Franklin Graham has blasted as 'ridiculous' a decision by a federal judge ordering that a 34-foot tall cross be taken down from a Florida park on the grounds that it violates the US Constitution.
The evangelist blamed secularist organisations such as the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation for 'ridiculous changes like this'.
Graham wrote on Facebook: 'The Bible tells us that the cross is an offense. That's because it represents the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ who rose from the grave after three days to redeem us from the penalty of our sins.'
US District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling: 'I am aware that there is a lot of support in Pensacola to keep the cross as is, and I understand and respect that point of view. But, the law is the law.'
The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by the secularist groups on behalf of four citizens in Pensacola, where the Florida park with the cross is located.
The judge, who appeared to reach the ruling with some reluctance, pointed out that the park has hosted tens of thousands of people for roughly 75 years without causing anyone offense – until now.
The original cross, erected in 1941 at Bayview Park, was replaced with a 34-foot, white 'Latin Cross' in 1969.
Judge Vinson noted in his ruling the 'Bayview Cross' is 'part of the rich history of Pensacola and Bayview Park in particular,' adding that it had been the focal point for Memorial Day and Veteran's Day services as well as Easter Sunrise services.
'However, after about 75 years, the Bayview Cross can no longer stand as a permanent fixture on city-owned property,' the judge ruled, directing the city of Pensacola to remove the cross within 30 days. The judge also ordered the city to pay the aggrieved plaintiffs one dollar in damages – effectively a quarter each.
The American Humanist Association celebrated the ruling. 'We are pleased that the Court struck down this cross as violative of the First Amendment,' attorney Monica Miller said in a statement. 'The cross was totally unavoidable to park patrons, and to have citizens foot the bill for such a religion symbol is both unfair and unconstitutional.'
Judge Vinson said that if he had a 'blank slate' he would likely have dismissed the case. But he based his ruling on a precedent in court involving a similar cross that suffered the same fate in Rabun County, Georgia. 'If the cross under review in Rabun County violated the First Amendment and had to be removed, the cross here must suffer the same fate,' the judge wrote.
He added: 'The historical record indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Establishment Clause to ban crosses and religious symbols from public property. Indeed, "the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution"...would have most likely found this lawsuit absurd. And if I were deciding this case on a blank slate, I would agree and grant the plaintiffs no relief. But, alas, that is not what we have here.'
