We see that there is a move to a nonsensical understanding of our Constitution. Much like the move away from the Scriptures in the Church, we have left original intent in the dust heap. And this has led to some strange rulings by our courts.

The recent decision in the L.A. County Seal case is just an example of this trend. We now have to have no symbols that might offend.

Breitbart reports:

take our poll - story continues below

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

  • Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A federal court ruled Thursday that the Los Angeles County supervisors violated the Constitution in 2014 when they voted to restore a small cross to the county seal. The cross appeared on a depiction of a historic mission building.

The plaintiffs, who included a coalition of liberal religious leaders, sued the county on the grounds that the cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court, agreed and added that the seal violated the No Aid Clause of the California Constitution, which prevents the government from conferring a “sectarian” benefit.

Judge Christina A. Snyder, a Bill Clinton appointee, presided.

Now, this cross is not a statement.  It does not establish a religion, and there is no one forced to pay tax money into a church fund. No one is collecting tithes from the citizens of L.A. County. But this judge has decided that because someone might think that the cross on the seal was the government promoting Christianity, it has to go.

But there is no clause that says the government cannot promote religion, or even a particular religion. The Constitution says something entirely different.

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.

It says that it cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion. In other words, the government cannot establish a religion or denomination as superior. Nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

Neither has anything to do with the cross on the image of a historical building. The problem that these plaintiffs have is that they wish to erase any trace of Christendom from our history.

Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.