Via Stop the ACLU:

Flying pig moment: The infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court actually gets one right!

The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. “Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.

She noted that the Everett monument does not have nearby benches or evening lighting and is surrounded by trees and that impair its viewing. Such a setting prevents a visitor from concluding that the monument has been placed in a sacred space on public grounds.

The monument was donated in 1959 by a national civic organization that distributed more than 150 such monuments to cities across the country.

The notion that these monuments commemorating the Judio-Christian rooted symbol of law is somehow establishing a religion or even imposing one is absurd to begin with. Any precident from a faulty decision to follow this ridiculous argument is flawed to begin with. I find it rather silly that the lack of lighting and the view being obscurred by surrounding trees was even a consideration in this decision, however the I can’t complain about the final outcome other than the possibility future decisions may be influenced from precident set here by such silly reasoning.

The Washington monolith shares its property with only one war memorial, and attorneys had hoped the difference would be enough for a new verdict.

“Religious items displayed by themselves are generally impermissible,” said Ayesha Khan of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “This monument stands pretty much alone, and in that context, it presents a religious message.”

But the 9th Circuit panel said it did not agree, especially because no complaints were received for more than 30 years after the monument was erected.

Now, let me state outright that if the grade was due to the quality, this would not be on my blog.

It wasn’t.  It was because the religious artist had the audacity to include a scriptural reference on his. 

See the pictures below.  First, the failing art:

Now the two that passed:

And:

So all three are of fairly equal quality and show great talent by the artist.

The problem?  The bible verse in the first picture.  

Via Michelle Malkin:

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the Tomah Area School District over an unconstitutional policy that bars religious free speech. Citing a policy prohibiting depictions of “blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs,” officials penalized a Christian student for his artwork depicting a Bible verse and a cross but did not penalize students who included demonic illustrations in their artwork.

“Christian students shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs. It is unconstitutional for the school to punish students simply because they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “Further, teachers are not permitted to censor Christian religious expression in artwork while at the same time allowing other types of religious depictions.”

A student at Tomah High School drew a landscape picture for an art class containing a road, clouds, and mountains with a cross in the background and the words “JOHN 3:16 – A sign of love” written in the sky. The teacher of the class told the student to either remove the scriptural reference or cover it up with a border.

The teacher cited a document that the student and all other students in the class had been required to sign at the beginning of the semester which prevented them from creating artwork with the prohibited depictions. After the teacher said that the student had “signed away his First Amendment rights,” the student respectfully protested by tearing the signed document in half.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington DC’s ridiculous handgun law, citing of all things the Second Amendment.

In all seriousness what is intriguing is “why’ they did, and even more curious is what the Dissenting Justice and the City Cited as their justification to keep the law.

D.C.’s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District’s longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.

The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language on the right to bear arms.

Right there strikes to the heart of the issue.  Most gun control lovers cite the militia provision in the Second Amendment as proof that private gun ownership is not covered.  But the Appeals Court ruled the opposite, which is the main argument pro gun groups have consistently maintained:

“We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Silberman said in the 58-page majority ruling.

In the majority opinion, Silberman wrote that federal and state courts have been divided about the extent of protections covered by the Second Amendment. Some have sided with the District’s position, that a militia means just that. Others have ruled that the amendment is broader, covering the individual rights of people who own guns for hunting or self-defense.

The Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment in 1939, but it did not hold that the right to bear arms meant specifically that a person could do so.

The Opinion states:

The Fox News network takes a lot of unfair criticism because it’s opinion shows (Hannity and Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor etc) are predominantly of a conservative bent.  All opinion shows have a bias.

Their actual news is as close to being actually balanced as anyones is.  They tend to report more sides of an issue, whereas the other cable and network news shows tend to tailor their news to the left, in my opinion.  They do so by reporting for the worst and ignoring the positives or Iraq, and ignoring or down playing some stories that are unflattering to Liberals and their causes.

That said, I still tend to skip around on the news as much as I can, to get a generous blend.  Not even fox gets a free pass of presumption.

Hot Air posted this video today of Fox News Chairmen Roger Ailes spoke at the Radio-Television News Directors Association awards ceremony where he was one of the recipients for the First Amendment Award, and this is the speech he delivered.  It is a powerful reminder of the real nature of our First Amendment freedoms.

Ignore the typically lame speech jokes at the beginning, and really listen to the meat of it.

Only people who understand different points of view can exercise an informed decision in the voting booth. Freedom of the press did not invent democracy. Democracy invented freedom of the press. For saying that, I sometimes get accused of being too pro-American or too pro-Israeli. I just happen to like democracies. But it don’t mean we can’t cover the news fairly. Bias is not necessarily what you believe in, but it can be reporting a story and leaving out other people’s valid beliefs. The first amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, which is linked to another favorite word in today’s world, ‘diversity.’ But diversity is not just skin color, economic status, geography and religion. It is also diversity of thought.

