The ACLU at Work for a Better America
[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]
Continuing its effort to eradicate any visible trace of religious belief in this country, the ACLU has demanded that a simple cross, erected in 1934 as a memorial to Veterans of World War I, be removed from atop a rock formation in California’s Mojave Desert. The case, Salazar v. Buono, is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments early in its next term. Below is a video explaining the memorial’s history and the efforts to preserve it.
–Jack Dunphy
Will they next demand chisels be used here?
http://legionpost163.com/images/arlington.jpg
jim2 (a9ab88) — 7/22/2009 @ 11:40 amScrew the un-Patriotic Dirty Rotten Commie Rats! I’m going to dust-off my DD-214 and go join the local VFW.
Ropelight (bb3af5) — 7/22/2009 @ 11:41 amIf I didn’t know better, I’d think the ACLU didn’t really care about their principles and just wanted to make people feel bad about being religious.
That can’t be the problem with the ACLU, of course. Nothing but patriots over there. [sarc/]
KingShamus (4fabb2) — 7/22/2009 @ 11:49 amThe every card carrying ACLU member ought to be rounded up and shipped one way to Zimbabwe, no return ever. It will be interesting to see if any of them would be alive in 5 years.
PCD (02f8c1) — 7/22/2009 @ 11:51 amThe liberal creed:
1) If I don’t want it, you can’t have it, either.
2) If I do want it, you have to live with it.
Bubba Maximus (456175) — 7/22/2009 @ 11:59 amReligion is just a philosophy. Why is it so offensive for a cross to remember the philosophy that has guided a lot of our veterans? Because not everyone shares that view?
I am really tired of the ACLU trying to destroy our culture. It’s to be appreciated, not erased. If it’s offensive to someone who doesn’t agree, that offended person is a true bigot.
Juan (bd4b30) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:03 pmI predict a 6-3 ruling at worst, with Breyer joining the majority, as this sounds as though it parallels a case from a while back…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:08 pmI predict 9-0, but with very divergent concurring opinions as to why this particular cross is okay.
They might even just decide that this plaintiff lacks standing, and therefore undo everything without actually having to make a decision.
Daryl Herbert (a32d30) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:41 pmOur society is dying and we are watching it happen. What once made us a great nation is now our Achilles heel. Freedom for me, not for you.
jpenaz (c68703) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:48 pmThe ACLU trivializes civil liberties. They’re as whacko as those freaky stupid MADD nazis.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 7/22/2009 @ 1:00 pm*wacko*
sp.?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 7/22/2009 @ 1:01 pm“Freedom is the most expensive drug in the universe, and the only way to maintain your supply is to give it to others.” — I don’t remember
htom (412a17) — 7/22/2009 @ 1:02 pmThat large stone cross has been there for 75 years. I wonder how the ACLU differs from the Taliban and their destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan
jim2 (a9ab88) — 7/22/2009 @ 1:25 pmJim2
Great comment!
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/22/2009 @ 1:28 pmOf course, the problem evolved from the Cross being originally on private property. Not too many years ago, it was transfered to the government (state? Federal?) as parkland or wilderness or something like that which gave the ACLU an opening since it is on “government” land. The SCOTUS has, by precedent approved such “religious” icons as “In God We Trust” and displays of the Ten Commandments on state property as part of a tableu. I’m betting that the SCOTUS will allow the cross and the ACLU will put out a statement decrying “The law of the land.”
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/22/2009 @ 1:30 pm#15
The issue isn’t if this is on government land or not. If it were how can one justify all those crosses at Arlington Cementary? The ACLU hates religion, tradition, and those institutions which represent stablisty and order.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/22/2009 @ 2:32 pmAs for the Arghan Buddhas, I honestly don’t get the entire fixation with historical monuments. People have been destroying and building and destroying again for millenia. Just because the Taliban weren’t going to build anythingI see no reason the cycle shouldn’t continue.
If anything, the modern fixation on preservation is the outlyier. You look at nearly any structure from antiquity and you will find that it incorporatesreused materials.
The pryamids and Sphinx strike me as counterexamlples but other Ehyptian structures also follow the trend, as well as simply over-writing older writings. Even many examples of famous cave art are layered over previous cave art.
I believe, but cannot prove, that it comes down to people wanting to see the world as a much more static place than it really is.
Soronel Haetir (2a5236) — 7/22/2009 @ 3:00 pmMy rule of thumb is that we don’t put up new crosses (land acquisitions excepted), anything built before 1970 gets a pass, and anything newer is open to debate.
fat tony (410197) — 7/22/2009 @ 3:29 pmIt takes a very petty mind to attack the Mojave cross.
Soronel Haetir. You, like the ACLU, miss the point as this pertains to the military of this country. I have been a soldier. I have been drafted, enlisted and commissioned in the reserves. Each time I raised my right hand I spoke the same oath, with minor exceptions, as does the President of the United States. That oath is to preserve and protect the Constitution from its enemies, even if “domestic”. I swore to no deity or man, other than to follow the lawful orders of superiors, or to no symbol or flag, or to no geography, but to a book. .A book laden with profound ideas of self-governance. I have not recanted and I was not asked to recant when I left the military. I know no one who has. As far as I am concerned my oath is still valid, just as it probably is to the old soldiers in this cross issue.
It is, indeed, unfortunate that there is no Constitutional emblem that can be used as a memorial to those soldiers who so honored their personal oath and commitment to the Constitution. For better or worse, the Roman era crucifixion cross has become, by tradition and recognition, the universal memorial of American soldiers for more Americans than it is not.
An American soldiers memorial is not a religious or patriotic symbol, but a testament to his or her oath and devotion to an idea bigger than the pyramids. The pyramids do not compare, not by half, to the US Constitution. The Arghan Buddhas are neither the same, Buddha is only a religion. The Constitution is not a simple superstition, but an intelligent abstraction of rules for humans to live together, hopefully, in peace.and justice. It really is worth dying for. Moreover, an American soldier may die under less than heroic battlefield conditions, but any American soldier who has lived, and perhaps died, doing his duty to his oath to the US Constitution has not lived, or died, in vain. A simple memorial would be the least that those still living free could tolerate to honor that commitment.
It is a pity that the ACLU, who claims the US Constitution as its client, paradoxically, cannot comprehend that it is the US military that allows them to fight their battles in court instead of on a battlefield. Is a simple cross too much to ask of them?
Buck Norris (0679f4) — 7/22/2009 @ 5:15 pmThe ACLU’s effort to eradicate any visible trace of religious belief in this country somehow doesn’t seem to extend to those religions who signal readiness to maim or murder their dissenters and critics. Wonder why that is?
Insufficiently Sensitive (a939d1) — 7/22/2009 @ 9:50 pmThat is the correct position.
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/23/2009 @ 12:52 ammad nazis?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/23/2009 @ 12:54 amMADD = Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/23/2009 @ 6:45 am