Reply #50: All right- so it's a LOT of guys in robes...

[Hanuman]

The fact is that there are several thousands of judges, lawyers and politicians who believe in a broad interpretation of the Constitution. That's okay. And you're one of these people who believe in broad interpretation as well.

If the label of "broad interpretor" is offensive to you, I am sorry, but I can easily prove it: Show me exactly where the Constitution forbids the display of a religious image on public property. Point to the line. But, of course, there is no such line, so we'll save the trouble of conducting this silly excersize. The best that can be found in this matter that supports your belief in a "relgion-free" public environment is the "congress shall make no law" endorsing one religion over another part in the first amendment.

To you, this is a very clear statement upholding your belief. But, you must acknowledge that you are "interpreting" it to mean that. And judges, being human beings and having the same inclinations as you and others, are just as liable to make the same interpretation. Fine.

I hate to be a hard-ass here, but now I must say it. Once you've allowed willful interpretation to work on your behalf, you must be willing to allow further interpretation to occur that you do not agree with- and then you have NO RIGHT to call that interpretation unconstitutional.

You have abdicated your belief in the Constitution as a binding and absolute document.