From Stop the ACLU

This despite the fact that school and district policy allows it.

That pretty much summarizes my feelings. 

Hopefully this was just an overzealous individual, and the District will step up and correct the issue, perhaps issue a clarification.

But my cynical mind still wonders: Would the principal have cared if she was Muslim and this was a Koran?

And I also, in my depraved cynicism wondered why the Ruutherford institute is defending this and not the ACLU, as this is clearly in their arena.

For those not paying attention, a long running battle in San Diego has forced the city to defend itself from a disgruntled athiest who is demanding the city remove a 29-foot cross at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.

This is one of those cases where I have to wonder why the person at the center of this, Philip Paulson is really doing this.

This is a war memorial, and if you honestly do not expect some sign of religious imagery, then you are being foolish.  The cross has stood there since 1913 for crying out loud.  Why is it such a threat to this guy?  Is it really worth all the fuss he has poured into this?

Since 1989 every attempt the city has made to preserve this memorial, all of which are supported overwhelmingly by the community has ended in a court with a judge overturning them.  It sickens me frankly.

Here is the latest chapter.

9th Circuit Court denies stay in Mt. Soledad cross lawsuit; supporters remain hopeful

Supporters of the 29-foot cross displayed at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial in San Diego picked up both a defeat and a victory June 21 as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chose not to suspend a $5,000 daily fine that a federal judge will impose if the cross is not moved, while California’s 4th District Court of Appeals said it will expedite a hearing on supporters’ behalf.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. ruled in May that the city of San Diego would be fined for each day the cross remains on public grounds after a 90-day period that is set to expire Aug. 1. The city, led by Mayor Jerry Sanders, appealed the ruling, but the 9th Circuit refused to step in and grant a stay until appeals currently pending in state courts can he heard.

But there is still hope:

On the same day, the 4th District informed Charles LiMandri, attorney for the group San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, that the court would soon grant a hearing of an appeal of a ruling by California Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett which said a ballot measure approved by 76 percent of the city’s residents was unconstitutional.

The ACLU has taken a consistent stance on flag burning.  For it apparently, if these articles below are an indicator (source-ACLU.org)

• ACLU Calls Flag Desecration Amendment Assault on Free Speech; Says Measure Fails Very Principles Flag Embodies
• Reasons to Oppose the Flag Desecration Amendment
• ACLU Warns Against Flag "Protection" Amendment to Constitution; Says Bill Threatens Freedoms Represented By Stars-and-Stripes

A quick search found articles dating back to 1998.

So I know they will be immediately ready to defend this guy:

A Tucson man was arrested Tuesday for his role in the burning of a Mexican flag as part of a counterprotest at a pro-immigration rally.

At about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, Tucson police cited Roy Warden, 58, on suspicion of assault, criminal damage and reckless burning, and then released him, according to Sgt. Decio Hopffer.

Oh, I grant that the charges are all directed at public safety and property issues, but I have to wonder if the same charges would have been issued at an immigrant group burning the American Flag.

I would hope so, but in the light of the attitudes towards the protests lately, I have to wonder.  Kids get bus rides home after skipping school, illegal immigrants self identify in rallies and are not detained…etc.

But regardless, it just seems to me that had that immigrant rights group done the burning and been arrested, they would be more likely to get ACLU representation then Mr Warden and his group.

And of course, this all still continues to avoid the real issues.

Also seen on Stop The ACLU.

The ACLU has become the spearhead of intolerance that seems to focus more on religious people then not.   It seems odd that so much limitation of christian values happens toward Christians, particularly since religious freedom is supposed to be a mainstay of our constitution.  There is a dramatic double standard that a person who is a christian fundamentalist cannot be allowed to have views that are intolerant of say, homosexuals, because it is unfair to the homosexual. Lost is that making such a pronouncement is inherently unfair to the christian.

Tolerance is supposed to be mutual acceptance and respect.  It often is not, instead it is about forcing people to change their beliefs, an act that one would consider intolerant.

In the public arena, there should be enough room for people to maintain beliefs and others to say "I disagree" and walk away.  But there isn’t.

And this is not to absolve Christians from forcing confrontations that need not be forced, and of having views that are extremist and intolerant, because some indeed do.

But the average Christian does not, they are sincere and loving, they just think that certain aspects of humanity are matters of sin.

The common perception is that Christians are gay bashing bigots.  The truth is that homosexuality only one facet of what they consider to be sin.  What makes it such a critical issue is that homosexuality is being promoted as a viable lifestyle.  They would have the same objections if it was adultery that was being advocated, or murder, or abortoin for that matter.  Any sin that is openly accepted becomes anathema to them.  That they feel compelled to occasionally speak against it, is unsurprising.

The two cases at hand are complex and very troubling in many respects.

The first involves a girl who is suing to try and be free to speak out her faith’s belief that homosexuality is a sin.

As noted in the LA Times:

Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.