Posted on 10/05/2009 5:49:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
General Douglas MacArthur famously noted that "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." Sometimes, though, before they fade away, they get angry. And a case being argued in the Supreme Court Wednesday has veterans seeing red, white, and blue-but mostly red.
Unsurprisingly, the case will go to the court courtesy of an ACLU lawsuit.
The object at the center of the case is a small, unadorned cross sitting in a remote part of the Mojave Desert Preserve in Southeast California. A veterans' group erected this memorial cross on private land in 1934 to honor the dead of all wars.
Driving by this secluded location today, however, you'll see a curious-looking plywood box hiding the memorial, the way someone might cover a condemned building. That box is there because one person filed suit, with the help of ACLU attorneys, claiming he was "offended" by the memorial cross. One offended man has somehow trumped the wishes of millions of veterans.
If a federal appeals court has its way, the box and the memorial soon will be gone forever. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the ruling at the request of the Department of Justice, and in this case, millions of veterans, speaking through The American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, have added their voices in support. In fact, the American Legion Department of California and the Alliance Defense Fund have joined forces and filed a brief in support of the Department of Justice, asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit.
The U.S. Government recently acquired the land on which the memorial sits when the site became part of the Mojave Federal Preserve. After the ACLU lawsuit was filed, Congress worked with veterans to honor their wishes and preserve the monument. It took an act of Congress to rescue the memorial from a federal court decision ordering its destruction. As part of its action, Congress voted to give an acre of land containing the memorial back to the veterans who maintained it for decades, in exchange for five acres deeded to the government. Giving up one acre to get five, and honoring veterans in the process, seemed like a good deal.
But not to the ACLU and its "offended" client.
To them, even this reasonable arrangement was intolerable. They pressed forward with their lawsuit saying the memorial must not be allowed to stand and the land transfer must be overturned; their hostility to a passive symbol of this sort is simply too great.
However, as bad as this case is, veterans know much more is at stake in this case than one memorial in the California desert.
Military memorials commonly use the cross as part of a display to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our nation. While the cross is a religious symbol, the military has also used it as a symbol of courage, sacrifice, and honor. For example, the nation's second highest military award is the Distinguished Service Cross. Visitors to the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery can see several commemorative crosses, like the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, a gift from former Canadian Prime Minister MacKenzie King that was dedicated at Arlington in 1927.
If the Supreme Court does not overturn the appeals court, religious symbols that have graced monuments for many decades may become a thing of the past. Memorials to military veterans, police officers, firefighters, and other heroes will be whitewashed, covered up, or torn out to appease the politically correct agenda of intolerant extremists.
Veterans are being asked to surrender to the thin-skinned sensitivity of an individual who has managed to be offended by a small memorial, literally in the middle of a desert. Is this truly an offense worthy of a lawsuit? Apparently, the fanatical agenda of the ACLU to expunge religious symbols has really come this far, and now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in.
One person's offense should not diminish the sacrifice made by America's heroes and their families. Why would we not wish to allow the men and women who have served and defended this nation to choose how they wish to honor their dead? Even if old soldiers "fade away," their memory should not.
I'd like to meet that "one person".
One on one, so to speak.
The Cross is the symbol of salvation. It is an EXCLUSIONARY symbol in that it states that you must believe in Jesus and His sacrifice in order to be saved. Even though no one is excluded from making this choice, those who choose not to ARE excluded.
Obviously, this is offensive. It reminds those who choose to reject God’s gift of grace that they are condemned. The world hated Noah (and his project) for the same reason.
2 Cor 2:15-16
15 For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task?
You’d think ACLU and the complainant would have something better to do. Evidently not.
I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that the US Government can sell/trade/transfer land that it owns as it sees fit...particularly when such a small *amount* of land is in question.If I’m correct then the ACLU doesn’t have....*wait for it*....A PRAYER in this case.
The court should simply rule that the case is without merit and send the bill to the original complainant!
Vampires of the Left: Nothing bothers them like the presence of a cross.
The very same reason that homosexuals demand not your “tolerance” but rather your outright approval.
It will be 5 to 4 in favor of the cross. That to me is the sad thing. You’d think it would be a unanimous decision.
This is one of those instances where “the law” ought to be ignored. Take down the plywood and replace the cross each and every time it’s taken down.
If it was a big phallic instead of a cross the pillow biters would want to make it a national monument.
He is probably George Soros, he helps fund and pushes many of these lawsuits.
