Is the Washington monument unconstitutional?

I have only read that some people would like to rename the monument for someone else.

Mycroft said:

The Washington Monument is a phallic symbol. This is very much in keeping with the current American religion that worships sex.

Click to expand...

No it's not; it's shaped all wrong. No woman could ever be satisfied by that phallus. And sex isn't what Americans worship; it's money.

No. For a very simple reason: it is not promoting a religion and is not a federal statement to favor one religion over another as a result.

Which is sort of the same reasoning that the SC decided to let the memorial stand. They had looked at the trends of the times when the memorial was put up and came to the conclusion that the cross, when erected, was merely a choice of decoration....not of religion. In other words....they looked into the history of that monument, found it to be similar to other monuments of that type and saw that religion had no part in choosing the cross; it was an asthetic choice, not a religious one.

I do not know whether the Washington Memorial is unconstitutional, but I have no doubt that in the coming decades, it will renamed for some other American.

I doubt it will be re-named. I'll grant you that there may be some on my side of the spectrum who may want that (I can think of at least one instance off the top of my head), but they are the outspoken minority.

We acknowledge that slavery existed and many of the Founders and Framers owned slaves. However, what history tells us about Washington himself is that during the Revolution, he became disgusted with the idea of slavery and wished to be rid of it. However, he firmly believed that only the legislature should take on the duty and not the president, or himself as a prominent citizen. He eventually dealt with his slaves in the best fashion he thought he could do, resulting in almost half being freed and the rest subject to manumission upon his death. Shortly after the Revolution had started, he noted the ability of free black men, and slaves in stead of their masters, to fight. Washington even went as far as to create the first, real integrated military units out of Rhode Island.

Having said that, the reason why they didn't just abolish it at the beginning was because the Southern states told Washington that they would secede if slavery were to be abolished and Washington did not have the forces to keep them in the fledgling nation; we had gutted out military after winning independence. First, we knocked it down to just under a thousand men and after the massacre at St Clair, created the Legion of the United States which mustered only 5,120 men, not enough to take on the forces of the South, or so Washington felt.

So, while there may some radical leftists on my side of the fence who may call for a re-naming, it will be easily shouted down by the rest of us by simply invoking history which tells us that Washington had made some of the first efforts to end slavery and is an example of a Founder who had become "woke".

Elvira said:

Considering what an Egyptian obelisk represents

Click to expand...

Isn't it an ode to Bill Clinton?