Why, oh why do the activist judges hate America's God?

How could anyone view this as a First Amendment violation? There's a piece of state-owned land, the Mojave National Preserve. On this land, at various points in time, various people have put up crosses on this government-owned land. No problem yet, right? Then, some godless heathen makes the jackass decision to ask if he could put a Buddhist shrine up next to the cross. Who does this jerk think he is? This is one nation, under God, not one nation under some dead, fat asian guy. Of course the state says no. Well, naturally, someone decides to sue, claiming (get this) that by allowing the Christian cross but not allowing the Buddhist shrine, the state is showing favoritism of Christianity, thereby endorsing it over Buddhism and using, (you'll never believe this) such flimsy support as "the First Amendment" and "precedent" as their argument. And of course, because this is California, land of the activist, idiotic judges, this jerkoff wins. Unbelievable.

Well, Congress, always one to know where to intervene, then made a brilliant move and passed a law enabling the land to be donated ("traded") into private hands, so that the cross is not on Government property. You see, this means that the Government is not endorsing the True Religion, but a private individual at the Government's choice is endorsing it by placing a cross on HIS OWN PRIVATE LAND in the MIDDLE OF THE PRESERVE. Everyone's happy, right? Wrong. There's another lawsuit, this time alleging that the Government is trying to circumvent the injunction. And of course, the activist judges agree. Justice McKeown even went so far as to say so, "[t]he government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place. Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."

And like that, with a swift stroke of a pen, these heathens (you know they are heathens because they didn't rule in favor of God) undid the will of the people, turning themselves into Constitutional interpreters and legislators undoing what the People want. We have to put a stop to this. We have to find a way to make sure the minority of this country is kept silent and subject to the tyranny of majority. This is the last straw, until the next one.

Maybe I should join the ACLU...

The Freedom From Religion Foundation will be in oral argument before the Supreme Court next week, challenging President Bush's Faith Based Initiative.

I hope they succeed, though I think they won't.

I want them to succeed not because I oppose charities, or because I oppose President Bush. I want them to succeed because government funding of religion can easily lead to government direction of religion (or a state-run religion), which is what I think the First Amendment sought to avoid.

This is the same reason I oppose religious intrusion into government - because I fear government intrusion in religion. I don't want the government to tell me how I should pray, or to whom I should pray. I don't want it telling me which version of the 10 commandments is right. I especially wouldn't want the government to tell me that my representation does not matter if I am not of the same faith or denomination as those in charge, as would be the implication for all the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Wiccans, and others in America.

I think one of the overarching goals of our government, based on the representative democracy principles, is to help ensure that the minority viewpoint can be protected from the oppression of the majority, and I think that one aspect of this is the Faith Based Initiative, which, though perhaps noble in intent, runs contrary to how I view the First Amendments proscription on establishment of religion, and the Lemon Test's Endorsement test.