ACLU won’t allow this cross to be replaced even though it was taken down by vandals
Redwood cross on Monterey beach cut by vandals
The Associated Press
September 21, 2009
MONTEREY, Calif. — Police say vandals cut down a giant redwood cross at Monterey State Beach that marked the spot where a Spanish explorer is believed to have arrived in 1769.
The 20-foot cross was dedicated almost 40 years ago by the citizens of Monterey to mark the city’s 200th birthday.
It replicated one erected two centuries earlier by a colonial expedition led by Don Gaspar de Portola. Experts say the group probably put up the cross as a beach marker that would easily be seen by ships sailing off the coast.
Monterey police Lt. Randy Roach said the cross was cut down with a power saw Friday night or early Saturday morning.
Because the cross is on a state beach, the investigation will go to state authorities.
Police estimate the damage at $1,000.
Replace the Monterey cross, put up security cameras, beat the hell out of any vandal. I sick of this crap.
Was anything else on the land that went to the private group, or only the cross monument? If the private group’s land included graves that might complicate things. At any rate if it’s clear (by plaque or marker or whatever sign) that the cross and the land on which it sits belongs to a private group, then even under today’s prissy standards the ACLU should go pound sand.
Make that “I’m.” See? I AM sick of this crap.
When you put it that way you make plaintiff's argument for them. Personally, I just thought who cares about a cross in the middle of the desert, and that someone's going out of his way to be offended.
the CLUless surely wouldn’t get upset if a damaged Buddha was restored.
Oh, it IS “just a cross in the middle of a desert”.
The Truth about its symbology is in the eye of the beholder (but inescapable, due the “cosmic” truthfulness of it).
In other words, those who are offended are admitting to the Truth.
There’s no ban on a private party putting something NEXT to a public cemetery, exclusive or not.
Well, I guess they SHOULD be terrified, but wouldn't it be easier (and make their lives so much better) to just admit their sin and receive Him as their Savior and Lord?
Yes, they are going out of their way to be offended, regardless of whether or not one views the cross is an exclusionary symbol.
Here’s what they ought to do. Put a basketball encased in plexiglass or something like that at the foot of the cross. Then call it “art.” How could any lib fight to take down public “art?”
If I, a retired chaplain, were to argue this case:
Soldiers have always put this info on their dog tags: Name, rank, serial number, and religion.
Also, the courts are on record permitting military chaplains as the best solution for truly providing for the religious needs of military members who are continually subject to far ranging deployments, and who always dwell in a separated military community.
Additionally, the military has provided chapels, gatherings, accomodations, and all the trappings of religion that make it possible for a free US citizen-soldier AND their families to fully participate in their religious faith no matter where in the world they might be.
In short, the US has endorsed a military CULTURE that includes full religious support for both living and dying.
This memorial is simply a representation of the ACTUAL culture in which any military member has lived. It included friends, arms, flags, and RELIGION.
That memorial, including cross, is an honest depiction of life in military culture and how it would be remembered by a veteran.
How long before the ACLU sues to have churches and synagogues torn down?
is there anyway we can hurt the aclu?
As with all things of the left, and of their “father”, the prince of this world,
exposure and truth is the biggest weapon against them.
Shine the light on them, on their goals and methods, and they will scream and huddle like the demonic minions that they are.
This type of dispute occurs when the Supreme Court puts its own biased interpretation on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. No amount of wordsmithing can justify the “wall between church and state” erected by ONE MAN, Justice Hugo Black. This is why the originalists are correct. If it isn’t in the Constitution, it is the job of the legislature and citizens to define what they want to do. We cannot be “ruled” by nine unelected people.
In actuality, that number is either 5 or 1, considering the makeup of the court.
Not to worry, the aclu and its client will answer to a “Higher Authority” one day. It is not for me to judge but my feeling is that it will not be pleasant.
It is stated quite clearly in the article that the military uses the cross to honor the dead.
What about Jews that have died in battle, in which the Star of David is their headstone?
I believe it also stated that it was on private land,
so I suppose if the Jews want a religious memorial,
they could buy one and ask that it be placed there as well.
It's called, "tyranny of the minority", and it is what the Democrats and their ACLU are all about.
Didn’t that “person” pass away here recently, or am I thinking of someone else?
In effect, jackasses like this are bullies and the only way to counter a bully is stand up to them and beat their a$$es. And when they finally work up the stones to crawl back out from their rocks in a few years, do it again.
Destroying core values and the rule of law here in the United States has been a top priority for the A.C.L.U. since it’s inception. The agency doesn’t jump in to protect the rights of normal people. It jumps in to defend the fringe, in order to chip away at core values systems and reasoned law and order.
