You're confused.
The state has no right to the free exercise of religion. That would be the same as establishing religion which is prohibited by the first amendment.
The State using a cross to honor Christians who gave their life in service to that State is in no way 'establishing a religion'.
If you believe that it does, I would sincerely like you to explain that to me. You will be graded on brevity.
"The state has no right to the free exercise of religion. That would be the same as establishing religion which is prohibited by the first amendment."
In all of these anti-religion cases, the state is not exercising religion, merely acknowledging it. There is a difference. Look the words up yourself.
You're confused. The state has no right to the free exercise of religion. That would be the same as establishing religion which is prohibited by the first amendment.
Is the State imposing a cross against the wishes of the family?
No, it is not.
Your statement is therefore a non sequitur.
You are a prime example of someone that has twisted the original intent and meaning of the Constitution into something that the Drafters would have considered totally ridiculous.
In the XVIII Century, an example of an "establishment of religion" was the fact that Royal Navy officers were required to swear an oath in support of the Church of England and the fact that the Church of England, but no other Church, was financed by State taxes. Catholics in Britain were denied full citizenship rights solely by the virtue of their religion.......Thus the need for such a thing as the Catholic Emancipation Act which was put through Parliament in 1829.
Such practices are what what the Drafters of the First Amendment intended to abolish with the words:
"....shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Individuals such as yourself have now perverted those words to mean that the State must not tolerate any religious expression within the public domain.
If that were the case, then the Chaplain Corps of the U.S. Armed Forces would clearly be unconstitutional.
If the State allows a cross memorial for Officer O'Reilly, a Star of David memorial for Officer Goldberg, a Crescent memorial for Officer Ali, a Tree of Life memorial for Officer Treehugger and a secular memorial for Officer Atheist, then that is exactly what the Drafters of the First Amendment intended.
Your attempts to outlaw religious symbols on public property as an expression of the faith of individual citizens is exactly what the First Amendment prohibited in the "free exercise" clause.
So putting crosses or jewish stars on the graves in Arlignton National Cemetary is not allowed either?
It's the same.
Only if it's done by way of a law being passed. "Congress shall make no law....."