... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Apparently their purpose under their bylaw is to 'to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church'.
Sounds like they are focussed on upholding the constitutional first amendment to me. They may be obsessives, but it would appears they are 'upholding the constitution' obsessives.
And what pray has a statue which has been standing for 50 years and is popular with normal atheists, agnostics, christians and any body else to do with upholding the constitution?
Read the first amendment.
Under the constitution overtly religious symbols cannot be allowed on federally owned land as that would amount to the state being seen to promote religion or a religion. Now I'm not making a point about whether that is right or wrong, merely that that is the constitutional principle.
In this case the challenge failed on the basis not that religious symbols may be allowed on federal land (no that isn't allowed) but because the court ruled that the statue's purpose was primarily secular and was not associated with worship or promotion of religion. Indeed the judgement makes the point by saying that it isn't used in any religious or meditative manner and is not treated in a 'reverent' manner, evidenced by the fact that ski-ers often take selfies with the statue having put their ski hats gloves etc on it.
Had it been used in an overtly religious manner (e.g. religious services held their, a place for regular prayer or meditation) then it is pretty clear that the challenge would have succeeded.
