Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans Memorial covered by plywood box
From the Wall Street Journal:
The Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial, a seven-foot metal cross, was erected in 1934 by World War I veterans to honor their fallen brethren. In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to have the memorial taken down. The reason? The ACLU claims that the mere presence of the cross within the 1.6 million acre national preserve runs afoul of the Constitution, because it is effectively a religious symbol.
Judge Robert J. Timlin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed with that claim, and ordered that the cross be covered up while the case was on appeal. So now a memorial dedicated to those who fought tyranny and oppression is hidden from view by a plywood box.
This case is part of a disturbing pattern. Like lawsuits seeking to stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited each morning in our public schools or to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, the ACLU's argument in Salazar v. Buono is based on a misconception of the Constitution—that the government must be hostile to religion.
Far more is at stake than a single memorial. If the Supreme Court allows this cross to be destroyed, it could presage the destruction of thousands of similar memorials nationwide, inflicting sorrow on millions of Americans, especially veterans and their families.
The theory being advanced by the ACLU is that no religious symbol can be allowed on public land. That is a radical notion that is contrary to the text of the Constitution, to the original understanding of the Framers, and to how the Supreme Court has long interpreted the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of a religion.
9 comments:
What is the difference between the ACLU and the terrorist at Fort Hood?
Is there any difference?
Both profess their absolute hatred for any sign of religious symbols over the graves of US troops killed in combat. Both have a bull's eye any anything associated with Christianity.
The ACLU claims to "defend" the civil rights acknowledged by the US Constitution.
It applies this defense by assaulting every use of our First Amendment - Free Speech, freedom to practice our religion, and most of all, that the government can never interfere with our use of these rights.
But, count on the relentless ACLU and Jihadists to try to dissolve our civil liberties.
The Wall Street Journal as guardian of morality? Give me a break.
"freedom to practice our religion" - Taxpayer
I'm no fan of the ACLU, but the idea is to protect the rest of us from people who want to practice their religion on the rest of us.
As for the "bull's eye...on Christianity"... I can't wait until you frauds are tested with a (Tom Cruise financed) Scientology monument in front of city hall.
What is the difference between the ACLU and the terrorist at Fort Hood?
========
In my opinion, the Fort Hood shooting has a little more behind it than the guy's religious belief. He's hearing candid war stories from soldiers day in and day out, not for nothing but that had to take a toll on this guys mental stability after a while. that in conjunction to his extreme leanings was a bad combination.
Also, another soldier shot up a hospital in May but no one is calling him on his Christian beliefs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/iraq-friendly-fire-incide_n_201512.html
Why not remove the cross and in its stead replace it with a monument with the words of the US Constitution?
Anonymous said:
"In my opinion, the Fort Hood shooting has a little more behind it than the guy's religious belief. He's hearing candid war stories from soldiers day in and day out, not for nothing but that had to take a toll on this guys mental stability after a while. that in conjunction to his extreme leanings was a bad combination."
- - -
Whoops!
The terrorist spoke to soldiers PRIOR to their being shipped out to combat.
So, you say he suffered from PRE Traumatic Stress Syndrome?
He words were that he wanted to behead all infidels (Christian and Jews) and pour boiling oil down their (exposed?) throats. What gentle notions.
Another thing: The terrorist ENLISTED (read free will - no more draft) in the Army. He then "served" as an enlisted man for about eight years. He then wanted to become an officer. Though by then he had a record of open hatred for the US, the Army, his fellow soldiers, and preferred the Muslim terrorists, he was schooled, than trained as a psychiatrist, got extra pay, and continued his open hatred of Christians and Jews. Yet, he was repeatedly promoted.
You already know the rest of the story.
Kurt:
The terrorist demonstrated that he wanted and then did practice his gentle religion on the rest of us.
How are you affected by the practice of Christianity or Judaism? Exactly how is a religion other than Islamism practiced UPON anybody?
Oh! You mean the Christian and Jewish beliefs on abortion. (By the way, Muslims are far more opposed to abortion).
But Kurt's law is that when we believe in something because our religion informs that belief, we must remain silent, never vote or participate in civil life. True?
That would be what amendment to the constitution?
Christian and Jews oppose murder, robbery, adultery, lying, etc.
And, of this short list, you support which?
RE: muslim jihadist,islamo-fascist,nidal hassan......
if it quacks like duck.
if it walks like a duck.
it is a duck.........
mohammed got his red-hot virgin goat,from the devil,
yesterday,
after the military firing squad,terrorist hassan will get his virgin goat.
Seems there aren't many goyem in the aclu.
with the proposal for the 911 conspirators coming to nyc to stand trial,in a civil court room....on top of everything else the libs stand for and expect us to swallow---somethings have got to give.
..........and "Kurt" ?? read the 1st amendment and note well the clause that states.."or the free expression of...
aclu can go and pound sand.
sooner rather than later it will get set off.
Post a Comment