Is there anything more inhuman than requiring a grieving mother to remove the roadside memorial for the son she lost in a car accident? I’m not sure.
The American Humanist Association (AHA) strikes again. This time filing suit against a grieving mother to force her to remove the roadside cross used to memorialize the place where her 19 year old son lost his life. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Why? Because the cross was planted on city property and supposedly violates separation of church and state. But wait a minute… I thought that only applied when the “state” was initiating the religious symbol? Now it also applies to any citizen placing a religious symbol on publicly held land?
How is an individual’s display of a religious item suddenly translated to mean that the “state” (in this case the city) is sponsoring, condoning, or promoting a religion?
In my opinion, this judge got it wrong. Dead wrong.
In an added twist… a group of citizens banded together and planted their own memorial crosses for the woman’s son, right there in the same location. We’ll see where this fight goes from here. I doubt the AHA will go down quietly. Look for more on this story.
Oh… and if any of you can find exactly where in the Constitution it mentions the “separation of church and state” requirement, I’d appreciate you pointing it out to me. I still can’t find it.
Photo Credit MS Office ClipArt