You and I probably share this view. I know what you mean about thinking the A.C.L.U. would have better things to do, but we both know this is ‘their’ best thing to do. And they do it all the time.
I just wish the courts would toss more of their cases based on the fact they are frivolous, and warn it to back off or face sanctions. The A.C.L.U. is a fringe group, and their fringe practices and frivolous nature should garner them no support whatsoever.
Don’t forget who the real prince of this world is. Jesus bought this world back at the very cross, this one commemorates. The devil’s minions aren’t happy about that one bit. Hence the need to take these down.
The A.C.L.U. is the devil’s handmaiden on this.
I’m fed up with hearing about George Soros and how he is funding every single communist, atheistic, anti-American, tax frauding, economy crashing movement in this country. Where does he live? I know he was originally from an Eastern european country. Does he live here now? Why isn’t the conservative movment going after him? One man should not have so much power. Surely there is a way to stop his power of all of us?
I agree. Christian citizens have been cowering from erroneous Supreme court decisions for years. Am I correct or mistaken that one U.S. president (early 1800’s) advocated simply ignoring Supreme court decisions that are wrong? They have way more power now than the founders intended them ever to have.
How were these people (ACLU & other liberals) raised? And by whom?
My kids are all grown up conservatives and I didn’t preach any politics to them. I raised them to be honest, responsible, decent human beings. One of my sons goes on international medical missions several times a year, they all make some form of contribution to others less well off
The ACLU is insane. There are so many irrational causes by different crusaders it boggles the mind.
What happened to bring all this on? I think all the individuals who participate in such inane ‘causes’ are nothing if not totally self centered. What good will come from this particular accomplishment by the ACLU? Will it enhance ONE life? How many will be more comfortable, be well nourished, have a good home, better health as a result of this?
How could anything be more pointless? Well...there are lots of pointless self satisfying endeavors out there.
If any of them had any sense of the ‘spiritual’, they wouldn’t need to go on such vacuous rampages.
Rereading about this issue....the ACLU is suing to ‘keep’ the monument. Amazing.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/supreme.court.veterans.cross/index.html
I still stand by my opinion of the ACLU.
Essentially only Christian symbols are being targetted by the Anti-Christian Litigants’ Union (ACLU) for obliteration from public view. The exclusive claims of Christianity may be deemed offensive by some, but no one is being compelled by force of law or custom to accept them. The exclusive demands of Islam, OTOH, arouse no ACLU animus.
The teachings of Christianity are also offensive to liberals generally because they are the locus of most opposition to unrestricted abortion, the Holy Sacrament of Radical Feminism, and also opposition to homosexuality.
Wow, I reread the article and I still can’t figure out which side the A.C.L.U. is on. Perhaps it’s just not striking me right, but I still don’t see the A.C.L.U. on the right side here. If I’m wrong I’ll take my lumps though. I don’t think it’s clear they are on the wrong side either. It was covered in a very convoluted manner IMO.
It’s my opinion that there are folks who hate Christians (perhaps just Christianity, but I doubt it). For that reason, they want to remove every mention of Christianity, and all it’s icons from the public venue.
Merchants have been goaded into calling it ‘the Holidays’, instead of Christmas.
Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of it.
Can you imagine how much better off this world would be, if those A.C.L.U. lawyers and their clients would urge folks to live by those commandments, instead of despise them?
I agree with your comments. You’re right on point IMO.
A.C.L.U. needs some of what A.C.O.R.N. got.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Whocanisue website skirts the rules for lawyer ads
Some lawyers call the service a disgrace, but those listed say it drives up business
By Missy Diaz
9:26 PM EDT, October 4, 2009
Have you been bitten by a vicious dog? Been the victim of a surgical mishap? A sexual assault on a cruise ship? There’s a lawyer waiting for your call.
Boca Raton-based whocanisue.com has scores of billboards and bus-shelter signs dominating the tri-county landscape, showing a lawyer slipping on a banana peel. The service matches website visitors with lawyers in a quick-and-easy form that takes just minutes to complete.
Choose your complaint from a drop-down menu — nursing home abuse, for example — and then a sub-category, such as bed sores, dehydration or falls and fractures. Plug in your ZIP code and in the click of a mouse, a page or more of lawyers appears.
But there’s controversy over this seemingly quick way to sue for a quick buck...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/boca-raton/sfl-who-can-i-sue-p100409,0,4368025.story
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.