Here's where we disagree. The free expression clause applies to people not the state. People have rights. The government only has duties.. To give the government a "right', which is to say a perfect claim to moral authority, is not only contrary to the idea of natural law, but dangerous. Look, I don't really care about giant crosses, and it sure doesn't hurt this Christian's feelings. I just think my church should be building them, not the government. I hope folks understand me when I say that. Its not a left wing anti-god view point, just a "keep government out of my relationship with God" point of view.
FQ13
Illiterate in how many languages now? And this is wrong - gummints have powers, those powers carry duties.
The First Amendment says in part - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - this is hardly the language of recognizing a right of the people, it is a limit on the power of Congress. And taken to the extreme, the second part of the clause indicates that the free expression of religion can also not be abridged by any law - or judicial ruling.
It has been only in the recent memory that the whole "separation of church and state" nonsense really brewed up, and the second clause was ignored in favor of the first. Hell, I remember my public schools shutting down around 2PM on Thursdays and almost all of the kids skeedadling off to their respective churches for Thursday School. No one raised a stink, and anyone who did not want to go to church stayed at school and had a study hall.
Both apply, and the second part permits bho's Ramadan dinner on state property as well as the crosses along the Utah highway. It's time we start understanding both parts.