Slightly unconstitutional

Two LETTERS in our excellent local Fourth Estate take issue with my "Hammering the cross" Nov. 11 questioning the constitutionality of a land transfer placing a religious symbol--the cross--in what might otherwise be public domain. Neither contributor seems to realize I'm on his side, defending the individual citizen's right to display virtually any sort of religious symbol without the implied endorsement in the public display by his own government of another possibly conflicting ideological or religious figure or emblem.

"A matter of principle" by Thomas Whittington Nov. 13 in a somewhat roundabout manner defends the cross "....as a matter of principle...." by its implied military connection: If it's a tribute recognizing military casualties and if the soldier is defending the constitution, then its official display must be constitutional. However this assertion is contradicted in the very same paragraph my Mr. Whittington's citation of the First Amendment forbidding any law "....respecting an establishment of religion...."

He alludes to the veterans' sacrifice as somehow upholding my right to compare the effect of a cross to that of hammer and sickle "....in the same sentence." In a very similar LETTER Nov. 20, "An offensive coupling", Tom Coppley describes it as "...the worst part of Mr. Hileman's letter...." All right then fellows, instead how about a crescent moon and star?

.......continuing, "The removal of the cross prohibited the exercise of his freedom speech and was an offensive act to veterans...." To the contrary Tom: Might not some if not many of our more than 3000 Muslim soldiers be offended by the Christian symbol?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125755853525335343.html

Thus the Supreme Court's approval of the transfer is of highly questionable constitutionality. Well, has it not been wrong before? Seems like just yesterday when I was 24 years old--only a microsecond ago in geological time-- when finally after 58 years ".....the Supreme Court decided unanimously that local laws mandating segregated schools were unconstitutional",

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/civil-rights-movement/resources/plessy-v-ferguson

but then just recently reinstated segregation, at least in Kentucky.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_frank_askin/2007/07/supreme_courts_resegregation_d.html

Clearly the slightly rightward-leaning court

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

considers okay a slight violation of constitutional principle.