Posted on 06/20/2017 6:43:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
Atheists across the fruited plain are rejoicing after a federal judge declared that a cross erected in a Florida park violated the law and must come down.
“I am aware that there is a lot of support in Pensacola to keep the cross as is, and I understand and I understand and respect that point of view,” U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling. “But, the law is the law.”
The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by the notorious Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association on behalf of four Pensacola citizens
The judge pointed out that park has hosted tens of thousands of people for roughly 75 years without causing anyone offense – until now.
“When a city park serving all citizens – nonreligious, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian – contains a towering Latin cross, this sends a message of exclusion to non-Christians, and a corresponding message to Christians that they are favored citizens,” said Annie Gaylor, the organization’s perpetually offended co-founder.
The original cross was erected in 1941 in Bayview Park. It was replaced with a 34-foot, white “Latin Cross” in 1969 by the Pensacola Jaycees.
Judge Vinson noted in his ruling the “Bayview Cross” is “part of the rich history of Pensacola and Bayview Park in particular.”
He said the cross had been the focal point for Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day services – not to mention Easter Sunrise services.
“However, after about 75 years, the Bayview Cross can no longer stand as a permanent fixture on city-owned property,” the Reagan-appointed judge ruled.
He directed the city of Pensacola to remove the cross within 30 days. He also ordered the city to pay the aggrieved plaintiffs one dollar in damages. That comes out to a quarter apiece.
The American Humanist Association celebrated the judge’s ruling.
“We are pleased that the Court struck down this cross as violative of the First Amendment,” attorney Monica Miller said in a statement. “The cross was totally unavoidable to park patrons, and to have citizens foot the bill for such a religion symbol is both unfair and unconstitutional.”
Judge Vinson based his ruling on a court case involving a similar cross that suffered the same fate in Rabun County, Georgia.
“If the cross under review in Rabun County violated the First Amendment and had to be removed, the cross here must suffer the same fate,” the judge wrote.
Oddly, Judge Vinson seemed rather reluctant to rule against the cross.
“The historical record indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Establishment Clause to ban crosses and religious symbols from public property,” he wrote. “Indeed, ‘the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution’…would have most likely found this lawsuit absurd. And if I were deciding this case on a blank slate, I would agree and grant the plaintiffs no relief. But, alas, that is not what we have here.”
As I wrote in my book, “The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again,” people of faith are facing unrelenting attacks from a ruthless bunch of godless atheists -- hell-bent on eradicating Christianity from the public.
Should Christian citizens be relegated to some sort of second-class citizenship? Should they be directed to keep their beliefs hidden inside the church house?
Will they demand that city leaders rename Los Angeles and San Francisco? Should The Ten Commandments be chiseled off the doors of the Supreme Court? Should references to God be sandblasted from our national monuments?
Just how far do the atheists intend to go in this cultural jihad on our Judeo-Christian values?
To the Judge, a hearty Bronx cheer. To the city, contact your local veterans group and biker clubs and ask if they will volunteer for guard duty.
He’s saying that if he was to rule in accordance with the Constitution, as intended by those who gave it to us, he would rule in favor of keeping the cross in the park.
Nope. Idiot intolerants like the Humanist Society would object to that also.
The same people who are offended by crosses have no problem with prayer rooms and Sharia Law for Muslims.
All of which should illustrate exactly where they are coming from here and its not a very good place.
Their objective is to destroy American culture and make us a globalist, atheist, socialist society.
The passage used to promote this idiocy is “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or interfere with the free exercise thereof.”
Socialists and progressives in the Federal and Supreme Court have ignored the entirety of the passage, seized on solely the first, and proceeded to the illogical conclusion that anything with religious connotations constitutes an “establishment of religion” in order to promote their agenda.
SCOTUS should be forced to revisit that one and forced to redefine it.
I got that, you big goof. It’s my fault...my question was more rhetorical and mostly about his last part.
If he had any guts, he would rule the way he’s suppose to rule.
If the Christian religion may not act to worship in the public square, then the Christian ethos - caring for a fellow man - has no place in policy making - or guilt tripping Christian citizens to part with their wealth.
= = =
Nicely stated.
And what source will the libs use as their authority?
Ultimately the law and Constitution would be voided.
AND declare and admit that He is LORD!!! Just before He tells them: “away from Me because I NEVER KNEW YOU!!”
I was just looking for a place to make that comment, and your post was convenient. It just seemed like you were thinking it, but wanted me to say it.
:)
Hubby grew up in Pensacola. Wonder if he knows he’s been scarred for life. Maybe he could get reparations. Who do we sue? /s
Satan inspired U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his twisted, warped, and incorrect ruling that his version of the law is the law.
Make the judge “disappear”!
A Reagan Judge appointee
https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/vinson-clyde-roger
Vinson, Clyde Roger
Born 1940 in Cadiz, KY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983, to a seat vacated by Lynn C. Higby. Confirmed by the Senate on October 4, 1983, and received commission on October 5, 1983. Served as chief judge, 1997-2004. Assumed senior status on March 31, 2005.
Other Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, 2006-2013
Education:
U.S. Naval Academy, B.S., 1962
Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., 1971
Professional Career:
U.S. Navy lieutenant, 1962-1968
Private practice, Pensacola, Florida, 1971-1983
You may disagree with his decision and he too struggled with it. However based on precedence he is 100% in fact correct. The law is the law and thank god we have folks that remove emotion from their vinacular prior to rendering decisions.
Remove emotion from your drivel and take this issue up with the folks you vote into office. Precedent has been set and until the hits Supremes or Congress writes a law allowing it then a judge cannot make laws as he goes.
Or can he because it favors us? Eh?
Excellent point. Perhaps there’s time to make it happen.
Cadiz, Ky is only a little over 38 miles from my house.
???? But the FBI can be sent to symposiums held by CAIR to learn Muslim sensitivity training?
Precedent is a fancy way of saying "tu quoque" should be the basis of our laws.
If the precedent was wrong, everyone who follows it also becomes wrong, and that is what we are facing today.
The precedent was wrong, as in incorrect. Therefore this latest ruling based on that incorrect precedent is also wrong.
“... The law is the law ...”
-
Which law are we talking about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.