As long as the right to reject God if one wants to is guaranteed by our Constitution, then it is constitutionally proper for the government to refer to and reflect God in its proceedings. Indeed, to not do so would be hypocritical for the government to separate itself from the acknowledged source of its being.
The case should be thrown out, the objectors must be told the court cannot constitutionally uphold their objection to a creator whom the Constitution acknowledges as existing, and the crosses should go up, everyone may go by them, and constitutionally the ones who want to may cherish what they mean, and the ones who do not want to may think nothing at all about them.
If anyone’s constitutional rights are being denied here, it is the right of the people to put up the crosses on public land. Our Constitution allows it, encourages it, see’s it as a manifestation of the one on whom the realization of our proposed existence is accomplished, and hopes — not orders — everyone to be in harmony with what this is. It would be unconstitutional to refuse to allow the crosses to go up.
Watch for the ruling in this case, see if our Constitution is losing or retaining its meaning as written.
We welcome “Letters to the Editor” on any topic of general interest. All letters must be signed with a full name, address of the author and a daytime telephone number so authorship can be verified.