols.

If private citizens are granted unrestricted rights to erect religious monuments on public land, the problems are much worse. Better to just move the cross to a private location (and not with legal maneuvering by Congress).

Peace.

DS

Private citizens should be free to do that on lands owned by the United States. It’s our land, it doesn’t really belong to the government. We let them use land for certain things, where they need to exercise some control (like military bases, for example), but this is not a situation where they need to be telling folks what they can or cannot do on public lands.

Not a first amendment issue (i.e. Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion here). The SCOTUS needs to butt out.

Now, if the federal govermnet had passed a bill and paid for the monument, then you might have an argument on 1A grounds.

The Founders were quite familiar with established Churches. They were very satisfied with those states which had them, and didn’t want those state established churches to be obliterated or overwhelmed if a National Established Church were created. That is the reason for the prohibition of establishing a Church in the First Amendment. At the time, its purpose was to protect state established churches.

Additionally, as you say, the Founders certainly wouldn’t have viewed benign tolerance of religious activities on government property or with government support as the Establishment of a Church, if such activities were open to all. The very fact that they were open to all means that it was NOT establishing a specific church.

The 14th Amendment did nothing to change this situation other than to overturn State established churches. Yet, since state established churches were all removed by legislative act prior to the 14th amendment, then it really had no effect on the states.

The strict government hostility towards religion only came about during the modern era, when the left gained power during FDR’s administration. It is an entirely modern development that has no basis in long-term Constitutional law.