Stop the ACLU from removing crosses!

I signed it :type:
Very quick and easy to do

 

mmm ... I cannot say that. Had I been a minority and a Christian, I feel that the outcome would have been similar.

But, I cannot say that a minority would have been treated the same or differently.

 

SCOTUS has issued a stay on removing the cross.

 

Here in Utah the Highway Patrol has several dozen metal crosses along the roadside where UHP troopers have given their life while on duty. The crosses are about 12 feet tall and have the UHP logo on them. All of the crosses are paid for with private money by the UHP union/fraturnal org.

Every one of the familes of the troopers have given permition to put the crosses up. Even though (I am sure) most are Mormon.

The ACLU along with the American Athiests have filed suit to have the crosses removed from the road sides.

Now mind you these crosses are memorials for troopers who gave their lifes protecting all of us. The ACLU discusts me, this is about as low as it gets.

If the ACLU can sink low enough to remove the memorials to fallen troopers against the familes wishes. There is nothing they will not do in their battle against religion.

 

Here is an artical and picture.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://deseretnews.com/photos/2548047.jpg&imgrefurl=http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635166911,00.html&h=184&w=260&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=5dyqUJklzacYDM:&tbnh=75&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dutah%2Bhighway%2Bpatrol%2Bcrosses%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG





http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635165645,00.html

 

Attempting to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights via activist courts, using a revisionist & supra-national world-view, is "anti-American". It would be "American" to try to make the changes via an Amendment to the Constitution. The ACLU has demonstrated many, many times, through the cases it accepts and those it rejects, that it is anti-American (and that has nothing to do with my political perspective) it is fact.
Bruce

 

This begs the question, what is an "activist" court?

IMO, people use that to refer to any court that makes a decision they disagree with. Let's not forget, it was an activist Supreme Court that put Bush into office. If SCOTUS overturned Rowe v. Wade, would that be activist?

 

On the contrary, it is almost entirely to do with your political perspective because that obviously has an enormous influence on what you consider "American" to be.

Generally, the ACLU (and its state and local affliates) accepts cases where government or its representatives have acted to limit, alledgedly illegally & unconstitutionally, the civil liberties of individuals. Now, some people think that democracy, ie majority-rules, is the American ideal, but others of us more correctly know that it is rule of law applied equally to all that is true American ideal.

 

We should, however, be strictly truthful in this battle. The falsehood presented here, will be used by atheists to "prove" that Christians do not tell the truth.

It never serves His purposes to lie.

 

You got that right, Daisy. :thumbs:

 

You guys are a "we-be" club, agreeing with each other (coming from the same political perspective). I stated one concrete and specific issue that the ACLU targets in order to undermine the freedom of Americans (and to support the fact that the ACLU is "anti-American" - the 2nd Amendment - neither of you touched the topic at all - just more "opinion" from each of you. Bruce

 

Daisy and I often disagree. She is a liberal. I am a libertarian.

It is your opinion that the ACLU is anti-American. And you are welcomed to it.

 

I find it odd that you describe yourself as a libertarian, and yet support the ACLU - do you know the Libertarian stance on the Second Amendment? The Libertarian position is in direct conflict with the ACLU position.

I agree that my opinion is just that "an opinion", but it is a fact-based opinion as opposed to the unsubstantiated opinions you and Daisy are attempting to put forth. Take a look at the post just above this one (from the AFA), the ACLU is attempting to destroy a memorial to American service members, on American soil, erected to their memory for their sacrifice for America, by other Americans who want the memorial to stand - the ACLU is anti-American in their stance, as they are in most of their positions. A rose by any other name........
Bruce

 

I find it odd that a whole bunch of Cristians are getting upset that our country is removing one of it's graven images.

Where in scripture are we commanded to build & revere crosses ?

 

Exd 20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

 

That is the scaremongering hoax part.

You're mistaking your opinion for fact again. KenH is a liberal-basher from way back and I have the [metaphorical] bruises to prove it.

I didn't notice that bit before. It seems a bit off-topic as this thread is about the crosses.
Nevertheless, you would make a stronger case for yourself if you provided something to prove that the ACLU "targets" the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals. Here (linkie) is the national ACLU's statement regarding gun control:

That their opinion differs from yours and seems to follow the actual text of the 2nd Amendment as written, does not, imo, make them un-American.

Contrary to your claim, I have not seen much in the way of "fact" provided by you.

I have. You don't seem to have much in the way of facts concerning this issue. Are you aware that the original cross & land were a memorial to some guy's mother, Doris? They were donated to the city on the condition that the cross be lighted on her birthday. The idea of making it a Korean War vets' memorial came a lot later. Some Americans want this most recent incarnation of the cross to stand, other Americans don't want their tax dollars to support it. They are all Americans, whether you agree with them or not.

 

Moving this to the Politics Forum.

Lady Eagle

 

The actual text of the 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 1st amendment also uses the phrase "of the people" in regard to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and right of redress. How can "right of the people..." in one amendment mean right of each individual and in another amendment mean only a "collective right" of a state?

Furthermore, under your "actual text" blanket, do yo know the difference between a restrictive clause and a nonrestrictive clause? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".... Which of the 2 is that?

 

I don't so much support the ACLU as I simply think it is silly for conservatives to constantly call those with whom they disagree un-American.

I support the 2nd Amendment within limits - I don't think that citizens should have a nuclear bomb, or a working tank, or a working cannon, or a fully automatic weapon.

As a libertarian I sometimes find myself in agreement with conservatives and sometimes with liberals depending on the issue as I want to see the size and scope of government limited, especially on the federal level. On certain issues conservatives also want to see limited government(usually economic issues) and on certai issues liberals want to see limited government(usually personal issues).