Judges commit impeachable offense, rule against cross

Friday, October 20, 2017
 | 
Bryan Fischer - Guest Columnist
http://on.fb.me/1pFPvvd

Bryan FischerIt's not the Bladensburg Cross that "excessively entangles" the government in religion, it's the 4th Circuit. That court is unconstitutionally entangling itself in religion by impermissibly interfering with its free exercise.


A federal appeals court ruled this week that a cross on public land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This ruling, not to put too fine a point on it, is absurd, unconstitutional, and represents an impeachable offense.

Bladensburg Peace Cross 2The 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Cross – which stands on a highway median right outside Washington, DC – has stood since 1925 as a memorial to the fallen U.S. soldiers of WWI. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said that the cross, according to AP, "equates to government sponsorship of a particular religion."

The problem with this ruling is that "government sponsorship" of a cross does not and cannot possibly be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution as given to us by the Founders. The First Amendment doesn't forbid government "sponsorship" of religion but only the "establishment" of religion.

Attorney: If this cross goes, more sure to follow

Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)

A legal organization is reviewing its options after a federal ruling against the Bladensburg Cross. First Liberty attorney Roger Byron says the cross shape has been used by the U.S. military for generations to honor men who fell in battle and for exceptional service.

"We can certainly say that tearing down any part of this almost 100-year-old veterans memorial dishonors the service and the sacrifice of the men it was erected to honor," he tells OneNewsNow, "and it also dishonors those who are currently serving."

If this memorial has to come down, Byron says, many other veterans memorials around the country bearing religious images or messages would have to come down as well, under the reasoning of this opinion.

"Whether that's the Argon Cross in Arlington Cemetery or maybe even the word 'God' from the tomb of the unknown soldier," he elaborates. "In fact, within 40 miles of this memorial are at least four other veterans memorials that use the shape of a cross."

Visit First Liberty's "Bladensburg Cross" page

The word "Establishment" at the time of the Founding had a precise and technical meaning. It did NOT mean to say nice things about God, or nice things about Christ, or nice things about Christianity. All of those things were absolutely fine with the Founders, who often indulged in those practices themselves with nary a thought that there was something inappropriate about any of it.

No, to "establish" a "religion" meant specifically and exclusively to select one specific Christian denomination, pass a law designating it as the official church of the United States, and compel Americans to support it with their own money.

A cross on public land doesn't do any of those things. Every Christian denomination provides a central place for the cross in its worship, so putting up a cross doesn't even favor one Christian denomination over another, let alone designate one of them as America's church.

The First Amendment was written only to restrain the actions of Congress, as its first words clearly state: "CONGRESS shall make no law..." Only Congress can violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, and the only way Congress can do that is by passing a LAW that designates one Christian denomination as the official church of the nation and ordering people to give money to it.

If Congress doesn't do that, it can do anything else it wants when it comes to religious expression.

Not only is Congress the only entity that can possibly violate the Establishment clause, it is also the only entity that can even possibly violate the Free Exercise clause. That clause flatly forbids CONGRESS (and by extension, the entire federal government) from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. This restriction applies to every branch of the federal government. The executive branch is not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion in any way and neither is the judicial branch.

This is critical to understand. If a three-judge panel prohibits the free exercise of religion, which this 4th Circuit panel has clearly done, then it is the COURT that is in violation of the Constitution, not the cross.

The 4th Circuit panel said the memorial "excessively entangles the government in religion" because the cross is the "core symbol of Christianity" and "breaches" the wall separating church and state.

But the First Amendment flatly forbids the government to interfere at all with the "free exercise" of religion in any way. In other words, when it comes to the public display of the cross, it's none of the federal government's business.

It's not the memorial that "excessively entangles" the government in religion, it's the 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit is unconstitutionally entangling itself in religion by impermissibly interfering with its free exercise.

There is in truth a "wall of separation" between church and state, but the Court has its understanding of that wall exactly backwards. It is a wall, according to Jefferson, that insulates religious expression from the interference of the federal government. Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists that they did not need to worry about the federal government sticking its nose into religious affairs, because the Constitution had erected an impenetrable wall to keep the central government from meddling in matters of religious expression.

Jefferson's wall, in other words, was designed to protect religious expression from the interference of the state – not to insulate the state or the public from religious expression.

Contrary to popular belief, federal judges do not serve for life. According to the Constitution, they serve "during good behavior." When judges exhibit bad behavior, they can and should be removed through impeachment. These judges, by turning the Constitution on its head and prohibiting the very thing – religious liberty – that the Constitution was crafted to protect, have committed an impeachable offense and have disqualified themselves from serving on the federal bench.

Perhaps it's time to start impeaching these renegade, out-of-control judges while there are at least some crosses left to save. If we don't stop activist judges, they won't rest until every last cross has been removed from public view and reduced to rubble. We must not and cannot allow that to happen.


Bryan Fischer hosts "Focal Point with Bryan Fischer" every weekday on AFR Talk (American Family Radio) from 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. (Central).

This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION
We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

Bottom line: What's the REAL reason Democrats' are so adamant about blocking Kavanaugh's confirmation?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Cruz, O'Rourke trade attacks during testy 1st Texas debate
GOP, Kavanaugh accuser in standoff over her Senate testimony
When will it end? Florence's floodwaters rising in Carolinas
Rosenstein denies that he proposed secretly taping Trump
Evangelicals push Senate Republicans to confirm Kavanaugh
Democrat for Georgia governor opposes religious freedom law

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Rosenstein reportedly discussed wearing 'wire,' invoking 25th Amendment against Trump
OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown says he's 'not close' to wanting to run for president in 2020
Report: Google hid plan to track users in China
White existence is a crime, says BLF spokesperson
College kids don’t know where to buy postage stamps

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY