That’s what one woman says about a monument in honor of William Mosure, a key funder of the Star of Hope Mission, a Houston-based Christ-centered charity which provides shelter, food, clothing, education and recovery programs to those who have fallen on hard times. This mission has made a significant impact on the lives of thousands of Houstonians in their times of need and is one of the major charitable organization based in Houston. There are several memorials in the court house, yet this woman feels that this one “stands out”. She feels it is a “breach of the Constitution”. Never mind that the memorial has been there almost 50 years now – and it has now become offensive?
Now, I’ll be the first to say that I’m not a Constitutional law expert, but I don’t recall where it is mentioned in the Constitution that it is illegal to have a monument to a person in a public forum – even when that monument represents key concepts of what was accomplished by that individual – in this case, honoring the faith-based charity work made possible by this one man. Nor do I find any references in the Constitution about the display of religious symbols or artifacts. In fact, I can find no reference to memorials or displays in the following text of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That doesn’t sound like it gives the judicial branch any power to regulate local memorials – and if it did, why is the word “God” all over the San Jacinto Monument? Or is that next on this anti-Christian crusader’s list of “offensive” monuments? She complains about the county paying $93 per year on electricity to light the memorial, but doesn’t balk at sticking the county with a $41,000 court and legal fee.
The “Separation of Church and State” is not a law nor is it written into the Constitution in any form other that what I have quoted above. It was originally intended as a concept to protect the Church from the control of the State. What Henry VIII did when founding the Church of England was to modify Church doctrine to suit his political whims – he added the tolerance of divorce to the Catholic creed and then made it the official religion of England. The “Separation of Church and State” concept touted in the period around the finalization of the Constitution was based on the desire of the once-English founders of our country to keep the government’s hands off of any doctrine or creed.
This squabbling over religious-leaning monuments is a sickening waste of our taxpayer money. Now, I as a Harris County resident have to pay a portion of that fee (yes, I’ve already paid my taxes and they won’t be going up because of this – but that’s not the point) to have a monument that I like removed. It is offensive to me to hear people use the name Jesus Christ as a swear word. Should I sue them to have it removed from their language? No, you say? That’s not the same? Maybe it’s not, but the level of frivolity is the same.
::: jeffphillips.org ::: 