This upset one of the city's veterans. He had fought to uphold the Constitution of the United States -- not to dishonor that sacred document or the many American soldiers that were not christians. He asked the city to remove the flag. Since the memorial was on city property (government property) represented government approval of one religion over all others (since there were no flags representing islam, buddhism, taoism, hinduism, wicca, atheism, judaism, etc.).
The veteran pointed out that for the city government to favor one religion over others was a clear violation of the United States Constitution. Was the city government intentionally trying to violate the Constitution? Was the city government intentionally trying to insult the many thousands of Americans soldiers who served this country but were not christians? Did the flag mean that only christian soldiers were worthy of remembrance? These are troubling questions in a free and democratic country.
At first the city council voted to keep the christian flag on the memorial. After the North Carolina ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State both wrote letters to the city, the city attorney finally advised the council they were violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They gave in and removed the flag.
But this has caused an uproar among some in the community. The city has received dozens of phone calls and e-mails demanding the flag be restored. And about 200 demonstrators held a protest rally to try and convince the council to change its vote and put the christian flag back up. I imagine all of these "christians" consider themselves to be good Americans.
But I'm left wondering why these "good Americans" can demand their government ignore and disobey the Constitution -- the basis of American law and democracy. Or do they really believe that citizens are only required to obey those parts of the Constitution that they like (and these people obviously don't like the First Amendment)?
Religious freedom (which the soldiers being honored fought for) doesn't mean christians have the right to force their religion on everyone else because they are in the majority. It means each citizen has the right to worship (or not worship) any religion he/she pleases without interference or coercion from the majority (or the government).
The Afghanistan war veteran who complained about the flag told a local TV station that he had voiced his complaint "to bring attention to the fact that regardless of the form of government, it had no right to impose any type of religious belief upon its population." This brave veteran is exactly right. It is not just unconstitutional, it is downright un-American.
Now the fight has moved on to a second and smaller memorial placed near the city memorial -- and also on city property. It was put up by the local American Legion and contains a cross (a symbol of only christianity). One of the American Legion members said, "We aren't going to lay down for this. I don't believe in one person telling all of us what to do."
He is wrong. It's not one person. It's every person in America that believes in the Constitution. It's every soldier that fought and died defending the Constitution. And it's the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. The American Legion has the right to put up their memorial and to put a cross on it -- but not on government property, because that government property is owned by all citizens, including non-christians. They either need to move the memorial to private property or remove the cross.
This is not rocket science. The Constitution is an all or nothing thing. You cannot pick and choose the parts of it you want to obey, and when you violate one part of it you dishonor all of it. That's just the way it is.
"This is not rocket science. The Constitution is an all or nothing thing. You cannot pick and choose the parts of it you want to obey, and when you violate one part of it you dishonor all of it. That's just the way it is."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. And that includes the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Every time the federal government invents some nonexistent power for itself that's not clearly enumerated to it in the Constitution, the Constitution is dishonored.
And just when has this been done recently?
ReplyDeleteArticle 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress.
ReplyDeleteWhere in Article 1, Section 8 does it say that Congress can compel anyone to buy a service against their will (i.e. commercial health insurance)? This is the common argument of the lawsuits that 20 or so states have filed against the federal government regarding the health care bill that Congress passed last spring.
Since I know you'll disagree with me on that one, here's an example from 12 years ago that hopefully we'll be able to agree upon:
About half-way down the list of powers in Article 1, Section 8 is the following:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. [Emphasis added]
This is the power to enforce copyrights and patents - "for limited Times". The trade-off was that if the federal government affords a temporary monopoly to authors and inventors, it will encourage people to be more creative, and eventually, when their works enter the public domain, everyone will benefit.
However, in 1998, when it came time for some of the early Mickey Mouse cartoons and other movies from the mid- to late-1920's to enter the public domain, the Disney Corporation pressured Congress into extending the copyright term so far beyond the original term as to render the concept of "limited Times" meaningless. I personally don't think the grandchildren of an author should be allowed to have a monopoly on grandpa's writings until they themselves are on Social Security (i.e. life of the author + 70 years). And for works made for hire (i.e. owned by corporations), it's first publication + 95 years! (By the way, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, upheld this law.)
There are some members of Congress, like Pete Stark, who think the federal government "can do most anything it wants to." If that's true, then why even have a Constitution?
I believe this covers it:
ReplyDeleteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;